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.0:01 – 0:036 turns
Where's Janet? I saw her but yeah.
Good morning and welcome to the December 12, 2017 meeting of the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors here in the Santa Maria hearing room. And Mr. Allen would you call the roll please?
Mr. Adam? Here. Mr. Lavinino? Here Mr. Williams? Here Ms. Wolfe? Here Ms. Hartman?
Ready begin
May
I have a motion to approve the minutes of December 5th, 2017?
0:04 – 0:116 turns
A second? All those in favor say aye. Aye, any opposed? The minutes stand approved. We have a CEO's report today Ms. Miyasato.
Supervisors part of my CEO report really has to do with what we agendized late and that was the continuation of our proclamation of emergency. We declared a proclamation of emergency for the Thomas fires and we've asked our departments to give a presentation. Some are here in the room and some are in Santa Barbara, and if I could ask the board if we could get that item first off of your departmental agenda so our public safety personnel can get back to work.
Okay Mr. Allen would you read D4 into the record please?
Chair Hartman and members of the board, item four is from the County Executive Office. It's a hearing to consider recommendations regarding an update in proclamation ratification for the Thomas Fire Emergency. We're going to go Santa Maria or Chief Peterson? Santa Barbara.
Well, good morning everybody. Chair Hartman, board members. I have a quick situation report for you but before I do that one of the sort of themes of this fire so far has been there's been a lot of discussion about the level of cooperation and collaboration that exists in our county. I think we've been successful in institutionalizing that here in our county.
Now in the spirit of that, I'm joined today by my counterpart in San Luis Obispo. San Luis Obispo Unit Chief Scotty Jalbert is behind me. He's my direct contact to CAL FIRE and an important partner even in non-emergency situations. And we're also lucky to have Unified IC Rocky Opliger from Team 4 has joined us. And when I get done with some brief remarks, These two partners are going to give you a brief overview of the strategic view of the fire.
So just a quick update on acreage if we could have that first slide up I'm not sure where we are, we can't see it from here Fire information slide. We're up to 234,000 acres just over that 20% containment we've spent almost 50 million dollars on this fire so far and discussing this with Rocky this morning the projected number is somewhere around 120 million dollars potentially even more than that and now I'm on the next slide Which shows the number of personnel. We're up to almost 7,000 men and women who are at this very moment putting themselves at risk trying to put this fire out. I'm not sure if that number includes our Sheriff's Department law enforcement but I wanted to make sure I mentioned that the Sheriff's Department or Santa Barbara County Sheriff's department is doing an amazing job on this fire under very difficult conditions.
There are over 900 fire engines, 67 bulldozers, 33 helicopters and 125 hand crews. Virtually a small army of people from all over the country here helping us with this fire. Now if you could put up the fire progression map. I just wanted to put a couple of things into perspective here on this fire. If you look at the dark green area there on the bottom, that was on the 5th, that's the first night of this fire. It went 63,000 acres in one day and then if you look at the red area over there over to the west when that occurred on the 10th That is the night that the fire made the big run and got extremely close to our county, where of course it's in our county now. That was a 61,000 acre run so to put this into perspective, the Sherpa Fire was 7500 acres as difficult as that was in 2016.
Earlier in the year our Whittier Fire was 18,500 acres and the Alamo Fire was 29,000 acres. If you think about it, just one of these runs on this fire is more than the Sherpa, the Whittier and the Alamo Fire all put together. We are truly in unprecedented historic territory with this fire. Another interesting fact I heard yesterday from the fire behavior analyst on our fire The Zaka fire took two months to reach the same size that our fire has reached in one week, which is just amazing how fast this thing has moved.
So I'm going to give this now to Scotty Jalbert, Unit Chief from San Luis Obispo. Thank you very much.
Well, good morning. As Chief Peterson said my name is Scott Jalbert and I serve as the agency administrator one of the many agency administrators for this incident and I'm representing Cal Fire. From the very start we knew that this fire was going to be a major fire and we were gonna have lots of issues with that involving multiple agencies so with that one of the priorities that we made sure that we took care of was that we have a collaborative Effort amongst all the agencies involved.
That has led us to making sure that both counties are closely in tie with each other. We are in unified command with the US Forest Service, Cal Fire, York County, Ventura County and all the law enforcement agencies and all the cities both fire and law enforcement side of the house. It's an integrated effort and as we've seen in large scale disasters throughout the nation, making sure that we're all on the same page is very important.
We've done so by integrating two incident management teams, one from Cal Fire and one from the federal side from the California Interagency Incident Management Team which is Rocky's team. We have both teams working close together as this fire is not just touching the front country of Santa Barbara and a lot of areas in Ventura, but also the Las Padres National Forest.
We're working extremely well, and I just want to reassure your board and your citizens that all agencies involved on the federal side, state side, and local government side. We're all working extremely well. We're in tight-knit communications. We are working very well with both emergency operation centers of both counties. And daily, all the fire chiefs involved meet daily to make sure that if to resolve any issues and make sure we're on the same page with the overall strategy.
And discuss some of the tactics that impact the local citizens. So with that, I'd just like to close by saying that we're doing everything that we can. We're being very successful in this march of being collaborative and I just want to appreciate our say thank you very much for all your support. I'll turn it over to Chief Upner.
0:11 – 0:168 turns
Thank you, Chief. Again my name is Rocky Oplager I'm one of the Unified Command Incident Commanders on the combined team of both CAL FIRE Team 4 and then California National Team 4 and I had the honor and pleasure last year on the Sherpa Fire to brief you and then I was also one of the incident commanders in 2007 on the Zaka. Can't understate the conditions that we face right now in the local area. Unprecedented fire behavior. We have Humidities, I think this morning at 7 o'clock Montecito we were at 1%.
And since the 8th of December, it's been single digits. We've had unprecedented Santa Ana winds which are typical this time of year but we've had no moisture for almost 250 days in the area and then we also face the conditions that we see no predicted rain in the future. So taking a look at that on our highest priority as we always emphasize of all the agencies working together is public and firefighter and emergency worker safety. And so the incredible impact that we do to the communities of the folks that we have evacuated, it's a key essential component of what law enforcement does for us. To initiate that and support that operation but more importantly, this is certainly right now affected in Santa Barbara County. To adhere to those evacuations would allow the firefighters and emergency workers to do their job.
Currently as we take a look what's happening with the weather, today you woke up with smoke. As we're now battling kind of the northeast winds are not as strong so it's more of your daily winds where the cold air settles and so the smoke settles in Santa Barbara in the morning We're going to get the typical onshore or southwest in the afternoon. So we're going to get what we had yesterday, a clearing which will benefit us to use the aviation assets as Chief had said before. We have 33 helicopters that are assigned and we have two of the very large air tankers along with six other large air tankers. That will be sorting the operation and then most importantly, in support of that we're able to establish a portable retardant tank that will be right there at the bottom of the 154.
And another support camp that's going on Lake Kachuma for all the resources that are assigned to the Santa Barbara zone. And while our focus will always be that life property, we also have to remember that we have fire now pretty significantly in the Los Padres National Forest. And the impact of that is the key watershed. So we have resources that are working diligently, certainly as the fire has backed into Santa Ynez Valley. The focus to minimize that impact so we don't have sediment damage that impacts the water to Montecito, Summerlin, Santa Barbara. I'm And as we're the command structure, it's that everyday operation of those folks that are impacted during the holiday season. Certainly their families and friends at home but their dedication to the commitment of really a unified front in prioritizing and doing our most efficient level to suppress that fire.
So we have a long term strategy not only with what we're dealing today as the fire continues Burn to the west, they had really good activity last night and progress last night to try to hold that in Toro Canyon. To continue that from spreading to the west but we also have contingencies if we get increased winds of how we're going to suppress that to minimize any impact to the fire backing down into the urban interface of Santa Barbara. Thank you very much.
Chair Harmon, that's the end of our presentation for the fire side of this PowerPoint. I think Sheriff Brown is up next.
Thank you, Chief Peterson. Let me ask if any board members have questions of you in Santa Barbara before we turn to Sheriff Brown? Are there any questions on the board? Supervisor Adam?
Yeah, I was just wondering if there was any injuries to any of the safety personnel?
Yeah, amazingly we've had really no lost time injuries. We've had two minor burns that have been treated. We had one broken leg but with the amount of people and the amount of country and how difficult that is it's absolutely amazing of the safety record to this day.
It really is because especially as fast as I think move that would be easy to get some guys trapped in someplace they couldn't get out of so congratulations.
Supervisor Williams?
Well, I'm just going to ask what most people at home are probably wondering is just can you give us the latest viewpoint on where in Toro Canyon the fire is or at least when and the last reports that you have.
0:16 – 0:2917 turns
Right now, anybody that was in the South County saw some significant fire activity in the Romero Canyon kind of on the end of Toro Canyon up there. And what that was is there's a drainage up there it's the Romero Canyon drainage and it's a big saddle between those two peaks up in there That was burning off. So right now on the area that you can see in the front country, the fire is hung up right up above the Romero Canyon and it's kind of working its way towards if you draw a straight line up from San Ysidro Road, it's working its way back up in that area.
Supervisor Wolf?
Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to extend appreciation to the three of you who are standing there and all of those that are out on the fire lines right now that we don't see. It's just an incredible I mean, you hear this all the time. The cooperation that we have in our county is just tremendous and Rocky, I thought I saw you at the Gap Fire but I guess we'd go back to Zaka Fire.
And it's nice to see you and Scott, it's nice to meet you and nice to have you here as well. Also I think this is one of the first fires that we've had between counties working with Ventura County and Santa Barbara County so that's been interesting to watch again the cooperation in the manpower and woman power that's going on behind this and also just finally The science, the behavioral scientists that have come to speak to our community meetings about wind shifts, soils.
And I think the back burns that we saw last night was a result of some of that science going into effect. I think people in the front country seeing those flames it was disheartening but then there was a lot On air discussion about why that was the case, and I think we're all kind of holding our fingers. But one thing that remains a constant for me is my confidence in all of you and my appreciation. And I really believe I speak for this community when I say that. We are extremely grateful. Thank you Madam Chair.
Thank you. Seeing no more lights up here turning to Sheriff Brown
Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the board. I'm Sheriff Bill Brown. I am pleased to be here to give you a summary of the evacuation situation. I don't know if we can get the map pulled up in the PowerPoint presentation but it will show you basically an overlay of our evacuation area which extends from...I think it's the next slide There it extends from Mission Canyon eastward to the county line and the southern area of the evacuation area is Highway 192. So if you essentially follow 192 to Mission Canyon, everything that's east and north in those areas has been placed into a mandatory evacuation area.
The areas below Highway 192 up to Mission Canyon and the areas west of Mission Canyon to Highway 154 have been placed in a warning situation at this point. And I just want to commend the members of the sheriff's office, the Ventura County Sheriff's Office who assisted us. Search and rescue teams from both of our agencies and once this area was evacuated and secured we have the California Highway Patrol who is providing a lot of perimeter security in addition to our staff as well. And then we have roving patrols for security in that evacuation area.
As you may have heard yesterday, we had thanks to the sharp eyes of a firefighter they noticed somebody going into a garage and stealing a bicycle from one of our residents. And as my undersheriff so aptly put it yesterday at the town hall meeting that person was ultimately arrested and evacuated to the county jail. The next slide shows you our zone system that we have and this is something we're very proud of. This was developed here within Santa Barbara County following the Hesa Cedar fire, and basically what it does is we take the county and slice it up into these zones which are pre-designated and with which we have Points that we know we have to block roads to keep these areas evacuated. And as we look at the fire and the progression of work with the Fire Incident Command, we determine which zones are due to be evacuated, which ones are likely on deck if we're going to be evacuating any more and so forth.
And I would just like to take the opportunity Throw out a kudu because retired Sheriff Sergeant Tom Walton, who is in the room and is your extra help deputy who's assigned to provide security here. He was instrumental in developing this system and worked very long and very hard in putting this together. And the last thing I would just say to all of you is just to reiterate what is said in terms of the level of cooperation. We're here obviously in a support role for the fire agencies, but we are embedded with them in the incident command. We have a strong presence obviously in the EOC and we are continuing to provide security in the areas that have been evacuated and we've had at times up to 100 or so personnel that involved in the incident.
And we're shuffling between our regular duties on what we have to do and elsewhere in the county, in terms of law enforcement and corrections and coroner and all the other duties that we have in the organization. But I'm extremely proud of the effort that's been put forth by the men and women at the sheriff's office. Thank you.
Any questions for Sheriff Brown, Supervisor Wolk? Thank
you. Excuse me, can I just add one thing that I forgot to add and that is our air support unit excuse me is obviously involved in this as well we have one firefighting helicopter that is embedded with the air crew that are working on this fire we just rotated that out when it'll come in for maintenance and another helicopter will be going in The other helicopters are available for anything that could occur elsewhere in our county during the time that we're fighting this fire.
Supervisor Wolfe. Thank you, Madam Chair and thank you Sheriff Brown and I see under Sheriff Malekian behind you. I do have a couple of comments. First of all also a lot of appreciation going out to your troops for getting people out and evacuated. You know, I think we had our last discussion after what happened in Santa Rosa and Sonoma. We know how important it is to get those messages out to our community.
And maybe this is more of a question for Rob Lewin but we did use the alert system. There were a couple of hiccups in that but I think in the end it worked to alert the community to get out and I've talked to staff about Why we had those errors, and I know that they're working on it. But I think the bottom line is and the effect of it is that we got people, you guys, your entire team and folks in the EOC got folks out. And I think that's really when you look at what could have happened, that was incredibly important.
I also talked to Under Sheriff Malakian. About the verbiage, can you just put that back up? That's being used and making sure that it's accurate. And I think your team has gone over this but under the voluntary evacuation warning there had been an error where it says above north of highway 192 there was some miscommunication. Sometimes these mistakes happen, but they were corrected immediately once they were brought to everyone's attention. And so I would just ask what is your protocol for ensuring that these messages kind of go through some steps?
If someone is writing something like this up who will review it? What is the checking? The to make sure that what goes out to the public is accurate.
Excuse me, Supervisor Wolf through the chair it's a multi step process obviously if an evacuation is determined Is going to happen as a result of the incident command and comes through that direction. That comes from the IC to our contingent that would be in the EOC. We'd be looking at the maps and determining what zones were going to be evacuated, and what the boundaries would be. We would come to an agreement with that. We would then take that information and write it up. It would then go to the JIC, and then would get disseminated publicly via the website, via press releases, via a variety of social media.
Outlets as well and the glitch that you referred to. If you can back up to the zone slide again, I can tell you basically what happened is we were looking at evacuating A particular zone, and there was some discussion as to whether it was going to be one or the other. And the boundaries on the one zone that was not evacuated inadvertently got put onto the message. And that, as you say, it was determined fairly quickly and it was corrected but it did cause some confusion and we apologize for that obviously. And unfortunately, there's a lot going on. There's a lot of plates spinning in the EOC and some mistakes will happen but obviously we're working to try to minimize that. So we're very sensitive to it right now. We're double checking that information as it comes in and will be going out.
Okay, thank you. We'll do everything we can do to ensure its accuracy.
Thank you and I'm glad we're double checking that information. And also just on a positive note, the mapping system, the interactive map that was shown by Chief Peterson has been an incredible improvement. I think that Mona you may know when that went up because I think Terry was working on that with Gina. But it was in the middle of this fire and it made an incredible difference. I heard from a lot of people that, and I feel this way, that we finally have a map where we can see the streets. People can go in and put in their address to get the information that they need so that's been a tremendous help.
And it's really important in our communities because we're not laid out on a grid system in our streets. A lot of the streets are kind of like spaghetti at the end and it's very difficult, and that interactive map has the ability for someone to go onto our county website and plug-in their address and it will let you know if you're in an evacuation area or warning area. And a lot of people just are not used Doing a lot of map reading and are not real good with north, south, east and west and so forth. So this is a way to try to get that and simplify it. The other thing I'll say although we're showing you this overlay map with the zones really the map preceding it is what we're showing to the public generally as the entire evacuation area just to make it simpler and to show people which areas have been evacuated in which areas are in warning.
This is what the public can expect to see more A larger scale one that comes out and not the zone. System that we showed is really more for our internal use.
Thank you very much supervisor Adam.
Yeah, I was just wondering if we could go back to that list of evacuations are we are we getting ready to lift any of those or I mean it seems like And I haven't been down there, so I don't know. But is it still burning next to all of
that? It's still burning pretty much from the county line out to that top point that was mentioned by Chief Peterson earlier. So I don' foresee any of these being lifted today. We did not have any new evacuation areas yesterday and hopefully we won't have any during this. But it's all contingent obviously on the fire activity and the danger and That fire could slop over the top of the ridges and then come down and get wind driven and come down towards the populated areas.
Okay, yeah, that's pretty rough country in there and it's tough to cut a dozer line.
It is very much straight up and down in a lot of those areas.
Yeah, the country doesn't get any tougher than where this fire was.
0:29 – 0:368 turns
I don't see any more lights. Thank you.
The next part of the presentation is with Mr. Farram who wanted to talk a little bit about thinking ahead on our watershed impacts.
Morning Madam Chair, members of the board. So while the fire continues to burn we've been tracking its progress into Santa Barbara County and obviously we're concerned about two particular items as we do with any fire in terms of watershed impacts. One is that the flood threat below the fire that we've seen in past years and as of this slide yesterday we were primarily looking at the Carpinteria area but as you heard this morning the fire has made A westward progression, so that area will now expand.
And then of course the water quality impacts associated with our service water reservoirs Jamison Reservoir owned by Montecito Water District. That watershed was completely impacted by the fire and the fire is now actively in the Gibraltar Reservoir Watershed which is downstream of Jameson and of course Gibraltar has been affected a lot by the Zacca Fire and then the Ray Fire and now they'll get additional impacts from this fire.
We've prepared an initial flood control plan of attack and are currently working on implementing that. I would just as a side note, probably little noted in board meetings past we had emergency contracts put in place by your board. We will now be implementing those where we can hire contractors. We don't have a lot of time here it's December 12th And so we will be moving contractors into our debris bases as soon as we are allowed to by law enforcement and fire department. And so, we're preparing that right now. The scope of that seems to have increased as of this morning where the eastward or westward progression We'll include some of our debris basins in Montecito. I will say we are in somewhat better shape here because because of past fires, we have debris basins in place and our plan that we have adopted and have adopted at your board is in the case of a fire, we would go in there and prep those basins for For the winter and then be prepared to maintain them through the winter.
So that's the work that we're doing now back on the watershed Issues, we are coordinating with the water purveyors for water supply issues if water becomes unusable from the surface water reservoirs for a period of time because of the inflow of associated with the fire then we would be looking at how we coordinate Water supply for the south coast and we'll be doing that over the next days as well next page please This picture I think sums it up. This is Hunkel Dam, Jameson Reservoir in the background.
You might have heard the dam tender's residence was also burned. He was evacuated prior to that so he is safe and we're happy to hear that but this will have serious impacts for Jameson Reservoir for Montecito. And then finally just to show you what we're doing every day We put together this map that identifies the watersheds and almost impossible to see, but there's little orange dots on the bottom there that are debris basin sites. So as the fire progresses and we get updated fire perimeter maps, we map the watershed size, the percentage burned where our debris basins are And then we would act as such for clearing those debates. One of the debris basins right where the pointer is, Gobindor Debris Basin, its watershed was entirely burned.
We will be moving into that debris basin hopefully this week and start that work. Keeping in mind the fire is still going up there so we were mindful of not putting people in harm's way but In the lower areas, we can get into some of those basins. I would say also in Carpinteria, Carpinteria has the benefit of some of the more flood resistant part of our county. The Carpinteria Valley Watershed Project was a federal flood control project built in the 1970s. Very large debris basin on Santa Monica Creek which is number 12, watershed 12 identified there.
Uh, and a concrete channel that runs all the way down to the slough. And so a high level of flood protection there for a watershed that has exhibited extreme flood threat in the 60s is now in much better shape but I will leave it with With the comment that we will have to work hard to get out to the public and that if you are below a burn area and considering flood insurance, there is a 30 day grace period before that flood insurance premium becomes effective. And so it is December 12th now today, and so if you were to purchase flood insurance today. You would not be eligible for claim until January 12th.
Having a fire of this size this late in the year puts us in a tough predicament in that respect.
Any questions for Mr. Faber?
Our next presenter, I believe is in Santa Barbara. Is Dr. Dean there to talk about our county's
health? The monitoring stations for the air quality index have been updated hourly and this morning they continue to record unhealthy air throughout Santa Barbara City and Carpinteria. Of note, Lompoc right now at this point is also rated as unhealthy and Goleta has improved to moderate. And this is a very changing and flexible situation so people wanting to know the air quality should look on the website hourly to see the latest update.
Air quality warnings remain in effect right now for the regions that I just noted. The public information on safety has been communicated to our stakeholder partners. We are continuing to offer free mask distribution sites throughout Santa Barbara County, and the public will be notified of those with a press release this morning so those sites have been posted.
Outreach has been provided to offer masks to field workers and our department is assisting in that communication. There is also a plan to distribute the N95 masks to all county employees. In our messaging, we're emphasizing the ability to reuse the N95 mask so that people know they don't have to get a new one every day. They can usually reuse their mask if they are able and the other messaging is that the best way to protect their lungs is really to limit exposure to those tiny particles in the air. If they're able to give their lungs a break and leave the unhealthy So area for a few hours a day that will improve their breathing.
Thank you, any questions?
Supervisor Lavinino.
Thank you Madam Chair. Dr. Dean I don't really think it's a question for you but is there anybody there from APCD or Air Quality?
0:37 – 0:426 turns
No there is not.
All right, well I'll just throw this out there. Okay so I was sending people to the website rair.org from APCD air pollution control. Santa Maria was actually showing in the green and good quality air when it was snowing ash and it's piling up on the car. So it's very hard for me to tell people. Hey, go to the website and they're looking at it going hey our air quality's in the green when they're dusting ash off the car. So can you help us?
Sure, and that is a great question. So the ash that we see falling, those large chunks of ash, is different than the invisible particulate matter that the AQI is measuring when it looks at the PM10 or PM2.5. For people with conditions like asthma and really for anyone that's exposed long-term, it's those tiny particles that are really most damaging to health. So the particulate matter 10 and 2.5 microns in diameter and smaller is really what can cause the breathing difficulties, the health impacts. So even though we see ash falling, the air quality index might still be good.
So it's good in those areas. I would still advise people caution to not play in the ash, clean up the ash, stir up the ash. So the good news is that the air quality index is good. The bad news is that ash is still falling so people should use caution but it is much safer to be outside in those areas when the AQI is good.
Supervisor Wolk? Any other- Thank you, Madam Chair. Dr. Dean just seeing you here reminds me that and maybe Ms. Miyasato is going to do this later but that we are going to have another community meeting today at 4 o'clock at San Marcos High School. But in seeing you here, the information you've provided at the last two meetings has been very well received. And I know a lot of people have individual questions and so those community meetings are important so that people understand that it's not just us asking questions but if they want answers to specific things they can come to the meeting tonight. Can you just talk, because this has come up a lot about the children.
Because most of the schools are out and what parents can be doing for and with their kids staying inside with masks and things like that?
Absolutely, Madam Chair, Supervisor Wolf. The effects on children are important for families to understand because their body mass is smaller. So a child whose body mass is half the size of an adult who's exposed to the same unhealthy air may exhibit symptoms and have shortness of breath or difficulty breathing when the adults in the house do not. This is particularly true for children with asthma. So families with small children need to be aware that their children might be having difficulty breathing or symptoms. And what I recommend is, to give the kids lungs a break if you're able to get out of the area even for four or five hours a day head north or head south to get the kids into clean air. If you're in one of the regions that has an AQI in the unhealthy range or even unhealthy for sensitive groups and you have small children, those small children are sensitive.
So even leaving the area for a few hours a day will will improve their health and allow them to breathe easier. For people who are not able to do that, I recommend that they keep the children indoors again if they are in an area that has an AQI of unhealthy so that the children are less exposed to those tiny invisible particles. Importantly, those tiny particles can still get into indoor spaces. So even staying indoors people will still be exposed to some of the PM 10 or PM 2.5 albeit less than if they were walking around outdoors.
Dr. Dean, I have a question and it may not be for you exactly either. I know that there has been a lot of outreach to Spanish speaking communities and particularly ag workers, farm workers. I see our Ag Commissioner Kathy Fisher behind you. I think the message has not gotten to gardeners and people who are cleaning up in various communities. And using blowers to get rid of the ash and clean up, so I don't know. I know our Spanish on the website and in the town hall meetings is getting better but I think that's still a missing link from what I'm seeing.
0:42 – 0:5015 turns
Would anyone else like to comment on that? Otherwise, I'll say that thank you for Madam Chair. Thank you for pointing that out and we continue to emphasize in our messaging not to use leaf blowers, not to stir up ash but will continue to emphasize that and make sure that it's translated into Spanish. And when I speak at the town hall tonight, I will emphasize that as well. And like you, I have driven down this street and seen people using leaf blowers blowing up ash.
Without
masks, supervisor
rules. Dr. Dean I don't know if you know the answer to this question but can you comment on the animal rescue resources? How we're doing in Santa Barbara with the larger animals and dogs and cats and things like that.
Yes, Madam Chair. Give me one second. Do you want to comment on that? I'm going to defer to our Director Vonda Reynoso.
Madam Chair, Supervisor Wolff, from the latest information we have, the Santa Barbara Humane Society does not have additional space. We have transferred some of our animals from the county shelter up to the Santa Maria Humane Society so that we can have more space in our shelter. With regards to big animals, we still have space.
So should people still come to the Santa Barbara Shelter and then you will move them? Or
what's the message? The message is that to call the hotline first and then we will triage and assist with placement of the animals.
And what's
the hotline? And we have been messaging that on our social media. Do you know the hotline number? I don't right off, thank you. It's 681-4332. Okay, thank you very much.
Supervisor Williams, did you have a question?
Well I was just going to also tell folks in case they're thinking about evacuating that many, many north and mid-county hotels that people would evacuate to are temporarily suspending their no pet policies either officially or unofficially. And so a lot of places that people can go to get out of the ash Are not enforcing no pet policies.
Thank you, Dr. Dean.
I believe Rob Lewin is up on Emergency Operations Center.
Madam Chair and Supervisors, the incident is run by an Incident Management Team under Unified Command. And their job is to make sure that they're doing everything they can to suppress the fire. Our job at the Emergency Operations Center is to make sure that we're doing everything we can to work on the impacts on our communities. Those impacts have included, of course, evacuations and the care and sheltering of those folks that have been evacuated.
It also involves dealing with the smoke impacts, the impacts on our animals and our livestock, and on our agriculture products as well as the continuing issues of power outages. We are the location where in conjunction with the sheriff's office we do alerts. We are fortunate in this county that we have a very nice emergency operations center. But more important, that we have an emergency operation center that is staffed by dedicated county employees and other outside and partner agencies.
With me today is the Cal OES representative, and if you have any questions for him he'd be glad to come up and answer them. We have employees, about 50 that have been working continuously in our EOC since the power outage began. Some of those employees had been evacuated and some of those employees, one of them even lost her home. The mandatory evacuation It is very, very difficult on our communities and we recognize that every minute we're operating.
We know that when we send out an alert that people are getting impacted throughout the county. That's how the system unfortunately is currently designed when we send out a wireless emergency alert. But we truly believe that it's better to notify the entire county if that's the best we can do in order to get those thousands of people out of harm's way. It's not easy, it's stressful. Evacuating is stressful, being alerted is stressful, smoke is stressful and I can assure you that everyone in that Emergency Operations Center is sensitive to that and is doing all their due diligence to make sure that every action that we take in there is identified on what the other impacts will be from what we do.
We're all in this together, whether we're the city jurisdictions or the special districts. The utility company, we're in it together and I know I've talked with most of you and seen most of you that you're on this partnership as well. What we need the community to do is to make sure that they're signed up for Aware and Prepare alerts. They need to go to awareandprepare.org and sign up, so that when we're sending out these 90 character text messages in WEAs which are inadequate in defining the area, that they have the other information available to them immediately through the Aware and Prepare alerts which will send them an email and a text message.
One of the fallouts of this incident from the very beginning has been a power supply problem because of the transmission lines that supply our county. Southern California Edison is in our EOC and we're in constant communication with their emergency operations center. We need the public to be prepared for a multi-day outage. This means that they need to make sure that they have flashlights and batteries, that they have the ability to charge their telephone whether they're doing that through car charges.
We need them to have radios that use batteries. If we end up in a power outage, to leave their freezer doors closed and their refrigerators closed to preserve their food stock. To have an ample supply of food stock that doesn't require a food supply. If it gets cold out, to not use their barbecues to heat their homes because of carbon monoxide poisoning. We need them to conserve electricity now, because the impacts on these power lines is now. And if we can reduce the load on the lines that are still intact, we're going to be helping and maintaining that power supply.
So we're going to be in this game for a long time. We're going to be operating for the next several weeks, if not just because of this fire but also for the impacts of the watershed issues and the debris flows that are potentially going to hit us. We're already doing contingency planning for a three day or more power outage. We're also going to be doing contingency planning for debris flows in this greater burn area that we now have, we had already done that for the Whittier fire and now we're gonna be doing it again for these fires.
We're in it and we're committed and I'm proud to be working with the people that I'm working with.
0:50 – 0:5610 turns
Thank you, Mr. Lewin. Supervisor Wolfe has a question.
Thank you, Mr Lewin and the representative from Cal OES. Thank you for being here. I saw Mark at a press conference in Ventura. I want to say it's always great to see Mark on one hand, but on the other hand it's not so great because then I know we are in trouble. So anyway thank you to Cal OES for your support with accounting. Mr. Lewin on the radio issue, one of the concerns that I heard was that people We talk about making sure that you have access to a radio in a car or crank radio, but people don't know what station to go to. And I know that our local TV station was, I think they were streaming with a radio station out of Los Angeles.
But how, I think I had talked about this once before, how will people know what station to go to for radio coverage? If we're encouraging that.
Madam Chair and Supervisors, thank you for bringing that forward and today I'll make sure that we put those radio stations up on our website that has all of the Thomas fire incident information on it so thanks for bringing that forward
Okay, thank you. And just again my appreciation to you and everyone knowing that you guys are working around the clock in the middle of the night and I think there was a phone call at 330 that I had with someone in your EOC. And they were just as if they had been up, and they were very astute in working hard. Unlike me who just was woken up in the middle of the night but to know that you guys are out there working so hard and making sure that things are moving In the right direction.
And again, just the accuracy of information is so important and yet I understand some of the challenges that you have. And to all of our employees who are taking time off just like you said to be in the EOC is really impressive. So thank you Rob.
Okay, I think back to Ms. Miyasato does that conclude the formal staff presentation?
That does conclude the formal staff presentation you do have an item on the agenda to ask you to adopt the resolution for proclamation Right
we have to go to public comment and I see Supervisor Lavinino also has something he'd like to say yet so We'll come back to that Ms. Miyasato
Thank you, Madam Chair. I was just curious if we were going to get an update or what we're doing right now with Vista Del Mar? The damage that was done there and what we're doing with our psychiatric health facility and our patients.
Supervisors, I think Dr. Gleghorn gave a report that we did get an exception from the state to have over our census amount. And I can't remember if it's over 10 than our normal population so that we are housing people. Oh, I'm sorry, Dr. Gleghorn is here.
Good morning, Supervisors and Supervisor Lavendino through the chair. We did immediately notify the state that we were in a crisis situation and that we would need to exceed our usual census and be prepared for various contingencies including any evacuation response and use of other local facilities. We have been in touch with San Luis Obispo County and their PUF facility.
For about a week now, since the Arroyo Vista episode happened. We are approved to go ten above census if need be in relation to the fire and specifically the Arroyo Vista Del Mar. Facility damage. San Luis Obispo has approval to go up to 21, so we could go to 26 and they could go up to 21. These are temporary exceptions to our normal restrictions to be a 16-bed unit. Both San Luis Obispo and ARPUF are restricted to 16 beds.
It's unclear For what period of time the state will continue to allow us to go over census. In fact, at this point we have only gone over census at our puff one night and that went to 18. And we have diverted one patient only to San Luis Obispo and that was at a time that we were concerned about potential development of fire activity overnight and We essentially went into massive Drill mode and planning at the puff when we weren't sure if we were going to have an evacuation warning or not So at this point, we have everything in place For an evacuation that is very unlikely to come And we have notified slow that it appears that our risk is less at this point. I We are planning to return to normal operations and full census as need be. We are currently at 12 and have beds available.
I will say that it seems like crisis activity is somewhat diminished with everybody trying to get out of the area or staying inside, we have not had our typical high volume of calls. And we have notified the state that our relationship with the San Luis Obispo Puff may need to be our new normal in terms of demand on beds. So, we're actively involved in planning crisis contingencies.
0:56 – 1:0711 turns
Thank you and before we go to public comment I had a few things I wanted to say all of us here have been involved in many phone meetings and town hall briefings Dealing with constituents and it's three things really strike me, and they all fall under in an emergency. People are learning as they go and responding to things as they present themselves. One area where we've really excelled I believe is in communication. And Supervisor Wolf mentioned the website and the interactive map but also Spanish outreach has improved greatly.
The website itself was reorganized, and it's more and more of a one-stop source of information even from other agencies. And so I think everyone who has been working on that deserves to be commended. The second in addition to communication is coordination. And it's just amazing to me how wave upon wave of people are coming in to fight the fires and to help shelter people in Red Cross.
I was at the shelter at UCSB yesterday, and people were here from Florida and Hawaii and Oregon. Coming here to help us and they all in these emergency response. They have learned protocols and language so that they can come into a new situation and work effectively together, and I think that's an amazing human achievement. The last thing that really struck me and especially at our Office of Emergency Center yesterday was just how many levels of plans. We hope we'll never see them, but there's a plan A, but there are many other contingencies that people are planning for and we've heard that as the fire Chief has explained if various things happen, various lines are in place to protect us. But that happens across the board for public health or animal care as we saw for flood control issues Energy, shelters if we need more.
So people don't often see that but there's so many working behind the scenes to ensure that we're all cared for and so I think we all feel tremendous gratitude and because we've had so many emergencies, we have a county that is really well prepared to adapt and adjust even to this unprecedented fire. Supervisor Williams?
Well, I wanted to echo those comments and I wanted to give thanks to the many folks staffing the EOC that aren't getting much sleep these days. And I want to give thanks to the deputy sheriffs both from our county and from those that have stepped up to help because a lot of people will dwell on some of the hiccups on communication but Thousands of people is an inherently chaotic endeavor, and it's been done with professionalism. It's been done orderly, and it's been done without any significant errors which would otherwise endanger people. So I really think that that's important to get out there.
Repeat something that we as a community need to rally around anybody who needs someplace to stay and can't afford some place to stay. So I encourage people to continue to text me on my cell phone if they cannot find a place to stay, 805-637-7711. You know, make use of it with discretion. But if you need a place to stay and you can't afford one I want to find something for ya.
Thanks.
And public comment?
Chair Hartman, members of the board we have one speaker on this item. Mr. Caldwell.
Madam chair, members of the board. I'm Andy Caldwell representing Colab. We too are very grateful and proud of our emergency responders. But as you know, I've been making the same speech for over 20 years. I'm going to put this in a little bit of a different context. Last week you had an annual hearing Which you look at leaks and spills of the oil industry. You go through an exhaustive report of every little thing that's gone wrong or been done wrong, no matter how de minimis it is.
But this is on you. This is on you, the state government and the federal government because the resources that are burning are under your sole control authority and jurisdiction. We're not surprised by these fires for the last 30 years we've had these things every couple of years where we now have two of the top five in the state just within the last few decade or so.
And the point here is, these are not just wind-driven fires. They are policy driven fires. We have a hands off approach to flora and fauna in quote unquote wilderness rural areas. We don't have any roads, we can't create fuel breaks, we can't do control burns. We have zoning ordinances called resource protection ordinances or zoning ordinances that protect fuel from even a cow or a goat, let alone a firefighter or a farmer.
These fires are policy driven. You have sole control, the government not just you but you as an extension of government have sole control over these lands. These fuels have been allowed to build up upwards of 100 years of dead brush. They are powder kegs. And we can't get you to change your policy. A roadless wilderness is a wilderness that doesn't have access to firefighting equipment.
Roads act as fire breaks and they also act as access points for firefighters. Do you remember just last year when you told a guy in Toro Canyon who got caught trying to create a second means of egress out of his house, to shelter-in-place? Do you remember that was this board. You told him shelter in place. How dare you cut through brush? How dare you potentially impact the creek shed?
Because of wanting to have a second way out of your house in case that canyon goes up. Instead of having resource protection zones, can we have a fire reduction zone? Thank you.
CEO Miyasato.
I did want to make one correction. The Toro Canyon case is something that will come to us possibly at a future hearing. We have not heard that one, at least not while in the year that I've been here yet and The case is Barton Myers and the case will come back to the board when all the work is done on it.
Supervisor Wolf?
So, I said this during one of the fires and I don't remember which one it was. Maybe it was a gap fire but there's probably not one child who is listening to me right now. But if there is, the message to the kids out there because, and I just think this is really important. Many of you know we lost our house in the Painted Cave Fire, and my three kids were all under the age of ten. And then we were evacuated in two subsequent fires, the T fire and the Hesucita fire.
We were lucky because my kids didn't see the flames. We got out before but we did lose everything and we rebuilt. We're all fine. We're all really good, and I think my message to the kids if they're listening is that while the adults are talking about all of these things that may sound confusing or scary, I think the biggest takeaway is that the adults are here to take care of you. And we will take care of you, your parents, all of us here at the firefighters. That's what we're here for and so just feel safe.
Listen to your mom and dad, listen to whoever is taking care of you and know that all of us up here want the best for you and you will be fine. Thank you Madam Chair.
Thank you, and I had something I wanted to say before I return to CEO Miyasato. There was one reported death so far in the Thomas Fire. It was on Wednesday night, Virginia Posola of Santa Paula was found dead in her car as she'd been involved in a crash evacuating from the fire area. She'd been reported missing before that. She is a former land use litigator who worked for the county council's office here in Santa Barbara from 1996 to 1999.
After that, she went to work for the Second District Court of Appeal in Ventura so I just want to take a moment to remember her and all the people who've been affected by the fire. So let's just have one moment of silence please. Thank you. CEO Miyasato?
Thank you, Chair Hartman and board members. I just want to close out this discussion by just saying the previous speaker talked about government or an extension of government reasons or explanations for the fire. And I think we all know this isn't the time or place to have those discussions. I just want to say how proud I am.
1:07 – 1:098 turns
You've been up many nights and overseeing a staff who's been working full tilt for days.
I'm proud of our county.
Thank you, CEO Misato.
And thank you to all the people on the line but all our employees who were there. We have department heads showing direct leadership. The sheriff, the fire chief, our OEM director, my executive staff. I just want you to know this county, I hope you're proud of your employees because no one was directed to be there. It's their responsibility and they showed up.
They requested to be there and they showed up. There are missing events with their families. Some were evacuated, some lost their homes and they're still there. So I just want to say thank you and we acknowledge all their help.
Supervisor Wolk? And Anna, thank you for your leadership and you know we always say it starts at the top and thank you. Thank you.
A procedural question do we need a motion in a second to receive and file the report?
Chair Harmon members of the board yes if we could get a motion to approve items A through D as listed on this item
Thank you. May I have that motion, please? All in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion passes. So turning now to our administrative agenda may I have a motion to approve honorary resolutions 8 through 37 and A41? And a second? I don't believe A40 is an honorary resolution. Okay, we're coming back to that. Don't worry and you've pulled that item. Yes, thank you.
Let us finish this. We have a motion in a second so all in favor say aye. I. Any opposed? So the honorary resolutions are adopted. I'd like to take the last one first, A41. Would you read that into the record Mr. Allen?
1:09 – 1:143 turns
Chair Hartman, members of the board, item A41 this is This resolution is sponsored by Supervisor Adam. And this is a resolution honoring Brenda French, the 4th District Arts Commissioner of Santa Barbara County for her service on the Arts Commission. If Brenda could come on up to the podium? Is she here today? There she is. We have arts commission staff here in Santa Maria and also in Santa Barbara that I'll go ahead and read the resolution into the record. Whereas Brenda French has volunteered as a member of the Santa Barbara County Arts Commission since 2000, having completed six full terms and served on the county Art in Public Places Committee for over 18 years. And whereas the arts commission seeks to act as a coordinator and a catalyst to bring government artists and the public together for the cultural benefit of all.
Collaborate with other agencies to increase access to the arts, gather and disseminate information, conduct public meetings and advise the Board of Supervisors. And whereas Brenda French worked tirelessly with her fellow commissioners to advocate for the arts artists and arts education and provide access to the arts for all in our community. Her efforts include serving as a liaison throughout the county sharing events and exhibitions from all communities. Serving on the Community Arts Enrichment Grant Panel, increasing awareness of rising artists and art groups. And recognizing and presenting the Leadership in Arts Award to the Board of Supervisors.
And whereas Brenda graduated from the State University of New York, New Paltz as the first student earning Master's of Science in arts education from that school. And committed her life to teaching art to students having taught arts and English for almost 30 years in Lompoc and 50 years total, including touching the lives of thousands of students during her tenure. And whereas Brenda French is a dedicated volunteer serving on several committees including the Lompoc Valley Arts Council and the Santa Maria Arts Council always working to increase access to the arts and advocating for quality arts experiences throughout our county. Now therefore be it hereby ordered and resolved that this Board of Supervisors honors Brenda French for her service as a member of the Santa Barbara Arts Commission and further commends her for her advocacy For the Arts in Santa Barbara County, pass and adopt it today.
I won't take too long at all. I'm wearing my Lompoc necklace right now which is one of those masks because it was very needed this morning. I'd like to just again, as many others have paid pay respect to my mentor who was the late Muriel Robinson. Who was a 5th District Arts Commissioner who took me under her wing at my first retired teacher's meeting. And decided since I'd been an art teacher, as well as a literature teacher and other things that I'd be good for the Arts Commission.
And Muriel was like that, she would go out and get people and get them to work. Any of you who worked with her in the Santa Maria area probably knew her very well. One thing I learned from her was that I had to belong to all the groups, not just Lompoc. If I wanted Lompoc to be recognized because that is a very isolated community but it has a lot of people power and people that work together and that makes it a pleasure to work for that community.
And I'm sorry they don't have a representative now, but there are a lot of people that are involved. But as a result, I learned to work In conjunction and in cooperation with other groups. And that kind of goes along with all the work we've been hearing today, particularly in working with youth. And there are other things one can give besides money and North County has finally I think come into its role as a voice that has power.
And for that I'm grateful and thank you for the resolution.
Madam Chair and members of the board, I would just like to again thank Brenda for all her service. I was fortunate actually to serve alongside as Brenda's commissioner for two years before coming on board a staff and she has definitely been a mentor to myself as well as those that have come onboard so I'd just like to thank her for commitment to our community and to Lompoc. Thank you.
1:15 – 1:196 turns
Would you read A37 into our record Mr. Allen?
Chair Hartman, members of the board. Item A-37 is sponsored by Supervisor Hartman and this is a resolution of commendation for Beverly Taylor. I
believe it's sponsored by Supervisor Wolf.
Oh that's correct sorry. This is upon her second retirement. And if Beverly could come up. I believe we have the presiding judge of the Superior Court, Patricia Kelly is here. Come on up. And I'll go ahead and read the resolution into the record. Whereas Beverly Ann Taylor began her career with the probation department in January of 1982, during her over 33 year career she served as Deputy Probation Officer, Supervising Probation Officer, Probation Manager, Deputy Chief Probation Officer that ultimately was selected as Chief Probation Officer in December of 2011.
She served as chief for three years and then retired in January of 2015 to spend more time with her husband Peter, her parents, siblings and nieces and nephews. As well as to focus on her sewing and embroidering. And whereas in January 2017 Bev was enjoying her retirement when she was asked by the Superior Court to temporarily assist the probation department as acting Chief Probation Officer. Bev graciously accepted she saw it as an opportunity to give back to the department. And whereas shortly after becoming acting chief, one of the four deputy chiefs retired and within a few months, a second had also retired. This left her with an executive team consisting of herself, one deputy chief, and one administrative deputy director. The two deputy chief positions remained vacant, and as such Bev took on the oversight of the juvenile division and the institutions division.
She continued to attend many meetings and lead the department through what might have been described as the most significant change in its recent history. And whereas as of December 1, Bev will be returning to retirement. The department and the county of Santa Barbara is ever grateful for the stabilizing factor and tremendous support she provided at a crucial time. She's proud of the work she's accomplished for the department that she served but she happily jumps back into retirement.
Now, therefore be it ordered and resolved that this Board of Supervisors and the entire staff of the Probation Department congratulate Beverly Ann Taylor upon her retirement. And wish her and her family many years of continued good health and happiness. Passed and adopted.
Maybe the whole board can go now. Yeah we're all going down. Thank you.
Well, I will be brief. Chair Hartman, Supervisors, Supervisor Wolff thank you for initiating the resolution. CEO Miyasato, I want to say that when I did get the call from Daryl Parker there was no hesitation about coming back and I was sharing with Supervisor Wolff earlier that in most of my career I've belabored over do I do this or do I do that? And there was no Belaboring over or questioning whether to come back because I knew it was an assignment that Was meant for me to step into and because of that The 11 months that I came to work really was a joy every day.
I had no regret or And what added to that reward was just the staff Their support, their resilience, their commitment to their mission. And having Chief Heitman, Damon Fletcher and Melanie Davis to be there as well. It truly has been a gift for me this last 11 months so while you honor me today I want to thank you for the opportunity. So thank you.
1:19 – 1:2513 turns
Okay, let's see. Mr. Allen we have some additions and changes to our administrative agenda 838, 839 and 840.
Chair Hartman, members of the board. Yes we posted an addendum on Friday which amended our agenda in a few ways. First off on item 838 this is from the County Executive Office regarding a grant application submission and supporting resolution to the Department of Finance for a community-based transitional housing program in an unincorporated area of the Lompoc Valley and requesting that this item be continued to your first meeting in January on the 9th
And so when we move to approve the entire administrative agenda, we'll include that into our motion.
Item 839 was added. This is from Supervisor Lavinino. This was a receive and follow-up presentation reviewing the 6th Annual Santa Barbara County Veterans Stand Down.
And Supervisor Lavinino did you have something you wanted to add right now? Yeah Madam
Chair I'd like to just move it out to January 23rd if we could.
January 23rd... So again we'll include that in our motion
Additionally, we added item A40 to the administrative agenda today. This is from the county executive office. Is this a consider recommendation regarding actions to assist employees affected by the Thomas fire? We also added item A41 which was already read into the record that was the resolution honoring Brenda French. We also added item four which was the Thomas fire update and proclamation ratification and that's previously been heard and considered by the board.
Okay, so did you read A40 into the record when you did that? Okay. And Supervisor Adam wanted to pull that item, so why don't we go directly to that?
Okay. I have no issue with giving employees who lost their home in the fire up to 80 hours. Not a problem. HR estimates that there's about six people that this has happened to, including our HR director. It's certainly a catastrophic event for those people and they have a lot of work to do to catch up with all the bedlam that's going on in their lives. So, that's not an issue for me.
But what I do have an issue with is given the employees who got evacuated 40 hours because first of all we have no good number. HR estimates that it may be 300 or more people I've done that, there's no cost associated with the plan. It could easily reach into the tens of thousands of dollars. There is a fundamental difference between having your home lost and the need to temporarily relocate.
And most employees have vacation sick time, floating holidays they can use. And if the need is big enough, vacation donations can be asked for and received. This was not offered to employees in the Whittier or Alamo fires. And finally, there's a fundamental unfairness that we can offer this with taxpayer funds while taxpayers would likely not have this benefit available to them with their employers.
So I would propose that we remove the 40 hour provision for mandatory evacuees and pass this resolution today.
I'll assume that's a motion. But first of all, well we won't vote on it yet but Supervisor Wolfe and Supervisor Lavinino, Supervisor Lavinino and Supervisor Williams.
Thank you Madam Chair. I see that there is a big difference also between an evacuation and losing your home. So, I'm curious if we have some sort of...I know that there's been instances before where there has been a tragedy in a county employee's life where we went out and asked other employees to help. Donate vacation and that sort of thing. It would seem like that would be, and I don't know if we have a bank of this or how we do that but it does seem like that might be a better way to do this because everybody's circumstances can be a little bit different.
I just don't know how we would manage this or Or police it, really. And I mean, I understand the tragedy that's involved. I don't know if Ms. Gentles would like to. Obviously if you lost your home that's something different.
So- Would you like to speak to that issue? In terms of donations that you're talking about, we have been getting questions about whether or not employees can donate their vacation hours to other employees that maybe had to be mandatory evacuated and missed days. And unfortunately our MOU really does restrict vacation donations to catastrophic illness. So one of the things that we really need to do is identify the programs that we have right now, that allow some flexibility for employees that are under those circumstances. So for example if employees don't have an ample amount of vacation time or Or sick time, if they are sick or caring for someone that's sick. There's other programs that exist right now such as flex time or things of that nature that a department head, a supervisor has the discretion to modify schedules to accommodate people.
1:26 – 1:3719 turns
Supervisors, so we patterned what's before you after what Ventura County did. Their board took action I believe last week and so in the heat of all the action and checking with some of the Northern California counties in the wake of the Sonoma fire, we just put this together and patterned this mostly off of Ventura County. We can alter it if the board wishes to.
I think what Ms. Gentles is saying is that the board doesn't like up to 40 hours for those who have been mandatory evacuated, there are other things that HR could do such as ask those departments to ensure there's flex time or some kind of flexibility,
Right, and there are different things that we can do for employees that are exempt from overtime or that are non-exempt. And we have that outlined so for example, for employees that are exempt from overtime right now at the department head's discretion they can grant up to 80 hours of administrative leave. So we have that for employees that are not exempt They can use vacation time or flex time. So it's an administrative scheduling issue.
Okay, well I would just hope that if a department head was approached that that would definitely qualify as the ability to allow flex time. And I'd much rather see it on an individual basis where an employee is coming to their department head than at a board policy, where we just grant it and then have a really difficult time tracking that. And kind of policing it and putting a price tag on it also would be difficult
And if I could just clarify one thing that was stated. So the question was posed as to how many people could potentially be impacted, because right now we don't have accurate numbers of how many people our employees have actually been evac- mandatorily evacuated. We estimate about 60 to 80 people that have reported to us. But the potential for that, and I looked at the areas that are impacted by the evacuation and how many of our employees live there. And so that's where that 300 number came from. It's people that potentially could have been mandatorily evacuated because they live in that zone.
Thank you. Supervisor Williams?
Can I'm inclined to think that this is a good idea. However, I think it's fair to be asking potential costs how much is the cost to the county if it's you know about 100 people and how much does the cost if it goes up to your maximal projection
so one of the things that I will say is that there is no new additional costs there's no New money that will be applied to this, we're already budgeted for that time. Where the issue comes in is perhaps a productivity issue which you're probably going to have that anyway if people are stressed and distressed and worried about their living arrangements or what have you. So it's a productivity issue and it may be in the future a liability issue as vacation accruals are held on the books. If they're not using their vacation accruals and You know additional time there could be that issue, but that is a future. That is a future cost no new cost no new money is being asked for this.
Chair Hartman and supervisors, working with CEO's office and human resources we tried to help with something that the board could act on today. And this is actually grounded on county code that has already been codified in terms of this particular benefit. There's also within the resolution a delegation excuse me, delegation down to Human Resource and County Executive Officer for implementation guidelines. So the human resources director would have the ability to in consultation with county council on the auditor controller establish whatever implementation guidelines that she sees are appropriate could be informed by your board today so we try to provide some latitude so that the board could act today With a codified provision that already exists in county code and that also moves a little bit quicker than a meet-and-confer process would otherwise go with some of the MOUs.
Supervisor Wolff?
Thank you, Madam Chair And thank you Lori and Mona for bringing this I have a different Have a different take on this. I think that this is a wonderful thing that you've brought to us and I mean, we just heard about how incredible our employees have been during this crisis. People who've been on mandatory working in the EOC and I just again, I speak from personal experience having been evacuated and coming back. You know, I don't know. I mean, I think we have to give a lot of credit to our employees that the people who don't need it won't take it.
But there will be people out there who've been evacuated that will need this. Oftentimes, there's smoke damage to their homes so they can't necessarily go right back. There is again going back to dealing with your children and there's a lot of issues that people who are evacuated have to deal with. Obviously losing your home is worse and I'm really glad that we have this 80 hour provision. It makes so much sense, I wish we would've done this before. So this is This is what I think we should do as a county, is to assist our employees when they're in these crisis situations. And again, I don't believe, I guess I just have a lot of faith in our employees that if they don't need the 40 hours, they're not going to seek it. And even the way it's written here, There will have to be some approval by the agency or department head.
This is the right thing to do, I think we should move forward with this and again, I thank you Lori and Mona for bringing this to us. So I'm going to make a motion that we move this forward unless there's public
speakers. Ms. Gentles had something and Mr. Gazzone had something.
I did, I just wanted to reiterate what Mike Gazzone mentioned in terms of the delegation. I think that's a very critical piece of the resolution that we put together because it does allow us the opportunity to be more mindful of what's being approved so that it does not get out of control. Absolutely. So we did put in some internal controls to address the issue You know, sprawl if you will or unmanageable expenses. And the other thing is that we not to sound like a cliche but we always say that our employees are our most valuable resource and during this time of crisis this is an opportunity for us to step up to the plate and show that with as and at the same time be responsible stewards of taxpayer dollars.
Mr.
Casoni or Mr. Allen? I just want to remind the board that this is a four-fifths vote item.
Yeah,
okay. Well, my light's been on forever. Go ahead. Come on. You know we got four extra days paid leave at holiday time you know We compensate, I mean, I've put up this chart before everybody's seen the chart. Nobody's ever shot a hole in it. It's real. Our employees have gotten compensated much more than the people who pay their salaries and by that I mean taxpayers.
There's this fundamental issue of fairness. There's numerous people, and Ms. Gentles you told me that you know some of these people who have jobs and are maybe your neighbors that got burned out right alongside of you who work in private sector. And they're being told to show up or else they're going to lose their job. So this is what's going on out there, and we cannot live in our silo and not appreciate what everybody else in the world is having to put up with. I think the productivity issue that you mentioned is tremendous. Look at you.
You got burned out, well yeah look at her I'm not arguing over that. She got her house burned down and she's here and you've got your head in the helmet and you're working hard and I think your productivity is even high Right, right. Okay so you know making a you know and I understand it's very human thing to do and we're all humans. We want to help people who are in need and many of these people are undisputedly in need but on the other side of this we have to run this company which is called a county unfortunately and so we all think that we have different Rules of engagement, and we don't. We have a limited amount of money.
We have taxpayers that are funding this thing that have every right to say look I gotta go to work and nobody's gonna give me 40 hours. And so we're talking the difference. I'm not even arguing about if you get burned out okay fine here's 80 hours. But if you got a knock on your door and told to leave, that's a different animal. That's just an entirely different set of circumstances. And 40 hours for being told to go stay in a hotel for a few days, I don't want to minimize it but I'm just representing those taxpayers out there that are going to look at it this way. And believe me, there are many. You may not hear from them. I do, they call me.
Ms. Gentles, I believe you had something to say about the holiday? I
do. I want to just clarify and correct that we do have a holiday closure but employees are required to use their own leave for the four days off. That is not a gift. That was not extra money or extra time that we granted to employees. It is their own Thank
you for that clarification. I have two more board comments up here and then we'll go to public comment and then come back. Supervisor Lavanita?
1:37 – 1:4513 turns
I would hope that we would take these votes separately, one on the 80 hours and one on the 40 hours or however the notion is and then we'll figure it out. But instead of bringing us like Napa County, Ventura County, Marin County, Sonoma County, I would also like to see what major employers in the city of Santa Barbara are doing. So if you know I'm happy to vote on the 80 hours right now. And if I found out and you brought back that hey this is what Raytheon's doing or this is what whoever in Goleta and Santa Barbara is doing.
I'd be happy to match what they're doing, but I would strongly doubt that any private sector company would be handing out a week's vacation. But I think if we did that outreach and you could bring that back to me, I'd be more than happy to match with the private sector would be doing.
Miss Miyasato. Supervisors, we do have an alternate resolution that just offers the 80 hours and again it's up to 80 hours and it was up to 40 hours but we do have an alternate resolution that just discusses the 80 hours if your board would like to have that for approval this morning.
Supervisor Williams and then public comment.
Well, I want to offer a different view but also say hey we've got to have at least four-fifths of us if not all of us get together on some solution. The alternate view is that, look just I think a lot of private employers are going to make some allowances to folks. And just because some of them might not be generous employers doesn't mean that we shouldn't be generous employers within our fiscal ability.
And I think that 40 hours when you are evacuated is reasonable. I also think that it's not just people living in hotels or shelters, All child care centers have been canceled, most schools have been canceled. So if any of them have kids there's additional burdens there. There are a lot of factors out there. With that being said, I hope that instead of us looking at this as 40 hours or nothing. That you would consider what you do view as reasonable.
A day off is not a crazy thing. Two days off is not a crazy thing, so I would hope that we would approve at least 16 or 20 hours as an up to rather than go from 40 to nothing.
Supervisor Adam finished this off and then will go to public comment after you
Okay, well first of all to that I say did you read D3 today? Within our fiscal ability. I've said it on many occasions in here and I realize that nobody agrees with me yet but we should declare a fiscal emergency and start dealing with this on a rational basis. I don't think we're doing that at this point in time. I don't think we've taken this seriously enough.
So, I think it's not within our fiscal ability and you gotta start having some discipline and saying no at some point. And a really good point, I think to draw that line in the sand is what happens with other people that are taxpayers working in private sector? And if it's something that, and I'm sure you're right, People who are going to call in and get time off, but it won't be paid.
Likely, very likely will not be paid time off. And there's a huge difference between a day off without pay and a day off with pay. And so I'm just trying to get some parity for all those people out there that are inconvenienced in a variety of ways and to a variety of degrees that don't get compensated. And I think there's many, many, many more of them than there are of us.
Okay, so I'd like to go to public comment on this item A40. Mr. Allen?
I have one request to speak. We're going to go to Senator Barbara for Jen Christensen.
Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the board. Interesting this is a late distribution item I will get right to the point. First and foremost, I sent up a request to speak because I think that your The staff suggestion to grant the 80 hours of leave to those that have suffered a real loss in terms of property Is very reasonable. The other one, the 40 hours of leave for those that are under a mandatory evacuation or may become subject to a mandatory evacuation is ill advised at this time. I would point to first and foremost the fiscal analysis or lack thereof.
I would posit, and by the way, I will preface this by saying I am speaking to you as a citizen, a member of the public, and someone who was subject to This is according to everything we see and hear, the new normal. A mandatory evacuation would subject you to a real fiscal impact. It may not be on a budgetary basis but in your financial statements there is a liability item A line item for compensated absence liability. For those folks that will be able to get the 40 hours of paid leave because they are subject to a mandatory evacuation, will then not need to use any of the other accrued leave balances that they have available to them.
Admittedly, as county employees we receive a very generous benefit package that includes 12 or 13 holidays each year. As well as no cap on sick leave and then a large no use it or lose it pool of leave for vacation. That is really not something you see in most public sector including non-profit organizations. Take that into consideration. My suggestion to you would be to adopt the optional or the other resolution that the CEO mentioned, the 80 hours of paid leave. To assist those in need the most today and then table the 40 hours of leave for mandatory evacuation until you can do a more in-depth analysis on that and just know that there is a real fiscal impact to this.
Thank you very much.
That concludes public comment
Thank you. So I'd like to bring this back to the board and perhaps we could do as suggested and vote on the, segregate the two motions and vote first on the 80 hours for people who've lost their home. Mr. Gazzone? Well, I
did have a motion originally to adopt what was presented so... And if there's no second then we'll go to- I'll second
it if you want to vote on that.
1:45 – 1:5935 turns
Mr. Ghisoni, did you have something first?
Chair Hartman and Supervisors just so we would have clarity moving forward to the action before you is You have a couple choices on this but I just want to make sure when we're done with this that we know which resolution has been approved And I will remind you that, just to try and provide you some options. You have the options that are laid out before you. We've also discussed the implementing guidelines that would be delegated to the Human Resources Director. If there was a concern about carrying forward vacation one of those implementing guidelines could be essentially a burn date, three month termination date on this 40 hours. So you have options in this area. Just want to remind you of that and then we'll help you with the motion as needed.
I realize two board members have We're very close to making motions, but would it be possible for us to vote first on those who've lost their home and Get a decision on that because I sick. I believe there's going to be more discussion of the mandatory evacuations so Supervisor Levin you know may I have a motion
Sure, I'll make a motion to accept the resolution that allows employees who've had lost their dwelling to be granted up to 80 hours of paid time.
A1, right?
A1.
Second. Mr. Gazzone. Chair Hartman, do I understand that just so we can have housekeeping at the end of this it would be moving staff's recommendations but deleting the up to 40 hours of paid leave because of mandatory evacuation?
Yes, thank you. So we do have a motion and a second. Is there further discussion of that? Supervisor Adam, your light's on.
Oh I'm just ready to vote.
Okay, Supervisor Williams. All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? The motion passes for the benefits for those who've lost their homes so now we're back to the 40 hours for those who face mandatory evacuation. We have a number of different choices. We could say no to that, we could explore various guidelines as Mr. Gazzone has suggested or we could continue and ask for further research in terms of what the private sector is doing.
As Supervisor Lavinino suggested. Supervisor
Wolfe? I'm going to make a motion that we move forward with staff's recommendation for the up to 40 hours of paid leave because of mandatory evacuations, which includes the fact as noted in this board letter that this does not amount to a gift of public funds because it serves a public purpose which includes retaining qualified and Public employees, that's stated in the board letter.
Any further discussion? I would agree with that. I think we have talked at length about how much we value our employees. I think this is a way to set an example, and I believe there's enough delegated authority to department heads so that this wouldn't be abused. So Supervisor Lavarino?
Madam Chair, and I heard this from our HR director as well. And it is disconcerting to those of us who are going to vote against this that this is in some way that we don't value our employees. And I find that to be why not make it 50 hours or 60 hours? Why did you put a cap on it at 40 hours? Because that's what you thought was reasonable. All I'm asking is, let's go out and find out what everybody else in the world is doing.
And so I'm not going to be supporting that motion. It's not in any way for me a reflection on whether or not I value our employees. And you can look at any metrics compensated better than. Their private sector counterparts. And so for us to just say, for some reason we don't value them because we're not granting another week off because you've been evacuated I think is pushing the envelope. So I just kind of take exception to that and hope that we can come back with something that's a little more reasonable.
Maybe CEO Miyasato wants to, I mean those weren't my words. Those were words I read from the staff letter. No
what are you talking about? That it's not a gift of public funds? I understand that. That's a legal determination. Well you can
disagree with that too. Yes. CEO Miyasata
wants- No it wasn't you. It was, I was talking about-
Supervisors so I apologize for this item causing so much consternation. Because it
really shouldn't.
Well, and I want to tell the board members that when this first, when the first. Everybody eight hours, 80 hours. The first draft of this did not include the 40 hours because being the fiscal conservative I am, I have the same concerns that are expressed by two of our board members and that we have evacuations. We're a county where we have a lot of evacuations that occur but in doing our research and really looking at what Ventura was doing and the impact, we decided to actually put that in It's up to the board on what you would like to do. We think it's a nice gesture and more than anything else, it's to have consistency in the county because as Ms. Gentle said departments can authorize some time of administrative leave right now I believe And so it was just sending a message to be consistent in the county, so that some departments are and some departments aren't.
And then having those discussions about what we can and cannot do is just to have some sort of consistency. But we could also as Supervisor Lavinino said let's look to see what others are doing outside government if we wish to do that. We could always do that later and come back to the board and if the board chooses at that time Do the change out through the payroll, working with the auditor's office. So I could say one thing or
two. Yeah, procedurally we have a motion and a second and we could vote on that and then come back and have further discussion but go
ahead. I just don't want us to lose sight that this is an emergency situation. This is not like any other day. People sometimes might have to leave work early if they're in the private sector. No one says to them, don't leave you have to stay and finish your eight hour day so we get productivity out of you. I mean, I think that there's a reasonable people would see this. Well no, I shouldn't, I'm going back.
The bottom line is, this is not a normal situation. This is an emergency situation and mandatory evacuation is a real big deal. Not as big of a deal obviously as losing your home. And certainly there's nothing in here that talks about the evacuation warning. But mandatory evacuation is a big deal, and I go back to the statement. And we applaud Ms. Gentles because I think she is a reflection of what our county employees are. And they're hard workers, they're dedicated workers. She lost her home and she's here. And I go back to my point that this is up to 40 hours.
I think we should, for me, I have an incredible sense of trust to our employees that if they need it, they have it available to them. If they don't need it, they will be at work. So let's give them the benefit of the doubt since they've been through something that is an emergency.
Supervisor Adam and then Supervisor Williams?
We're still not talking about the fiscal impact, which got identified here but undefined earlier by a speaker. And the idea that reasonable people could agree on this means that a couple of us up here aren't reasonable and Well, no actually the words went right through your
lips.
We have an agenda
here so a long agenda today so
let's be as efficient
as we
can. You know once it starts you can't put the genie back in the bottle. So and nobody is saying, I wish you would quit inferring that. And this sounds like we're arguing but we're not because we like each other so much and it's true. But we disagree, and we need to have these disagreements. So it's worth the time because this is how society moves ahead. Nobody's saying that employees aren't hard working, nobody.
I think that they work just as hard as you do, believe me. All I'm saying is they got to have parity with the rest of the world, real life.
Supervisor Williams?
Well, the due diligence that Mr. Labanino's asking for I think is reasonable. I do think however there is a timing issue. A lot of people this is a stress of the moment we don't have a scheduled board meeting next week. A certain amount of hours would be a value to our employees who may be looking for places to go, trying to take care of kids etc. And it won't be all that useful couple weeks from now because they will have made decisions based on their available vacation time not based off of an amount of time that we might provide them. And so I just think that even if it was only a day, even if it was only ten hours. Even if it was two days we should approve something today so that people can deal with life and our employees can deal with life.
And I think there's some real logic to the fact that staff looked at what Ventura is doing. A lot of these employees of ours live in the county of Ventura. And so therefore, we are in direct competition with the county of Ventura for them as employees. So while I agree with the fiscal points made, I even agree with you and Ms. Christensen that there is a spillover fiscal effect because of other vacation time that is not taken.
I just think that we do have the ability to approve a certain amount of hours, even if it was less than what was in the staff report and There are a lot of private sector folks who are going to be willing to give their employees a day off. We should be willing to give them a day off at very minimum, and I just ask you to think about doing that and acting today instead of waiting for several weeks to act.
I think Supervisor Williams makes a good point about timing. I'm wondering if there might be four votes or even five votes, if it were 20 hours rather than 40 hours? If there's anything that would be a compromise. Supervisor Lavanino?
Well Madam Chair, I guess I would ask has there been an employee, what's our average carrying of, is anybody? That's been evacuated, gone to a supervisor and they said no you're not going to get any flex time or you can't use your multiple days of vacation. I just find that would be baffling that somebody wouldn't be given the time off so.
To my knowledge, no. At this point we're trying to gather how many people were actually affected in trying to put this resolution together. But at this point we have not heard of anyone requesting time and not having time granted.
1:59 – 2:0536 turns
Okay, we have a motion and a second. And I guess Supervisor Adam you still had your light on? Did you have anything about this motion finally? No. Would you call the vote Mr. Allen?
Mr. Adam?
No
Mr. Lavinino? No Mr. Williams? Aye Ms. Wolk? Aye Ms. Hartman? Aye The motion fails 3-2
So Supervisor Wolf, did you oh
sorry your light was on I'll make a motion that we reduce that we allow 20 hours of Instead of 40. We change it to 20 hours
second
Any further discussions
supervisor Adam?
I won't be able to support that for the same reasons It's it's a principal thing for me this is just not It's not something that I want to do, especially in light of the fact that we have no idea what it's going to cost.
Supervisor Lavinino?
Yeah, I feel the same way. I just feel like we're flying blind and we should just have Ms. Gentles come back with some more information.
And if I could just to the discussion, I think if we don't do it today, I wouldn't even bother. Ms. Gentles, I don't think you should waste your time doing that because as was stated, it's going to be way past the time that will help our employees who need the assistance now likely within, well, I would say some of these evacuation warning, mandatory evacuations will be lifted and we need to make a decision now.
Supervisor Williams. Supervisor Lavinino. I would
just, I think rhetoric sometimes forces people to make votes the other way so I'm not prepared to accept it today and I would also just like people have been saying today, I think supervisor Adam and I are going to walk away with some scars that say we don't care for our employees when we feel the same way That when we're voting on revenue generating economic activity that I feel helps our employees, other folks vote against it. They don't take away that same scar and for me that's the same exact thing as today.
Well, if I could just say something. I never walk away with a scar. I always feel that I make at least for myself a well-reasoned decision and we all want revenue Mr. Lavagnino. That's not the point or the question before us. The question before us is if we assist our employees during an emergency situation which we are facing right now. That's it.
We've got a motion.
Let's vote. Yeah, we have a motion and a second. Would you call the vote Mr. Allen?
Mr. Adam?
No.
Mr. Lavinino? Nope. Mr Williams? Aye. Ms Wolfe? Aye. Ms Hartman? Aye Motion fails 3-2
All right, there could be a motion to study this or not.
I will ask if we could get staff direction to at least, and now it's just for my own curiosity to see what the private sector is doing. How do
you know that that's a
waste of time? Because it makes no sense to do it under these circumstances. If you want to talk about it during another board agenda item, just in
general- When I'm talking, I would prefer to have my lights on. Can I? Okay. You know what? Let's just end this.
Yes.
All right.
I will make Mr. Lavagnino's motion because I do think that while it would be much more useful in a timely fashion, we are also making policy for the future and precedent for the future. And looking at what private employers are doing and or just looking at what the effects would be of granting your day or two off is useful to look at. And it's obviously something that Ms. Gentles knows about all too personally, so I will make that motion.
And I will second it. And seeing no further lights, Supervisor Wolfe?
Yeah, I would just like clarification on the motion as to private sector. What do you mean? You mean-
I will make it inclusive of other public and- Someone mentioned- I will make it inclusive of both private companies in our area and other public entities.
Mr. Gazzone.
Chair Hartman and Supervisors, I would just caution that today's motion was grounded on the idea that this is a contemporaneous benefit meant to mitigate some harm. But the further the board action goes as to this particular fire, the more this could become retroactive compensation. So while there may be a future policy benefit to look at this, you really can't under California Constitution grant a benefit too far in the future that's too far removed from this.
Right, we have an issue about scheduling for our next meeting that I hope to get to right after we discuss our administrative agenda. So let's see, we have a motion and a second on this. We have a warning but I think there is a sense that this is valuable information for the future. And depending on when we schedule our next meeting it may be valuable for the present.
So,
I have a question. Can we get the motion repeated back please?
2:05 – 2:0814 turns
Yes, direction to staff to look at what other public and private employers in our area are doing for vacation time for folks who have been mandatorily evacuated. And bring it back to the next available meeting which may or may not be the ninth or maybe sooner.
CEO Miyasato. Supervisors, we can certainly do that if that's the will of the board. I don't know how HR would get that information so I'm going to ask the HR director could we narrow that to maybe look at the top 20 employers in Santa Barbara County?
Absolutely, I'm not asking for scientific research. I'm just asking for anecdotal information
We have employers that we already look at for some of our compensation studies So I'll be looking at the top employers in our region is a handful of them will check with them
Thank you
Okay Can I make a suggestion please? Maybe looking at Sonoma County and Napa County
And Lake County and Shasta County.
The reason I selected those... I'm not going to include any of that in my motion because I don't want to micromanage staff. But the motion was local DOS. Can I say something? And if we're talking about emergencies, let's look at... Supervisor, we'll finish your comment and then call a vote. The motion was to look at local municipalities and businesses. And what I'm suggesting is, you're not going to look at some of the counties where they have it because we're talking about an emergency. Mandatory evacuation is what I thought this was all about. So look at the places where they have encountered that. That's all I'm suggesting. If you don't want to do that, that's okay.
It is a reasonable suggestion, but it will also bring up the question of a bunch of extremely ultra-conservative northern states who have also had fire emergencies who probably were unreasonably low in what they were willing to do. So I'm not going to micro. I want to let staff, they know how to do this, let them do it.
We're looking for local references. That was the motion, that was the motion, that was seconded. I think Ms. Gentles described that she already has a list of local employers that she consults so could, I think everyone understands the motion. Mr. Allen would you call the vote?
Mr. Adam? No. Mr Lavenino? Aye. Mr Williams? Aye. Ms Wolfe? No Ms Hartman? Aye Passes 3-2
Okay, so now were there any other items on the administrative agenda that the public or anyone else wanted to pull? I have A20. I see no lights up here. Mr. Allen are there any other public comments on our administrative agenda?
No request
to speak. Okay would you read A20 into the record please?
2:08 – 2:104 turns
Chair Harmon, members of the board. Item A20 is from Public Works and to the Board as the Board of Directors or the Water Agency is to consider recommendations regarding the Santa Barbara County Greywater Handbook.
Thank you I just wanted to bring attention to this it's a superb book that goes far beyond grey water and how individual homeowners and businesses can use grey water to recharge to water their plants and recharge groundwater It is extremely well done. And what's interesting to note for me was how Santa Barbara County has been a leader in greywater pioneering policies and objectives to recapture grey water, and we are still in a seven-year drought. That's part of what's causing our fires and our difficulties so I encourage people to look at this and Mr. Faber extremely well done
Madam Chair, members of the board. Madam Chair thank you for that I wanted to recognize Tyrone Le Fay who's in the audience with us who had this project up along under Ms. Crease the Water Agency Manager. Larry Fay from EHS was here earlier he had to leave. The coordination between EHS and also with planning and development in the building department to make sure we were in coordination with all of our building codes, and public health codes to make sure that this was also done in a correct way. And it's a great project that we've completed, and we'll make sure each board office gets some copies of this for their visitors as well. And also it's available electronically on our website.
Thank you. Well done! Okay, I think we're ready to approve the balance of our administrative agenda with A38 continued to January 9th and A39 continued to January 23rd. And then so okay and a second?
2:10 – 2:1411 turns
Second.
All in favor say aye. Any opposed? So the administrative agenda stands approved and that brings us to public comment on matters not on today's agenda and Mr. Allen how many?
Chair Harbin, members of the board we have one request to speak under public comment from Linda Entie
If you could just stop the clock for one minute, I had to have something to ask Das Williams. Are you looking for people that have homes and rooms available? The opposite side of what you were looking for because I think this is all about billeting now.
Absolutely. Okay. The job of a supervisor in an emergency is ill-defined, and that's what I've been trying to do for the better part of a
week. Yeah, my parents and a lot of people I know have gone through two wars, and it's all about clinging together and billeting, not about money. You gotta help each other out, anyway.
Okay,
now we're starting the clock. Thank
you very much.
Dear Supervisors, I'd like to apologize for my absence last week and my inability to refer to the handouts that were given to you. I would like to address those issues today. The attached letter that you received last week was addressed to the Department of Developmental Services and contained potential evidence of altered documents, falsified documents, and perjury by my former spouse Philip Entie who is conservator of my son William Entie. I request that this case be referred to the district attorney for investigation.
I'm extremely fortunate to have Linda Kincaid as my advocate. Linda has a master's degree in public health from Berkeley and has researched conservatives' rights since 2010. Linda's experience is twofold, as it encompasses her experiences when dealing with the isolation abuse of her mother in 2010. California Assembly Bill 937 was the legislative response to the isolation abuse of her mother. Linda was invited to testify before the Senate Judicial Committee in 2003.
On May 26th, my son William Mentee was conserved by his father, my former spouse without due process. My son was neither present at the trial nor did his court-appointed attorney represent him examine the case or even investigate Williams' request or right. From June 2010, my ex-husband has engaged the staff and Tri-Counties Regional Center and their vended homes to isolate my son. And I have been denied both telephone conversation and visitation with my son.
Without legal advice, I agreed during a mediation session to supervise visitation. I agreed to this as I wanted very much to see my son who at this point had been isolated from me for over two years. I recommend that this conservatorship be terminated and my son's rights restored. And we recommend also that the court refer the case to the DA to investigate falsified documents submitted to the court, and perjury by Philip in his November 29th declaration. Thank you.
And that was our only public comment on matters not on today's agenda. Before we break, I just want to say what we'll do when we come back. The first thing I'd like to do is discuss scheduling for the cannabis meeting and closed session whether that would be December 14th or December 21st. And then we'll go to items D1 through D3 so let's reconvene in ten minutes at 1130.
2:17 – 2:171 turns
Hi.
2:29 – 2:368 turns
Yeah. County Board of Supervisors here in the Santa Maria hearing room and before we turn to our departmental agenda items one and two which I hope to get to before we break for closed session. We'll come back for item D3 after closed session but before we get to those, we really need to decide exactly what we're going to do. We have a meeting scheduled for Thursday December December 14th in two days, it's a cannabis meeting and there is an opportunity to reschedule it for a week later in Santa Barbara on Thursday as well.
And I need a sense of the board about how we'd like to do that. The reason we might want to change it is because many of the people who would like to be involved in the meeting are, in fact, affected by the fire and the ash. So Supervisor Williams?
There's a couple, I think there's a couple things to think about. One is that ballot language development and other things are on a tight timeline. I think that losing a week is significant in that. If we are worried about exhaustion and issues from the fire, we are going to still have those issues next week. I could be convinced that if our EOC staff are just too overworked that it would be prudent to move it but I do think there's significant cost to move it on our policy timeline and that almost all the issues from the public's perspective are going to be present next Thursday as
well. Any other board comments? Supervisor Lavanino?
Thank you, Madam Chair. Yeah I would have to hear from staff as well that I think most the reason why we were pushing for the 14th is because of the timeline of letters that would be coming in and depending on what we decide to do with those letters on the 14th or The window is going to be closing very quickly. So I would need to hear from staff that even if we went to the 21st, that they would be able to turn around if we decided to go that way.
They would need to be able to do what they have to have done by the end of the year. And so and I'm not really sure Based on what the fire's doing, if moving it a week is really going to get to where we need to be. And so and the other thing I'm also worried about is ballot language development and I know Mr. Gazzone is going to be- We're gonna have people, staff's gonna be working over the holidays working on these items if we continue to push them.
Mr. Gazzone did you have something to add?
Chair Hartman, just on the Brown Act area that we're operating under right now. We're talking about an agendized special meeting for the 14th but the board or any supervisor may take an action to direct staff to place a matter on a future agenda. So we're really talking about what day are we going to be doing this scheduling? But I'm just cautioning that this should not be too far into a substantive discussion of what is presently scheduled for the 14th. And you also have scheduled for the 14th both the cannabis open session item and then two closed session items.
Right, and one of the closed session items may be time sensitive so no matter what Thursday we do have a closed session that we have to schedule. So that may influence your thinking Supervisor Adam?
Well I'm just wanting you to be aware that I'm probably going to have to do a remote on Thursday the 21st which is a little unwieldy but it can be done. And that'll I have a prior engagement in the evening and I've got to get going so if if I appear up here I'll be able to stay an hour and 15 minutes longer than I would down there
2:37 – 2:4013 turns
I'll
make a motion and then we'll just figure out from there where we go. And I'll just make a motion that we continue on with the 14th, and if we need to move it to Santa Maria for air quality or whatever other reason, is that something?
Chair Hartman, Supervisor Lavinio. Yes if there is a decision down the road on moving location we'd work with the CEO's office and clerk of the board on that already and that's something that through an abundance of caution 24-hour notice of the change location would work but your agenda clearly indicates that the location is available for public comment from both Santa Maria and Santa Barbara. Thank you.
So that is a motion may I have a second?
Well, I'm thinking about seconding it but I just kind of wanted to hear. Is there an exhaustion factor in EOC staff that plays into the 14th versus the 21st? Because I'm seeing a lot of drawbacks for the 21st.
Supervisors, I take responsibility for making the suggestion of moving it and it was only out of an abundance of caution about what happened since we didn't know what's happening on the fires. And to give adequate notice to the attendees where we are able and willing to do it this Thursday as planned. Mr. Buzanich is lead on it and Taking him off the schedule for the EOC so that he prepped to be ready for it as well as our other departments. It was just really an abundance of caution for the public and not knowing what was going to happen, and that was the reason but we are willing and able if you want to proceed for this Thursday.
And then there's a question do we even need a motion in a second because we're just going forward with what we have already scheduled?
Well, I'll just second it to feed his ego.
Okay we have a motion and a second to affirm that we will meet again on On Thursday, December 14th for a special meeting on cannabis and a closed session. And we may move it if need be?
I think we would need a 24 hour notice so we would have to notice it by tomorrow morning if we were going to move it. So I think Supervisor Lavenita mentioned Santa Maria and that's the suggestion.
Okay so so all as scheduled we do have a motion in a second just to affirm it everybody all in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? So Mr. Gazzone
Thank you, and Chair just so we can do some just on the agenda. I understand that the board plans to do item D1 and D2 to take approximately 30 minutes. And I'm just saying this aloud so that people who are standing by for closed session will have an opportunity to grab a bite before they go into closed session.
Thank you. Would you read item D 1 into the record Mr. Allen?
2:40 – 2:466 turns
Chair Hartman and members of the board, item D1 is from planning and development. It's a hearing to consider recommendations regarding the Coastal Resource Enhancement Fund 2018-22 reassessment annual status report in distribution of the 2018 CREF fees.
Ms. Black?
Yes Madam Chair, Kathy
Pfeiffer will make the staff presentation today. Thank you. Good morning, Chair Hartman and supervisors. This is a hearing on a number of issues related with the Coastal Resource Enhancement Fund. The staff recommendations for your board today are reassess the CREF fees for the next five year period, receive and file the annual CREFS status report. Allocate a certain amount of the 2018 CREFF fees to both the Hollister Ranch Access Program and the Fund Deferral Program.
Amend the CREF guidelines to reflect these three actions and determine that these actions are exempt from CEQA. Permits for the Sanez, Point Aguayo and Point Pedernales oil and gas facilities each require the payment of mitigation fees to CREF for the life of each project. The CREF guidelines stipulate a process by which these fees are reassessed at five year intervals.
The 2018-2022 reassessment is a new five year period. During the five year reassessments, the three oil and gas projects are assigned up to five points per year in each of the four impact categories. Those impact categories are coastal aesthetics, coastal recreation, coastal tourism, and environmentally sensitive coastal resources. The points are multiplied by a fixed dollar amount to determine the CREF fee of each project. The fixed dollar amount was $20,000 in 1988 and is adjusted every five years based on the consumer price index.
The revised CPI adjusted dollar value for the 2018-2022 period is $41,800 per CREF point. The three oil and gas facilities that pay into CREF are the Exxon Mobil, and Point Aguayo which are on the Gaviota Coast here. And then the Point Pedernales which is off the coast of Lompoc there. Staff recommends the 2018-2022 schedule up on the slide here of CREF fees.
Detailed reassessment recommendations are included in attachment A. These reassessments assume that both the Sanez and Point Arguello facilities will continue to be shut down through the five year period due to the planes pipeline remaining unavailable to ship their production. If the facilities are able to operate within the five year period, staff will conduct a mid-cycle reassessment as we did last year when the facilities were purged of oil.
Both Freeport, McMoran and ExxonMobil have reviewed staff proposed reassessments for their respective facilities and concur with staff's recommendations. Appendix B has the annual CREF status report and that is a report that summarizes the 314 CREF grants that we've given out since 1988. The report is organized by district and then by category. If the board does approve the 2018-2022 CREFS fees, the county will be collecting CREFF fees in the amount of $449,350 in 2018.
You may recall because of a special coastal commission condition on the Point Arguello permit, we're required to set aside $1 million towards public access to Hollister Ranch. The CREF guidelines stipulate that approximately 125,000 to 250,000 shall be set aside annually for the next five to seven years in order to accomplish this. Staff recommends that $156,138 be set aside in 2018.
The fund deferral program requires that half of each year's remaining contributions be available to accrue for coastal acquisitions. Therefore, $146,606 would be available for coastal acquisitions, 122,731 would be available for general allocation and a little less than 24,000 to cover administrative costs. In June of this year, the board directed staff to solicit CREF proposals every other year as long as the Point Arguello and Santa Ana's units are not operating. Therefore, the coastal acquisition general allocation amounts would be held in their appropriate sub-funds and then combined with 2019 CREF fees amounts to be solicited and recommended for funding in 2019.
Staff recommends that the board amend the CREF guidelines to include the 2018 and 2022 CREF fees. This includes updating tables with the assessment points. In addition, staff recommends inserting a new table that documents CREFS funds set aside for the Hollister Ranch Access Program. The new table shows that 156,138 would be put in in 2018. And that would combine with $125,450 fees that were set aside last year for a total of $281,588 towards the Hollister Ranch Access Program.
Each subsequent year we would add the contributions to the table. This concludes our presentation on today's item. The recommended actions are outlined on this slide and we're here for any questions. Thank you.
I don't see any lights. Let me just say that, I've pulled this out of my packet and I'm going to keep this in my file. It's the most comprehensive set of materials I've seen on CREF and thank you so much for pulling that together for us. Supervisor Lavenino?
Thank you Madam Chair. So, and I know they agreed to it. I'm just curious what they're mitigating at this point when they're shut down.
2:46 – 3:0714 turns
Chair Hartman, Supervisor Lavernino. There are some points that are for aesthetics, coastal aesthetics. So the platforms, there's some for industrialization of the coast. So there's various, there is some still environmentally sensitive coastal resource that maybe haven't been mitigated completely. So there's a few things with the Sanez and the Puente Guayo facilities.
And this, I should know this but when it was at its height kind of what were we collecting at the time? So we're at 450 now but I mean was it millions or yeah. Historical you don't have to be totally accurate I'm just curious.
On that table one of CREF guidelines, page four. It shows that in the 19... there was a combined year of 1987-88 and it looks like over two million was collected so it's about a million a year back then and then it's just decreased down since. Right
thanks.
Seeing no more lights do we have any public comment on this matter?
No request to speak.
Back to the board is there a motion then to approve staff's recommendations for A through B on page 1. We have a motion and a second, Supervisor Williams? All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion passes. Thank you Ms. Fiverr. Turning then to D2 would you read that into the record Mr. Allen?
Chair Hartman and members of the board item 2 is from the County Executive Office this is a hearing to consider recommendations regarding the 2018 legislative platform
Mr. Bozanich?
Thank you, Chair and members of the board. Bringing the ledge platform with a recommendation by the ledge program committee to approve the 2018 ledge platform. Spent a little bit time going through some of the accomplishments this year on the federal level was we did have a slight increase in our payment in lieu of taxes from the federal government this year up 2% over the previous year And it's been very much appreciated the federal contributions.
These are funds for those who aren't aware, these are funds that the federal government makes available to us for their land holdings here in the county including large tracks both in Los Padres National Forest as well as the Vandenberg Air Force Base We also supported and were successful in moving through the Elder Abuse Prevention and Prosecution Act, which was really intended on the federal level to reinforce at the local level our adult protective services programs. Including preventing folks, older Americans from being subjected to abuse and neglect by caretakers as well as financial abuse of the elderly.
And set aside some penalties for them. Next on the federal accomplishments, we did work with NACO to seek the reauthorization of the Children's Health Insurance Program. As you're probably aware of in media that still has not happened at this point but we continue to work with NACo as a partner in proposing the reauthorization of the CHIP program. And advocating in support of federal resources through the annual appropriation process including things like for pest detection, management activities, food safety inspections as well as addressing the specialty crop pests that we are subject to.
Long list of accomplishments at the state level. This year we sponsored a piece of legislation, AB 566 with Assemblymember Lamone as our sponsor and it was a piece of legislation that we also brought forward last year and sponsored last year and with great help from Director Glenn. See now I am tired. Glenn Russell. Sorry, sorry Glenn. So with to really increase the fines for these professionally organized special events we brought this legislation last year and it failed even though it passed both houses of the legislature in Sacramento, it failed to garner the governor's Signature in the prior session and this session brought it back works closely through our alleged advocates.
To address the concerns of the governor, and we were able to increase those fines. I think it was an important victory for us to be able to address some of those non-permitted uses out there. I won't mention anybody's weddings or anything, but those kinds of events that went forward without them seeking permits because it was frankly cheaper for them just to pay the local fine than it was and so this did create a fairly significant increase in those penalties and fines.
And if I might interrupt, I had the opportunity to go up and testify and meet with the governor's staff on this. And I just wanted to acknowledge the tremendous support we had from Assemblymember Limon's office. She expended some political capital and walked us around and kept us informed on what was happening with this.
They were, Assemblymember Lamone's office was a pleasure to work with this year on this process. And just again I think it's really important to give a large deal of credit to Glenn Russell and his work on this particular piece of legislation. One of the things that we did do is we did oppose and work through our delegation on our opposition to AB 653, which was brought forward by Assemblymember Ridley-Thomas. That would have allowed that the property taxes for those properties that are held in fee. But have been that where they're seeking a trust application, that we would no longer be able to collect property tax revenues from them. And so we worked in opposition to that piece of legislation because again it really diminished local control of a property tax that was still actually held in fee but might be an application period with the federal government to take that property into trust.
And if I might interrupt again because I was watching this very closely, there were many different iterations of this bill. It was hard to keep track but the most radical would have created a housing authority to make exempt housing owned by members of the tribe their families at their lineal descendants so it had the potential not just for lands coming into trust It was modified, but I do remember initially we were looking at our ledge platform and saying does this really fit? So when we come back again, I want to make sure that we have that squarely within Something that we feel comfortable about because this is on hold largely Chairman Khan agreed to hold it back and Senator Jackson Worked really hard to hold it, but it will be back.
And we need to pay some attention because it has tremendous impacts for our property tax which iteration of this goes forward.
Thank you. We also worked with the California State Association of Counties, CSAC and as well as a broad coalition of folks that came together to really advocate on behalf of a changed funding formula for road repairs and mass transit projects throughout the state, the Fix Our Roads Coalition. We were active members in that especially with Director McGulpin and our public works department was working closely in alliance with his state association to successfully get past SB 1, which has provided another $5.2 billion for road repair statewide.
By adjusting the gas tax and also some of the other transportation fees that we'll be paying. And there will be some additional fees that will come online in the next fiscal year, or next calendar year I should say. That will continue to enhance those funds and so that was an exciting piece of legislation. We also worked in opposition to the enactment of AB 649, which would have eliminated the discretionary review for the installation of these rather small telecommunication cells throughout a community.
And we've had this board has considered these kinds of items throughout but This bill, AB 649 would have basically prevented us from having any discretion on any antenna anywhere. And even more strangely it would have not allowed us to charge any kind of franchise fee for the placement of these antennas on our own property and so it was really pretty difficult bill to swallow.
Made it through both houses of the legislature, was finally vetoed by the governor. So this one was a very challenging bill this year. Another one that we've been talking about extensively this year was AB 1250 which we successfully opposed and this would have really subjected us to some significant Challenges in terms of the economic analysis for every single contract that this board, for services that this Board of Supervisors lets. And if you think about all of the non-profit organizations that we contract with to provide our direct services to residents. This would have created a situation where we would have had done a cost benefit analysis on every single one of those and we were successful along with a large number of other counties.
Throughout the state of California. This was an interesting one too, because the original piece of legislation included both cities and counties in these auditing and cost benefit analysis processes. But the cities quickly jumped on that and got themselves excluded from this piece of legislation and left it to just affect counties. We were also successfully opposed right at the very end of the legislative session An effort to freeze the formation of any community choice aggregation projects that were underway and this of course is you know at a time when your board is has Requested that that be studied and considered in this county And so this would have really prevented us from going forward. We were successful and as Chair Hartman just mentioned a moment ago about another piece of legislation.
This one is likely to come back again next year during the second year of the legislative session in Sacramento. We also supported AB 114, which was the Mental Health Services Act trailer bill that helped preserve local funding. And last, but certainly not least on the state accomplishments was our support for SB 44 that Senator Hennabeth Jackson sponsored. That was designed and will now increase funding for the reduction and elimination of coastal hazards including the remediation of these legacy wells utilizing tideland oil revenues as the funding source.
For those pieces, and that was passed with unanimous support in the assembly and then signed by the governor. So not sure what happens to November there. This is the schedule for our 2018 so moving from our accomplishments for this past year on to the development of our ledge platform for 2018. We go through August, we began to look at both the timeline reviewing the legislative principles that are at the very front of those. And we identified any needed planks brought back to the ledge program committee in September.
The review of submitted ongoing planks so when there were very few edits needed departments were able to submit those as first step of a process and Ledge Program Committee reviewed about 13, 14, 15 of those planks in the September meeting. They came back in October and reviewed all of the new and revised planks. We gave departments additional time this year to make revisions to those planks that needed updating or that were brand new.
In November, which is the blank box there. We then reviewed all the planks in the platform and the principles together. In December, the Legislative Program Committee did a final review and recommended to your board adoption of the 2018 legislative platform. And so here we are today reviewing with your board the possible adoption. This follows a timeline very closely with what we've done over the last several years.
Just to quickly point out the ledge principles, these did not change this year and they were slightly altered last year by your board actually at a similar hearing last January in consideration of the 2017 principles. We revised a couple of these to include things like the DACA programs or for the DACA folks and a number of other things but ostensibly these principles remained identical to what they were for 2017 They cover the areas of job growth and economic vitality, efficient service delivery and operations, fiscal stability, interagency collaboration. Local control health and human services as well as community sustainability environmental protection It's worth noting that many of the advocacy positions we take, especially at the state level really are about reinforcing those local control issues and kind of trying to reduce the risk of state preemption of a lot of county responsibilities.
As in the past platforms, we really have identified three strategies. The first one are the funding requests where we ask the state or federal government for additional funding to support particular operations or program goals. Secondly, we look at proposed legislation as another one of our strategies where appropriate. Where that kind of specific legislative language is ripe and ready. And then very often we're doing targeted advocacy around positions and issues as they come into development.
We do in the legislative platform for 2018 that's in front of you, we do group them by principles and for review. And then on any plank, the board majority may today direct us to adopt that as part of the platform. That's kind of the initial Public or initial recommended action. You could also choose to refer one or more planks back to the legislative program committee for minor changes, or significant changes and any direction on those latter two bullet points would be greatly appreciated to expedite the work of the committee.
So as we look at the individual planks themselves that are grouped under the job growth and economic vitality principle, these are all unchanged from our current principle. Some have been updated to include the latest information. And the titles here, Advancement of Women and Girls, Arts and Culture, Comprehensive Immigration Reform, Economic Enhancement. The Lower Mission Creek Project to Reduce Flooding, Marketplace Equity and Consumer Protection, Groundwater Management Funding as well as Regional Approach to addressing US Highway 101 widening.
Under the Efficient Service Delivery and Operations, again we continue with child support access to court files. County library services and some requests for funding on that. Improving our local governance in the unincorporated powers as well as modernization of the Child Support Program overall. Under fiscal stability, request for funding based on the farm bill for increased crop protection from pests in particular.
So that's one of the key pieces there. Funding as well for pesticide law enforcement activities. For those that are violation oftentimes those aren't covered by fees but are much more of an enforcement action. Fiscal stability around public safety priorities, especially those aligned with the Community Corrections Partnership. As well as then sustainable infrastructure funding and again tying that back to the success that our particular ledge program had this year around advocating and getting support and approval of Senate Bill 1.
In terms of interagency collaboration, we continue to put forward the Hollister State Street Improvement Project which touches a variety of different departments and entities and now is a critical part of the Eastern Goleta Valley Community Plan. The Invasive Species Program funding, and so how do we reduce and manage those as well as funding for the Lake Kachuma. Especially some of the recreational aspects of the Lake Kachuma program in partnership with the federal government that actually has the lake.
Local control, we continue to bring forward the telecommunication legislation. Again, we tend to be at a little bit of a disadvantage in addressing telecommunication projects as they come forward and our plank around telecommunication legislation does seek to increase the amount of local decision making that can be on some of those telecommunication projects. And we continue in alignment with the California State Association of Counties, continue to hold out there some important pieces around tribal gaming compacts and land use that again as I mentioned are in conjunction with what CSAC recommends.
Here's a rather extensive list of health and service program planks that were updated or brought forward, again as needing your consideration and legislative consideration. I will note at the very bottom one brand new plank that was brought forward by our Department of Social Services in the Workforce Investment Board. On the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act funding, you'll recognize that as a fairly recent change in the Department of Labor programming around workforce development. And so they're needing now to make sure that that funding base is sustainable as we go forward and the federal government looks at a variety of changing priorities around funding.
And then last but not least, the last principle and the last set of planks really here address a number of items that we've talked about in the past. The fact that we lost during the recession, the subvention that we received from the state for the Williamson Act properties under contract. The air quality programming, and especially around marine vessel emissions as they travel through the Santa Barbara Channel. Community development programs through our HUD-related programs and CDBG programs.
Energy and climate concerns, healthy soils funding to maintain the Santa Barbara County Courthouse. Oil and gas infrastructure safety compliance parks in open spaces. Regional coastal management programs, as well as then some revisions to the waste recovery and reduction programs. Recognizing some of the movement on the Tejigawas project. Veterans Memorial buildings, the support and the funding to maintain those, as well as the wastewater treatment systems.
And so just to wrap that up, so the recommended actions on the part of the Legislative Program Committee is to adopt the legislative platform and or refer a plank or planks back to the committee for further consideration. And then find that the proposed actions do not constitute a project within the CEQA guidelines and I'm happy to answer any questions.
3:07 – 3:1316 turns
I don't see any lights. Do we have any public comment?
Chair Hartman, members of the board, we have one request to speak. Andy Caldwell
Madam Chair, members of the board, Andy Caldwell representing Colab. Year in and year out there's three issues that literally threaten our solvency and our existence. And they never make it into the platform. We've asked that it be put into the platform. One of them is the California rule. Why isn't it a priority of this board? To ask that the California rule be addressed by legislation.
The bottom line, a judge is the one that came up with the California rule. It wasn't an act of legislation but only the legislators can fix it. There is a Supreme Court case right now that might fix it but we don't know if it will or not. Why don't you ask? I wanted to ask CSAC to make it a legislative priority. Because as you well know, the stock market is not going to stay up forever and you will not be able to withstand another major correction.
So why? I don't understand why I've had to ask for this more than once. I didn't understand why all five of you aren't pounding the desk saying put it in. The other issue was water resources. On the bottom line, California quit developing water resources when we had 20 million people in the state. We now have 40 million. The only reason we still have water is because of drip irrigation and low flow toilets and showers and things like that. We need more dams and reservoirs not just in Northern California, we need them here.
We need to quit releasing water to the ocean. As a result of this fire, it looks like you're not going to have a single reservoir that's not going to be impacted by debris and ash making your water undrinkable. What are we going to do then? Where is the emergency contingency plan for that? You should be asking for money from the state to come up with something quick. Finally, the issue we brought up today, fire.
Roadless wilderness areas that ban mechanized equipment is a fire disaster waiting to happen. You need to put in your plank that we need to be able to do control burns, we need to be able to do fire breaks, we need to be able to do roads and we need be able to clear vegetation. We need to invite loggers into reduce The density of trees, even if it's cutting down oak trees for firewood or what have you. We need cows in there, we need goats in there, we need access. We need to get rid of this hands-off approach because it's literally, do you know how darn lucky you are that the Santa Anas weren't worse? Do you know how darn lucky you were that there aren't fires elsewhere that you were able to get 7,000 firefighters here?
Change policies, this is your wish list for changed policies. Why is it fire water and pensions on the list? Thank you.
That concludes public comment
Back to the board any comments questions observations Supervisor Adam
I just need a roll call vote
all right would you like to make the motion All right, Supervisor Williams.
I'll move to approve the report and approval of the legislative platform.
And I will second that. All right, and could we have a roll any further discussion? Could we have a roll call vote Mr. Allen?
Mr. Adam? No. Mr. Lavinino? Aye. Mr Williams? Aye. Ms Wolfe?
Aye
Miss Hartman?
Aye
Passes 4 to 1
Okay We're going to break for closed session. Mr Gazzone would you tell us what we're gonna do?
Chair Hartman and Supervisors, today I estimate that closed session will take about two hours. Your agenda is to consider seven separate items. The first is one matter of deciding whether to initiate civil litigation. Then we have two ongoing litigation cases. The first is Flath versus County of Santa Barbara then Rancho La Laguna versus County of Santa Barbara.
You also have a conference with legal counsel concerning another existing litigation case, this time sitting as the Board of Directors of the Flood Control and Water Conservation District. That case is San Barbara County Flood Control and Water Conservation District versus Funk Youth Hostel. You also have another matter as the flood control board of deciding whether to initiate civil litigation.
You have one item, another item as the Flood Control Board concerning a conference with real property negotiators for real property at 324 Dela Vena Street in Santa Barbara. And finally, as the Board of Supervisors you have a conference with real property negotiators concerning portions of the Coho Halama Ranch, the vicinity of the 100,000 block of Halama Road which is adjacent to portions of Halama Beach County Park and again my estimate is about two hours.
3:13 – 3:131 turns
Okay, so we'll be back about 2.15 or 2.30 for item D3 on our agenda and so we'll adjourn to closed session. Let's give ourselves maybe 10 minutes before we actually start. Those who want a hot lunch can be there but those of us, we won't start closed session deliberations and discussions for another ten minutes.
3:21 – 4:451 turns
♪ You. Hello. Good morning, everyone. Good morning, everyone. Music . Yeah. Yeah. Thank you. you Okay. Hi. Thank you. All right. Music Hi. Yeah. Okay. Okay. you Okay.
5:21 – 5:2712 turns
Good morning, good afternoon. We're reconvening the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors December 12th, 2017. It's been a very long week here in our Santa Maria hearing room and Mr. Gazzone would you report out from closed session?
Chair Hartman and supervisors, today in closed session the board considered one item of anticipated litigation. Two items of existing litigation, Flathie County of Santa Barbara, the second Rancho La Laguna versus County of Santa Barbara. And then as the Santa Barbara County Flood Control District three separate real property items. One, the litigation with Funk Youth Zone Hostel. Two, a decision whether to initiate civil litigation and third real property negotiations concerning 324 Dela Vena Street. You also had as the Board of Supervisors for the county two real property negotiation considerations one involving portions of Coho Halama Ranch.
Which is adjacent to portions of Halama Beach County Park, and then submerged lands off the coast of Carpinteria connecting to platforms Hogan and Hoochin. And there are no reportable actions.
Thank you, and we're returning now to our departmental agenda, our third and final item. Ms. Alexander would you read that into the record?
Chair Hartman and members of the board, departmental item number three is from the county executive office. It is a hearing to consider recommendations regarding fiscal year 2018 through 2020 fiscal issues report and budget development policies.
Thank you and Mr. Propwell?
Thank You madam chair members the board I'd like to walk you through our report that we have in front of you it is our fiscal issues report as well as married with the budget development policy for your boards consideration this afternoon You recall that in October we brought to your board the five-year forecast of projected expenditure and revenue growth. And that was really our first, what I call the first building block as we consider the upcoming budget development process.
And so the five year forecast really set the stage and it really tried to identify at a school operations What was the cost of the status cooperations relative to the growth that we were going to project in the county's discretionary revenue? And so, that report highlighted kind of the gaps we are projecting in the upcoming fiscal year and the four fiscal years subsequent to that.
The items before you today is building block number two, which is a fiscal issues report. And the purpose of this report is really to identify for your board and kind of some key issues that we see coming up. These were identified by our operating departments in consultation with the CEO's office and really tries to put some numbers around those and understand kind of at very high level what issues we are looking at over the next two years.
Included also in your report are several items that we aren't able to quantify at the moment, but we know have to be grappled with as we develop next year's budget or looking into the future. We'll conclude today's report with some suggestions on proposed budget development policies. And so this is really the third building block, so if you take the first two building blocks as kind of setting stage, setting the understanding of the context in which we are considering the budget, the developed post-development policies really then Put those into place for the departments to consider as they submit their requested budget in the development of this coming year's fiscal budget.
Let me highlight for you, and it is also all included in your board report. But I'll highlight what we'll go over. So we looked at the Fiscal Issues Report really as an overview of significant fiscal issues. The varying levels of likelihood on these, and I'll talk a little bit about that when I go through them. And we've also, issues are selected based on analysis of potential losses of state and federal revenues, maintenance capital needs, and our commitments to establish funding plans.
There are 10 issues which we've highlighted in your report. The first one here is deferred maintenance, this is not a new item, this is not anything surprising but it is a recognition of the ongoing The importance of focusing on the maintenance of our county's infrastructure, largely through public works, general services and community services as it relates to county parks.
And we know that we have a unmet need out there. We know that it continues to be something that has to be in the forefront of our thought as we develop the priorities for next year's budget. Your board has an 18% funding policy where the policy is that 18% of unallocated discretionary revenue is allocated to this deferred maintenance backlog. We, your board adopted this in effective 2015 and so we have been trying to adhere to that and we actually have adhered to it but it was not, the 18% of unallocated has not Produced the amount of resources toward this need that we had originally projected in 2015. So we've tried to, in the current year, match that amount with a combination of ongoing and one-time revenues.
Supervisor Adams?
Thank you. And just for clarification purposes, the 18-19 impact and the 19-20 impact is going to be a cumulative... You add those two together right?
Supervisor Adam, through the chair that's correct.
Okay good deal thank you. And we can assume that there's ongoing that we just don't see because you're talking about two years?
That's correct.
Thanks
5:27 – 5:3524 turns
And you can see here from this slide and also included in your document that the estimated backlog total between the three departments is roughly 400 million, and it breaks down as indicated here on the slide between Public Works, General Services, and Community Services. Item number two that we've highlighted for your board is the IHSS mandate. We've talked a lot about that over the last few budget discussions, both during the workshops last year as well as the adoption of the budget and it really is kind of a moving target for us to manage with the state.
You recall that the state modified its maintenance of effort requirement in IHS beginning the current fiscal year. We addressed that as we adopted the current year budget. We knew at that time, the formula to identify the county's level of MOE was still in flux at that time. It continues to be in flux although I think we have a pretty good handle on where that MOE will be moving in the next two fiscal years or at least upcoming fiscal year.
Your board prudently set aside $625,000 in the current year budget of ongoing revenues to address the increase in IHSS MOE. And so if you look on the fourth bullet point here we think that the MOE increase over the current fiscal year will range some place in the 400-700 thousand dollars range. But as the last bullet point highlights, your board did set aside 625. And so if we subtract that from the ultimate up to 700, we're projecting here on the top of this slide an impact for fiscal year 18-19 of 0 to 75,000. So I think that we are in fairly good shape but that MOE continues to grow in the out years and so you'll see that the additional impact in 2019-20 is projected 400 to 800,000 above what we're projecting this next year.
Supervisor Wolfe?
Thank you. Mr. Frappo, what is the reason for such a spread between the 400,000 to 700 or the 400,000-800,000? Supervisor Wolfe of the chair, good question. Part of the formula from the state
and as they identify the MOE for each county Kind of projects where that MOE is, but there's an offset to that from growth of realignment dollars. And so some of that is kind of a range of how much that offset will be and at this point we can't accurately predict what that growth amount would be when it has historically grown. We have taken historical growth numbers and computed that back but unfortunately this is about as precise as we can be at the moment. We are continuing to work with CSAC on this. This is something that is one of their top priorities as they work through with the state agencies to stabilize this ISSS MOEs.
So if it is at the lower range, which I guess is as possible as the higher range. Then the 625 that we've set aside, we would see some money from that?
Yeah, Supervisor Wolf for the chair. So correct. If let's say that the impact for next fiscal year is only the 400 and we have set aside already 625 so you'd have the balance, the delta to reallocate to other purposes if your board so chose.
OK
thank you.
Madam Chair. Or-
Supervisor Lavinino, yes.
Or save it for 2019, 2020 when we know it's going to go up again? Right. Okay.
Yeah I think that's right. We would make that decision.
Item number three highlighted in the report is the NCAR video and computer system replacement for the Sheriff's Department. The sheriff's vehicles, roughly 67 of them have MDTs or mobile data terminals within their units. They typically have a life expectancy of four to five years, not 45, 4-5. And we are in the fifth year of their life and so they're beginning to fail. This was an item brought to us by the Sheriff's Department. It is a need of a one-time investment in capital.
But also highlights, I think the need for us to more methodically set its monies aside on a depreciating schedule so that when it becomes time to replace them again in the next four or five years. That there are funds to set aside and reserved to do that. So what you have on this slide is identification of a million dollar impact for consideration in the upcoming fiscal year. And you'll see in the out year, A number of 125 ongoing, that is to set monies aside for planned replacement in a five year time frame. So that's the numbers here on this slide.
Madam Chair?
Sorry, Supervisor Lavenino.
So you're scaring me in that, you're telling me that we put no money aside in the Sheriff's Department for replacement. What about vehicles? Do they have a vehicle
replacement fund? Supervisor Lavinia to the chair so there are a number of critical systems. Within departments that have a variety of set asides for them. So in your specific question about vehicles, there is a depreciation plan and there are funds that are established on an ongoing basis so that when those vehicles need replaced we can replace the vehicles.
Unfortunately some of the equipment in the vehicles such as what we're talking about here- There's nothing? Is no set aside.
Okay, and then I'd also point out that 125 over five years isn't going to give us the replacement value. So we might have to pump that but- Right. Huh?
So it really depends on technology fluctuates in cost and value and some parts get cheaper and some parts get more expensive. But at a minimum, it suggests 125 be satisfied each year for that.
Supervisor
Wolk? Thank you, Madam Chair. So when we did our last year's budget there was, we did do something in the Sheriff's Department with radio transmission but I think it had to do with QIAMA that there was a problem with the sheriff's communicating and QIAMA. I think we allocated money is that correct?
Supervisor Wolfe through the chair and we're going to talk about three items that are kind of all sorry can't see Mr. Gazzone. There are three items kind of all somewhat related, and we'll talk about each one of them in distinct pieces. But your recollection is correct. In the current year budget, we did a set aside funds provided to general services for two purposes. And that is there was a component that dealt with some additional microwave sites, radio repeater sites, to enhance coverage for the radio system.
And there is also a piece, $300,000 that's coming up in one of the next slides. $300,000 that was identified to start replacing handheld radios by public safety departments. And so we'll talk about that in one of our upcoming slides but your recollection is correct that we did make an investment of monies toward the overall communication system.
So is that already in place, that allocation? The $300,000 to take care of the problem with the Chasmalia communication. Is
Mrs. Pell here?
5:35 – 5:4120 turns
I know we're getting off budget, but I do want to make sure that the money that was allocated has been spent.
Madam Chairman, Supervisor Wolff, Jeanette Powell, we have a project schedule that we're working on. Some of the budget allocation has been spent and we've completed it. Three projects to enhance the repeater sites, and we have several more to go. And we're pretty much on target. We're implementing basically one a month so we're working on that. As far as radios, we're going to start with probation. We met with the Santa Maria City on Friday. And we're going to work with them to make sure that probation can use their radios in the Santa Maria area. So, we're moving ahead. Great, thank you.
Supervisor Williams?
She said both. Actually,
they're both part of the project.
Yeah. So you're actually right by saying both because they're both part of the project. Okay so you got to tell me we spend $15,000 per unit and we only expect them to have a useful life of four to five years?
Supervisor Williams of the chair, this is the department's estimate on these will live for the equipment. I will tell you that it probably gets stretched to seven in reality but they are very expensive as it relates to the communication with our patrol vehicles and actually part of this is getting more expensive as technology continues to expand With the use of a lot of video now, lapel videos and going on with all of our safety personnel. So the equipment's actually getting more complex rather than less.
I for one would love to have your independent opinion as to when replacement is actually needed because they're awfully expensive units if we expect them to only last four or five years.
Supervisor Adam.
Well, on that one you know when's the last time you got a new phone?
Four years ago and the last time I got a computer was seven so you know And I'll hold out another few years, especially if I was in a significant, if I was broke. Yeah and there's no doubt. Which I essentially am so I mean you know. So I'll defer for a few more years
as well so that's good but still you got to figure out what you're really in business to do and this goes to the prioritization And it's probably, Mr. Frapwell has something to do with the warranty period, right?
Supervisor Adam, to the Chair, you have a number of things. You have warranty obviously, you have reliability and so I don't think the idea is replace units before they're needed but to have funds available to replace as needed. So that's why I think the numbers only 125 as are projected going forward. We do expect the units to last more than five years. But I do appreciate.
You're going to say my issue is priorities, which is we don't have sufficient patrol strength right now and maybe we would want to put money there first so
Well, the thing is if you send the guys out there with no backup and no communications.
You might as well not do it. I mean- That's why I want an independent assessment of whether it will last another year or not.
Supervisor Lavinino has been patiently waiting.
That's rare. I'm just curious if you have to buy all 67 of them at one time for a million dollars as opposed to if we did an incremental? And I know some of these things are about what's that? Well, what's 15,000 times 67? I think you're looking. The first year it looks like you want to replace them all next year and I'm just saying hey do they all have to be replaced at once and I know you're saying in the future we'll start saving money for incremental replacement but I don't know, what's
67 times 15? Supervisor Lavinia to the chair. And I probably was a little remiss in introducing these items but please know that each one of these items as we go through and talk about them has yet to be fully vetted. And so obviously as part of that vetting process, we will be addressing the very issues I think that your board is bringing up. A, is that the right useful life? B, how do we best put this in place? It's not, in my experience, It's not always the best practice to go through and replace everything at once, rather phase that in. And so as we're looking at these issues going forward and developing the recommended budget for next year, we'll be looking at all those things because I think your point is well taken. That's an important thing to look at and how do we phase that in?
It gets to the other issue of the fiscal reality. You know, and I think that gets to Supervisor Williams' point as well. How do you balance priorities? And you know all these are important and so when you're looking at what your options are and alternatives are we'll bring back kind of that more complete assessment for your board's considerations through the budget process.
So I think points well taken.
No more lights so you can continue.
5:42 – 5:4717 turns
Issue four, again no nothing new here that your board has not been briefed on before and it continues to be an issue and challenge within the behavioral wellness department. And how we deal with our IMD needs, how we deal with the PUF requirements and the whole mix of administrative days versus acute days as it relates to their revenue. And so just know that this continues to be a very high priority on our radar screen. Working very hard with the department and the stakeholders to look for ways to mitigate and get these costs under control. But this is again a persistent problem and challenge that we have, so we thought it was prudent to leave it on the fiscal issues report.
Supervisor
Wolf. Thank you madam chair in last year's budget development policy report Behavioral wellness operations was noted there as well And it says it says that a fund balance of 1 million dollars has been established using one-time funds So do we have? We we continue to have that special fund a set aside and
Supervisor Wolfe of the Chair, that is correct. So in the adoption of the current year budget we did set aside $1 million of one-time monies. Historically your board has been called upon to release those dollars to help support the department in midyear. I suspect given the first quarter report that we brought to your board already and what we expect to see in the upcoming quarter reports is that will probably be necessary again this year?
So instead of the $1 million, are you suggesting that we put aside $4 million into that fund?
Supervisor Wolff to the Chair. I don't think we're in the point today of making that suggestion. I think the purpose of this slide is really identify kind of the outside amount of the dollar and I think it kind of helps us hone in on figuring out what the right solution is. But it could be. I mean, I think that the solution to this problem This challenge is multifaceted, and so it may be.
We may come to your board and say we think you ought to set aside additional above the million. Maybe it's not. Maybe there's ways that in working with the department that we can figure out ways to bring that cost down.
So basically what I assume is that this is pretty theoretical at this point? All of these, I guess there's ten issues.
I suppose it can be looked at as theoretical but I will tell you there is some real reality to each of these as
well. So then if there is some reality to it because like I said in our last budget development policies we have a whole section on identifying and mitigating fiscal risks. And we have A through E listed. So it would have been, I think it would be good to know what are those actual fiscal risks so that they could've been included into our fiscal policy? So for instance you have future new jail operations, post-employment benefits, workers' compensation costs, employee health insurance and behavioral wellness.
So those things, except for behavioral wellness and maybe the jail have kind of fallen off of this ten. And they're not even in our policy. I wish there would have been But we had last year and give us this year rather than this kind of format where some of it is theoretical and some of it is reality. And
so that's
what, that's
what we need. Supervisor Wolf for the chair. That's a good point in trying to identify what, what is it that we're presenting? I think Mr. Frapp will try to explain it and maybe we didn't do a good enough job Those other issues that we talk about, we always talk about workers comp, OPEB all those things. The reason they're not on the slide is because we believe we have incorporated into our projection those additional costs and I'm looking at Mr. Frapple in our five year projection we did. In the past we brought those to you because there was more uncertainty or there were higher costs So I think we're saying that in our projection, we have accounted for those things. What he's showing you today are these gross costs and so I get to your point exactly.
These aren't the net costs that we may be looking for. I think these are just identification of these gross costs before doing the budget problem-solving of how we're going to cover those costs. You raise a good point there could be other revenues to do that but at this point in December before we start getting into the budget process Mr. Frapwell is just identifying those issues As we've done, I think the county's done over the past ten years in the same format.
So then I'm understanding that some of those issues that we had last year are no longer issues? We've incorporated them into, you folded it into the budget.
Supervisor Wolfe, that is correct. For instance
on
the OPEB your board took action to adopt a policy that said a certain percentage of payroll needs to go into our OPEB funding in order to bring the unfunded liability to zero and so that was put in place by your board I think very prudently and and so we're continuing that and so that one's addressed so that doesn't show up here because it's already built into our projections.
Thank you. Supervisor Williams
5:47 – 5:555 turns
Do you recall how much our previous beds at Vista Del Mar were costing a year?
I don't off the top of my head, Supervisor Williams. So
that I mean, I guess what I want to bring up a couple issues is just I just want to put out a question, how sustainable this is. And if it is not sustainable, if we should be doing something drastic and I don't mean something drastic but non-humane but drastic like look, we're exceeding capacity right now at the PUF. Temporarily because the fire. But guess what? When the fire ends, Vista Del Mar is still burned down.
If the state buys our reasoning for temporary exceeding licensed capacity well I hope they would or we should make the case that we should be exceeding license capacity for a longer amount of time which My understanding does do something different to the budgetary picture. And I would love to at least see that run as a scenario, to see if it's worth putting some effort into making that case with the state.
Supervisor Weber, we'd be happy to look at that. I know that we are working closely and diligently with the department to look at options. Our last bullet point on this slide specifically talks about an opportunity which we may have to increase actually the number of in-county acute involuntary long term beds so that's an option that will exploring more fully and presenting that to your board for your consideration as well. So there are a lot of things going on I think to look at ways to mitigate and reduce the escalation of cost in this area, and it's really going to depend A lot on our ability to work collaborative for our stakeholders.
In this area of our services, really we get the result of actions that are taken upstream and so to the extent that we can successfully work with our stakeholders to find ways Not get all of our clients, that would be great as well. So I think the answer to this is really, as I mentioned before, really multifaceted and it's going to take some creative approaches to it. And I do like your suggestion about perhaps the state allowing us to have more folks in our PUF. It's certainly less expensive to do so than it is to farm out to third party beds.
Issue number five, which I'm glad Mrs. Pell is still here, Here's the elephant in the room. If you wanted to know things that keep me awake, this would be one of them and it's not unique to Santa Barbara County. This is the same issue that we were facing in Kern County before I left and that is the planned replacement of our overall communication system that handles public safety.
You recall over our 4,000 plus square miles, we have a series of repeaters and radio microwave sites that really carry Both data and radio communication for our law enforcement and public safety response staff. And so it is nearing the end of its useful life, That hangs on these towers, these repeater sites. I won't speak for Mrs. Pell but we probably have resorted to trying to find parts on eBay.
This is equipment that Motorola and the other companies no longer support. And so the ability to get replacement parts and maybe that's unique. Maybe that was just a current kind of thing. But I suspect not. And so this is a significant issue. It is not something that we're likely to see any cost needing to be covered in the upcoming budget, but it will need addressing over the longer term.
So the department has contracted with a firm by the name of Federal Engineering. And their goal is to develop some alternatives and some best practices for full integration of a radio communication system with our other law enforcement partners here in the county, and outside the county for that matter. And so that we understand what our options are, what the cost of those options are, what the pros and cons of the different options. And to develop ultimately a cutover plan of how do we transition?
There's currently $4 million set aside in internal service fund for the system replacement but that is woefully inadequate relative to the full price tag. Now this is a project that is multi-year in nature, and so as we look at how do you eat this elephant of a cost? There are a number of ways to do that. And I suspect that this may include some form of consideration of debt financing for instance.
Setting aside money each year and so that much like we did for the northern branch jail operations, we start small and build in more incremental pieces. So that we have the funds set aside to do that. So there's a number of options that we're going to have to look at. How do we creatively finance and pay for the replacement system? But the purpose of this really in today's report is to make sure it's on everybody's radar screen that this will be a need that we're going to have to address.
Supervisor Wolf? Thank you, Madam Chair. So I recall we discussed this and we did set aside the money and it's obviously a huge concern but what is... so we've got the four million dollars but as you said we're going to need a substantially larger amount of money to do this. So i go back to what I talked about ad nauseum as debt financing and we had actually set aside money a couple years ago to pay for that And I know Ms. Pell is, I think you're compiling a list of larger projects so that we can- We continue to see these problems and yet I sometimes get frustrated that we're not moving forward.
And yet, I totally understand Jeanette you're doing such a good job in researching everything and you will come to the board with something that's reasonable and researched. But I think when we keep seeing these things come up, it's like my God this is horrible. Well it is horrible but it's not the first time that we've seen it. So that sometimes what is troubling about this report Every one of these ten issues except the Waller Park, almost every one is something that we've seen before.
So anyway I look forward to the time when we can actually start addressing these big ticket items and I'm certain that's going to be happening soon. I'm hopeful that it will.
5:55 – 6:0621 turns
Item number six in the report is really kind of the third piece of the overall communication system, and that is the actual portable radio piece. We thought it was important to break these up into three separate ones although they all have some interrelatedness if that's a word. But this is the piece that your board did partially address, and we identified as we went through the budget hearing process that this was the investment we made in the current fiscal year which is $300,000. It's really the first phase of a multi-year process to replace the handheld radios for public safety.
And so the $300,000 that was allocated to general services for this purpose. There's a plan as Mrs. Bell mentioned a moment ago. There's a plan to first I think address the public radios within probation although ironically the ones in probation are probably the newest we have in the system. They do have a functional requirement to interact with the city of Santa Maria, and so who operate on the 700 megahertz system. And so I think what the plan is and maybe I should just let Mrs. Bell speak to that plan.
Thank you. So the plan is indeed to look at the, I think there's about 18 radios at the probation department. That we will replace and then take those 18 radios and move them to the sheriff's office And repurpose those and then spend the remainder of the remaining dollars To replace some additional radios for the Sheriff's Department and and begin the process again We don't want to necessarily replace all radios at one time. We'll want to phase them in probably over a five-year period But we are now I'm going to be capturing depreciation so that we have money set aside when it's time to replace them next go around. So that's our plan for now.
You may as well stick around. Item number seven are the solar projects. You'll recall that the general services have brought a number of reports to your board and are in the process of evaluating the responses to an RFP that was issued by the department, to look at opportunities to expand the county's solar projects. The purpose obviously in the investment of solar is to not only reduce our carbon footprint, but also to ultimately reduce our cost of utilities. And so I know that Mrs. Spell and her staff will be bringing a report back to your board early in the year 2018 with direction on it. Mrs. Spell, anything else?
So that's correct, we received four responses. We're working through trying to determine the projects we want to recommend to the board. And to Supervisor Wolf's previous comments, this will be one of those projects where we're going to likely recommend some debt financing. So we're moving forward with this particular project and we're also creating a list to bring forward to the board on some recommended projects as well.
Thank you for that on the solar projects. When do you think we'll get the other list?
We're refining it right now and I'd like to bring it back in January, probably more towards the end. Okay thank you.
Supervisor Adam?
On that solar thing when you bring that back can you please tell us on a cash flow basis what the payback period is on that?
Yes we
will. Good deal thank you
Item number eight is the South County Main Jail Facilities, Deferred Maintenance and Other Operational Costs. We've talked about this again as Supervisor Wolk mentioned, this is not a new issue either. We know that we have deferred maintenance requirements in the main jail. We do have recently contracted with Vanna Construction or to develop an implementation plan. And to bring all the previous reports together into one cohesive plan and implementation and a prioritization of what projects within the main jail need to be done, and in what sequencing.
It's likely that we will begin that after the North Branch Jail opens. That frees up some space and gives the department some flexibility on You know, moving inmates out of an area so they can do whatever project they need to in that. And so that's why we don't see an impact in the upcoming fiscal year but there will definitely start being an impact in the 19-20 year. That's our estimate.
Item number nine again is a repeat item this is a vintage ranch bridge project This is a project, bridge that was part of the plan required by the Orchard Community Plan. But was not specifically identified in the development impact or the transportation improvement plan and so at some point this project will be required. I don't have a lot of history on that but both Mr. Gazzone, I'm sure as well as we have a representative from Public Works who can talk more about this if your board has questions.
The final item that we've identified is the Waller Park irrigation well. This was a kind of late breaking item for us, this was an issue of some failure or starting to have failure in the existing well there at Waller Park and so the number we have here of $750,000 is a very conservative estimate I suspect that When everything's engineered and set and done, it will be less than that. But we thought it was important to at least have a number to identify for the board. We'll be continuing to work with community services on this, develop the actual need and requirement design this and get bids when appropriate.
But it is something that I think is on our immediate horizon and will need to be addressed next fiscal year. If things progress sooner and the needs to be addressed in current fiscal year, then we'll Identify where those funds might come from and bring that back to your board But at the moment we're looking at next fiscal year to do this project.
Supervisor Wolf. Thank you Madam Chair yeah, you know I think this is a concern and we you know, we talked about this Jeff and And we do have our contingency money that's over a million dollars. And if this is something that's almost at an emergency point, which it sounds like I see Mr. Chapchin shaking his head. That's the kind of thing that I would think that that's what our contingency fund is for.
So obviously it's not my district, but it's money that we have set aside in contingency for these types of things. So why would we put it over to next year if it would make more sense to take care of it now? Anyway thank you.
Supervisor Adam.
Well I can wait until you guys got something to say here and We were talking last night and you know this is in the sweet spot in my wheelhouse. And I think that we can get this done to half price or so. That's, I think what the engineering on this demanded is really substantially overbuilt. So we'll be working on this over
time.
Anything you'd like to add?
Madam Chair, Board Members, Supervisor Adams is absolutely correct. We had an engineer do a preliminary design on this well. We shared it with Supervisor Adam, he had some concerns. I think we can get together and meet and address those concern and reduce some of the cost for that well. But as Mr. Fretwell said earlier, it is a conservative cost. I think we can do some reductions and look at some alternative and cost-saving measures, and get that cost reduced when we come to a final design and finally pull it out to bid.
Currently right now, when George was shaking his head in regards of emergency, the well failed in April of 2017. We had the well videoed, and in June, we submerged temporary pump That's now irrigating Waller Park, which is 136 acre park. That pump can last a couple years it can last the week so that's kind of where we're at right now as a temporary pump is irrigating Waller Park and that's how we come to this stage of designing and get a preliminary design for the Waller
well. Supervisor Lavinino?
Thank you Madam Chair and kind of more to Supervisor Wolf's point. If whatever we determine that ends up costing, is this something that we could do? Do we have the money in contingency to take care of it now or would we wait until next year to replace it?
Supervisor Lavender through the chair I think either either is fine. I mean I think that as CSC is identifying the temporary pump is addressing the need at the moment And it gives us the time to make sure we're designing the right solution, long-term solution. And when that's ready and when we can be out to bid if that happens before the end of fiscal year great I mean we certainly have those funds available in contingencies.
If it's something that naturally falls into next fiscal year that's fine too. We wouldn't artificially delay it just across a fiscal year line but
right. And Supervisor Lavignino through the chair, we are going to move as fast as we can on this. Again, we're going to work with resources that Supervisor Adams also gave us and talked to us about. Worst case scenario if the pump does fail, we can drop another one in. It is a little expensive maybe 30,000 but if we need some time you know we can drop another pump in.
6:06 – 6:148 turns
Supervisor Adam?
Yeah well if you guys are here when we get done go back to my office. We'll just get it done. At the farm, you wouldn't have this luxury. You'd be designing something and getting it drilled next week because you got product on the line. And you got grass out there and pine trees, and they'll suffer a little bit and not have a problem. But in my world, this is a major emergency, and you're going to take care of it as soon as possible.
And ask for some superhuman no-no, no time off, no rest for the wicked, that's what we say.
Okay.
Thank
you.
So really, as we identify also in the report for your board's consideration is there are additional issues that we've identified that we aren't able to put dollars in necessarily but we know on the horizon we have changes to the Affordable Care Act. We're uncertain what impact that will have on the county. Our Northern Branch Jail Funding Plan, we've had an opportunity to review this with the Sheriff's Department.
And given the planned operation and opening of the facility, we think we continue to be in fair shape. We don't see a deficit in that funding plan so we're pleased to see that. We've looked at projected structural deficits in some departments, particularly those that are dependent on state and federal revenues. And we're continuing to monitor that as well. So those are things that are other potential issues that are on our radar screen, things that we will continue to monitor closely and evaluate as we develop the upcoming budget.
So as always, our challenge is to align expenses with revenues and a rising salary benefit costs on certain state and federal revenues in changing service demands are all those that have to be balanced in that effort. In January, we will be bringing the Renew 22 report to your board. And that report and that plan will identify some strategies and implementation plans.
It'll include actions for consideration by your board in advance of the budget development. And so some of those may have a positive impact on the upcoming budget as well. Some of those will have some opportunities for investment or resources also. And so I think that the Renew 22 plan really is meant as a long-term strategy. And so to the extent that there may be some investment needed to get long term savings, that's something that we'll bring to your board's attention and provide you with some options.
As we shift gears now into the budget development policies for your board's consideration, the policies that we're proposing are very similar to those in prior years including the continuous suspension of additional strategic reserve funding as well as outside funding requests. There are two notable changes which I'll talk about in a moment and that is the general fund contribution allocation policy and how we're going to resent departmental FTE counts.
So that's the last two bullet points on this slide. And so with respect to the general fund allocation policies, there are a number of ways to do this. What we're recommending to the board is to ask departments to develop their requested budget assuming the same level of general fund discretionary revenues allocated to them as in the current year adopted. What this allows is for us to understand the relative impacts that this would have on departments operations, be able to weigh those against each other and against the priorities that your board has adopted.
And identified and to allocate the growth in discretionary revenues to meet those priorities. And so this is a slight departure on how it has done in the past, but I think it is the best way moving forward in developing next year's budget. We have, this is consistent with what we asked departments and provided departments when we asked them to put their five year projections together. And so this is something that they are kind of knew was coming.
We have talked to departments as well about this and What this does is it allows us to understand and get potential service level impacts to the extent that you have any. Understand those, weigh those service level impacts across all departments and identify where we put our available limited discretionary dollars towards. So that's the purpose of the policy change.
That is different than in the current fiscal year. The current fiscal year, we allocated discretionary dollars based on a slight growth in their negotiated salaries costs as it relates to MOU and then we asked them to take a 5% haircut or 5% reduction in the general fund contribution so that we had funds available to address potential service level impacts.
This is just a slight departure from the way we did in the current fiscal year, but I think one that is easier for departments to understand.
Supervisor
Wolff? Thank you Madam Chair. Mr. Frappal and I had some time yesterday to talk about this because These budget principles, they're so reflective of what happens next year and they're really important to reflect on and go over. And this one budget change I guess respectfully I don't know if you used the word minor, but you seem to kind of downplay this change. And I view it as a big difference from what we've done in the past because last year and I went back to 2007-2008 so And I think Mr. Frapple explained it, but it's being changed this year. What we have been doing is we have been giving the departments their general fund allocations along with a computation, along with salary and benefit increases.
And then there's a formula as you mentioned. That by doing it this way, we are really short changing the departments. Because what we're saying is that all of the negotiations, all of the salary increases that we have recommended were basically saying to the departments, we're not going to give you that extra money. We're just going to give you the base allocation, the base general fund allocation.
And it's a huge departure from what we've done in the past. And if there needs to be cuts, which happened last year when we got the pension surprise, that's when our CEO made the recommendation to cut everything by 5%. But that was after we went through what our policy was. So it's almost like we're now, we're discounting all the departments. We're not giving them what I believe they should get and then they base their budgets on that. So I'm very concerned about this and maybe Ms. Miyasato has a response because this is a huge diversion from what we've done in the past.
6:14 – 6:203 turns
Supervisor Wolk for the chair if I might. The purpose of the policy and the purpose of the initial guidance, if you will to departments in developing their requested budget for next year It's really just that, it's really just guidance. It is not an assurance of that's the exact amount of discretionary dollars that we're going to be recommending. It really is a starting point for us to understand the relative impacts within departments.
Many departments, the challenge I think or the reality is that some departments are in a much better position to be able to absorb cost increases than others. And to the extent that some departments are fee-based, are able to increase their revenue means they can actually absorb those MOU increases without having service level effects as opposed to a different department and a different structure.
You know, even allocating them the MOU increase is not going to be sufficient to mitigate or avoid service level impacts. So what the recommendation here is really just guidance to departments in submitting their requested budget We will then go through that and analyze, understand the impacts that has on the departments. And make recommendations to your board with respect to where those discretionary dollars are needed in order to mitigate overall impacts to the county. So I appreciate Supervisor Wolfe for your comments.
I understand them. I will tell you in my career, this issue of how we allocate discretionary dollars is one that I've grappled with. Many times. And I don't know there's a right, technically a right or wrong answer to this but so I do appreciate its departure but I do think it allows us gives us the best position to understand and do relative comparisons across departments
Well, and I would take a different approach or I have a different opinion. And that is that it's up to the board to make those policy decisions. That if a department they're given their allocation along with what we negotiated their salary increases and then if they have to make cuts then that comes to us but they have already incorporated Budget and then we we get we look at what the what the impact is That's how we've done it in the past. And so what it feels like is that?
We're not being We're not allocating the appropriate amount to our departments. And yes, of course they're all different. Some get more general fund than others. Some can raise their fees just as you said. Some may not be as impacted by this but why not at the outset be fair to all departments? And at least give them, like I said this has been our practice since almost ten years and this is a big departure.
And I'm not clear why this is happening but I think it's not a good policy for this board to be taking and I don't understand why.
Supervisor Wolf to the chair. I understand the sense of fairness you feel for our departments, and I appreciate that I think the bottom line is that We don't have enough revenue for all the needs That we're looking at next year not just even all that what you've seen so If we funded departments everything that we would typically their general fund share they're still over Probably a $6 million hole in general fund departments. An $11 million hole in our non-general fund departments. And really it is the board's discretion of how you want to fill those gaps. What we did last year was, and whatever methodology we use whether we look at flat funding or give them their flat funding then take it back We're trying to create a pool of funds so we can do an exercise So we can create a pool of funds to say what are your boards highest priorities?
So last year we did the same thing, we created this pool of funds by asking everyone to take a little bit of a haircut. My office cut a position, a lot of the departments did or they reduced their budgets so that there was a pool of funds so that when it came to budget time you could give us your priorities to restore what you wanted to restore. You could tell us to give more to special revenue departments which you did. You said we wanted to backfill some of social services with ongoing funds We hadn't done before but we did.
Again, mental health is always an issue so we funded more with one-time funds as well as ongoing funds. So it's a method that we're using to try to figure out at this stage as an exercise so that we can give the board options when it comes to fulfilling our priorities and if this isn't the methodology that you're comfortable with, the other methodology is to do what we did last year which We'll give everyone what we typically would, and then we're going to do an exercise where we take it back or even more. I think Mr. Frapwell coming from a different system said that causes more confusion with the departments. This is just an easier way for them to understand it. But it's really just a technical way that we can ask departments for scenarios to see if you had to take service level reductions, what would it be?
Weighing those against what we think our revenue projections are and what the board's priorities are for funding. That that's kind of what we're doing if we had a lot more revenue growth, we wouldn't be in this position. If I can just make my final comment on this. Basically what we're doing is we're giving departments an amount of money which we know is less than what we did last year.
6:20 – 6:266 turns
So we're starting at that point and And we honestly, we don't know what our revenue growth is going to be It's probably not going to be much more than what we had last year But we we don't know there's so many unknowns and this list up here The bottom line is there's a lot of unknowns. So the policy decisions that we make today will impact what happens to us next year in April and in June, and why not give the departments the real number? And if they have to make a cut then they make those cuts but they make it with the knowledge that they have. The accurate numbers in front of them, the accurate figures in front of them. Because what you're essentially recommending is that we tell the departments at the front end, we are not giving you a status quo allocation.
We're not, because we're not including any salary increases. So from the very get go they're going to have to come with us, to us with cuts and that just seems to be really a backwards way of developing a budget. Thank you Madam Chair.
Supervisor Adam?
I think what you're looking at here is staff attempting to give us the least worst case scenario. You know, we're way short of money here and it's going to get worse over the next five years. So you know this is totally predictable and they're just trying to still run the company without Any money, and we've been paying for all of this. This has been this way for a long time, see? This is the problem. And we've been paying for it all or financing it all on the back of maintenance. That's why you got $258 million worth of roads that are deferred.
And you got, well 73 to be exact and maybe 100 of buildings and parks. And everything that we've cut into is three times as big as that so it's arguably larger in building and park deferred maintenance than it is in the roads. So, we've been financing our method of allocating the budget over the years by deferring maintenance on those things. And so now everything's broken and you've got all these emergencies that you gotta deal with and we're going to have some issues with the jail.
With the South County Jail, we gotta finish the North County Jail. We've got a lot of different expenses and we don't have any revenue. So this is where we are and they're trying to Square a circle that's virtually impossible to circle without just cutting services and I've said before, you can't cut your way to prosperity. And we still have a minimum service level that we have to provide and thank God we still have people that can go out and knock on everybody's door and get them out of a place that they need to be evacuated from.
If we have service level reductions in that particular department, and then there's this black swan event. I remember it, I've said the word black swan and all of these things for a long time. And there used to be a lot of eyes rolling, and here we are. And there's a big dark cloud over The entire county, literally. So these things happen and you gotta be prepared. This is what county government is really for, is being prepared for dealing with these events.
And we've strung it out now so it's very difficult for staff to be able to recommend a way to go forward and we're going to have to help them.
Supervisor Lavanino.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Well I think letting department heads know ahead of time it's not going to be status quo is fine and you know I might share your concern if I thought that the last seven years that the budget policy, I mean the budget The way we handled the budget and the way we crafted the budget from the very beginning was a smooth process and made sense.
It hasn't to me for a long time, so I'm welcoming some sort of a change. And I think it is important for people to know ahead of time that it's not going to be status quo. So I don't have a problem with trying something different. Like I said, if what we had previously was working really well then I'd be a little more hesitant to change but I think the process was murky enough that I'd like you to try something different and hopefully We get a better product.
Supervisor Williams?
6:26 – 6:3619 turns
This would be a painful exercise, but I also think that the methodology of allocating or telling departments they have to make a 5% cut is also a brutal process too. The thing I prefer about this is it provides more incentive on the front end for departments that have other ways besides cutting services to deal with the budget realities. I feel like that actually might reduce some of the pain and diminishment of services. That would otherwise take place, or at least it requires essentially departments to look at it earlier in the process than our budget hearings. And so I think that's a positive thing.
And so I'm willing to try this and if it doesn't work as well as the previous process, we can always go back to
it. Supervisor Wolf? Thank you. Just going to what Supervisor Adam talked about with the sheriff. If we go along with this policy, you can be assured that he is going to come to us with a number of cuts because we're giving him a base budget that doesn't include any raises. So by the nature of that, That's going to happen. Would you say that would be correct or is there some way that he'll meet the budget principle?
Supervisor Wolfe of the chair, I fully expect based on our five-year forecast Based on the fiscal issues that we're facing That there will be a service level reductions across the board Okay So I do believe so I guess the question if I could rephrase your question then respond it hopefully that answers Do I think that this will exacerbate? The number of service level reductions that we get from the sheriff, potentially.
But again this is just a guideline for departments to submit their requested budget. It is not assurance of how much we are going to recommend to allocate to them. So again it's really a planning guideline. It's a guide that we will have to evaluate all the service level impacts. And so do I think this potentially could increase the number from sheriff? Potentially, yes.
Will it ultimately impact what we recommend? Probably not.
Yeah, okay well thank you for this discussion. I appreciate it. I'm not going to be able to support this because I think it's going to cause a lot of confusion in the departments. I think the morale amongst our employees might be impacted by this and As I mentioned last year, we deviated because we had that pension hit. But in all other years, we've been able to deal with it. I think you talked about what you were looking at as a deficit.
It wasn't even close to what we were looking at last year so it's much smaller than what we had last year. And it seems that every year we're able, as messy as it might be, that we're able to deal with it and come out with a balanced budget. Cuts or no cuts? Well I don't know that we've ever had a budget where we haven't had to cut. But anyway, that's just my thoughts. We'll see. Okay, thank
you. Ms. Alexander can we go to public comment?
Chair Hartman and members of the board, we have one request to speak on this item and that is Joe Armideris.
Members of the board, I'm Joe Armendariz representing Santa Barbara County Taxpayers Association. One of my favorite memes that I saw recently on Facebook or Instagram was a picture of Paris Hilton. Apparently her solution to poverty was wearing a t-shirt that said stop being poor. And I thought that was obnoxious and clever, I suppose, and silly. But it kind of reminds me of this discussion today. When you look around what we have in terms of our comparable advantages in Santa Barbara County, our climate, our infrastructure, our oil and gas reserves, our ability to permit mansions. The thoroughbred racehorses in the Santa Ynez Valley that we could be somehow using more intelligently in terms of economic development. And the idea that year after year after year after year, we are nickel and diming this budget to death.
I think it's tragic frankly. There's nothing progressive about this discussion. There's nothing frankly progressive about this board majority in terms of the policies and the budget principles, and the public policy principles. I'm looking at the screen fiscal issues report and budget development policies. Where's the economic development policies? I said last week, I can't imagine a private sector company sitting around a board of directors meeting discussing their expenditures and their costs and their ability to budget and prioritize. And have no discussion over what are your emerging markets, what are your business development opportunities, where our future sales coming from. What are the demographics we're trying to identify in terms of being more competitive against our competitors?
Supervisor Williams suggested that your competitors are not just in the private sector, but in the public sector as well including in the county of Ventura. We are sitting here as our county is on fire costing upwards of $50 million. What a shame. But the fact of the matter is, is we have an opportunity as a county To grow this economy, to create more jobs and to create more upward mobility particularly for those who need it most. Some people may not be aware of the fact that the median price house in Santa Barbara South County is $1.1 million. The median price house in Santa Maria Valley 350,000. The disparity of wealth between the north and the south is profound. And so Supervisor Wolfe, who I know has a bleeding heart just like I do. I consider myself a bleeding-heart conservative.
I know you're a bleeding-heart liberal. You care about county employees. You care about their plight in life. I care about the plight of the North County families who want more economic opportunities particularly in the oil and gas sector. And I know that this is a political Rubik's Cube that we're not going to figure out any time soon but That at some point as part of this exercise, as Supervisor Williams described it. You would have an economic development component attached to every one of these future discussions. Thank you.
Can I just respond? Supervisor Wolfe and then Adam To Mr. Bleeding Heart Conservative, I don't know when was the last time you've been in the second district but let me just say we have a new hotel that's going up. We have two new business centers that are in the process of being permitted one on Turnpike one on Patterson. We have 135 unit area where they're building homes at the old Christmas tree farm. There's a lot of income generating projects that are going on in our little second district that you might not be aware of. You're right about the disparity of income in Santa Barbara and Santa Maria, I don't disagree with that.
But probably, I don't think it's to anyone's surprise is where do we get that income? And do we monetize all of our land and you always bring up oil and gas. And I think that's probably where we divergent on a lot, on that issue. And it's not to say that never happens but I think that when I sit here and I look at a project its to look at the entire project and all of the impacts. And I also just want to remind you, during the recession of all the 58 counties in California. Do you know the only county that showed any increase in property tax revenue was Santa Barbara County? Albeit very slight. Ms. Miyasato's shaking her head. Was it Marentu? Okay so- No, I remember that. I stand corrected. Let's just say we were one of a few and To always be saying we're not doing a good job or we're not looking at the economic viability, of course that has to be part of the conversation.
And as much as I care about our employees, I do care, and I think we're pretty reasonable and rational. And of course we have to have the funding to pay our employees. So I just wanted to reach out to you if you ever want to come into the second district- I love the second district. To get a tour? I love it too. I love South County. I'll give you a tour. Thank you Mr. Armagearson.
I appreciate that opportunity or that invitation. I just wrote briefly.
I'm just not going to give you my cell phone number. I probably have it. Sorry
Mr. Williams. I think you do have it.
Supervisor Adam, this isn't a back and forth. I'm sorry- The only
point I wanted to make, and I almost made this part of my three minutes frankly is
that- Mr. Armendariz, I'm sorry. We've closed public comment and generally there's not a back and forth and Supervisor Wolfe did that today but we're back now
to the board. Normally when you ask somebody a question you allow them to respond. I only have three minutes, so that's all I can say. You can talk afterwards. I want to acknowledge all of the different things you're doing but I only have three minutes so I have to be a little general.
Supervisor Adam?
Okay, so this is for Mr. Gazzone. Can you explain the mechanics of County Budget Act and the consistency of the suggested modifications to our
process
here?
6:36 – 6:4623 turns
Chair Hartman and Supervisors, the County Budget Act is several dozen sections of the government code. Its first mandate is that in the recommended budget, the adopted budget and the final budget which are different phases, the funding sources must equal the actual financing uses. That's the starting point. The recommended budget is developed by either the, it's stated as the administrative officer, the CEO or the auditor depending on how the county has it set up. In our county it's the CEO and after the CEO develops their recommended budget that goes to the board for its consideration modifications and there's an opportunity to be heard by any department whose budget is revised from the recommended budget.
That's the overview and I think after that the board has, the board and the CEO have great discretion as to the principles that would go into this recommended budget. But at the end of the day it is the CEO's recommended budget that comes to the board for its consideration And to digress for another moment, I think we normally think of the recommended budget and the approved budget. There's a series of revisions and changes that go into a final budget and all of this is complicated by accounting rules that are implemented through the auditor controller as to when money is countable As received and spendable and and also complicated by our receipt in accounting for of tax revenue so I'm condensing several dozen sections into that but the probably the big commandment is that funding sources equal financing uses in all three budgets.
Mm-hmm And and so we're gonna have our shot at this thing Operative word being modification. The board has the ability to modify whatever the CEO recommends Yes Okay, so you know I don't see how this is such a bad thing Honestly, she's gonna make a recommended budget and then if we don't like it we can just go and change it What's the problem
Supervisor Lavanino.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I forgot, I wanted to go back to the strategic reserve funding for just a second. So 7.3% of the adopted general fund operating revenue was last year. That's our existing what? I forgot what the and you're probably not the right person but or do you have that of what I think General Accounting Standards gave us is as what a good percentage would be.
Supervisor Lavarino for the chair. So our goal has been 8%. So 8% roughly gives you one month's operating revenue, and that's kind of the premise at a very high level of what an appropriate reserve is. Even at the 7.3%, We're probably in much better condition than many of the 58 counties, but it is something I think that we need to be mindful of. And I don't know that personally I'd recommend going lower.
But is there for a purpose? Is there for a safety valve? Should something major happen, and we'd like to have for that. But you don't hold money just for the sake of holding money either so it's really kind of a balancing I think. And personally, I would be comfortable with the level as it currently sits. I wouldn't recommend adding to that but probably not taking much out either.
All right, I know last year we didn't add last year did we? Okay, I just don't want it to become a policy Because I think that's what some board eight, ten years from now looks back and says wow why didn't they continue to make that contribution? Because while $30 million sounds like a lot of money right now, percentage wise it's going to continue to drop. So I guess we'll have to look at what the budget is and what's left over if we can get three votes to put a few more hundred thousand dollars in there.
Forcing ourselves to do something like that is a good exercise. So we're saving even when we're cutting, we still have to realize that we've got to continue to put money away. But I appreciate what you're saying about the 7.3.
We are like with the radios, we're beginning to incorporate into the budgeting process long-term saving for at least specific items. Mr. Gazzone did you have something you wanted to add?
Just on the concept of the reserve, that in addition to the idea of having that reserve. I mean, I think every year during the budget hearings, I always recommend that you hear from the treasurer also as to the positioning of our reserve, as to the county being a participant in the debt marketplace and every year the answer is pretty much where we should be to have a favorable rating in the marketplace. So I'm just flagging for you that's a fairly standard question that the board asks during the budgeting process.
Supervisor Adam.
Well, on that reserve I mean, I think that there's probably places and specifically I'm thinking of roads but there's probably arguments to be made about a lot of the buildings and especially the jail, the South County Jail, the main jail. We might be better off utilizing some of To put into things that will cost more to fix, the longer we let them go than just holding that money just because it's money and it makes us feel good because we have it in our pocket.
But you gotta weigh that against utilizing it for a beneficial purpose When you can calculate out reasonably that it's going to cost you a lot more in the end than it will by leaving it there and trying to either save or even go borrow money. Because if you go and borrow the money, you still got to pay that back. And with interest, so if you have 30 million bucks roughly sitting there and we could apply that to things that will cost us in a few years 60 million bucks.
Then you're getting a lot of bang for the money. Yeah strategic.
Supervisor Wolfe?
Thank you. I think we did that last year, we added like was it $3 million to deferred maintenance or something like that over the 18%. But I have a question about the $7 million that we saw after the budget was completed. Tell me again where that money is sitting. It's not in strategic reserve. Is it just in our fund balance sitting somewhere?
Supervisor Wolf for the Chair, yes that's correct. So the residual monies from last fiscal year that rolled forward are sitting within the general program's budget. They are as fund balance it is available to address needs come up this year so for instance the Walnut Park if that was something that we were prepared to move forward in the current year we would probably recommend that as a source of funding for that But it's there, you know, it's also there to assist.
Let me just jump back last fiscal year I think we rolled forward and I'm fuzzy about this because I wasn't here roughly five to six million dollar range that was kind of roughly the range coming from 15-16 into 16-17 and by the time we completed the year we'd pretty much exhausted so It's a kind of a recognition that Things happen throughout the year and it's we're so fortunate to be able have had those reserves available Because had we not and we'd had to address those issues. We would have been asking budget departments to reduce their current budget Yeah, I
understand Do the do all of the departments other than Behavioral wellness and the sheriff do they all have fund balance? Are we expecting them to have fun balances at the end of the year?
Supervisor Wolf, the chair. That's a complicated question there many departments have fund balances and They're either earmarked for specific purposes or a replacement for instance or depreciation Some have just kind of a general reserve And that's something that is Something that we'll be looking at and considering departments requested budgets for the upcoming year. They're available fund balance to see whether that might be a potential source to mitigate. So is that in our
policy?
That's something that we do naturally through the budget development process as we analyze department's requests.
So some departments can keep their fund balances and others turn it over to general fund. Correct. Okay.
Supervisor Williams
Well, I'm going to make the motion to receive and file this report and to approve the three notable changes to budget policy. Third.
Okay, would you like a roll call vote? Ms. Alexander
Mr. Adam? Yes. Mr. Lavinino? Aye. Ms. Williams? Aye. Ms Wolfe? No. Chair Hartman? Aye Motion passes 4-1
I think that concludes our work for today and we're meeting again on Thursday in Santa Barbara starting at 9 for a special meeting to discuss cannabis
6:46 – 6:472 turns
If I could just make a final comment A meeting that is going on at San Marcos at four o'clock. If anyone is listening to this meeting, I believe either the independent or KEYT or maybe even our county website Is doing a live stream and that starts at 4 o'clock
Thank you