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.0:02 – 0:0510 turns
Thank you.
Thank you. Thank you. We're going to call this meeting
Roll call, please.
Ms. Wolfe? Ms. Hartman? Here. Mr. Adams? Here Mr. Lavinino? Here Mr. Williams? Here
We have three ceremonial items, A52 through A54. Can we get those read in a motion on this? Would you
like a motion for the three
ceremony
resolutions? So moved. Second.
All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed? And we're going to take up A53 first.
Okay Chair Williams and members of the board, if we could get a motion to approve the minutes of May 15th prior to moving on to the resolutions? Sure. Can we get a motion on the minutes?
0:05 – 0:1011 turns
So
moved.
All those in favor please say aye.
Thank you very
much.
Okay, we're going to start today with item A53. This is sponsored by Supervisor Williams and I believe Tony Wellen is here. Is Tony with us this morning? Can you come on up to the podium, Tony? And I'll go ahead and read the resolution into the record. This is a resolution proclaiming June 2nd, 2018 as Wear Orange Day in Santa Barbara County in recognition of National Gun Violence Awareness Day.
Whereas gun violence is the cause of over 33,000 deaths annually in the United States which includes homicides, suicides, accidents and other causes. And whereas June 2nd is recognized as Gun Violence Awareness Day across the United States and citizens are encouraged to wear orange to support common sense solutions that will save lives. And whereas the Wear Orange campaign was started by high school students from the south side of Chicago to commemorate the loss of their 15 year old friend and classmate, Hedaya Pendleton who was shot and killed just one week after performing at President Obama's second inaugural parade in 2013. After her death they asked us to stand up, speak out, and wear orange to raise awareness about gun violence.
They chose the color orange because it's the color hunters wear in the woods to protect themselves and others. And whereas the communities of Isla Vista, Santa Barbara and our nation continue to grieve from the mass shooting three years ago on May 23rd 2014 killing six people and injuring 13 others. Now therefore be it hereby ordered and resolved that this Board of Supervisors does hereby proclaim June 2nd 2018 as Wear Orange Day in Santa Barbara County and encourages all residents to remember the victims of gun violence by participating in scheduled community events passed and adopted today.
On behalf of the Coalition Against Gun Violence and the community of Santa Barbara, I would like to thank the Board of Supervisors for this resolution. Thank you Supervisor Williams for wearing orange. And we are all-
I've taken much fashion criticism already this
morning
but I want to let people know that one in three Americans knows someone who has been shot. And we're joining the Wear Orange campaign a little late due to unforeseen circumstances. This National Gun Violence Awareness Day is a call for an end to gun violence and to honor the too many lives that have been cut short, and those who are permanently injured. Orange is the color that Hadia Pendleton was Barbara is being honored when she was shot and killed in Chicago at the age of 15, which was one week after performing at President Obama's second inaugural parade in 2013.
After her death, her friends asked the nation to stand up and speak out and wear orange to raise awareness about gun violence. This day June 2nd people across Why orange? Because orange is the color that symbolizes the value of human life. Hunters wear orange to alert other hunters that they are there, and as a way to take care of their own life and the lives of others.
Now we're turning orange into a symbol for the value of human life everywhere not only in the United States. Let's make our voices heard because We are all touched by gun violence. Thank you very much.
With that said, we'd like to invite everybody in the public and along with all of our supervisors to participate in a task force for the Coalition Against Gun Violence. We've created a task force to identify policies that need to be changed not only regionally, not only local jurisdictionally but also within the school districts. We hope that every effort to cause safety will make everybody aware of the fact that we can all unite and make positive changes in our community. One of those changes is participating in the gun buyback. We had a very successful gun buyback recently, where we had the most highest return in this investment. We ended up giving away $23,900 worth of gift cards. That means 260 guns were removed from our streets voluntarily.
About 23% were Goleta and Carpinteria areas. That's important for our supervisors to know because only two hours created that kind of return. From those, weapons filled with mud were also collected. It's very important for us to unite and create these kinds of changes not only within the cities but also throughout the county. So we thank you for your support and we continue to hope to bring that message of awareness throughout this whole county.
0:10 – 0:1715 turns
Thank you.
Let's do A54 next.
Chair Williams, members of the board. Item 854, this is a resolution sponsored by Supervisor Wolf. It proclaims the week of June 1, 2018 through June 8, 2018 as CPR and AED Awareness Week. And the day of June 7th, 2018 is Hands Only CPR Day in Santa Barbara County. And Nicholas Clay are you here? Come on up. Bonder DeNaroso. And I will read the resolution into the record.
Whereas, sudden cardiac arrest is the leading cause of natural death in the United States and routinely one of the leading causes of natural death in Santa Barbara County. Whereas the emergency medical services system relies on members of the community to access the system and provide care prior to the arrival of first responders. And whereas victims of sudden cardiac arrest require prompt high quality CPR to enhance their chances of survival. Hands only CPR takes minutes to learn and enables any community member to provide such care and triple the chances of survival.
And whereas in 2016, the national average of sudden cardiac arrest patients that received bystander CPR was 46% in Santa Barbara County. The average sudden cardiac arrest that receives bystander CPR was 25%. Whereas the EMS agency has joined the American Heart Association, the Emergency Medical Doctors Association of California. Emergency Medical Services Administrators Association of California and the California chapter of the American College of Emergency Physicians to organize hands only CPR training this week in various locations throughout the county to promote health and life. Now therefore be it hereby ordered and resolved that the Board of Supervisors of Santa Barbara County does hereby proclaim the week of June 1 to 8, 2018 as CPR and AED Awareness Week.
And the day of June 7th, 2018 is Hands Only CPR Day and encourages all residents of Santa Barbara County to observe or participate in appropriate ceremonies and activities passed and adopted today.
Good morning. Supervisor Wolf through the chair, thank you so much for supporting our initiative to train all members of our community on some life saving skills. So in 90 seconds you can acquire skills that may save a life and on Thursday throughout the county at ten different locations we will be training members of the communities and I highly encourage each one of you to show up at one of our events. And here is Nick to give some more details.
Supervisor Wolfe to the Chair, thank you guys very much for this day and this week. Recognizing the importance of educating our community is such a key step to the first parts of the 911 system. Our EMS system starts with our community. They are the first to arrive, they activate the 911 system and those first moments of cardiac arrest really are so crucial to increasing their survivability. The American Heart Association says a simple act of performing hands only CPR can more than double the chance of survival. Moreover, it's estimated that almost 88% of all sudden cardiac arrests occur in the home.
Meaning this skill will likely save a loved one. Just incredible to think that just a few minutes will really have that dramatic effect on those we care about most. More importantly in Santa Barbara County only 25% of sudden cardiac arrest receives CPR prior to EMS arrival compared to national average of 46%. This week, in collaboration with our EMS system providers and public health healthcare centers, we plan to narrow that gap. As Dr. DiBernoso said on June 7th, we'll have countywide events in English and in Spanish taking just a minute and a half to learn this important skill. Thank you both very much
Super, don't leave yet. Supervisor Hartman just had one.
I just have a comment you don't have to come back but I think having people prepared throughout the community is very significant if it only takes 90 seconds my request would be that we do that next year if we do this again or sometime right before the board have a demonstration right here thank you
That's
a great idea And I'll do the music that you're supposed to have, right? Staying alive. Isn't that right? That's the beat, right? Okay.
That's
a good volunteering for the...
You guys will be the backup dancers. That'd be good. With karaoke by Steve Lavagnino. It would
be very popular.
It would? I think it would! Let's do it. A52.
Chair Williams and members of the board, item A52 is our final resolution today. This recognizes our Santa Barbara County Employee of the Month for June 2018 and it's sponsored by Supervisor Williams. And if Kent Boyson could come on up along with Chief Peterson? And I will read the resolution into the record. Whereas Kent began his career working on a volunteer basis with the Santa Barbara County Fire Department in 1985. In 1990, he was hired part-time until he became a full time employee as an AOP expert in logistics in 2007. With his many years of experience, he's become an integral part of the Santa Barbara County Fire Department. His current role includes supporting our expanded dispatch center facilitating station remodels and upgrades.
And whereas Kent is an instrumental part of the type three incident management team in supporting incidents, which includes setting up base camp. Basically a small city. His role is key to the fire department's success as a team and he's made all 15 of the team deployments. Whereas Kent's carpentry skills have been instrumental in the maintenance of each station. Additionally they have been invaluable in developing and building the incident trailer which is critical in supporting the incident command staff. And whereas Kent continuously works after hours to complete projects, represents the fire department in a positive and professional manner. And his enthusiasm and dedication to the department serves as an example to all.
Now therefore be it hereby ordered and resolved that this Board of Supervisors recognizes Kent Boyson as Santa Barbara County Employee of the Month for June 2018 passing adopted today.
0:17 – 0:2420 turns
Chair Williams, board members. Thanks for the opportunity to recognize one of the absolute treasures of Santa Barbara County Fire Department, Kent Boysen. One of the things that often gets overlooked during these large incidents that we seem to keep having is the need to logistically support all those crews. They need to be fed, they need to be fueled, they need to have a place to be briefed. They need to have a command post that is supported and an incident command team that is also supported.
When you see those small cities go up at Dos Pueblos High or Earl Warren Showgrounds, Ken Boizen is the guy who keeps track of all the contracts, all the vendors, and makes sure that all that stuff happens. He does it in the background. He's a very humble guy but as you can see he's well loved in our fire department. I think he would've preferred to avoid today's festivities.
But thank you for the opportunity to, for well overdue recognition of
Kent.
Thank you. It's just great to be a part of the best department anywhere so I appreciate the opportunity.
We have several requests to pull items. We have A5, A21, A24, A25 and A26. Is there any items requested to be pulled from the public?
No requests to speak on the administrative agenda today from the public. Okay
then let's start with A5.
Chair Williams, members of the board. Item A5 is from the auditor controller and the request is that the board consider recommendations regarding the internal audit charter.
Mr. Adam. Thank you. I'm a little uncomfortable with this item because it's difficult to see how it would be appropriate for an auditor to audit themselves It seems like we ought to have something set up so that there's a third party that comes in and does an audit on the auditor's department, internal controls performance and operations. And I think for that reason I'm not going to be able to support this.
Okay, is there a motion on item A5 or any other comment on A5? Supervisor Wolk.
Thank you Mr Chair if there are no comments then I'll go ahead and move this item for roll call vote.
Motion.
I would second, but if the auditor is here or anybody can speak for the auditor's office. I would be very interested in hearing a response.
Board members also have with me David Medrano he is our recently hired internal audit chief and I'll let him answer that question
First time on the hot seat. So the idea behind having an audit charter is really consistent with some of the best practices in the audit profession. It doesn't really negate having an external entity come in and audit the practices of the internal audit shop, but what it does is it demonstrates that the practices that the internal audit organization for an entity Is abiding by some of the standards that the Institute of Internal Auditors has suggested that they follow. So from our perspective, the auditor controller is truly the chief audit executive for the county.
But I do understand your concern around the optics of having this person auditing their own work. One of the controls that I hope provides some comfort with respect to that concern is that we do have an external auditor who comes in and evaluates the legitimacy of the financial statements, transactions. In our system, we would also have a third party come in who are peers.
Who are familiar with the internal audit standards who would provide what's called a quality assurance assessment review that will provide ultimately a report to this committee that can provide some comfort that we are following You know, several tens of standards that the governing body of this profession has provided. So it is not really intended to be a subterfuge of governance. It's actually intended to be something that can demonstrate that we are in accordance with some of the best practices in this profession.
With all due respect, you guys are out there auditing as you should every other department for performance operations and internal controls right?
We are. We also look at areas that are opportunities for improvement in the controller's office as well and our obligation to this committee is to be objective in everything we find.
I understand that but notwithstanding all of Who audits you? Are you auditing yourself for internal controls, performance and operations or are you... Does it even get done? I believe
Mr. Medrano just said that you still need an external audit.
No actually what he said was a whole bunch of other things but he didn't mention those three so since I mentioned those three I would have thought maybe that was a clue to him to deal with those three items and I didn't hear that.
Supervisor Adam through the chair. In addition to the audits of the financial statements, our external auditors also do procedures on operations in our own shop. This last year 16-17 they did some agreed upon procedures for our IT. our IT processes, and this year at 6-30-18 they're going to review the property tax operations and the system. And so we have them look at our own shop at the same time that they also do the financial statements themselves.
0:24 – 0:2716 turns
Okay, so what regularity, what frequency is our practice in the past of having that done?
So we've made the request that each of the last two years, and then they themselves choose an operating area within our department on an annual basis to take a look
at. So prior to our own counter people discovering the embezzlement that occurred did they uncover any of that?
They did not.
Okay.
You'll have to understand that the agency funds themselves were not part of the actual audit of the financial statements. The audit of the financial statements is all of the operating funds of the county, and those
are
non-operating funds.
If people were coming to the counter to pick up a check for instance, wouldn't that be caught somewhere in a review of internal controls performance or operations?
So the internal controls are, as we brought forward with our internal control policy on a county wide basis. We have decentralized accounting in the county and so each department has their own accounting staff and they're responsible for the accountants and the accounting staff in each of the departments. And also for setting up the internal controls within that department. Now, we could provide guidance to them. And one of the main things is the segregation of duties and review of these accountants out in the individual departments. And so that was really probably the main cause of the embezzlement.
I'd like
And those individual claims were approved by someone authorized in that department for the warrants to be sent out. And then we reviewed those and also signed off on them, and then did approve the disbursement, yes.
Okay, all right, thank you.
Mr. Labanino? I'd just like to call for the question. We will do roll call vote.
Ms. Wolfe? Aye. Ms. Hartman? Aye. Mr. Adam? No. Mr. Lavagnino? Aye Mr. Williams? Aye Passes 4-1
Because there may be some folks sitting out there, staff out there waiting on some of the A items could I get a motion on the balance meaning the non pulled items. The rest of the pulled items are A21, A24, A25 and A26 could I get a motion on the balance of the agenda
0:27 – 0:298 turns
So moved. A second.
All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed? It's unanimous. Let's take a 21 courthouse.
Chair Williams members of the board item 821 is to the board from the General Services Department to consider recommendations during the Courthouse Legacy Foundations five year project plan. Supervisor Hartman
thank you Mr I recognize the significance of our courthouse as a state and historic landmark. And, I'm very supportive of the Legacy Foundation's work since 2004. I had a tour of the courthouse and looked at the landscaping and some of the work that needed to be done there. But what I see here in the report that we have is that the funding, the plan that they present will be used for arch and window support. So I guess what I would like to see is a fuller presentation on the courthouse and what has happened and what the needs are. Like to schedule that sometime in the future.
I think that would be agreeable. I think general services can bring that to us at another date. How about, we'll do A24 and a vote on both of those because you want to vote separately on A24 as well? Okay then let's get a vote on 821. Can I get a motion?
So moved. Second.
All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed? It's unanimous. A24.
Chair Williams, members of the board, item A24 is from Human Resources. This is to consider recommendations regarding the Santa Barbara County Firefighters 2046 local amended memorandum of understanding.
0:30 – 0:3910 turns
Supervisor Adam. Thank you. Okay, so my problem here is I don't think we're taking account of the number of vacancies and turnover Thank you Mr. Chair and thank you to all of the people in this department for making this contract. There doesn't seem to be a shortage of applicants as a matter The purpose of the fire tax shift was not to pay premiums to the employees, but to ensure that we had enough money to have equipment and facilities and employees. And this raises too rich and may compromise our ability to maintain and purchase our facility and equipment over time.
According to our own HR department this morning, our turnover rate is 5.56 which is pretty low as opposed to the sheriff which is 10.66. And then our vacancy rate at the fire department is 3.03% as opposed to 10.33 at the Sheriff's Department and that's not saying that it should be that high, it's just a recognition of those facts on the ground is we don't have any shortage of people there and I think this raise is excessive given the number of people that we have.
Supervisor Wolf.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just another perspective. First of all I want to thank our Human Resources Director Laura Gentles and also Joe Pazano, Employee Relations for working with this unit to get us to this agreement. I think it's important for the public to also know that with this raise also comes a give back from our firefighters to reduce the county's pension costs. So there was a lot of work and negotiation that went into this agreement, so yes while there are pay raises noted here, there are give backs from our firefighters to reduce the county's pension contribution. And similarly we're going to see that in another item that will be coming up but I just want to thank everyone who was involved in this. I think it was a terrific effort.
Our firefighters like many, like all of our county employees are excellent service providers to our community and I think that the pay schedule, pay scale that they're on is absolutely fair and warranted. Thank you Mr Chair.
Supervisor Lavendino. Thank you Mr. Chair and I just wanted to point out also that when you factor in the give back, the average incremental cost actually comes out to less than 3% per year it's 2.9%. And I don't find that to be egregious, I find that to be fair and so I'll be supporting this. Supervisor Wolk?
If there's no other comments I'll make a motion. I'm sorry if I jumped the gun.
No, go ahead and make the motion. Okay. Motion is there a second? Second. And I'll just comment that you know Supervisor Adams or comments about turnover well taken but it does not take away from the value of this contract to reduce ongoing pension liability and risk which to me is what this is really about and as a cooperative agreement Supervisor Adam, even that civil of a comment?
I appreciate your civility. I just want to say there was a purpose for the fire tax shift and maybe the CEO has a comment on this. We're eating the fire tax shift And pretty soon we won't have any money to do our maintenance of our facilities and buy new equipment. And then we'll need to do something else, and they'll be coming in wanting more money for those purposes. And then we'll be talking about putting a bond or a tax on the ballot pretty soon because we don't have the money cuz we gave it away to wages and salaries and benefits.
Just because we did the fire tax shift doesn't mean that firefighters don't ever get a raise into the future. A contract where the average raise is less than 3% a year, if you can't figure out how to run a business First off, if you're quoting turnover And at the same time, you're saying you don't want to give anybody a raise. Well if you want to increase the turnover rate that's a really good way to do it I think.
So it's a fair contract. The fire tax shift was used, was instituted and I helped push it through because we did have a lack of facilities and we were looking at the long term. But nowhere when we pushed that through did we say okay the firefighters are never going to get a raise again. I wouldn't support a 7, 8, 10% raise. A 2.9% per year is normal and so the alternative for that is, and I've seen this every time raises come up, is the answer's always no.
That's not realistic. I just don't see how that's a realistic approach to dealing with employees, to say you're never getting a raise. Or the alternative is that I've heard is they should be giving us money, they should be taking cuts and there's value in having people that are here That have experience, that are staying with the county. And any employee that doesn't feel like they're ever going to get a raise is always going to look to move somewhere else. I don't want to be the training ground for San Luis Obispo County and Ventura County and Kern County so I guess we go over this every time we have new contracts, but I think our team has done an outstanding job of not only keeping the raises within what the CEO's budgeted which is 3%, but also as far as I know this is the first time we've ever had employees get back and pick up a portion of their pension.
And so I think we should be celebrating that instead of burning the place down.
Now, would you like to respond?
Thank
you. All I'm saying is if you have a low vacancy rate and compared to, there is a number which according to Ms. Gentles this morning was around 10%. And your sheriff is at 10.66 which is right there. Your vacancy rate's 10.33 which is right there and 3.03 is telling you that you have a lot of people more than normal Sticking around. That should affect and color the way everybody comes to a negotiation about a potential pay raise.
I realize that in some segments of the world People have an expectation of 3% as a normal course of business, but that's not necessarily required given certain circumstances such as turnover and vacancy rate. And that's all I'm saying. And I realize I'm not going to change anybody's mind up here. I'm just saying what a whole bunch of people in the private sector that I represent think.
Supervisor Hartman. Thank you Mr Chair.
0:39 – 0:445 turns
I think there's a fallacy in the reasoning that assumes that the vacancy or retention turnover rate is the only function, the only factor that determines whether or not people want to work in an environment. I think leadership, I think innovation, I think the job conditions, the sense of mission, those are all factors that play into whether somebody wants to work In a particular environment and whether they want to stay. And I just want to echo what everyone else said, I think we have a tremendous fire department. I think we are putting them under increasing strain given the fires and the demands on them. And I think they've been very generous in the give back provision and I'm highly supportive of what human resources has done here so I'm supporting this.
I just want to chime in and appreciate the firemen and women. This is out of, it's my concern that we do not have an unlimited ability to tax people, and they need their equipment and their facilities as bad as they need arrays. So there's some point of balance at some point—and we're not going to arrive You know, I want them to have all the stuff they need to be able to do their job too. And I think that we're getting over center and have been for some time on compensation in a monetary way rather than also taking care of the stuff that is needed for everybody to do their job and to be safe.
And you know, I think there should be a recognition That overall compensation is much more than just wage increases. It's working conditions, as you alluded to I think and I am very concerned for them that they have everything that they need and can go out and do these things that we expect them to do in a safer manner as possible so I don't want anybody to think that I don't appreciate fire personnel, because I do very much.
And I hope that the ones that I've talked to understand that.
Supervisor Lavaniga? Well now I'm hesitating to ask this question but I will because I guess my question then would be what would you support? Would it be any raise? or
at what level? See it's a little frustrating to me to answer a question like that because we've misallocated our budgets for so long on so many other things. It's not a matter of somebody deserving more money. And so it's going to happen, so they are going to get a raise. So the discussion of how much of a raise I would support is sort of like how many angels dance on the head of the pin.
If we didn't have the Social Services Commission or Human Services Commission and you had another million bucks and you put it in something else like maintenance or if the dog I guess I can't say that, it's one of my dad's old favorite sayings. If things were different, I would support something and if there was a recognition that sometimes if you have inadequate turnover, you don't need to give a raise.
But it's a different world. You guys are the majority and just suffer me as I represent the people that keep telling me that I say the things they want to hear, and we'll go on and we'll do the best we can.
That seems to be a fallback all the time and everybody up here represents folks, you know?
0:44 – 0:4621 turns
Let's call for the question. Supervisor Wolf?
Yeah, I was going to make a motion that we approve this item. Second.
Thank you. Roll call please.
Ms. Wolfe? Aye. Ms Hartman? Aye Mr Adam?
No.
Mr Lavinino?
Aye
Mr Williams?
Aye Passed 4-1 Then we'll do roll call on A25 and A26 Can I get a motion on those two? I'll move 25
Yeah, we gotta read it.
Chair Williams, members of the board, item A25 is also from Human Resources. This is regarding the SEIU Local 620 Amended MOU.
I heard a motion from Supervisor Leaveny, no? I don't know if we're going to do them separate but I'll move 825. Second. Roll call, please.
Ms. Wolk? Aye. Ms. Hartman? Aye Mr. Adams? No. Mr. Lavinino? Aye. Mr Williams? Aye Passes 4-1
Can you read 826?
Chair Williams members of the board item 826 again from human resources this is to consider the engineer and technicians association amended MOU I
move 826 Second Roll call, please.
Ms. Wolf? Aye. Mr. Hartman? Aye Mr. Adam?
No
Mr. Lavagnino? Aye Mr. Williams? Aye Passes 4-1
All right that concludes our quite lively administrative agenda. Yeah well we still have a couple more things first. Is there public comment for items not on the agenda?
Chair Williams, members of the board. We have four requests to speak under public comment today and we will start with Patricia Rosen to be followed by Brian Rosen.
0:46 – 0:525 turns
Good morning, my name is Patricia Rosen. You just called me. I live in Montecito. I wrote this out before I came so- Hold on. I wanted you to know everything. Over three years ago, I testified to you about the murder of my daughter Lori which happened in Montecito on Tabor Lane. I wanted the investigation reopened. Shortly after, I was called by Detective Gary Kitzman who told me this case was next in line. He had to wrap up another murder case. As time went on something always came up and the case never came to a full investigation.
Recently, this detective explained there wasn't funding to pursue the investigation. He needed funding to pursue it or a grant or something. Are solving murders like this unimportant to our sheriff Bill Brown? Why was I led to believe there would be a full investigation? I am almost 90 years old and want to see the case solved before I'm still alive. There's only one suspect who has a violent felony record. While his record doesn't prove his guilt, he needs to be thoroughly investigated.
Bill Brown, I hope you hear this. You're the sheriff and likely to remain so. Please respect my request. I want this investigation to be opened immediately. Supervisors, especially your DAS, since you represented my district. Please ask the sheriff to pursue this investigation immediately. I don't want lip service and promises. I want to see some action right away. Thank you very much. Thank you.
Thank you and I will ask the under sheriff about this particular case.
Brian Rosen to be followed by Dorothy Dent.
Good morning, Board of Supervisors. I live in Montecito. I am grateful to live in Montecito because this community has a lot of clout, a lot of wealthy people. Therefore we get a lot of help, you know? We're really helped a lot. Fortunately I wasn't personally affected by the flood but Too much, but a lot of people were. If you're unfortunate to live in Puerto Rico, you didn't get the help you needed because it gets treated like a colony. The people there still don't have electricity or clean water.
If you're a black person in Flint, Michigan your water is still full of lead. You have to buy your own drinking water so gosh we're lucky. I hear we have a great community. Have we learned a lot from this disaster? Free lunches were given to firefighters, but somehow I think it would be more significant to give free lunches to the poor. Jesus said to help the poor, that was why we were here.
I was a firefighter on a fire crew once. Believe me, we got paid well. Meals involving factory farm animals were also given out. We're willing to dish it out to animals as a society but boy we hate when disaster happens to us. Boy aren't we great? I wish, you know Montecito could become so cruelty free in the restaurants, humanely raised animals. We could do so much. We could be really a great community but we'd love to say how great we are.
In my opinion the last disaster of the mudslide victims should never have happened. There was a broad evacuation called mandatory. A mandatory evacuation, but I don't think there's any such thing as a mandatory evacuation. The person has the right to defend his or her home. But so why lie to the public? Explain to people the dangers. Call it an emergency evacuation.
Our area was under a mandatory evacuation about the time of the flood even though we were in high ground and had plenty of escape routes. I live up near Westmont College. If power or water went out, we could have gotten out. It was very broad. One side of the road was evacuation, the other wasn't. I know the creek area, for example, wasn't even under an evacuation. It was, I think the written instructions were you don't have to evacuate if you live right by Hot Springs Creek. It was the road that was a border. We should focus on the danger zones and none of those people should've died. It's so sad to me, really it's so sad.
There's no accountability, I'm not an expert. I never would have anticipated such a disaster where we pay people a lot of money to know about things that we don't know about. They make huge salaries so I'm running out of time but let's look out for the poor. That's what Jesus wanted. Let us pause in life's pleasures and count its many tears, as the Stephen Foster song goes. While we all seek sorrow, will we feel sorrow with the poor?
There is a song that will linger forever in our ears. Hard times come again no more. That's a great song. Thank you. Thank you.
Dorothy Dent to be followed by Ed Kolaski who's our final speaker.
0:52 – 0:594 turns
Good morning, supervisors. I'm Dorothy Dent. Thank you for observing the powerful need to recognize and deal with gun violence. I hope you take the initiative to work on this problem in the public health plan and budget. In my time in Isla Vista, I have witnessed terrible tragedies including my son being a witness as he was getting lunch at Isla Vista Deli to Elliot Rogers opening fire and going on his killing rampage.
As is the case time and time again, here and elsewhere. Local authorities were warned by astute and keen citizenry. Warned and pleaded with to investigate in this case Elliot's weaponry and intentions. But although well meaning I'm sure the sheriffs did not fully follow through and another horrible disaster occurred. Why, after so many red flags over and over again in every case all around the nation.
Is the privacy of men's guns collections more important than the protection of the public? This problem of power privilege profit and being above the law must end. The party is over for power of people over the poor and disadvantaged. People with immense power take advantage of the elderly and the young by falsely imprisoning them, disenfranchising them, chemically restraining them.
Disenfranchising them and their families of their homes for the profit off these ill gotten gains is distributed in the very halls of next door and here as well. This problem I attribute to a war on the poor or in this town, the less rich. Victims are experiencing illegal evictions, fraudulent court petitions and unlawful conflict of interests where court cronies are ruining families' sanctities of life.
There is a failure to oversee the sheriff's civil authority in unlawful detainers, conservatorships and property seizures. These tools when misappropriated are devastating to our community and create terrible indignities beyond belief as well as great community costs. We are experiencing a time in America where we need to take control of our local authorities, where justice and fairness can overcome greed and untruth.
Prevention is more important than desperate reaction. If the budget is important then why do you have the sheriffs making illegal evictions of people and creating more homeless? This of course is not all your fault, California court procedures legality though is. Your law enforcement organizations have the responsibility to uphold the law no matter who they find breaking it.
In my case an arrested felon who I did not know assaulted me in the department five courtroom on September 8th 2016 and instead of arresting him because he works for a superior court judge possibly, I am still being charged with filing false report. Thank you so much for your time.
And then we're going to go to Santa Maria for Mr. Caldwell, who will wrap up public comment.
Good morning. Excuse me. Ken, you put the drawing on? I've been trying to get my house remodeled for the last four years. Apparently he's having problems showing it. The Board of Architectural Review claims that our second story is located solely over the garage. And if it's solely over the garage, it's in violation of guideline 4.7. But it's clearly not solely over the garage. It's over the garage kitchen dining room part of the living room. If you ask an architect they think it's a stupid question obviously it's not solely over the garage.
So last time I was here My supervisor claimed that I was here because I'm here to berate SBAR, and that's totally false. Let me put the other one up. As I said last time, I'm here because three of the members of SBAR have acted illegally. They're doing things which are illegal for both California law and federal law. So who represents me? Is it my supervisor?
For four years I've been coming here, 44 years. I mean excuse me, 44 talks here before the Board of Supervisors, 44 of them and my supervisor still doesn't know what I'm talking about. No, I didn't come here to berate SBAR as I said last time, four of them are really good people. What I'm here for is because they're doing illegal functions. They are not allowed to dismiss you from a meeting that you paid for, they're not even allowed to dismiss you for sitting in the audience.
I've had that happen too. You're allowed to usually speak when you present your project. We weren't allowed to speak. They had someone stand up and scream at us and in 15 seconds Alex Tells us to leave. We never got to say a single word. They erased tapes, we can't even play the tape of the meeting because they erased it. Now when I go down there, I can't even get Alex to turn the tape on.
Takes time to erase it this way they don't even have to worry about erasing it. They make up meetings, minutes for the meeting that didn't happen. They said on the previous one that we made no changes. We added 300 square feet to a 400 square foot project! That is no changes? Who represents me up here? Clearly it's not my supervisor. It's the one that I voted for. I'm embarrassed to say that.
Who represents me? Mr. Chairman, do you represent me? Do any of the other three represent? Well, Adam clearly sees the problem here but the four of you, you dismiss it. This is disgusting! I was going to read off these- Thank you, Mr. Glaske. Okay, we'll be back next time. We're
going to go to Santa Maria for Mr. Caldwell
0:59 – 1:024 turns
Chair Williams, members of the board, I'm Andy Caldwell representing Poll Lab. I did not speak on the admin calendar this morning with regard to MOUs and I don't want to start another bout in any way shape or form. And I'll tell you why I didn't speak to it. I've spoke to it in years past and there's a flaw in your system And this is what I was told in years past, and so that's why I didn't speak today. What I was told in years past is if the public comes up to the board and says well you know we don't think the raises are that high but the pension contributions were not high enough. You didn't do enough negotiation.
We were invariably told every single time, and you know I've been doing this for 28 Is we have no choice. If we as the board right now were to decline this, we could be accused of not negotiating in good faith. That we send our people in there, they come back to us in closed session, we give them directions, we vote, we do this and then this thing's finally brought forth to us an open session for ratification.
And then anything less than that is negotiating in bad faith. Well, here's the problem with this. When those union members that are negotiating with your staff come up with a proposal they go to their members for ratification and support but you don't go to the taxpayers There should be an interim step, a preliminary just at the same time the union members are going to their membership. The union leadership are going to their membership. You should put in a departmental item on here, preliminary negotiation offer and let your members weigh in.
It's a flawed process. They get to review it, the public doesn't. The public gets a fait accompli. We have to vote for it or we negotiate it in bad faith. I don't think compared to other jurisdictions you're overpaying your staff per se but I think in comparison with all jurisdictions you're going broke And something's got to change. The paradigm has to change because what you're doing every single day is your betting and pleading and praying every single day that the stock market doesn't take a dive, and that's a fool's errand. Thank you.
That concludes public comment.
Is there a
CEO's report?
1:02 – 1:086 turns
No report this morning.
We've agreed to take D2 up first, D2?
Chair Williams and members of the board. Departmental item number two is from the County Executive Office. It's a hearing to consider recommendations regarding a recovery strategic plan for the Thomas Fire and the January 9, 2018 debris flow. And I have received slight modification in the recommended actions A and B, and I'm going to read those into the record. A is to receive and file a presentation from staff on the recovery strategic plan for the Thomas Fire, the 1-9 Debris Flow and proposed hazard mitigation grant projects. And two, determine that the proposed actions are administrative activities or governmental fiscal activities that do not involve a commitment to any specific project and are therefore not a project as defined by State of California Environmental Quality Guidelines sections 15378B4 and B5.
Please proceed.
Good morning Mr. Chairman, members of the board, Matt Pontus, Assistant CEO and I'm joined with me today with our recovery team on my left Andrew Myung, we've got Rob Lewin, Jeff Wilson and out various places in the crowd we've got Suzanne Grimesy, Terry Nisich, Steve Mason, Tom Fairam, Mark Schleight, David Fukutomi and Ben Romo. Who's got some fabulous socks on today.
So we're going to start out today and-
And I'll ask for just, because we have another very hefty item and some folks waiting just to make sure that you don't go into too much detail. Thank you. Understood.
Thank you. The county's approach to the Thomas Fire and the 1-9 debris flow recovery effort emphasizes mitigating hazards and risks, and other safety concerns, educating the community on future storm or debris flow risks, minimizing future risks, and addressing the community's need to rebuild quickly. We're all after building a resilient Montecito. As our neighborhoods recover together, our immediate goal is to help the community move forward by bringing together the collective resources of our local government, non-profit organizations and other community groups to make a strategic plan with inclusive decisions that ultimately creates a more resilient Montecito.
And we couldn't do this without the help of our state and federal partners. Our guiding principles of the Strategic Recovery Plan include flexibility and efficiency, data-driven decision making, creation of a more resilient community Our Strategic Recovery Plan is comprised of eight key areas of focus, which you will hear more about today from our recovery team presenters.
Before we move on to further understand the key areas of the strategic recovery planning, I'd like to introduce Reverend Kate Wiebe to you. Kate, if you could raise your hand in the audience there. Kate is the Executive Director for the Institute for Collective Trauma and Growth, a member of the Thomas Fire and 19 Debris Flow Community Wellness Team, and is the Chair of our Community Long-Term Recovery Group. And as mentioned earlier, the engagement of our community in our recovery efforts is crucial.
The purpose of the Thomas Fire and 1-9 Debris Flow Recovery Strategic Plan is to guide the county's strategic efforts to support a unified and comprehensive response of all stakeholder agencies within Santa Barbara County engaged in the ongoing recovery efforts. As you can see, and I'm not gonna go into too much detail. We have the plan components here. Storm preparedness and evacuation, long-term flood control mitigation, private property rebuilding, debris on private property, financial impacts in economic recovery, infrastructure repair and modifications, natural and cultural resources, and community engagement.
As we know it takes everyone working together The recovery will take time and will require a whole community effort. These objectives will guide the county's strategic effort focused on meeting the needs of residents as they recover, and improving the ongoing safety and security of our residents. As noted above on this slide we have three main objectives. Actually we have seven main objectives.
Identify the issues that are important to recovery, ensure the public is provided information on the efforts, engage the public and elected officials to determine the best solutions for recovery and get appropriate feedback. To utilize public and private partnerships throughout the recovery efforts. To work closely with our non-profits to provide assistance where government services are not able to or where they need enhancement.
To continue to prepare the communities for future storm evacuations and utilizing the best data possible when making evacuation determinations. We are also developing plans and strategies to address the following issues Storm Preparation, Long-Term Mitigation, the Rebuilding Process and Communication Strategies. The Plan for Debris Management on Private Property also aligned with the key issue areas.
These key issue areas address each of the plan objectives and further the issues So now I'm going to turn it over to Director Lewin who's going to talk a little bit about our first issue, storm preparation.
1:08 – 1:143 turns
Chair and board, thank you very much. I think it's important to point out that with this strategic plan there is a change in the focus of what we're doing as part of the recovery team which is now to make sure that we're focusing on issues and finding solutions. We're moving away from department actions but now coordinated effort on solving issues. And of course, unlike other disasters where when the disaster is over we move into recovery and there we are. In this particular disaster unfortunately we are faced with being the need to be prepared for potential for future debris flows and flooding in the communities that were affected by the Thomas Burn.
So where are we at on that? We're currently gathering data to be able to update our maps. We're using the US Geological Survey to look at thresholds and see if that we can elevate those thresholds. We're using the FEMA data, the Watershed Task Force data and our own local information to be able to try to come up with a map that is going to reflect the impacts that are potentially there for this winter.
We'll be working with the jurisdictions and leadership on the storm group that makes the decisions about when and how to do the evacuations. That group will convene this summer, to be able to review the processes that we have and make changes so they reflect this coming winter's problems. And then finally, we'll be outreaching to the public Thank you.
So Mr. Chair, members of the board in terms of the long-term flood control mitigation strategies we have a number of items that were trying to initiate one of the items that you'll hear about a little bit later is we've been preliminary approved to apply for hazard mitigation grant Thank you We'll be initiating a study this fall with the new federal fiscal year to look at larger long-term projects that might be in the federal interest. These projects could be very expensive and would look to a federal interest in that. And then lastly, I would just conclude that throughout all this period our ongoing maintenance of our existing channel corridors and debris basins will be our top priority.
Good morning Chair, members of the Board. Jeff Wilson with the Planning and Development Department. In order for the community of Montecito to reach full recovery, the rebuilding of properties is an essential component of that recovery process. The community will need clear guidance on their building process with concerns providing protection to the community and from future debris flows.
There's key issues that we're focusing on in the rebuilding process. The first is to provide specific guidelines for permitting process and rebuilding in the following areas. Those properties or those structures need repairs that are less than 50% of the value of the structure, and those structures need repairs that are greater than 50 percent of the value of the structure.
In addition, we're focusing on continually updating our interactive map to refine and define the structures or the damaged structures on each property to provide greater information to the property owners and members of the public as they are viewing the area. In addition, we're working on establishing survey monuments that were lost during the event so that property owners and their design professionals can more easily establish the property lines.
In addition, we're creating changes to the ordinances to allow for property owners to more easily rebuild based on the new FEMA flood standards that are coming out in the next week or so. And this includes greater flexibility in the high restriction and We were before you recently on the like for like ordinances, that's part of this process. In addition we want to pursue the board's approval on using the new risk hazard map that will be coming out shortly to help in identifying those standards for rebuilding with the new Elevations that are being identified.
We also are working with Flood Control and developing a process to easily align our departments so that flood control case managers and the planning department case managers are working together with property owners. We have established weekly meetings where we coordinate, and work with staff from both departments to help identify areas for rebuilding and providing information to the property owners. We're also involved with collaborating with local architects And engineers and land use specialists in the area to help in identifying and providing guidance to the members of the public.
And finally, an area or category that we're focusing on is developing a communication strategy that will inform the private property owners of those tools and resources that are available to them and make the process as streamlined as possible as we go forward. Thank you.
1:14 – 1:194 turns
Good morning board members, my name is Mark Schleich. I'm with the Resource Recovery Waste Management Division of Public Works and I've been tasked with assisting the community with removal of private property debris. The underlying goal of private property debris is to reduce the distance that we have to transport this material for various reasons primarily cost.
And to do that we've come up with a strategy by which they could either regrade the material on site, which is primarily soils, rocks and trees. Exchanging it perhaps with their neighbor or ultimately taking it to long distance. With regard to grading it onsite there typically has to be coordination with other departments within the county whether that be planning and development for a grading permit or the FEMA maps that are yet to be produced.
Similarly, that has been a challenge with the material exchange. And so it's been a little bit of a slow slog out there as relates to removing the debris. To support the community in those efforts we have put together kind of some informational sheets on the material exchange as well as where outlets for the material does exist whether it be in our county or adjoining counties in Ventura.
Longer term, we're looking at working with our flood control district to find a local site to assist communities with this. Thank you.
Good morning, Supervisors. I'm Andrew Myung and I'm presenting the financial impacts and economic recovery. As you know, the costs to respond to this incident were significant. This includes damages to county infrastructure such as roads, bridges, channels, and basins. It includes emergency protective measures like the Emergency Operations Center, evacuation search and rescue, sheltering and debris removal.
So as a result of these impacts we've been diligently working across all county departments to identify damages and recoup the cost to the best of our ability. Much of our focus has been recouping costs through the FEMA Public Assistance Program to repair damaged and destroyed infrastructure. Our aim is to restore infrastructure to pre-disaster conditions. Oftentimes we're building to higher standards that meet current codes and regulations.
Some other action items outlined in the strategic plan, we want to ensure full cost recovery on all expenditures through the Thomas Fire and the 1-9 debris flow. We want to ensure the county recovery from lost property taxes. We want to support recovery from economic loss to the business community. Additionally, we're constantly searching for additional federal or state funding to develop long-term funding source for the maintenance and installation of new protections.
Another action item, we are developing a comprehensive list Of feasible mitigations to reduce future debris flows and risks, and pursue hazard mitigation grant programs which you'll hear about later in the presentation. All right.
Good morning. Chris Denton, Public Works Transportation. In thinking about the infrastructure repair and reconstruction rebuilding obviously a lot of infrastructure sustained significant damage during the event most All of that has been restored to the point where everything's up and functioning. And now we're sort of turning to thinking about the future, and how to rebuild and reconstruct these things in a way so that things are resilient against future potential events and sustainable. And then also considering the community aesthetics and Environmental environment that we're working in and being respectful of that as we go through the process.
Our next issue is natural and cultural resources. The Thomas Fire and 1-9 debris flow spanned across many natural and cultural resources. Santa Barbara County aims to support the protection of natural and cultural resources through the cultural enhancements and preservation during the recovery actions. Our effort is to preserve, conserve and rehabilitate and restore these areas.
Obviously we're going to take into consideration environmental and historical preservation laws, our county mandates and also use stakeholder guidance. We have a process to identify the cultural enhancements in preservation during the recovery actions. We're also attempting to prevent further damage to natural and cultural resources during the recovery actions such as infrastructure repairs, debris removal and construction.
We're also worried about making sure that we have adequate resources documented prior to future storms, so that we're ready to go for the next storms before they come in. We're going to be coordinating with resource specialists from internal and external agencies, tribal communities, and with other stakeholders that support restoration of the impacted cultural and natural resources.
1:19 – 1:284 turns
Mr. Chair and members of the board, I'm happy to present on our eighth issue area community engagement. First our goal is to maintain the Montecito Center as a centralized location for engaging community resources and providing support to those impacted by the disaster. We are also prioritizing assisting property owners and helping navigate the complex rebuilding process. And help, also people who are not property owners, navigate those complex systems and resources that are available to help them get back on their feet.
We are using our community engagement strategies to engage with funders and community partners to leverage additional resources, to augment county resources. Especially in areas where the county is not able to respond. We're looking to support the residents of Montecito to have a venue through which to be engaged, but also importantly to provide input into the recovery and rebuilding process.
We're looking to transition the Montecito Center which was established in March to a community based model over the next three months. And we're looking to engage the broader community and facilitate a broader community based approach to provide input and guidance on how to restore the broader community recovery.
Good morning, Chair and members of the board. I'm going to talk a little bit about communications. Reliable and accessible communications is essential to a community's resilience and overall recovery. As we've talked about before, the counties of Santa Barbara's goal for communication is to provide timely, accurate, and consistent information to the public in order to ensure that recovery of the whole community. Towards this goal, unique communication strategies will be developed for each of the issue areas you've heard about today.
We will be using our social media platforms, our ReadySBC Recovery website as well as our recently released recovery e-newsletter to continue to inform the community about what is happening in the various areas. We'll also be conducting additional community meetings and of course working with our media throughout the recovery effort. In addition to keeping the public informed of progress and updates to the recovery strategic plan, we'll be reporting to you on a quarterly basis on each of these various action items. I wanted to also mention that all of our outreach is done in both English and Spanish as well. And we have an upcoming community meeting actually to go over to the FEMA maps on the 20th of this month as well.
Next we have David Fukutomi who's going to talk to us a little bit about our hazard mitigation projects that we've put together.
Good morning Mr. Chair, members of the board. I'd like to talk a little bit about mitigation and how that works. I'm a former FEMA federal coordinating officer and deputy director of Cal OES for response and recovery so I have a little bit of experience that I bring to the county to help them pursue funding for these projects. You've heard a lot about mitigation. That starts by the adaption Mitigation plan, which the county did. It's a collaborative process here in what they call the operational area defined as the county. That's the first step in making the county eligible for federal and state mitigation assistance There's two major types of assistance. Let me step back a second about disaster assistance in general. First of all, the most visible part is individual assistance.
That's the assistance that FEMA provides to individuals and families to provide a roof over their heads. You've seen them out in the community. That activity is largely completed now and individuals and families have been encouraged to register for FEMA assistance. You heard Andrew talk about public assistance program. That, by dollar is the largest FEMA disaster assistance program that pays back local governments and state agencies for the actual damages from a disaster and the cost of responding to a disaster.
That's an ongoing process, and again as I mentioned that's the largest by dollar. The program you don't hear much about is called the Hazard Mitigation Program, and there's two components of that. There's section 406 of the Stafford Act, and basically the federal government says well we don't want to give you disaster assistance and see that culvert bridge or that building get damaged again so we're going to give you a mitigation bonus. For those elements that we paid to provide disaster assistance before, to prevent damage from happening again. The other program is called Section 404 or the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program, affectionately known as HMGP. And that's a pot that set aside as a percentage of federal disaster assistance made available to state and local agencies to apply to do resiliency or hazard mitigation projects.
that will prevent damage in the community as a whole. Section 404 has a multi-step process. The first step is filing a notice of interest, which the county has done and is continuing to do. The next step is if your project Potentially eligible and within the realm of what the priorities are established by the state. You're invited to be down selected for, to apply, submit a formal application. Those formal applications will be brought in front of the board prior to submittal to the state.
They're quite lengthy and challenging. We brought in various consultants to help with that. One component that's very important is a benefit cost analysis, and that drives a lot of the competitiveness. This is all competitive money once the state takes in all the applications they rank them from one I'm As I mentioned, the county has been quite aggressive about pursuing these opportunities and we're continuing to look at projects that may give long-term resiliency mitigation and protection to the impacted communities.
Three projects in particular I wanted to highlight that have been down selected for applications and flood controls in the process of assembling that information right now in preparation for bringing them Approval prior to submittal to the state. Those are the Cold Springs, the San Ysidro and Romero Debris Basins. Those projects will increase capacity and re-engineer them slightly.
Those are high value targets if you would in terms of priorities for reducing the potential for damage to the impacted communities. In addition to that, The Transportation Department has been down selected for three projects as well. One's a low water crossing, you see them up on the board. I won't go over all of them. And there's another project that an NOI will be submitted for amongst others that I wanted to bring your attention to and that is for a debris collection area or sorting area. An acquisition of that property in order to expedite the removal of debris and for staging in future disasters.
One of the significant requirements in terms of the county, other than complying with the grant requirements is that there's a 25% local match. The federal government provides 75%, or $0.75 on the dollar for project cost. The local agency, local government would provide 25%. So one of the reasons why each of those applications we brought before you for consideration prior to submittal.
Subject to any questions, that's a quick summary of the mitigation funding opportunities and strategy.
1:28 – 1:3823 turns
So with that, that'll conclude the staff's report. So we recommend that the Board of Supervisors receive and file a presentation from staff on the recovery strategic plan for the Thomas Fire in the 1-9 debris flow and proposed hazard mitigation grant projects. And determine that the proposed actions are administrative activities or governmental financial activities that do not involve a commitment to any specific project a project as defined by the State of California Environmental Quality Guidelines Section 15378, section B4 and D5.
With that we'd be happy to answer any questions you may have. Questions from the
board? I got a chance to ask some questions at your forum so I won't repeat those. Supervisor Wolf?
Thank you Mr. Chair and thank you all for being here. Sir, I didn't get your name but
David Fukutomi.
Thank you and thank you for being part of our team, thank you. I just wanted to, I went through the recovery plan and there's just a couple corrections before it's finalized on page seven. The last paragraph fourth line from the bottom. There's a letter T that shouldn't be there.
Thank you for catching that mystery T there on the page.
And then on page 9, number 2, there's an M.
I think Terry was able to sneak her initials into the
strategic
plan somehow. Is that
what it
is? I think it might be.
Okay, so just now kind of more general questions. So on issue one in the report it talks about the Whittier and Sherpa burn areas but it's not mentioned anywhere that I could see in the rest of the report. Should that just be an assumption? The other issues would include those fire areas as it relates to flooding or debris flows, given that we did have that in Gaviota at one of our sites. Just a question about that.
Chair and Supervisor Wolf, in fact we will make sure that as we create a program for the future debris flows this winter that all the burn areas will be evaluated with the same effort. There will be no question that the team that will get together The data that we will review, we'll review all the burn areas. We are more optimistic about the other burn areas in recovery than we are about the Thomas Burn area and so that hopefully will reflect on the actions that we'll have to take in the winter.
So thank you for the question.
Okay and while you're there because I do have some more comments but Mr. Lewin when you were here before you told us that you had a wedding that you needed to go to in June. And we're in June.
And I didn't forget that. In fact, I'm going to be gone next week and there's no way I'm coming back. I'm going to be up in Northern California in the Sierras at my daughter's wedding. Your daughter's
wedding? So I just wanted to congratulate you for that. When you said June whenever it was it seemed so far away and here we are already.
So congratulations. June 16th thank you very
much. The other thing I wanted to talk about was Thank you Madam Chair. I would like to talk about the incorporation of elected officials About it was in PowerPoint plan objectives, engaging the public and elected officials to determine the best solutions for recovery. So one thing that is important for me as an elected official is to also be engaged in the communications plan.
And I think you folks did a good job in including us when the plan changed. And, I think it's really important for us to have that information ahead of time or as it's being developed because we get a lot of questions about that. I would say communication piece is probably one of the most important things for us as elected officials. So I don't see us listed in the plan on the far right side of people who should be a part of these things.
I would suggest that elected officials definitely have to be a part of or incorporated into the communications plan. Also, I think I missed what the comment is about the 72 hour evacuation timeline process. Are we changing that or is it the same? Because it was in your PowerPoint but you went by it pretty quickly. It's issue one, storm preparation and evacuation. And this was the new one that we all became aware of. So are we keeping this or are we going to revise
it? Chair and Supervisor Wolf, we are going to look at it and if we can find a better way to message the public then we're gonna do that. And so if that means that one of the concepts we have is similar to the Ready Set Go program that we use on wildland fires. We want to look and see if the 72 hour clock that On the heels of the decision group that convenes in August, early September. On the heels of that with the recommendations that they have, their communication group will then use all of their best talent to try and come up with the best method. We can certainly engage the elected officials in this process and we can add that to the plan.
Well, especially if it's going to change. I think right now, especially as fire season approaches, I think people are very much aware of warnings and orders. The debris flow in the 72 hour process is a little bit different. So I just want to know, as we're approaching, well, we know fire seasons all year, right? Are we, we're not changing that at this point?
This county uses the terms evacuation order and evacuation warning. Right. That is the process that is best. Okay. And that's the one that we hope to use however as you stated debris flows have their own issues associated with it. They do allow us a time for giving advisories even ahead of the warning and order. So we'll take all that into consideration as we move forward. But we will definitely make sure that the board is involved in that process once we move forward.
Okay, great. Mr Chair I have one more comment and that is In I think it was the issue areas there was the statement about private debris and And the project submissions there is the whole section about the importance of Debris staging, sorting disposal areas. So I would suggest that along with private debris one of the issues is the public debris. So that's just a suggestion and my thoughts.
Just finally I want to say that I think that the coordination and the public outreach has been exceptional. It appears to be exceptional from my viewpoint, watching some of your meetings on Facebook. The turnout seems to be very good. Mr. Romo's participation in the Montecito Center also just really important for people to have that. specific place of contact to go to.
So I think that's really important in this kind of, what are we calling it? Regeneration, it's really tough. I have one more thing I know I wanted to say. I didn't see insurance companies included in any of the contacts for the financial recovery. And I do think that, you've got FEMA, you've got businesses but I do think that there should be some place for insurance companies.
A representative from what I think we had the Insurance Commissioner, Doss and I were at City College when he came to speak. And there was a large audience at that meeting, but I do think having some contact either with the insurance commissioner's office or private insurance companies. And maybe they are at the Montecito Center, I don't know. But I do think that they need to be included in your chart. Thank you Mr Chair.
1:38 – 1:447 turns
This is an item that increasingly we are getting requests for help. And they're very individualized and not always patterned along the same lines. One of our MPC commissioners, Mr. Roman and I are discussing whether we can find some attorneys to do pro bono. Not just not to sue pro bono but at least give people some advice of whether they have basis for such a thing in some of these cases.
Yeah, I know some attorneys who would probably like to do that. And I think they were around maybe go through the Bar Association and-
That's a good suggestion and if you know some by name bring them on board we'd love to have them. Do we have requests to speak?
Chair Williams members of the board we have one request Brian Rosen
It seems like yesterday that I was speaking to you, it was about the time of the Santa Rosa fires. And I recommended putting bells and warning signals in the county emergency people were making their money by trying to do fancy computer models and warnings and who has their computer on in the middle of night? Some people might but nobody listened. I love what Doss said about pay phones. The cell phone networks sometimes go down like they did in Santa Rosa.
Regular landlines are good, we should have pay phones. What if the cell phones all go down? A lot of these gardeners and people in Montecito, they might only have cell phones. So put some pay phones out there. A lot of people are making a lot of money off of this emergency planning. I think we're going to get a lot of federal funding because we are Montecito, but I think we'd be on a much better vibe if we would recommend to our federal government that we send equal kind of funding to areas that really even need it more like Puerto Rico and Flint Michigan It would help the vibe a lot.
I think this whole thing is going to get worse and worse, possibly with global warming. I live up near Westmont College and I just take my electric bicycle down here normally. It's really easy. We're just polluting the hell out of this world and we're not addressing this. You know, it just really shocks and bothers me still this mandatory evacuation order business. Like we're all under orders, we're all in the military. Let's call it an emergency evacuation where I live at request. I live up by Westmont College and one side of the road of Sycamore Canyon wasn't a problem when one was. The creek was on the side of the road, Sycamore Canyon Creek where there'd be more likely to be flooding.
Why don't we focus The You know, not everybody has insurance. And a few years ago we were hiring unlicensed contractors. Wow! They have all kinds of signs warning and scaring unlicensed contractors. We had a friend, we knew somebody who was recommended by somebody we trusted. We hired somebody. It seems like such an assault on our freedom and our constitutional rights but I guess the contractors are The professional contractors trying to get more business and they don't want people to hire unlicensed contractors. But it seems so much like a military operation, let's change the whole evacuation thing and have some accountability for what happened. Thank you very much.
Thank you. I will make the comment on licensed versus unlicensed contractors, this is a really important point. A reminder to people out there it's illegal to hire unlicensed contractors to do more than $500 worth of work in a calendar year and that law exists not so much For the benefit of licensed contractors, though it is ideal to have a level playing field where everybody pays taxes. But it's more for the benefit of the consumers because the amount of times that people get taken advantage of when hiring unlicensed So there is a good reason to hire a licensed contractor and make sure that their licensing is up-to-date. You can do so online, plugging in their numbers because sometimes folks will just give you a random number or an old number or a number that has been rendered invalid by some action of that contractor just to try to represent that they are licensed to staff.
I just wanted to also say what you saw was a 20, 22 minute presentation that masks all the work that actually this team has been doing and has done here before and will continue to do. As we continue to recover and I just want to say thank you to them. Again, it seems simple. We talked about high-level concepts but this has been the result of many many months of the whole team working together all those folks here their staff our Public Works Director Fire Chief everyone involved public health all those and I just want to say thank you to them It's a big effort We don't come to your board very often. We've been giving you updates, but I just want you to know that it is a big effort and it's continuing in the county.
1:44 – 2:0215 turns
Thank you. Supervisors do you have any other comments? With that could I get a motion recommendations A and B.
Second.
There's motion and second. Supervisor Hartman. All those in favor please say aye. And now our main event, D1 Libraries. And just a note if you are here for the H2S or another item that is likely to be after closed session because I can't imagine this will wrap up in under an hour and so in our closed session today it's quite lengthy. So the H2s item is certainly going to be after lunch and Could be two o'clock, as late as two o'clock.
Mr. Chesky. Chair Williams and members of the board, item number one is from community services. It's a hearing to consider recommendations running a library contract and funding guidance for the fiscal year 2018-19 agreement for operations of a county wide library.
Thank you Chair Williams, thank you and members of the board. And thank you for allowing us to delay this slightly so that Ryder Bailey our CFO can be here for the presentation. I do want to introduce Ryder. He has been, Ryder and Natasha have been helping tremendously with the library issue. So I'll turn this over to Ryder for the presentation.
Good morning, Chair Williams and Board of Supervisors. Today staff will be seeking guidance in the preparation of the 2018-19 countywide library contract which will be brought back to you at a future board meeting for your approval. Specifically, to retain the per capita allocation funding formula from prior years' funding agreements without earmarking 5% of total library funding. And to maintain the status quo from prior years' funding agreements with respect to administration charges and to receive and file this report regarding existing fund balances held by library zones and anticipated budget deficits for branch libraries for the 18-19 budget cycle.
Continuing today's recommended actions, staff is seeking direction on the fiscal year 2018-19 branch library deficits. Specifically to direct staff to address funding deficits at next week's budget hearings via budget expansion request. Take no action at this time or provide other direction as appropriate to address the 18-19 projected deficits. Lastly, to determine that these actions are not subject to CEQA.
Last April, the Board of Supervisors meeting at the April 3rd meeting. The board directed staff to earmark 5% of the total 1819 award for redistribution by the Library Advisory Committee for libraries facing critical and immediate needs. That comes out to about 40 cents of the $7.80 per capita. This chart here displays the impact of the 5% reduction at the branch level.
While the intent was to address libraries with critical and immediate needs, the reduction across all libraries created negative impacts to all libraries. As such, all four library directors have subsequently requested that the 5% be restored to their budgets. On May 30th, the LAC recommended that the 5% earmarking be rescinded. Next slide, we have all zone directors have created and submitted their 18-19 budgets to the Library Advisory Committee. You'll note in this chart fund balance which is the third column over is not adequate to cover all library branch deficits.
Once fund balances are exhausted there's still a $236,000 gap. This is mostly within Zone 1 for 18- 19. Staff? Another question Mr Chair. Yes, Supervisor Wolf.
Thank you. Can you just I just wanted to be clear that these fund balances are based on our county per capita allocation of $7.80. Supervisor, just so
I'm, Supervisor Wolf through the chair, just so I'm clear, are you asking the source of the fund balances where they came from or how they're allocated? How each amount has arrived?
Well if you go back to your prior slide. The allocation in the first column was based on $7.80, so what I'm asking is in the subsequent slide were those numbers also based when they came up with their budgets to come up with those deficits? Was that also based on the $7 and 80 cents?
Supervisor Wolk for the chair yes that is correct.
Okay thank
you. Continuing Staff, the Library Advisory Commission and library directors have been working to address these shortfalls. But if additional funding is not secured many libraries across the system can't expect a reduction in programming or service hours. If you recall the past few years library budgets have been heavily reliant on fund balances. We are now at a critical juncture where nearly all fund balances have been exhausted.
The only zone with a fund balance is Zone 1 that funding has been earmarked for the Goleta Library. Staff has investigated the source of this fund balance, but is unable to definitively trace the source of the remaining fund balance. It is likely the source is unexpended county per capita funding along with Measure L library tax funding from prior years. At the May 30th Library Advisory Committee meeting, the LAC recommended using up to $150,000 of Zone 1's fund balance to close the 18-19 funding gaps. That does not close the entire gap.
That concludes my brief presentation. Staff is happy to answer any questions you may have. Supervisor Wolk?
Thank you, I've expressed concern about the utilization of reserves from the Goleta Library especially given what you just mentioned that your assumption is that it's taken from per capita and measure L which is a CSA 3. And the notion of, and we don't know. But there is an assumption that it's taken from maybe those two places or could be from Goleta's general fund. The notion of taking money away from a library especially when it could potentially be taxpayer money is wrong.
The tape of the Library Advisory Committee meeting, and admittedly I didn't. I got through one motion that was made and seconded and unanimously approved which was a status quo in looking at the 5% later on down the line. I didn't hear too much about this. I didn't hear anything. I don't have the time to hear Probably the most important part, which is this $150,000. But having served on the Library Advisory Committee in the past I recall a time when Santa Maria Library came to the committee and said that the county was not calculating per capita properly.
And all of the libraries came together and agreed, and acknowledged that that was the case. And that basically this system owed Santa Maria money. And there was an agreement that they would pay back Santa Maria over a period of time. I don't recall maybe it was five years so Ever since I've been on this board, the notion of taking money away from a library who has a reserve. What I, and I'll just throw this out there now because I had asked for this information and actually during the budget workshop, I had suggested that the board consider allocating $200,000 to the library. To bring us back up to the $8.20 where we are right now.
That's what we did last budget year during budget hearing. And I knew that if our library directors were basing their budgets on what we had allocated as ongoing, the $7.80, there would be a deficit. I continue to feel that, and now that the budget book has come out. I see that there are ongoing funds that could be utilized to at least get us back to the $8.20. That would certainly help this deficit and help all the libraries.
So I would hopefully like that to be considered. We did the $180,000 to get us up to the $8.20. We did that during budget hearing. We also allocated another $162,000. That was one time which brought our total library allocation last year to $342,00. So my thought is that we Tell our staff, either now or during budget that we want to bring the library allocation from $7.80 to $8.20 ongoing. We stopped this kind of one time issue for the $8 and 20 cents. And then if we want to even Look at additional funds to bring it up to 850, that would be a one time expense. I know I'm pushing the limits here but at least I think we could just take care of this issue and I think an appropriate way then it goes to all the libraries, it goes to all the citizens and The deficit that we're seeing, rather than taking it from a source that I think is very troublesome.
Thank you Mr. Chair
Thank you. I would point out the flaw in that is that because of what I have identified and advocated as a not very fair system of per capita allocation, and that's been the source of the contention over the past couple years. And I'll pass out everybody again this flow chart of where our zone one allocations go. Because 80% of the per capita allocation for the unincorporated area goes to Goleta, and if you add incorporated and unincorporated, 80% goes to Santa Barbara and Goleta.
If you add more money to the per capita, you largely help the libraries that are already doing great. You do not help small libraries that get a relatively small portion of the per capita. So in order to help the small libraries that are in danger of closing, Guadalupe is in danger of closing entirely. Carpentaria with this deficit is in danger of going down to two days a week. Solvang and Montecito are also in danger, as is Los Alamos of some significant cuts in hours.
None of these would be appreciably changed by that small of a change to per capita. In fact, we would have to allocate nearly $1 million more to libraries overall in order to help the small libraries because 80% of per capita goes to the two big libraries combined. Supervisor Hartman?
Thank you Mr Chair. I first want to make it clear that I'm sure I speak on behalf of the Board as a whole, that we value libraries enormously as centers of our culture, civic and social activity. An opportunity for learning and access to resources especially for people who can't afford them in their home As quiet places to work and tutor, and places to get help doing research. So the value of libraries has been demonstrated both in our zones, our three soon-to-be four zones, and by this board. But we were here last year, and last year we said we're going to do a library study.
And this library study is going to be a way for us to get answers to questions moving forward. We do have a change this year, we are creating a zone four and with that we will, we have at least the intent to look at rearranging how the branch libraries are administered so that is a change that has come. But for me, one of the key findings in our library study was this issue of so-called per cap. I believe and I've seen it several places even in this presentation that that is a misnomer and we need to understand what the county's money gets us? What is it for? Does the county have an obligation to pay $7.80 or $8.20 for every resident in this county to use a library?
When cities become cities, when they become incorporated, they take responsibility. It's a municipal service. The counties don't pay for city parks, cities do. The county shouldn't pay for city residents to use city libraries. I contend and I believe that was a conclusion in our library study that the county pays for unincorporated residents to use city libraries and it pays for branch libraries in unincorporated areas so that we have easier access to library services.
So I'm not sure that others on the board agree with me, but I think a first question and I'd like to hear in public comment. What is the county money for? Because then I think it gives us a starting point to discuss what do we want for the money that we contribute? And it's not just a matter of how much and giving more, it's really what do we get in return for the money that we give.
So that's the first point is what is it that we're trying to get for our money? I think none of us up here are library scientists, and unfortunately the county has never developed that expertise internally. So I do believe that we need a system of governance for our libraries. And there are several, the one option in the library study was that we let an RFP and maybe one of the zones would take on administering all of the zones.
Maybe we could move towards a JPA, and I'd like to again here comment on this. I'm eager to explore a shared model of governance with the cities in a JPA. And possibly we would be able to use our SB CAG as that. We're already meeting and use that, and then have different staff, the library administrators report to us and give us advice. Maybe in the interim we could ask the zone administrators, the four of them with the county to move forward and come back to us with answers to some questions. My view is that we don't have consistency, we don' t have transparency and we don''t have equity. across the different zones. And I have some clear examples that people have given me of that, but I would like to see the experts working on some answers to those questions and coming back to us with that.
So I've said enough for the moment at least trying to give people who will come back in public comment some of my concerns and my fellow members up here on the board some of my concerns I'm not prepared to just say, let's give more money and wash our hands of it. I think we need to give some clear direction moving forward so that we're not this same place again next year.
2:02 – 2:107 turns
Mr. Gazzani? Chair and supervisors, just a housekeeping item. I'd recommend receiving a quick update from Clerk of the Board who was active while the board was discussing distributing that spreadsheet that you distributed to the board members. Great.
I just want to note that the handout from Supervisor Williams has been distributed to the board members. It's available in the back of the room and it's been put online.
And it is just an item from that, it's a document that we also looked at last year and last year used to be. Can we go to public comment
first? No I just have a quick, I have a comment on your chart. The one area that's missing here is how much even though you had the Santa Barbara East side has zero unincorporated. That's a given because it's solely the city. But as we all know, all of these libraries are getting the same per capita allocation. So they're still getting a lot of money from the county.
The other point I want to make is that, I really feel strongly and this is to Supervisor Hartman's comment. I think you're right, Supervisor Hartman, that the zone administrators should get together and perhaps look at either forming a JPA or coming back to us with recommendations on the funding for the library system. But I think right now because we've had Because we see these numbers in front of us. I think, I feel really strongly that it's our responsibility at least to get them back to where they were last year which is the $8 and 20 cents.
And I think by doing that, that gives them more security than where they are right now. And that's just, and I think we've been at that level for maybe four or five years. So I really hope we can move in that direction, at least for this year. Give the Library Advisory Committee and or the directors to come back to the board with recommendations after they've studied their report as well.
Thank you Mr. Chair.
Supervisor Lavenino? Thank you Mr Chair. Two quick points is one, I really agree with Supervisor Hartman that just increasing the per capita. And there's other reasons why and with Supervisor Williams it It's not the most equitable system. It works for some, it doesn't work for all. Until we fix this, the inequities among who gets what increasing that per capita to me doesn't make a whole lot of sense right now and would probably deal with that in the budget but I also do want to say at the same time It's fair, unless we had a really clear picture of what those reserves look like in Goleta. I don't want to punish somebody because they've been the only ones at this point to have a decent fund balance and obviously that's because their residents decided to tax themselves.
So I wouldn't feel comfortable going after those dollars. That needs to be fixed here than just the bottom line of, and unfortunately. We're in a drastic situation because people are looking to cut hours and close days. But the reality is that's not just the county's responsibility, so I don't want to be the janitor that has to come in and clean up this. This has to be everybody coming together which is probably going to take some time to actually do it right. So interested in hearing from public comment but we've got some structural issues that need to be fixed before we just add on.
I'll just, from what my understanding is that these are funds that have been returned to the city of Santa Barbara. Not just from Goleta though because they get more of our money. They gave back more of the unexpended reserves. Other libraries have done so too, so it's an outstanding fund balance of all the zone ones that have returned money. And even if you split that in the percentages between What the county gives and what the CSA has given, there's far more reserves than the 150 that the LIC was recommending. The recommendation from my perspective, and there are several LIC members from several districts that might chime in during public comment is This doesn't hurt anybody.
These balances were not being proposed to be used anytime in the next couple years, because the city of Goleta has already submitted its expenditure plan for the next couple years. It was not a blank check to those libraries in trouble. Was proposing to use it to help leverage other funds, in most cases including pushing the city of Carpinteria to give more to their library which They are proposing to do in this year's budget.
And yes, I have it right here if you want. They're proposing to move from $35,000 to $85,000 of their funding and That's what's going to be necessary is to convince everybody to put in more, requires us to somehow put in more. And so the LAC recommendation was to do that and should try to do that in a partial amount so that other people are also pushing and lifting.
Supervisor Hartman?
Thank you Mr. Chair, I'm just again trying to flag issues that I hope we can get some public comment to help us address. I rather thought we might have someone from the City of Santa Barbara at least in Zone 1 it was the increase in administrative fees That helped to bring to light some of the issues underlying our library governance and equity across the zone. So I wanted to say that the city of Santa Barbara for many, many years, decades has really been the flagship for libraries and has done a tremendous job.
And I think maybe in the discussion of the new administrative fees, some of that got lost. So I just want to make sure that we acknowledge that the city of Santa Barbara was probably undercharging a significant amount for administrative fees. in the past. As I understand it, the city is saying that it would take $557,000 in administrative fees to make it whole. I think that was something that was stated at a City of Santa Barbara Council meeting And so the total cost of the branches, Montecito, Carp, Solvang and Buelton is $985,000. So that would be 56% in administrative fees. So that can't quite be right.
So I hope to hear that explained. The county gives the city of Santa Barbara $700,000 for Mr. Chair?
2:11 – 2:2011 turns
Supervisor Wolk.
Thank you. First of all, the comment that the money sits with the city of Santa Barbara I would assume that is correct but it's an allocation that is still for the Goleta Library. The other thing, I think just as we're talking about this issue today, I think the reason it's here is because The board perhaps acted too swiftly and without getting input from all the zone administrators.
So really what's before us is basically to undo what we did, which was to put a limit on the admin fee and the 5%. Because when we did the five percent as we saw it impacted them negatively so I think I'm hoping that we can all agree that we're going to undo those two items. Now somehow before us about this $150,000 or $175,000 just isn't to me feels like it's almost like a surprise.
It's a surprise. It wasn't on the LAC agenda. It wasn't agendized that that was going to be a possibility. I saw the charts but never did I see that that was a possibility to deal with that item. Had it been agendized, I would have gone or had my staff go as my staff has gone in the past. I think right now to the notion of taking money from a library is folly and Until we, which okay if we want to talk about it during budget. I'm still going to advocate very strongly that we get back up to the $8.20. But right now this whole issue of the $175,000 is very arbitrary and is the wrong way to address this situation I feel.
Speaking of surprises, at our last hearing we had the message from the City of Goleta that they were going to give up population and per capita. And what is striking in this, the number that the consultants put at Goleta's populations was about 85,000, 84,719. What we put last year as their population was 89,000. Goleta was here to represent that they were giving up 1,000 or two that was east of the 154. But then they submit population numbers for us for this year's funding at 94,500.
So-
Probably because their population increased.
By 10,000? I mean it's the Goleta City population is 29,888. The unincorporated 93117 is 13,000. CSEA3 unincorporated is 31,735 and UCSB estimate is about 10,000, it's definitely not 20,000 so I guess my point is, what upsets me is that this is the only thing that we allocate on a per capita basis. On other things and other funding, Even in SB CAG funding, which has a per capita, there is a base level that you can't go under. So if someone's small, you've got to cushion for them, right? And so it's just weirdly we don't seem to care that different libraries have radically different amounts of hours.
Some are open very much, some very little. And we don't adjust for socioeconomic status of the community. We don't adjust for hours of operation. We seem to only care, we don' even adjust for usage right? Of the library and while we do have card data to know where people are going and so Instead, we keep on giving more money to the libraries that are already open a lot and are being able to provide the service while Carpentry and Guadalupe are basically in danger of closing, and Montecito and Solvang and Los Alamos are in danger of radically losing hours.
And I would support Trying to raise per capita, one of the other recommendations at the LAC was that next year we do both a combination of trying to raise per capita and have a small library fund out of the general fund. But that recommendation was for Not this coming fiscal year, but the following one because LIC members were sensitive to the budgetary abilities of the county in this year.
Supervisor Wolfe?
Thank you Mr. Chair and I think that was It was a good approach from the LAC. And per capita may not be the best way to do it, but it's the way we've been doing it and the way we agreed to continue doing it when we had our last big hearing on this. I'm not saying that maybe next year it will be changed or should be changed or could be changed. All I'm saying is for right now, Let's try and keep the status quo at least to take care of what we know is a problem.
And then bring it back after this year, that's all I'm saying.
My problem is the status quo means that one, maybe two libraries will close.
So I think- Not if we go back to the $8.20 or even more and let me just remind you- That won't do
it because 80% of the money-
Excuse me, let me just finish, let me just finish. Because last year as you recall, and we sent this around that we also allocated $140,000 to the libraries. And I think it was 75,000 that went to Carpinteria because of their need. That was a library advisory committee or whomever got together to give them additional money. So maybe that's something that we do again.
Or goes to Guadalupe or to other libraries. All I'm saying right now is just keep them whole where they were last year at the $8.20, which will take care of this deficit for this year. That way their libraries won't close or should not close. So that's all I'm saying. And that way it's fair, Supervisor Williams. I understand all the issues that you've brought up and I don't disagree but right now like I said we've been doing per capita all these years and I take Supervisor Hartman's comments and we talked about this last time. And so our way to deal with that was to do the 5% and now we're back again.
Keep everything the same until we hear back from the library directors to tell us what we can do, what the county can do or the cities can do. Because I think Carpinteria City actually has something on the ballot today because they understand, I think, the situation. Or is it November? Yeah.
It's on the ballot in November and- So anyway that's a- And it would not cover this fiscal year. That's what I'm saying. My point is that That status quo formulas is not status quo. Well, let me say this- Because if we are locked into a formula that would mean this year that we would give $78,000 more to Goleta while other libraries close.
2:20 – 2:2716 turns
I don't know why you have such animosity toward Goleta. Well, okay- I don't have any
animosity
towards Goleta Library. I went there as a kid and I love it! Well it feels like it. It's just doing fine. And let me just say this again. I'm going to go back to my original comment Supervisor Williams Do not, the notion of going into and taking money from their library and touching CSA funds is dangerous at best. Because those are taxpayer money that are earmarked for Goleta Library. So until there is a full accounting which I don't think it's going to happen by Monday.
There is no way, I think it would again be folly for this board to even contemplate taking out money from the Goleta reserves wherever it sits.
We would not need to be doing that. There is a large number in the reserve and a percentage of that is going to be county funds. A percentage of that would be CSA funds. Let's go to public comment.
Mona? Chair Williams and Supervisors, just a board member made a comment so I just wanted to say before public comment what our history has been just quickly. So in fiscal year 15-16 your policy had been 690 per capita. And at that time the board added additional money to get it up to 780 per capita ongoing. In 16-17, your board maintained that it was 780 ongoing and you added $200,000 of one time monies as Supervisor Wolf indicated.
Then in this year in 17-18, your board continued to keep the per capita 780. There was actually a cut proposed to services, because as you remember last year we took a 5% cut so many departments were reducing their services. But the board said no, we want to keep libraries at 780, so they restored that cut. And in addition, you added 180,000 one time so that the equivalent was 820 but you asked to do it one time and then another 180,000 to prevent our reductions at libraries. So that's the history of the last three years.
Can we go to public comment?
Yeah, I just need clarification though.
Supervisor Wolff.
What is our allocation in the budget right now, CEO Minnesota because you just, because I had asked for 200,000 at the workshop. Are you saying, I thought we were basing our base number as $7.80.
Supervisor Wolf, through the chair that's correct. Our base number is still $7.80. That is what is in the recommended budget. Okay so not the 180, there's no additional
180,000 was that last year?
Correct I was talking about fiscal year 17-18 so it's what you adopted last June.
All right thank you. Let's go to public comment.
Chair Williams members of the board we have six requests to speak. We're going to start with Michael Bennett here in Santa Barbara to be followed by Judith Dale
Got a little problem with my giddy up these days. Going to have knee replacements soon. Anyway, you have a letter in your possession that the mayor and myself signed as the subcommittee for the city of Goleta on the library and we're recommending we support the staff recommendation. Now I'd like to get into the conversation that's been taking up the time. Goleta has its reserves because over the years we've eliminated positions.
It's not fully staffed, hasn't been fully staffed in years. When Measure L was passed it was to maintain the current staffing at that time and the support that the library had. Well it didn't take very long about a half a dozen years so I've been led to believe that the budget needed to be cut. In that time reserves were accumulated And it continued to go forward, and then there were times when there was more money available. And there's some more money that could be added back in the reserves but no new people were added and this continued on. And when I came on council in 06, there were additional cuts that were made for staffing and in support of the library and reduction of hours.
So that's been ongoing We didn't touch the reserves. The reserves were touched before that and they were touched after I was elected, that the city needed to tap into the reserves because at one time I think there was as much as about 1.5 million in the reserve fund. I could be wrong on that figure and I may have misinterpreted what I was looking at but in any case, the council made a very upfront decision. We didn't want anymore reserves touched and we put general fund money And developer fees into the library as a result of that to prevent the reduction in any further reserve cuts.
So through our prudence and through our governance, we've been able to keep the reserves where you find them today. Well that's being used against us and I find that absolutely fascinating. I mean we could just as easily, I suppose put in our agenda on the 19th of June that we're not going to put any more general fund money. We're not going to put any developer fees into it and we'll just burn up the $480,000 that's in there and just get rid of it then we'll be zero like everybody else.
I'm not suggesting that. I am trying to give you an example of how crazy I think this is to take money away from us because we were trying to be prudent. Why we want to do the library ourselves, but if you think about it a minute you may be able to figure that out. We think we can better manage the library than where it's been before. Simple and we think we've shown and we've exposed the way that we would go forward to do that and do it responsibly with the available funds that are there, that are intended for the library.
I have no clue whether those monies can be tapped into or not. And I'm not going to speculate because I don't have anything to back me up to pursue that kind of speculation, but I surely would question that. I don't know how you go into funds that are very specifically assigned to each of the libraries. That's the charge for the three zones that they manage those moneys on behalf of those specific libraries. and the amounts they're allocated. This is not new news that some of the other branch libraries are in the process of failing, and I would agree with that observation. I think it's very obvious.
But that hasn't been the case of the money being taken away from us to support them. Thank you Council Member.
Judith Dale to be followed by Clairvin Blaircombe
2:27 – 2:344 turns
Supervisor Adams should have brought us popcorn this time.
Hopefully,
I can have a solution or at least some suggestions. Number one, I think the reason today is going everywhere is we're looking at two different things. We're looking at number one getting through this next year and number two we're looking at long term county wide guidelines and changes so Let's first focus on what I recommend happens this next year. I totally agree with Supervisor Wolff that we leave status quo, we do not take 5% from the libraries this year for our equity fund. That's not saying we don't need one but I'm saying it came late and we won't do it this year. Keep the status quo with the three zones administrative leaders And as far as the libraries that are in real trouble this year, keep the 780 but take extra money from your budget.
Not Goleta's budget, the county's budget and put in that extra 180 to $200,000 to get us through this next year. So that, I think solves this next year. I agree the LAC motion was to allocate 150 to 200 thousand to these libraries that are in trouble but we said And see if the county will fund it first. If not, then look for other sources and that turned out to be Goleta. That was not the LAC's first choice to take it from Goleta so and I agree with the comments. Goleta has left a child library and all kinds of things are not funded but We cannot, cannot, cannot let these smaller branches close or be open so few hours that it's almost ridiculous. So I'm asking you to please A, not do the 5%, B keep status quo with the three zones as far as their administrative fees C, Budget an extra allocation to get us through this year.
Keep the allocation at 780, but budget additional funds to get us through. Now let's turn to the future. So we're not back here every year doing this. The LAC recommended a subcommittee to look at future guidelines countywide. I recommend that the Board of Supervisors appoint two people To be on a committee with the four zone leaders and some people from the LAC. And we sit down and we have a year to work this out, and by gosh so we're not back here next year going through this same thing. We can do this.
I mean, it is kind of rocket science. But we've got the brain power between the zone administrators, two representatives from the Board of Supervisors and people from the LAC. We can come to a future countywide guidelines that will put this to bed and help us all in the future. So in summary, let's break this into two parts. Let's look at what we should do right now and look at forming a county-wide committee to look and make suggestions for the future. And my suggestion is right now which is paramount keep the status quo, no 5%, About $150,000 to $200,000 come out of your budget to fund these small branches in the short term.
Thank you.
Chairman Williams and members of the board, I'm also here as a member of the Santa Barbara County Library Advisory Committee. And I want to agree with everything that Judith just said and re-emphasize that when the LAC made its recommendation about $150,000 to support the deficits in the libraries that are in danger of closing such as Guadalupe, Montecito, Carpinteria, Request that extra allocation.
And I'd like to piggyback on Supervisor Wolf's suggestion, that rather than increasing the overall per capita from 780 to 820, Cost the county instead be allocated as a separate amount that the 780 be kept as the per capita. And as Judith said, that extra money then be used for that small library fund to hopefully reduce the deficits and be able to keep those libraries open at least as much as they are now and stave off disaster for at least one more year.
I also want to emphasize that when the second part of that recommendation came along, that if the county was not able and willing to fund the $154 small library fund as a separate item. That the reserves that would be tapped from zone one were not necessarily the Goleta reserve because the total zone one reserves are far more than just the portion that is designated for Goleta. And the hope was that it would A spirit of sharing that everyone would help those libraries in the county that were in trouble just for this one year to get through.
And hopefully, as Judith said, come up with some sort of a plan over This coming year for future years that would avoid this problem altogether. And I take Supervisor Hartman's recommendations or suggestions regarding funding changes with the per capita, but that should definitely be part of that discussion not just guidelines in terms of administering the various libraries but also perhaps some changes to the funding formulas.
In general, I just want to thank all of you for your ongoing support of libraries. I know everyone in this room knows of their importance and their significance and they are not a fossil and they are not outdated. Thank you very much.
2:34 – 2:405 turns
Our next speaker is Susie Dabrowski to be followed by Pat Saley.
Good morning, my name is Susie. I'm the preschool director at El Montecito Early School right next door to the library and I don't know if I can pass this around but this is a photo of the graduating children tomorrow they'll be graduating So just wanting to make it a little more personal, the children are outside the Montecito Library and we go every week. The children were just there this morning at 1030 for story time and it's just a real privilege. We're so grateful. It's definitely one of the marketing things when I sell our school and give tours. I always like to be able to talk about our community and how we are part of the Montecito community and we are so grateful for the Montecito library.
And my area of expertise is running a school and working with children. We have 70 children ranging in age from two to five, and your area of expertise is to help make these decisions. So I thank you for giving me a few moments of your time this morning. As a student of early childhood education, we know that we need to have word rich content in our schools and in our homes. And I know that I'm preaching to all of you who would love to see the library open. So just to be a model for creative thinking outside the box thinking and Some hope and be an advocate for children here. And I thank you for helping us to try to maintain the standards, the quality. Montecito's been through a lot recently as we all know and so we want to retain as much as we can.
And I feel as if you can be heroes in many ways by making this happen and making this work that we can be stronger and better together. And perhaps raising awareness, this was just brought to my attention this morning. And so I was able to rearrange my morning and be here and come as I felt it was important that you heard from a local Montecito resident. I live in the area as well, I walk over to the library all the time. So I appreciate your efforts and your hard work on our behalf, and want to encourage you and give you some hope this morning. So thank you very much for listening to me and for being heroes in our community. That's why we hired you. That's why we voted for you. Thank you.
Can I have my picture back?
We will give that picture back, yes. It was very cute.
Pat Saley, and then we're going to hear from Joseph Gallas in Santa Maria who's our final speaker.
Went to El Montecito, and that's how I first learned about the Montecito Library. I'm the president of the Friends of the Montecito Library. I also served on the library advisory committee, hope to get back there one of these days. And I've changed what I was going to say about four times. But I'm going to try to be brief. I agree with Judith Dale and Claire Van Blericum that we have to deal with this coming fiscal year if the per cap goes from 780 to 420, no.
780 to 820 for Montecito, that is about $4500 and the deficit is about 50. And anything helps but it would not in my opinion lead to status quo and the Montecito friends give a third to a half of the operating budget every year. We're trying to raise money through an endowment, takes time. There's a lot going on, a lot of worthy causes in Montecito right now so it makes it a little more difficult.
We are definitely facing the possibility of fewer hours and that is really concerning to us. So for this coming fiscal year we Speaking on behalf of the Montecito Library, but really on behalf of the five of 15 libraries that are not in cities. Their only funding is from you and fundraising. So they are really behind the eight ball right from the get go. Three of the six libraries with deficits are in unincorporated areas so the opportunity to fundraise is more limited.
So we encourage you to do what you can, ideally up to half. If you wanted to make it all up that would be fabulous but we need to get through this year and in terms of going forward as I understand it 100 years ago there were only three incorporated cities Santa Barbara, Santa Maria, Lompoc. So the way the library system was set up it made sense they would manage the libraries.
I also understand we're the only county that does it this way. We now have eight incorporated cities. The model made sense then, it doesn't make sense now and at some point we as a community, I think have to step back and go, there must be a better way of managing libraries. In a way that serves the needs of the communities because these libraries are so important especially to the small communities.
And a way that probably will use taxpayer dollars and fund money that is donated in a much more efficient way. So I'd like to join the chorus saying that we need to step back. And yes, it'll take time and resources to study this but in the long run five years out, I think we'd be in a much better place and I would be happy to volunteer my time to help with that effort.
But just as a last thought These libraries, the 15 libraries in the county are so, so important and especially for those five unincorporated communities. They are often the center or the heart of the community. So we encourage you to try to make them whole for this coming fiscal year and then let's see if we can't come up with a better way to manage our libraries in the future. Thank you for your support.
2:40 – 2:5424 turns
If we could please go to Santa Maria for Joseph Gallus. Joseph will be our final speaker.
Thank you very much. First of all, I'd like to address this as two types of question. One, infrastructure. Have anybody talked to the sheriff about how many of the inmates At the county jail are illiterate. Probably the number is pretty close to those who have mental health problems, and I'm not going to go over that particular row of difficulties that you face.
Illiteracy is one of the major problems that take people out of society and into crime. One of the problems that you have is...I keep on hearing these numbers that you're generously giving to libraries Have you looked at what your number is as compared to other counties in the state of California on per capita funding? I think you might be extremely embarrassed.
Finally, it sounds to me like there's a plan to centralize the funding for libraries in an entity probably In South County, probably in Santa Barbara. If the ghost of two county split commissions up here wasn't around I presume the city of Goleta may not have ever been created. They wanted local rule they wanted away from having the county take their money and it looks like they at least feel that that's happening again And finally, the reason why I would not want to see a commission making decisions about funding of libraries centered anywhere is the old golden rule of politics.
He who has the gold makes the rules. Ergo don't expect to have increased funding for small libraries if one of the larger libraries is going to make all this decision. Thank you very much.
That concludes our speakers.
Mr. Adam? Well, I want to kick this off here because I want to say something that may be heretical or maybe a good idea or something and it's on the fly so That's
the thing I like about you is that I actually think even as a believer it's good to talk about heresies because it's ideas.
Right, well this may either be very brilliant or very stupid and I'm just going to throw it out there and we'll see if it goes anywhere. First of all, what I think I am disposed to do today is return the 5% to the status quo budget And just leave that as it was with no extra allocation. And I realize that's going to cause some pain, but it will provide clear motivation to what I'm about to suggest which is that we need an alternative funding source clearly for this thing and so My staff tells me that a tenth of a cent sales tax would provide about $7 million a year, so it would double what we're talking about currently.
If we got that sales tax, we end county funding of libraries entirely There's no MOE, we just change over to a different source being sales tax. And then apply all of our current budget to deferred road maintenance and we change the LAC or the form of the LAC to a JPA or some other entity that can allow allocation and distribution of the tax proceeds.
You're saying you would support
this? You would put your name on a ballot measure to raise taxes and the transfer would be contingent on passage of those taxes.
Like I said, it's just hatched right here right now. It's a baby idea.
Peter likes
specific
taxes.
I do, I like specific taxes and calling the ball where things go and putting it in front of the public and saying do you want to spend the money this way? So I'm not guaranteeing my support of this idea because like I said this is really either very stupid or very smart. I don't know which it is yet. Because I haven't thought about it that much, but maybe it's just an idea that should be considered at some point down the road.
And get some more flesh on it and bring it back for another discussion, I don't know.
Well, I love the spirit of that because I think one of the things that we miss here is that libraries have just suffered nationwide, statewide. And yes, the last speaker's correct that our average per capita is kind of even low by state standards which is low here though What we do better than the average is we fund city libraries much higher than other counties do, because other counties focus their funding efforts largely on the unincorporated ones.
But I just think it's useful to think about this from a global perspective that it's kind of sad What we're reduced to in the world of libraries is fighting over the scraps or maybe fighting over the bones of our libraries instead of investing in something that is foundational. In my view, the foundational part of democracy and information which is public use of books and resources. And so it would be great to eventually rally behind an idea that benefits all libraries like a dedicated tax.
Or other funding source. I just think the issue though, of course is that we need to figure out what happens this year because at stake is probably two libraries staying open and then four other ones that are facing massive deficits. And they're all over the county. One of the issues at the LAC was using zone one funds in zone three but But at the time we were like, well how else are we going to save these libraries?
If we use general fund I guess I don't see that as a problematic solution as long as we're willing to back that up. At budget time, but one way or another I just think that covering half of the remaining deficits for those six libraries gives them a fighting chance. And we should be giving Solvang, Guadalupe, Carpinteria, Montecito, Los Alamos a fighting chance. Supervisor Wolk?
Thank you Mr. Chair. I could not agree more about the importance of our libraries. And I have been fighting every year for our libraries, whether it be one time or ongoing. And I really feel since we all are committed to libraries that and you know we haven't talked about Lompoc which supports Vandenberg Air Force, the Vandenberg branch It seems to me That we should use our general fund money, we have the money. We've seen it in the budget and I'm not proposing that we expend any more than we spent last year.
To give all the libraries to raise our per capita to $8.20, because frankly looking at how we compare which we do oftentimes compared to counties, we are very much at the bottom. So I would suggest that we go to 820. We make that recommendation for staff to come back to us a budget and then we also ask staff to come back with an allocation of one time funds say $150,000.
To take care of some of these other libraries that have some particular issues and an allocation. We leave that up to staff to come back to us on the allocation of $150,000. And the reason I'm suggesting this is that it's nothing more than what we did last year. It is basically keeping the status quo. And I think there's a fairness, there's an equity issue to take care of all the libraries and then it's also taking care of the small libraries or the libraries that we're seeing here.
I'm going to make a motion just to see where it goes. I'm going to make a motion that we move forward with staff's recommendation and we ask staff to come back to us during budget with an allocation That we raise our allocation per capita to $8.20 for all libraries, and that is ongoing. And then also to come back with one time of $150,000 to address the needs of the small libraries.
Let's see if staff can bring that back with a recommendation on how to spend that $150,000 based on the information that we have here. And let's just move this forward and I think it would take care of it unless our CEO is saying Janet you are way out of bounds because we don't have the money but when Maybe you can address that because I don't want to put words in your mouth.
Supervisor Wolfe for the chair, so we're going to come back to you on Monday with your budget hearings and we're actually writing a memo to you today to tell you what we believe is available. So for next year it looks like we have about $370,000 ongoing that's available to the board. And there will be probably over 4 million one time dollars should the cannabis tax pass today.
So that would be for your board's deliberation. You also have given us a long list of other needs, but if you'd like you can always refer today us to include certain items in the recommended budget.
Thank you and maybe it's more palatable to board members if we say that the 820 is one time up. But I really think we should at least get us back to where we were last year. Anyway, that's my motion.
Is there a second? Motion dies for lack of a second. Supervisor Labanini?
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Well, for me it seems strange that we're talking about this when we're going to be doing the budget on Monday. So why don't we do this? I mean everybody kind of knows what they want to do or has an idea dollar wise. But you can't really make this decision in a vacuum. We say, well do we have the money or don't we have the money? If this was the only thing that you wanted to add on next week- Put your pinky swear. Pinky swear. It is? Yeah, you're going
on the right- Because I said it during- Then I might- That's okay if we want, if you want to wait
that's- Maybe it's a good deal if that's the only thing that you want to put on.
No. I'm not falling for their, I'll gladly give you a hamburger you're paying for Tuesday. Okay, what's your motion Steve? Well my motion is let's take staff recommendation and we'll discuss how much we're going to fund libraries as we normally do in the budget process so that we kind of get the whole universal look at what we have and what we don't have. And we get a better look before we handcuff ourselves and go into the budget proceedings with already doing something.
I'll second that.
Libraries might end up with more than what we would come up with today, or they might end up with less. Can you repeat that motion? So that we take staff recommendation regarding the 5% and we discuss library funding as we do in the budget.
2:54 – 3:0012 turns
And I seconded it.
Okay
there's a motion and a second to Supervisor Hartman. And if Supervisor Hartman would like to add on to the motion regarding governance and those types of things that we come back with, I'll let you add onto that. Thank
you! You know me well. Define a path forward so that we're not back in this boat again. Maybe we need staff to come back with exactly what this decision making body would look like or recommending body. Judith Dale had a recommendation, maybe that's more elaborate than we want but we need to give responsibility to come back to this board with some options about governance and should it be the zone administrator? Should we simply have an RFP? Should we move forward with a JPA?
How do we improve our governance? What should we do about administrative fees? How do we make sure they're calculated more consistently across zones. And for my, just to put it on the record I think it's very difficult for friends organizations and individual donors Who want to support their local library, to have that counted in administrative fees. So we need a policy on administrative fees that's more consistent across the zones.
And again, we need to think about fundraising and I'm so grateful to Supervisor Adam to raise this instead of just talking about how we divide up the crumbs, Fund our libraries in a robust way for the longer run. So I think we need to have some way of moving forward on those issues and, in addition, I would just like to say about the budget itself We have mental health, we have criminal justice. We have infrastructure, we have social services. We have many, many demands coming forward in our budget process and I'm going to say it right now. I don't think we can go beyond the 780.
for the libraries, but I do think our job is to help the small libraries, the disadvantaged communities. And so I would be open for one-time funding in addition to the so called per cap money to help those and look at that in the budget process itself. I'm not sure how you can satisfy me that we, what I'm exactly asking for except maybe direction to staff to come back with what we can do to move this process forward and take the library study and the information today.
Okay well I think I want to take Judith's I think we need to change direction a little bit in that we break this up into two things and one is let's deal with this year, which is let's do that in the budget cycle. And then I think. Part two is direction of staff and I think Mona has heard basically what we've had to say and George and writer and we need to come back with a long term plan of what that looks like.
So
And Supervisors, just so that we are clear because I think with the management partners study we really need a part two to that. Right? Which is what I think we're seeing and how we do that, we would like to have the participation of the zone administrators involved as our experts or technical experts and it's really in our staff obviously and whether the board, I know Ms. Dale said recommended ad hoc committee of the board, whether the board would want to do that
I think I would be willing to continue to do it. I already have to do it anyway with the LIC, so one other person would be awesome and-
Why don't we get two? Well, how about this? So we don't have the discussion now. Why don't we just ask staff to come back with the makeup of this committee that would likely include two board members I suspect and the administrators and staff. Is that okay Steve? Yeah, it's good. We can do this. Thank you.
So I'm just going to ask for clarification on your point, Supervisor Hartman. Because my views are very similar to yours. I desperately want to have us come up with the money to help not cover everything but help save these small libraries. Are you satisfied with the motion? Will you support the motion? Okay then, I feel comfortable supporting it as well. Supervisor Adam.
I'm going to support the motion too, but I think that we need to really understand that there's got to be some alternative source of money because I agree with Supervisor Hartman that this, to expand this out of general fund is not good. My
suggestion would be that- You know what, Supervisor Adam? I think that your LAC folks would totally agree with you. Because I know they've been talking about doing a tax. Galita's even talked about doing a tax. So I think having, I think what you said is
pretty awesome. I threw down. I think you threw down and we should follow that up and ask staff to come back with the procedure for sales tax when we could put it on. And if what you're asking is what our current funding to go into infrastructure, if we're successful in getting that sales tax. I think that's an okay deal to get.
3:01 – 3:0317 turns
Not to throw, not to be the wet blanket but just to clarify the numbers that we have is that for a sales tax increase and we talked about this in our new presentation. 10 basis points which is 0.10 of 1% is 800,000 so you have to remember that we get it. Our sales tax, we get the 1% already so 25 basis points would be a quarter of a percent is 2 million.
So it would have to be a quarter of a cent to do the scenario that.
There's a range, but I just wanted to make sure people understood what the amount is. Is that
just unincorporated or is that the full county?
That's a county wide in an
incorporated area. No no we gotta have the whole county and the city should help us because they should want that right?
Mr. Williams if I could maybe bring it back as an agenda item to the LAC and have them, because like I said I think they've talked about it and let them come and tell us the recommendation for tax but lets vote on...
Let's do this one first because I think we just witnessed one of the seven signs of the apocalypse here so I'm a little worried. So we have a motion. I
was almost ready to support Janice's original motion, it's kind of funny that we fought the whole time and then we both agree on both motions but go ahead.
We didn't fight Doss, it was just a civil disagreement.
Go ahead Supervisor Lavignero. Glad I didn't bring my popcorn. Okay
there
is a motion, there
is a second. Chair Williams just a clarification on the motion does it include the administrative charges as well? I heard the 5%, roll back of the 5%. There's also the issue with the administrative charges as well.
Staff recommendation, which
is
13.5%. Okay there is a motion, there is a second and a lot of discussion. All those in favor please say aye. Aye. Opposed? All right, we got through it. We are going to have a bruiser of a closed session today, Mr. Gazzani.
3:03 – 3:152 turns
Chair and Supervisors, I estimate closed session to be about two hours and 15 minutes today. Starting with one case of anticipated litigation and then four matters of existing litigation. Morales versus County of Santa Barbara, Gaviota Coast Conservancy versus Santa Barbara County, County of Santa Barbara versus Plains Pipeline LP, Murray versus County of Santa Barbara.
Then conference with labor negotiators for all bargaining units, unrepresented employees, managers and executives. And then a series of public employee performance evaluations for department directors, agriculture commissioner, behavioral wellness, community services, fire general services, human resources, probation, public defender, public health, public works and social services. Again my estimate is about two hours and 15 minutes.
So we'll be back hopefully shortly before 2 or at 2. Yeah. Yeah. You.
3:24 – 5:511 turns
Thank you. ♪ ♪ ¶¶ ♪ ¶¶ ¶. ¶¶ ♪ ¶¶ ¶¶ Music. ♪ Thank you. Hi, everyone. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. ♪ Good morning. Good morning. Music Mm hmm. ♪ Hi. Hi, everyone. Yeah. Yeah. Hi, everyone. You. Good morning, everyone. Hi. Hi. Hi. ♪ Hi. You. ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ Yeah. ♪ Yeah. Yeah. you Thank you. ♪ Hi. ¶. You. ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ Music playing ¶ ♪ Yeah. Music. You. Hi. Thank you. Good morning.
Yeah. You. Yeah. . Hi, everyone. Music And. Mm hmm. ♪ ♪ Hi, everyone. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Good morning. Yeah. Hi, everyone. Hi. Hi. Hi. ♪ Hi. You. Hi, everyone. Thank you. ♪ ♪ ♪ Yeah. ♪ ♪♪ You. you you Thank you for joining us. Thank you. Music ¶¶ ¶¶ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ¶. ♪ ♪
5:56 – 6:076 turns
We'll reconvene, report from closed session.
Chair and supervisors today in closed session the board considered one matter of anticipated litigation for separate cases of existing litigation Morales versus County Gaviota Coast Conservancy versus County of Santa Barbara versus Plains Pipeline and Murray versus County of Santa Barbara as well as conference with labor negotiators for all bargaining units on represented employees managers and executives And public employee performance evaluations for several department heads, agricultural commissioner, behavioral wellness, community services, fire, general services, human resources, probation, public defender, public health, public works and social services. There are no reportable actions.
D3
please.
Chair Williams, members of the board. Item three is from the Public Health Department. It's a hearing to consider recommendations regarding an ordinance amending Chapter 34A of the Santa Barbara County Code.
Okay, good afternoon. Last July the board directed staff to return with language amending chapter 34A of the county code to reflect actions that must be taken in the event of a hydrogen sulfide leak during water well drilling process as well as reasonable language regarding notice to the county should changes to the permit application occur. And we're here to do that today. Chapter 34A of the county code regulates the construction, modification, repair and destruction of wells in unincorporated areas of the county. The proposed ordinance would add provisions to monitor and control the release of hydrogen sulfide gas with requirements that include A hydrogen sulfide meter be kept on site and used during well drilling activities.
Specified agencies be notified if hydrogen sulfide gas is released, and that measures to stop the release is implemented. And administrative authority to be notified if unanticipated conditions in the field require that the well be constructed in a manner significantly different, ie deeper than the specification listed on the permit application. Larry Fay, our Environmental Health Director will be presenting the details of our proposed amendment.
Thank you Dr. Doronoso. Good afternoon Chairman Williams and members of the board. Before I start in the presentation, I did want to remind everybody that what we're talking about are amendments to our existing well construction ordinance that addresses just that, construction. To the extent that we will be talking about hydrogen sulfide releases, that's related to the actual act of constructing a well. I know there are a lot of other concerns about hydrogen sulfide releases that may occur from use of groundwater.
That's not what this ordinance covers. So with that... I wanted to just run through this real quickly. Spent quite a bit of time discussing wells in 2016, 2017 as a result of the release in Goleta. And the board gave us direction to come back with Provisions in the ordinance that would address and reduce the chance of another occurrence of that Dalida well that released significant concentrations of hydrogen sulfide over a great area, and resulted in several days of scrambling to try to find the source of that hydrogen sulfide.
So this ordinance would establish requirements for monitoring hydrogen sulfide gas any time you're drilling a water well that would, actually any well that would exceed 1,200 feet in depth. It introduces protocols for notifying in the event of a hydrogen sulfide release and also requires the driller to notify the administrative authority prior to making any changes to the granted permit.
We've talked about this before with the extended drought and the demands on water. We've seen a lot of pressure on more replacement wells or deepening existing wells, and we're seeing a trend of deeper wells throughout the county. And as we drill deeper, the risk of encountering formations that have significant levels of hydrogen sulfide goes up. As we know, hydrogen sulfide gas is a highly toxic gas It's colorless. It's heavier than air, has that distinctive rotten egg odor.
We're very sensitive to it. Our nose is a really good detector of hydrogen sulfide at low levels. It's immediately dangerous when you start exceeding 100 parts per million and as we said before in Goleta on the Winchester Canyon well Down around 3,000 feet they hit a pocket of an artesian aquifer and had significant flow with really high levels of hydrogen sulfide.
The driller merrily worked away for two or three days with water spewing out of the well at about 150 gallons a minute and releasing hydrogen sulfide into that area throughout the community. And the driller didn't know, didn't think to do a notification so the fire department was running around trying to find the source That one incident is really the driver for us to talk about changing this ordinance.
The provisions we put in here As a result of discussion that we had with the Board of Supervisors in 2017, as well as meetings that we had with what I'll call subject matter experts, drillers with a lot of experience in South County in particular and hydrogeologists who have overseen well construction in the area. We have drafted the ordinance to require anyone who plans to drill a well that will exceed 1,200 feet in depth to have on-site a working calibrated and turned on hydrogen sulfide meter.
And we have identified actions that the driller is required to take if they get detections of hydrogen sulfide at one part per million and 20 parts We had a little bit of discussion about when and who to require to have a hydrogen sulfide meter on site. We had thought about requiring it universally, and talking with our hydrogeologists and looking at our own data we came to realize that 1,200 feet is a pretty safe depth.
The chances of encountering the kinds of formations that would result in significant hydrogen sulfide release at 1,200 feet or less is minimal. Our own database, I reviewed it. We're still working on updating a lot of our old paper files into the database but right now 918 wells that we have in the database there are 22 that were finished deeper than 1,200 feet about More than half of those are out in Kiama. So about 10 of them are in the South County and that kind of supports the whole notion that This is kind of an exceptional occurrence and will tend to occur at deeper depths.
Nearly 900 wells less than 1,200 feet we have not had that kind of hydrogen sulfide release so we felt like 1,200 square feet based on the or 1, 200 feet of depth based on the recommendation from the hydrogeologist in looking at our own data with a good conservative number it's a safe number. The concentrations, it's a little bit confusing when you read the concentrations because the meter has a threshold that it has to be able to detect. There are two action levels, one part per million for I think it's one part per million for 10 minutes or 20 minutes or an instantaneous 20 part per million reading Those are OSHA standards, and those are worker protection standards. So if the crew is around drilling the well and they get a release of that significance, that's an action level from a worker safety standpoint but it's also a reportable level.
We've said if you hit either of those thresholds notify the health department, APCD, and report to Cal OES. And then do some additional investigation to see if you're getting migration of gas off-site. If you have any indication of off-site gas, then you're also gonna call 911. The other part of this that we looked at as a result of the meeting that we had in 2017 is we added a provision A driller who in the course of constructing a well finds that they need to go deeper, that they are required to notify the health department or the administrative authority prior to initiating that change.
And we're talking about setting that up probably as a text communication because the drilling is a process and they're going to know at some time whether they're going to go deeper than the application indicates They need to notify us, give us a chance to see if there are any issues or concerns we'd have. The most immediate one would be I propose to go 1,000 feet and now I'm gonna go 1500. That would be a response from us okay where's your hydrogen sulfide meter? Are you ready and prepared for the kind of additional level of scrutiny that will go with that well?
So that's really About the extent of the presentation here, we're asking the board to consider adopting those amendments. To establish the requirements for monitoring and controlling hydrogen sulfide releases and for establishing the protocols for notification in the event of a hydrogen sulfide release and the requirement to notify us in advance of any changes to the permit that in terms of depth come up during the course of construction.
One thing I would add The adoption of these amendments does not change the requirement to report to Cal OES in the event of any kind of release of a toxic or hazardous substance that would endanger the public health. So even with the provisions for meters, monitoring, kind of active monitoring on wells that are more than 1,200 feet If somebody were to encounter hydrogen sulfide and have a release on a well that's 800 feet, for instance, they're still required to do the notifications.
This doesn't exempt them from doing a notification on any other release. What this does is provide for kind of a higher level of scrutiny and oversight when somebody is planning to drill a well that's going to go deeper and presents a higher risk.
6:07 – 6:1316 turns
I have a question Mr. Chair. So the notification you're talking about goes to the county, correct? Actually there are multiple notifications. Is there any requirement to notify neighbors and how far out does that go?
Supervisor La Manina through the Chair no there's not a neighbor notification requirement. The notification will go to Cal OES through the statewide reporting system as well as 911 in our departmental lines.
So if somebody's drilling 1,200 feet or lower they notify Cal OES and all the other reporting but we don't go out at that time and tell anybody
else
what they're
doing. Thank you, Mr. Chair. started posting on our website all the well applications that we've received with their current status. And that, we keep current so anybody can go to our website at any time and see what is pending, what's approved and what's been completed.
So at a point then let's say like we had with Goleta where we do have a release of H2S How do we know who to contact and how do we, what's the procedure to let folks know that might be in
harms way? Supervisor Lavagnino through the Chair. If a resident were to smell hydrogen sulfide, the normal protocol would be call 9-1-1. Okay
So we're drilling, we find out the meter goes off What's our legal requirement at that point to notify individuals?
Supervisor Lavendier. I think I understand what you're asking now. The obligation report is on the driller who has caused the release, so the point of having a meter is they then actually have a measure and account and hindsight. Okay, so it's the liability
rests with the driller? That's correct. Okay thank you. Supervisor Hartman.
Thank you Mr. Chair. You are describing if hydrogen sulfide goes off site, that that triggers some additional notification requirement. At least I thought I understood you to say that. That there's certain standards that are in place while they're drilling and OSHA standards to protect the workers. But when it goes off the property how is that determined? How is that measured, monitored and And then I would like to follow up on Supervisor Lavanino's. If there is an issue, how do we let people in the area know?
Supervisor Hartman through the chair. That's why I said the section gets a little bit confusing when you read it. We have the threshold at the drill site, and then what we had said is when you encounter that there's an immediate notification to APCD, to Public Health, and Cal OES. Then the driller should investigate whether there's off-site migration. And we've included in the ordinance the APCD standards for off-site The other thing I did not mention as we were going through the presentation is they do immediately abate the problem, take whatever steps that are necessary to stop the release of the hydrogen sulfide.
So this is not a matter of continuing to work for two or three days. The obligation on the driller when they detect or when they have a hydrogen sulfide gas release of any of those concentrations is to abate it. Pretty much means they'll probably be plugging and abandoning those wells.
And it's my understanding that APCD is looking into additional monitoring equipment or a mobile monitoring station. Is that anything you know anything about?
Supervisor Hartman through the chair, I've heard discussion of that. I don't know any of the details.
Okay, I have a couple of more questions but it's not related so much to the ordinance but its related to hydrogen sulfide perhaps resulting from irrigation. Councilmember Bennett was here, he used to work in the fire department and he says this history of hydrogen sulfide releases goes back many decades in the Goleta area. And I know people initially thought it was from Venico then it turned out that in this case it was from the drilling of wells but there's also a concern that it may be from Overhead irrigation, and so I would like to explore what we could do to convene some of the agriculturalists perhaps with our county personnel. And explore what we can do to incentivize them perhaps to use drip irrigation or Try to determine if overhead irrigation is, in fact, a factor in the rotten egg hydrogen sulfide smell.
Do
6:13 – 6:2014 turns
you have any? Supervisor Hartman through the job list. I wasn't sure if there was a question or a response there. There's been a lot of concern expressed that spray irrigation in particular may dissipate the hydrogen sulfide even at low levels in the water and create the hydrogen sulfide odor that people pick up. And I know APCD has investigated a lot of complaints and I think they have found instances where they believe hydrogen sulfide has its origins in irrigation water.
I can say one day last winter, I was driving up from Los Alamos to Santa Maria early morning going to work and I could smell hydrogen sulfide and the vineyards were being irrigated for frost protection but another mile down the road there was an oil drilling rig set up so I don't know Supervisor Wolk.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. In looking at the ordinance and I'm going back to what Supervisor Hartman and Lavagnino talked about. And that is the notification. What concerns me is 34A-11 section B, The last sentence says if the release occurs outside normal business hours, the licensed professional driller or designee shall immediately report the release to 911. And that's concerning to me because it's within the context of a threat to public health and so forth.
I'm wondering why it's in there and why with all of the other notifications that are made at the top part of that section, why the professional driller also is not required to call 911 regardless of when it is.
Supervisor Wolf through the Chair, let me see if I understand correctly. You're suggesting that even during work hours if the driller were to have an instantaneous release of 20 parts per million then not only would they report to Cal OES, Environmental Health, APCD but that would trigger a 9-11 call as well?
Correct. Yes, I'm just asking the question why we wouldn't do that. It seems like it should be that way.
Having the meter on site, being able to detect the levels at the well closest to the source was the first priority. Then have the driller investigate off-site migration. If there's not off-site migration we may not be arriving at that threshold for emergency response so to speak. We really want that next level to determine if we've got gas migration. I
understand what
you're saying and
It just doesn't seem like that would be such a burden to call, especially when we have the fire departments involved. Why not let them know at the beginning, rather than waiting for the driller to take the monitor and walk. It says here, well first of all it says if it poses a potential threat to public health off site. And then in section C, Whereas it's something about the fence line, beyond the fence line.
So it's a little bit, the language is a little confusing so it seems to me to just make it clear that when this level is detected all of these agencies are notified but the most immediate one for the neighbors would be 911. And then the person can go out and do whatever things are required. It just seems to make more sense, especially if we're concerned about the community.
Supervisor Wolk through the chair. I'm thinking.
And I might say even the person, you know the person who is standing there with a drill and is seeing this it seems to me that there is potentially if not an emergency situation.
Supervisor Wolf. That's certainly something that could be included and is worth considering. And one of the other advantages to doing that is if there is off-site migration, and the public does a 911 call and dispatch already is aware of it and knows where it's coming from, it could smooth the communications. I don't think that would be a difficult thing to add.
Supervisor Adam?
Yeah, I support it. I think it's a good idea and I don't think it's an overreach. It's pretty reasonable in terms of starting at $1,200 that's kind of the deeper end of a lot of wells. Do
you have a 1,200-foot deep well? Supervisor Adam, through the chair. When I was looking at our data, I didn't see anything in Santa Maria Valley even. I don't think I saw anything over 1,000 feet.
Yeah, yeah that's just we don't do that. Cuyama kind of starts at 1,200 but and I don' know what the protocol is down here but I think it's a pretty reasonable reaction and it should catch I look back to
6:20 – 6:276 turns
Plains spill as a good example of where one party that they were mandated to notify seems to have been notified, but not the others and how that could slow down the response. And so I think that it would be wise to add 9-1-1 simply for the reason of there are some cases where this would be life threatening. Probably more likely, as Supervisor Wolff indicated to the employee back in the old days when there were big mess ups at Platform Holly. It was employees that almost died not Not us living out in Elwood or Ivy, but employees that we smelled the H2S releases.
With that I'll just go to public comment and we have a couple of requests to speak.
Mr. Williams, members of the board, we have three requests. Start with Barbara Massey. Is Barbara here? Great. And it will be followed by Robert Miller.
Good afternoon. I'm pleased that the county's moving forward and trying to protect the health and safety of the county in Western Goleta from future hydrogen sulfide releases, and other problems. This ordinance should cover all wells not only the ones that exceed 1200 feet. It would be a better ordinance if you remove the wording that will exceed 1200 feet in depth Those of us who live in western Goleta have experienced a considerable number of occurrences of hydrogen sulfide odors over the last few years.
The 2016 hydrogen sulfide release took several days to locate and eliminate. Some of us didn't know anything about it when we I heard that it was a problem, I walked out in the front porch and took a deep breath. And had a hard time getting any more breaths after that. Went inside and stayed inside until they finally days later found the problem. This ordinance could stop the delays in the future and improve public health and safety.
I will also mention that I have read Mr. Miller's comments and I agree 100% with everything he had to say. I would also like to point out that the county in Western Goleta needs a hydrogen sulfide monitor to continuously monitor odors from Vinico's Elwood Onshore Facility and area water wells. Hydrogen sulfide odors are an ongoing problem in the area. Please approve this ordinance for the health and safety of the public, preferably without depth limitation. Thank you so much.
Robert Miller followed by Christina Lang.
Good afternoon, my name is Robert Miller. I appreciate the opportunity to speak with you today. I serve on the Goleta Planning Commission but I appear here today as a resident of Western Goleta who with thousands of other western Goleta residents have been exposed to multiple hydrogen sulfide releases. I also appear on behalf of the Goodland Coalition. The most serious and prolonged exposure occurred in October 2016, as you've heard when a water well drilling operation caused the most significant exposure.
Since that time there have been at least another half dozen exposures. We know the first exposure or release resulted from agricultural water well drilling operation. But we suspect that the additional exposures resulted from agricultural irrigation using well water. We have since identified seven agricultural wells within three miles of the residential areas of Western Goleta, but obviously at this point, Later exposures and releases originated.
Overall, we are very pleased with the ordinance and support it but there's one revision we strongly urge the board to consider and that is the 1200 foot threshold. I've heard today that there is some basis or some data that supports the 1200 foot threshold. I haven't seen it. I don't know exactly what it's based on but I think more important The means for a well operator, well drilling operation to monitor is pretty simple. It's a little handheld device, it's not very expensive and to require every well driller to have such a device is really a de minimis requirement upon the driller.
And therefore, we won't have to decide whether the 1,200 foot is right. Whether it should be a thousand, whether it should be 500 just require every driller to have this simple handheld device Second, we request that the board consider a second ordinance to require air monitoring during well water use. In other words, an air monitor should be present when well water is used to irrigate. Without such requirement, we will continue to be exposed to hydrogen sulfide releases without any information on the extent of the health risk created.
Now I understand that the Right to Farm Act has to be considered, but I can't believe that the Right to Farm Act prevents the public's right to know when it is exposed to toxic material. Particularly when the burden imposed would be so minimal. Third, we asked the board's assistance as Supervisor Hartman has mentioned to perhaps facilitate a meeting of the local operators of agricultural operations who use well water for irrigation in our area.
Again, portable monitors are relatively cheap and there are relatively inexpensive systems available now for setting up networks which could provide real time information on hydrogen sulfide releases. Unfortunately the APCD for reasons that are still mystifying to me decided that the EOF facility formerly owned by Veneco, actually I think it still is owned by Veneco and they're bankrupt. Could you wrap up? Yes. Just like to add thanks for hearing my comments as you might imagine persons in Western Goleta are alarmed every time they experience another release thus we are pleased the board is taking this first step thank you.
Christina Lange
6:27 – 6:367 turns
Hello Chairman Das Williams and board, it's been a long time. It's nice to be back. First it's easy to let you know that I do support the comments I've heard from the previous two speakers and do support this ordinance. I do find it's pretty important to take something I learned from my activism and that is when you get a good ordinance or a good amendment to one Then you have to look at monitoring and enforcement and funding for that. Because if you don't have that, you don't have anything. So I'm going to say that I think it's not clear to me at all what the obligations are for in terms of the incorporated areas and the unincorporated areas doing this. In other words, this is for unincorporated areas. We have plenty of incorporated areas we should probably, is there an obligation or A good faith thing that the county should be doing to do outreach to the incorporators, say you need to do this too.
Or to make sure that this is consistently done. After all there are people living on borders and in Nolita and places where The responsibility might be blurry. So I think you need to communicate what you're doing and try to encourage the incorporated areas to do the same. Enforcement, that's another problem isn't it? Notification bothers me a lot. Notification, what if the driller has an exposure and he drops dead?
What about having an auto alert from an air monitor that goes somewhere so that it doesn't depend on humans? You know darn well that a low exposure does one thing and a high exposure does quite something else. A lot of us have been watching Kilauea, we know what goes on at geothermal plants over there, we know what goes on in Goleta. It's inadequate. To count on a single operator during the day being able to do a notification in an emergency like that.
The other concern I have is the notification to the public, I think 911 obviously needs to be called or automatically notified within a period of minutes You have to have an explicit time frame. This is done like now, they will record what they get so that you have a record of how well they've done. 911 will keep the record for you, you gotta have it and then of course the public.
That person who might be dead by now, but maybe not is going out with a handheld monitor to how much of a property perimeter? It boggles the mind to think that you think that anyone would think that hydrogen sulfide which sinks to the ground and can go into pockets everywhere. Is going to go wherever that one person with that one hand monitors going. So there's a concern of how well this will work and the public of course has to be drilled. You have to have some kind of preparation.
That concludes public comment. To the board, Supervisor Hartman?
Oh, well I just wanted to follow up with staff on some of the questions that were posed by members of the public. And I think the first and most important one to elaborate is why the 1200 feet? And then penalties or what if people don't do what we're saying and again, I think notice to the public in general and somehow I think it's great that we have the applications for well drilling on our website, but if... I just think notification to the public is important. Would like to hear you talk about that.
Supervisor Hartman through the chair. I'm just scrolling through the ordinance to look for enforcement procedures that we have available to us. We haven't changed those. The way this would work, whether it's 1,200 feet or any other depth that we chose, we inspect every well that is being drilled. Now, we don't inspect it at the finishing point. We inspect the well while at the point they're going to install the surface seal.
The way the ordinance is drafted right now, if our application indicates they're going 1,200 feet, one of the checklists on our inspection is going to be verification that the driller has onsite the meter that's required. He has his log verified that it's been calibrated and we can see that it actually turned on. So that would just be part of our routine inspection.
Now, we are depending on the drillers to follow the regulation if they have a release. We're depending on that today. Our thinking has been we get this amendment adopted, we'll write a guidance document, we'll do training for the drillers, we will do questions and answers for them We do periodic meetings with our contractors and drillers just to check in on how things are going. But I don't know that I can put something in place that, to some extent, depends on the integrity And knowledge of the person in the field to do what he or she is supposed to do because we're not there the whole time.
What I would say is if we ever had a release detected that was not reported, we have a variety of enforcement mechanisms. We can't correct the problem that occurred but we can take punitive action against the person who did it.
And the 1200 feet, I know you may not be a geologist but can you explain why our ordinance focuses on that level?
Supervisor Hartman through the chair, I can tell you we started from the standpoint and thinking that we would just require meters everywhere. And it was really in the discussions we had with subject matter experts, drillers with a lot of experience and hydrogeologists who could explain to us where and when you're likely to encounter conditions that would result in hydrogen sulfide releases And what I was saying, there's not a magic number.
I think that the opinion is that 1200 feet is actually Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the Board of Supervisors. I just wanted to make a comment on the fact that this site is relatively shallow relative to the typical hydrogen sulfide formations or formations that contain hydrogen sulfide. Actually most would be going considerably deeper than The safe depth at which we could say the chances of encountering hydrogen sulfide shallower than that are minimal.
And we would do the kind of intervention, the additional monitoring, the additional oversight when we're drilling wells that are riskier. Again, wells that are over 1,200 feet. We then went back and said okay our experience is We've had, in the course of construction, one well that had the kinds of hydrogen sulfide releases that created the community nuisance that the Aledo Well, the Winchester Canyon Well did.
So I took a look at what we typically see. And we have observed literally hundreds and thousands of wells that are less than 1,000 feet and not encountered that kind of situation. So we felt like those two factors were sufficient for us to say the 1200 feet is a good depth at which to require this additional oversight and additional monitoring.
So if I may, Mr. Chair, to summarize or to distill what you said, you've relied on expert hydrogeologists as well as a review of our own wells and whether there have been any complaints and that's how you focused on the 1200 feet?
Supervisor Hartman through the chair, that's correct. Supervisor Adam?
6:36 – 6:4212 turns
I want to confine this to irrigation, because I think this deals with the well drilling part pretty well. But you know I'm a little concerned that people don't quite understand how this stuff works and people get scared so they smell something. They immediately think that because they can smell it there could be some harm associated with it. So if you know, I don't know if you're prepared for this but if you know do you have any idea what the parts per million that you I know in past discussions
we've heard from folks just how sensitive the nose is. I couldn't tell you how many parts per million, but I know it detects down at those lower levels. We'll have to defer to Supervisor
Hartman.
This is Jefferson Lytton, my Chief of Staff who gives me all this information. The human nose can detect it at .01, so it's really small. But the problem is that it could be up to 1,000 or 2,000 where instant death happens and we can't distinguish. Our nose can't distinguish between a heavy concentration and a very little concentration, and that's why people are so concerned.
Supervisor Hartman, through the Chair I would add my folks tell me the real risk is when you smell it and you stop smelling it because that once you get high concentrations it just kind of overwhelms the senses. So if you've been smelling it and suddenly goes away you've got to start wondering if you have a problem. So the nose is good for assaulting. If
you see a light, a bright light you know you've got problems. Okay so what is the, a thousand is the instant death. What other harm, what point is it toxic for humans to be in the area? I liked it when you were reading it. Now I've got to put my glasses
on! And it depends on the size of your nose as well, so I can detect from miles.
Okay, so it's looking like here 20 parts possible fatigue, loss of appetite, headache, so that's kind of the beginning In some asthma patients, maybe two to five. Do you have any idea what the relative value is of a normally, when there's a typical release in the Goleta area? Because that seems to be where we're having the problems. Do you have any idea what the typical release is there and I'm assuming that irrigation water is probably a typical release source
Let me add on to that question because I guess the question is, how have there been and how common in the literature are severe health effects from the ag releases? Mr. Gazzone I think is
Chair and Supervisors and for Mr. Fay in answering that question, I think Mr. Fay earlier indicated that one of the triggers that's listed here was actually tied to an OSHA worker safety standard. That might be the clearest one to state right now.
And could you remind me what that is? There are actually two OSHA related levels. I think it's one part per million for 10 minutes continuously or 20 parts per million instantaneously. Those are warnings and exposure considerations and times in which the operator needs to be taking action to protect the workers. With regard to the concentrations that have been observed in and around Goleta over the last season or two, I know there have been a lot of incidents, a lot of reports.
I'm not privy to the information. I know APCD has responded to a number of complaints My recollection is they were unable to detect hydrogen sulfide off-site. They did find instances where there was hydrogen sulfide that they could detect at the irrigation site, but they weren't getting exceedances at the property boundary. But I wasn't involved in those investigations, nor have I seen the data. That's based on my recollection of a report that they gave at one of the community meetings in Goleta.
Okay so what that would tell somebody is if you can detect it at the property line, those values are really low out at the irrigation site.
6:42 – 6:4919 turns
Supervisor Adam, through the Chair. I think it's a little bit difficult to say because it would depend on a lot of factors. What's the slope, the topography? What are the wind currents that day? Where would it likely have gone? How much dilution occurred? So on a calm still day maybe a lower concentration at the wellhead could have a bigger effect at the property line than on a blustery afternoon higher concentration might get mixed up more rapidly so hard to
say. The solution to pollution is dilution. In this case? Okay, well... I don't know how to make anybody feel better about it if you can't tell if you're gonna die. I mean, I have smelled a lot of H2S in my life but I never died. I never died.
Not sure that that is a persuasive argument. It's not really
good policy.
Maybe this whole thing is my
imagination.
Thank you. I have another question on the ordinance.
It says here, because we're talking about timing and urgency. It says on that same section but it's D that the phone numbers for the agencies that are specified that you've mentioned shall be maintained on the job site and all personnel are to be trained. So just to be a little picky, because it says the job site. So you don't really know where the well is compared to what the job site is and when did? It seems to me that if I am a driller and I'm at the well that having the notification information at the well site is better.
And again, the jobsite's really not defined so it could be a mile away.
Supervisor well through the chair that's a good point we haven't defined the job site. We have gone from our maybe For us, the job site is the drilling rig. That's what we're out there looking at and that's where people are working. So that was
our intent. I know when we do ordinances, we don't want to make big changes otherwise it has to come back for a whole other reading but if you put in parentheses well site just to clarify that since that's what it sounds like as understood could that be done?
Chair Wolf and Supervisors, I was just keeping track of some potential changes here and spoke aside with public health staff a moment ago. And I think one of the potential changes the board is considering was adding 911 notification in 34A11B and then essentially deleting the last two sentences of 3411B which become redundant. And then in 34A11D, it could just replace to say well site instead of job site which would provide clarification. And then maybe in C where it currently states APCD we would just spell out air pollution control district so it matches everything else and my thought would be that if this is the direction the board wants to go with this You could trail the item and handle the next item. Public health staff could do a clean up on this, bring it back and that would still count as the first reading today.
Okay those are my thoughts.
Supervisor Harlan?
Let's see I would be prepared then to move staff's recommendations with these changes but then I want to come back and say a few more things.
Okay, so we're all agreed that we're going to trail this item. Great, thank you.
So now I should say my few more things? Yeah, I think you should say your few more things
in case it brings up something that we need to address in trailing it. John, you're so intuitive. You know what
my looks mean. I think I'm still helping you get there today by saying that the potential replacement language at 34A11B just for clarification would also be an opportunity to say instead of the licensed professional to say the licensed well drilling contractor or their designee shall immediately report the release to and then list all those things including 911. I'm keeping notes on it and Trail the item we could break and help public health with those changes.
Thank you. What I'd like to say is that the community, as we've heard, is very concerned about hydrogen sulfide releases and they come from multiple sources and I think the first concern is vinegar. It is my understanding that there are monitors still on the fencing there but that's one reason why people are so concerned when they smell it. They don't know how much and where is it coming from? How dangerous is it?
I think this goes a long way to dealing with the issue that we had with agricultural wells. And I'm really glad that we've been so responsive and convened the community, and are coming forward with an answer. But I would like to make a suggestion, and that is that we not stop here, and that we look to the irrigation, and not through regulatory process but with APCD and the City of Goleta and our Ag Commissioner, try to convene the landowners and explore whether there are best practices that could reduce or eliminate Thank you.
a handheld device, I believe APCD is looking to a mobile device that could be stationed there sometimes. The community has been asking for continuous monitoring and I would like to see what that looks like, what the costs are and explore it but not prepared at this point without a lot more information to go there.
6:49 – 6:5116 turns
So we'll trail the item, make the changes and come on back. So if you're ready for D4.
Chair Williams, members of the board. Item four is from the county executive office. It's a hearing to consider recommendations regarding a fee ordinance establishing California Environmental Equality Act documentary handling fee and this yeah so this is our board letter from the CEO's office and by way of background When project applicants in the state of California are required to file certain environmental documents including EIRs, negative declarations and mitigated negative declarations as well as notices of exemption.
They file those with our office for posting and then they also pay the associated fee that goes to the State Department of Fish and Wildlife. So the clerk of the board processes these and then through a series of administrative steps transfers those documents, documentation and fees to the Department of Fish and Wildlife. In the fishing game code it enables Okay, is there a motion?
Speaker slips?
No request to speak.
I'll move this item.
I wanted to make him sweat, I was going to just leave it out there and be like nah 50 bucks forget it Mike sorry.
You moved too
quick nobody was
going to second. I didn't want to leave Janet out there though. We were all in on
it.
She's too far away from me. I'll second the motion. All right motion and a second all those in favor please say aye. Motion passes. Thank you, Mike. I
thought you were going to require a haircut in
there too? That
is his haircut! You should have seen it before! Speaking of haircuts... I think
Mona's enjoying that one too much. D5.
So Chair Williams, members of the board, item five is from Public Works. It's a hearing to consider recommendations regarding solid waste tipping fees, collection rates and parcel fees for fiscal year 2018-19.
6:52 – 6:566 turns
Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, board members and as the clerk mentioned we're here for our solid waste tip fees and rate schedule for our Solid Waste Management Services for fiscal year 18-19. This is one of two fee adjustment items we have today. Our presentation on Tejigas will be given a short presentation will be given by Miss Leslie Wells from the Resource Recovery and Waste Management Division.
So good afternoon Chair Williams, members of the board. We're going to keep this pretty brief. We're discussing proposed waste management rates for fiscal year 18-19. So, we have three categories of rates that we want to talk about today. The first are related to tipping fees charged at county owned and operated waste facilities. The second category are new Kuyama parcel fees. The third category are rates that our franchise solid waste collectors are allowed to charge residential and business customers.
So the county owns and operates one active landfill, and four transfer stations to manage waste throughout the county. These tipping fees, your board has actually heard probably the most influential tipping fee change which occurred in March. That was the tipping fee for the Tahecus Landfill that went up from $99 to 102 is about a 3% increase. That was at the request of our city partners due to Prop 218 noticing.
The remaining facility tipping fees have either increased by 3% or remain unchanged. We wanted to highlight that we did include in the facility fee schedule, the $55 a ton for disaster debris at the Tahecus Landfill so that will be in place on a more permanent basis. In addition our fees are set to cover our current operational costs and our multi-year division pro forma.
The second category of fees are Nukuyama parcel fees. This is the only area of the county where the county assesses a parcel fee on the properties. How it actually works is the fees are assessed on the annual property tax to offset the cost of operating the new Cuyama and Ventucopa transfer stations. The most commonly assessed fee is $77 per single family residence, and this year staff does not recommend any changes from last year's schedule of fees in New Cuyama.
Our last category of rates relate to the franchised hauler collection rates. These rates are affected by a collection and facility fee component. The percent of the collection and facility fee component in a rate varies depending on the location and the type of service that a customer subscribes to. The collection portion of the rate has been escalated by 3.6%.
And the facility fee portion of the rate is affected by the different proposed changes to facility tipping fees. In addition, this year commercial rates on the South Coast are increasing an additional 3% due to lower recycling revenues. A similar adjustment was made for the reduction of recyclables revenue in the North County in fiscal year 16-17. So what we're looking at overall To accommodate for these different changes, on average for the residential customer their rate is going to go up between 3 and 4% on the South Coast and 2 to 4% in the North County.
On the commercial side, the rates are going to go out from three to 6% on the South Coast again largely because of that increase related to reduced recycling revenue. And in the north county between two to four percent. So, that wraps up our presentation. We just wanted to make the recommendations for your adoption of the three resolutions contained in your packet. Those relate to the tipping fees at county facilities, the new Kiyama parcel fees and then the franchise collection service rates.
We're available if there's any questions.
Questions? Any requests to speak?
No request to speak.
Comments? Mr. Adam. I just want to make a motion to accept staff recommendations. Is there a second? All those
in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed? Unanimous. We have one final item.
6:56 – 7:0111 turns
Chair Williams, members of the board. Once again from Public Works it's a hearing to consider recommendations regarding establishing benefit assessments for county service areas 331 and the North County Lighting District for FY 2018-19. This involves the second, third and fourth districts.
Good afternoon again Mr. Chair, board members and as clerk mentioned we're looking at the benefit assessments in three areas and primarily for street lighting but we also do some other pretty cool things here in CSA 3 as well so our presentation today will be given by Marty Wilder our county utilities manager.
Thank you. Goleta Valley County Service Area 3 was created in 1963, provides for street lighting for the unincorporated areas of Goleta and Santa Barbara. It also provides for open space and park maintenance and improvements as well as median and tree trimming maintenance and improvements. Benefit assessments fund street lighting and the remaining services are primarily funded by property tax revenues.
The fund status, the proposed benefit assessment of $24 per single family dwelling is proposed to remain unchanged and the fund balance is currently acceptable. The second benefit assessment is for County Service Area 31 also created 1963 provides for street lighting in Isla Vista as well as streetscape and landscape installation maintenance. The street lighting is funded by both a combination of benefit assessments and property taxes.
Property taxes also fund the other remaining services. Recently in Isla Vista, we completed street lighting improvements that were funded through CDBG grants, UCSB funding and some general funds basically to modify most of the existing high pressure sodium vapor lamps to LED lamps. The proposed benefit assessment is also proposed to be unchanged at $12.93 per single family dwelling and currently the fund balance is acceptable.
The North County Lighting District was formed in 1994 to provide street lighting to five areas, the Orcutt, Los Alamos, Casamilla and also unincorporated areas of Lompoc and Santa Maria. It's a streets and highways code district so it only provides street lighting services. The area in Santa Maria does have a benefit assessment that can be up to 1473 per year.
The proposed benefit assessment for that area is recommended to remain at zero, and the fund balance is acceptable for next year. We recommend adopting the resolutions to establish the benefit assessments for CSA 3 and 31, and not to establish the benefit assessment for the Santa Maria area of North County Lighting District. If there's any questions?
Questions from board members? Requests to speak?
No requests.
Is there a motion?
Motion to accept staff recommendations.
Motion and a second, all those in favor please say aye. Aye. Opposed? All right, now we just have to ask Mr. Fay to come back.
So I think we're about five minutes or less away. It's going on its way to the printer and should already be here at the front desk ready to go up on the screen.
Let's take a five minute break.
¶. Hi. ♪
7:08 – 7:116 turns
We're back in session. We have one last item that's been trailed, and we are looking at the text
that is being amended. Mr. Guzzone? So Mr. Chair and supervisors you had previously trailed Item 3 recommendations concerning ordinance amending Chapter 34A with some recommended changes. And during the break, staff made those changes at 34A-11B, C and D as shown on the handout that each of you has received. As well as in the back of the room and on the screen. And essentially at B adds a 911 report along with the others and then deletes the last two sentences as now redundant.
And at D, rather than saying job site it says well site. And at C since we no longer had the Air Pollution Control District spelled out in B just spelled it out there. So essentially all the things we verbalized before but it's just here and clear and ready for you to act on staffs recommended actions with these changes. Is there
a motion?
So moved.
Can I ask a question first? Mr. Fay, can you at least preload the contractors that we normally deal with? Because I find it a little bit cryptic that we're going to say you've got to notify Cal OES as required by section Wait a minute. Okay, I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Objection withdrawn.
Motion and a second. All those in favor please say aye. Aye. Opposed? It is unanimous. We are adjourning to next week in Santa Maria. Monday budget here.