Board of Supervisors — 2018-04-03

Yeah. ♪ Hi. you

Call this meeting

Mr. Lavinino, Ms. Wolfe, Ms Hartman, Mr. Williams.

Can I get approval of the minutes? All those in favor please say aye. Opposed? It's unanimous. We'll take some announcements before the administrative agenda.

Chair Williams, members of the board. Prior to moving on with the administrative agenda I have a request that we take a couple of actions today. First on item A2 there's a request that we trail that item to be considered later in the agenda. The department would like to approve A2 after the board considers A4 and if there is an affirmative action on D4. The County Executive Office, this is regarding the Thomas Fire donation from the Debris Flow Experts Consultants. And we'd like to withdraw that item today from the agenda so if that can be a part of your motion on the administrative agenda and finally on Item A9 from General Services. This is regarding the First Amendment to the agreement with Simpler Systems. If we could continue that through meeting on April 10th for one week, that would be great.

Those are my announcements.

And our last resolution, A30.

Chair Williams, members of the board, item A30 is sponsored by Supervisor Wolfe. This is a resolution proclaiming the month of April 2018 as DMV Donate Life Month in Santa Barbara County and Kathy Vasilopoulos and Scott Burns are here I think. You guys will come on up to the podium and I'll read the resolution. Lee Moldaver will be taking photographs.

No, he's only doing this as a personal friend. He doesn't do this for just anybody.

I'll read the resolution of the record. Whereas organ tissue, marrow and blood donation are life-giving acts recognized worldwide as expressions of compassion to those in need. And more than 114,000 individuals nationwide and more than 21,000 in California are currently on the National Organ Transplant Waiting List. And on average 20 people die each day while waiting Due to the shortage of donated organs. And whereas more than 600,000 units of blood per year are needed to meet just the needs in California and at any given time 6,000 patients are in need of voluntary marrow donors. Also the need for donated organs is especially urgent in the Hispanic and African American communities.

And whereas a single individual's donation of the heart, lungs, liver, kidneys, pancreas and small intestine can save up to eight lives. Donation of tissue can save and heal the lives of more than 75 others. And a single blood donation can help three people in need. And whereas millions of live each year are saved and healed by donors of organs, tissue, marrow and blood. And the spirit of giving and the decision to donate are not restricted by age or medical condition.

And whereas California residents can sign up with the Donate Life California donor registry when applying or renewing their driver's license or ID cards at the DMV. Over 14 million Californians have signed up with a state authorized Donate Life California donor registry to ensure that their wishes to be organ, eye and tissue donors are honored. Now therefore be hereby ordered and resolved that the recognition of the National Donate Life Month, the month of April 2018 is hereby proclaimed as DMV Donate Life California Month in the County of Santa Barbara. And in doing so we encourage all Californians to check yes when applying for or renewing their driver's license or ID card or by signing up at www.donatelifecalifornia.org.

Or www.dunvitacalifornia.org. Resolution is passed and adopted today by the board.

Thank you very much. My name is Kathy Vasilopoulos, and I'm the Vice President of Organ Operations for One Legacy. We're the organ procurement organization that serves the greater Los Angeles area including Santa Barbara County. We serve seven counties and over 20 million people. And our job, our mission is to save and heal through organ donation and transplantation. One of our missions obviously is to work closely with the hospitals here in Santa Barbara County and all of our counties. Santa Barbara Cottage, Marion all very supportive of the donation process.

But as was read in the proclamation more and more people die every day waiting for an organ transplant. It's actually 120,000 people in this country now that are awaiting a life saving organ. And about 20 people, as said earlier, die everyday. 18% of those on that waiting list are here in California. So the need for organs is great, we have donation occur every day but it's not enough. And so we encourage everyone to join the registry very easily by signing up to be an organ tissue and eye donor. We won't call you until your time has come. We don't want anything too soon. I promise you that.

But it's a very easy process through our DMV or going to donatelifecalifornia.org. So thank you again for sponsoring this and thank you, Supervisor Wolf, for bringing this to the attention of everyone in the community. And I'd like to introduce Scott Burns who's going to share a couple words.

Thank you. What can I say? I'm alive because someone who died donated their kidney. She had a pink dot on her driver's license and because of her, I'm around. That's, I guess, the best thing I can say. Boy, this has gotten me a little emotional. It's been three years since I've had the kidney. I was on the waiting list for three years before that and it is life saving. So everyone who has that opportunity please recognize that 20 people die every day waiting for a kidney or another organ and can't make it.

Boy, that was quick. Thank you. I'm sure there's more I will say but I can't remember right now. Usually I'm not this soft spoken so anyway. But thank you Lee.

Let's hear A3.

Chair Williams, members of the board. Item A3 is for behavioral wellness and the recommendations that the board consider recommendations regarding behavioral wellness annual liabilities update.

Supervisor Wolfe had a question so we don't need a full presentation but Supervisor Wolfe?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just wanted to pull this item and acknowledge the work of behavioral wellness and county council and anyone else who was involved in the very positive report that we're seeing today being on the board when we were starting to see a lot of these audit exceptions come to us and it was a tremendous impact to our budget. To now see where we are in March of 2018 is very significant and very positive. So I just wanted to acknowledge the work of everyone who has really made this positive impact, not just to behavioral wellness but of course to the entire county budget so thank you. Thank you Dr. Glacorn and to your staff. And to our county council and CEO's office as well. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I don't know if Dr. Glacorn has any

comments. Thank you Supervisor Wolff through the chair. Thank you very much for pulling this item because it gives me the opportunity to highlight one thing on there on page four. One of the things that reduced our liabilities was that we employed a CPA and a former county audit supervisor to oversee our cost report audits and appeals. That's Christy Boyer, she has done an incredible job for us and this wouldn't have been possible without her work so I wanted to recognize her.

Thank you very much. Thanks for all your diligence and hard work. Thank

you,

appreciate

it.

Chair Williams, members of the board. Item A13 is from Public Works and to the board as the Board of Directors of the Water Agency is to consider recommendations regarding authorization to execute agreements pursuant to integrated regional water management funding through California's Prop 1 Disadvantaged Community Involvement Round for the Central Coast Funding Area

Thank you Mr. Chair I had a question about the grant to wastewater treatment system in Guadalupe for the improvements. Guadalupe is in the third district, I often have office hours there and one of the questions I hear most often is why are we continuing to smell odors from the wastewater treatment plant? We've called the Regional Water Control Board and they say, well it's been improved or fixed. But could you explain what's going to happen here now?

Chair Williams, Supervisor Hartman, Fray Crease with the Santa Barbara County Water Agency. So this funding is going towards the development and design of construction documents in order to implement the recommended improvements to the city's water, sewer and wastewater treatments plants. In 2014, the city completed a water master plan so these funds are going towards the plans in order to address those issues.

And any idea what the, so this will be for a study and then there'll be construction later on. Any sense of the timeline?

Chair Williams, Supervisor Hartman, I don't have a sense of the timeline. These plans are largely complete at this point. So the next step will be construction and probably the hurdle between now and then is of course supporting finding funding.

Any other questions? Any desire to vote on this separately? No? Supervisor Wolf.

Thank you Mr. Chair, I didn't know if we had public comments on anything but I was going to make a motion for the consent calendar.

Great and we didn't have any public comment before any last minute.

I will make a motion that we approve the consent agenda, administrative agenda as submitted. However item A2 we will trail after item D4. We will remove item A7 and for item A9 we will continue that item until our April 10th meeting.

That is a perfect motion. Is there a second? All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. That takes care of the administrative agenda. Any report from the CO?

No CO reports this morning.

Then we will go to libraries. Do you want public comment for items?

Chair Williams, members of the board. We have one request to speak under public comment. Mr. Kolaski?

I

wasn't planning on skipping over you, Mr. Kolasky.

Thank you. It's been four years now and I call my talk today Democracy or Dictatorship. Two weeks ago, I went down to the Board of Architectural Review and tried to get something done. It started off that I complained that the mic wasn't on. Three times I complained that the mic is not on. Finally Alex said well the mics on when clearly it's not on. I asked for three minutes which is normal time. They cut me off at two minutes so nothing's changed down there it's the same old place we've been trying to get this second story addition put on our house and the Board of Architectural Review ruled that it is solely over the garage and they wrote a 64 page report on it that being solely over the garage would be in violation of guideline 4.7 It's clearly not solely over the garage, it's over the kitchen, the dining room, part of the living room and laundry room.

But I guess instead of trying to present this like this, I should be asking do I have to make a donation? An extortion fee in order to get this changed? Is this going to be solely over the garage till I make a donation What does it retain? 5,000, 10,000 20,000. Is there somebody that's going to negotiate it because the five of you cannot explain this. The seven people downstairs plus the staff cannot explain this.

It is solely over the garage to them. I don't know where this has gone. This has been my life for the last four years. And it'll be probably my life for the next four years, maybe until I pass away. You know, I used to think it'd be great to die right here. It would be perfect dealing with this crap. Okay on the next page I outlined only 11 items because that's all I thought I could get on a page.

Actually I had about 17 or 18, but the most grievous is the first one. Being kicked out of a public meeting in 15 seconds. Not allowed to show your drawing. You pay for the meeting. You show up it's the fifth meeting you have a 5-2 vote and you're kicked out. You have a guy jump up and start screaming at you. Side loading side loading side loading! That means that it's located solely over the garage, according to their interpretation.

We were not allowed to show our project. We were kicked out in 15 minutes. We of course weren't allowed to speak. They had Dylan jumping up all the time. One time I was sitting in the audience and a guard came up to me. I was looking down. I didn't even know what was going on. He said you have to leave. Why? Someone doesn't want you here! It's not like you have a choice.

It's not like it's a democracy. There's 11 items. Does that represent a democracy? Any part of that?

Mr. Golaski, that's your time but I do want to ask a clarification question. Yes. We're aware of the decision by the ABR that it was solely over the garage. That was the previous application, not this current application correct? They

went back. And things that we had already negotiated, things that we had already done. They retracted including the streetscape which they, John Baratek designed. They voted 7 to 0 for it. They came back and said it's not good anymore.

But they haven't said that on your new application correct? Yes

they have. And setbacks. By doing the setbacks, they nullify the streetscape. The setbacks were approved by them. I had a speech here given by my architect where he presented the fact that it's not an ordinance, that it's just a guideline and they said okay you don't need setbacks Now we come in there, first thing they do, you need setbacks. And what's really nice, this is nice. They stereo, or they, what do you call it? Stereographed but presented their rebuke One person after another, after another, after another. And Alex lost track of who was giving their statement.

They forgot about Chris the new guy. Oh and Chris jumps up. Wait wait wait wait! Yeah everybody wait. How about the landscape now? We've discussed all this stuff so what I'm supposed to go through another four meetings wait till the fifth meeting and then get kicked out? It's just totally corrupt. There is no, it's just so totally corrupt.

Thank you. I think you answered my question. Thank you so much.

Sure. Did you have a question, Joe?

No. Any further public comment?

No more requests to speak. That's it. Chair Williams, members of the board. Item D1 is from community services. It's a hearing to consider recommendations regarding library service delivery consultants update.

Good morning Chair Williams and members of the board. On October 17, 2017 you asked staff to engage a consultant to look at our library service, our countywide library services and make some recommendations for either enhancements or potentially looking at a whole new library model. With that staff I'm going to first introduce Ryder Bailey our CFO and Natasha Garduno who really worked hard on this project as well.

Engage the services of management partners to look at our systems. And with me here today is Andy Belkamp, who's sitting back here. He's the Regional Vice President for Management Partners and Amy Paul who's the Corporate Vice President and I'm going to turn this over to them to make their presentation with their findings.

Good morning, Chair Williams and supervisors. Thanks for having us. As you know we have spent quite a while on this project. I'm going to tell you a little bit about the goals and methodology. And then we're going to try to keep this fairly brief, give you the context, and then answer your questions. And I know there are people here who want to speak to this issue.

Our goal, as you heard was to look at the service delivery system that the county provides for library services and to look at funding models as well. And you're well aware that Goleta was making their There are new library plans known during the time and we looked at that as well. Just to give you a little bit of history, we did interview over 79 people and several many times we heard a lot. There's a lot of emotion I would say and a lot of enthusiasm for your library system, as I know you're aware.

And we heard a lot from a lot of people. We reviewed relevant documents, especially to understand the funding operations and I do want to say that we had a lot of different documents that had small differences in terms of funding in particular. Library budgets, county budgets and so in our report we did note that we had a plethora of people asking us to make changes. We believe that what we have is accurate and the small changes that people had asked at the last minute we couldn't necessarily get in but we don't believe that it impacts. Any of the big picture items, however it is a very complex system because you have the three zones currently. Each zone has the control of the funding.

And you're doing it on a per capita basis, as you know. And so that whole system does have different nuances which we've pointed out. Just to continue with methodology, we did look at six different library systems in California to find best practices to identify what is applicable here, what lessons could be learned. Where differences are occurring and what might be relevant to the county of Santa Barbara.

We also looked at the principles that we heard from during interviews, and during the comments from others interested in the library system. And developed a set of principles to then guide the work where we looked at funding models and different opportunities. We then as you could see developed different funding models and we formulated some recommendations that we believe will help as you deliberate.

Just want to say in terms of context, as you can see from this slide. The county contributes $3.8 million which is quite a bit of money there when you look at other counties that is not always the case. In fact, the library services in most cases are a municipal service. And you're to be commended for what you've done because there are, you contribute a lot of money to this service. You can see the city of Santa Barbara is the next largest contributor and then other cities make up 3.3 million of the whole pie.

And just to understand that a little bit further, As I said, most counties do not contribute to that extent because they mostly rely on municipalities to do that job as far as library service. This system has worked for over 50 years. Your current funding model, the generosity of the county has accounted for that and although we were asked to look at changes that could work and we have, we still commend you for what you've done and what you continue to do.

I also want to point out that we don't believe there's any one right answer to the question about improvements to funding models. The formulas, as you can see, we developed several. Andy is going to talk a little bit more about that but they were all examples of how you could tweak your formula depending on what your goals are for funding and so We gave you our best recommendations, even in the face of making everybody angry we think. So we tried our best though to go, we were on a search for truth and we formulated our recommendations based on that because there's not one solution that's going to make everybody happy. So I'm going to turn this over to Andy and he's going to continue to talk a little bit about our work.

Thank you Amy, Chair Williams and members of the board. Thank you for the opportunity to present our report. I want to echo what Amy noted about the county's financial contribution, it is very substantial. The City of Santa Barbara and the County of Santa Barbara between them provide about 70% of the monies that constitute the library system here in the County of Santa Barbara. And so those two entities are really the major funders for the libraries.

We looked at several principles in terms of trying to organize our analysis, and we need to disclose these at the beginning because they sort of shape our findings. Not our findings but our recommendations. And the first principle is, the county is the municipal service provider for the population living in the unincorporated areas. And so that is our principle number one, is those are the folks that you have primary service responsibility for just as police services are a municipal function and library services are as well.

The second principle, we think your existing system does a really good job at. That communities of interest should share library facilities for reducing redundancies and delivering services efficiently. And that's one really good thing about Santa Barbara's system that the county is so diverse geographically and demographically. And you've evolved a system that is attuned to that.

The third principle is that we believe that equity requires considerations just beyond population when it comes to funding. This system now is based on population only, and even those population assumptions are a little bit confusing. The principle four is that we want to structure Where the county is a supplement to funding libraries, not the sole provider.

And that would incentivize participation from throughout the community, cities, friends groups, grants and you name it. And principle five of course I think is pretty self explanatory look for the highest and best use of the county funds. I just want to say on that point Santa Barbara County, unlike a number of counties in California does not have a dedicated property tax flowing for libraries. A number of counties do. They had library districts formed under the County Library Act of 1916 and when Prop 13 came along those libraries got a piece of the property tax.

Santa Barbara does not have that ability and Unlike a number of the other counties, but all counties have really struggled with this. And you look over the whole state and you probably won't find any single county that does it the same way. It's really interesting. We looked at this population data in county funding and what jumps out at you is something we've already said.

That the county is providing significant funding across the board and In many instances significant funding to city libraries, very significant funding. And we've broken it out by incorporated and unincorporated and by zone. I mentioned the population assumptions. Confusing because they don't seem to tie back to any particular rationale. The only rationale we can see is that the contract cities, the cities that operate the libraries under contract, Santa Barbara City, Lompoc and Santa Maria. Their population looks very similar to what their incorporated population is. The others vary quite a bit.

And there's not a particular rationale for that. You'll see Goleta's service population is about 90,000 but the city is about 30,000 and you see the same sort of issues with some of the other incorporated cities. Now the next slide talks about library budgets and as I mentioned, if you take just the first two columns and there you're looking at city funding and county funding, local agency funding. And it quickly becomes apparent that the 3.8 million coming into the system from the county, which is spread across all the different branches and the 4 million that the city of Santa Barbara is able to invest in libraries. That's the bulk over a little over 70% of the money that is funding the system.

But the county is the primary funding source for seven libraries and some of those are in incorporated cities. The cities, in some cases, are the primary funding source including all three of the contract cities. Okay next slide. So what we sort of find from all this analysis of the numbers is, again, the county and the city of Santa Barbara are the primary funders of the system. The county is a provider of substantial monies to many of the incorporated cities in the county, the libraries in the county.

Across the board, library funding is low here except I guess you could say except the city of Santa Barbara. If you look at the state average, the most recent data is from fiscal year 13-14. And if you look at the California Financial Almanac they have data points from over 200 California cities and it shows the average funding at that time was about $30 per capita.

Here if you just look at the city and county funding, it's down there around $17 per capita. About $21 if you throw in the rest of the funding. But anyway, you slice it, it is below average. I would say it's below average because number one, you don't have a dedicated property tax. And number two, you don't have any other revenue sources except for some contributions from friends groups and some grants. You don't have any other dedicated tax revenue sources other than the general fund of the county and the cities.

We did and we're giving a brief presentation here, but we did some extensive case studies of other county library systems. And one of the things we find from that is numerous other counties have evolved Library systems, in several instances they include a joint powers agreement. And we think that might be something for the county of Santa Barbara to look at because in those cases we find that those counties have been able to generate support for additional revenues by making the case for libraries.

Next slide.

Mr Chair?

Supervisor Wolf.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I know you have mentioned it extensively in your report but not in your presentation and that has to do with your statement about funding sources that there's no property taxes and then on the other slide That there wasn't a reason, a rational reason why you would include other areas other than the cities. But I just wanted to remind you about the CSA3.

So maybe you want to just talk

about that? Well the CSA3 population, that would be a rationale for the population but not all those people live in CSA 3.

Right, and it also is another revenue

source. It is another revenue

source. As a

property type. Yeah, it is. That's critically important in Goleta. I was looking more at an overview.

Right, that's what I thought.

Because

you did like I said mentioned it in your report, I just wanted to bring it out here.

And that's actually a pretty good model that could be expanded, that CSA. It's helping. It's a good model. I think it came into being prior to the incorporation of the city of Goleta but that may be a good model to follow in looking at other revenue sources for other areas in the county. We did try to, we looked at registered users by library. These are people with library cards and it's good data but it's not regularly tracked.

It is available what we find from this, it's derived from looking at zip codes of registered users about one in four people Our registered library users, so that's a pretty good participation rate overall in the county. It shows that the county has got libraries that are busy. All the libraries have a mix of incorporated and unincorporated residents. And I think that's the strength of this system is that the county funding does get to the unincorporated residents.

And the service area population, some of the service area populations overlap. This is a particular issue with respect to Santa Barbara and Goleta. It's really hard to tease out who goes to what library in the unincorporated areas surrounding the city of Santa Barbara and Goleta, okay? Our recommendations. The first would be that the system needs to accommodate the Goleta Municipal Library, which is coming into being.

And we think that could be done to the existing contract-based system by creating a zone four and standardizing and updating contract provisions and funding. This is going to involve taking a look at those population data and trying to figure out, well what's the appropriate service area boundary taken into CSA 3 and other considerations. We would include the in zone 4, we would include Buellton and Solvang just because they're closer and perhaps Goleta could serve them in service to Isla Vista and Hope Ranch.

Recommendation 3 is to develop a funding formula which would bring into play some other factors. Other counties use other factors when it comes to deciding how to distribute funding, and you can get as creative as you want. We did six illustrative funding models, but you could do any number you want. The answer is pretty much infinity in terms of how you could look at that.

Each county tends to do it somewhat differently. Let me skip to recommendation five which is this joint powers authority. Consider forming a joint powers authority for library services. That would be the appropriate environment to really hammer out these questions because then you'd have all the stakeholders around one table. You wouldn't have to do it governing body by governing body, and I think the County of Santa Barbara and the City of Santa Barbara could provide the leadership in this discussion of creation of a JPA because that's where the majority, the bulk of the funding is coming from now.

And that would really be the place to hammer out this funding formula. We give you some illustrative examples, but really it's a homegrown type of thing. And it's hard to do also when this is a zero sum game. Right now if somebody gets more, somebody else gets less. It'd probably be a good discussion to have in the context Let's look at some additional revenue sources. There was no reason not to go there, other counties have done it and Santa Barbara is underfunded.

And then the fourth recommendation is in terms of the county we think our recommendation is take a more assertive role in determining what's the appropriate overhead allowance that is going to be associated with your funding contribution? Right now that varies and our recommendation is for the county to, it's your almost $4 million. You can take the lead in determining how to allocate the overhead.

Okay let's go to the next slide. Just going into more detail on the recommendations this is the map for zone four with the area shown. This is right out of Goleta's information. A little more detail on recommendation two, just showing you how that zip code data varies. So you can see the confusion at work here in terms of who uses the Santa Barbara library versus who uses the Goleta library in the zip code data.

You'll see in some of those zip codes a majority Of the registered users, remember that's all the data we have. Use Goleta and in some of these zip codes some of those users use the Santa Barbara library. So this is a matter of if you talk to the two cities this is a matter that they're going to need to hammer out because they disagree on what the appropriate populations are. This data might be a starting point for resolving that.

With respect to recommendation three, we spent a fair amount of time in the report just giving you illustrative formulas. So here's a whole bunch of them. The current funding allocation is in the first column. Then we did a model based on the number of users, the registered users data that I showed you and you can see that would change pretty substantially how the funds are allocated and that data would have to be updated.

Relative to the current would be projected funding based on regional population from SB CAG. Okay, so that would change things. Again it would change things pretty radically, so this is probably not something we could recommend. Model three would bring into play population and circulation with a formula. We basically got this idea from Orange County because they use a formula that includes population and circulation.