By the time this paper hits the streets, Casa del Mural and Santa Barbara Juvenile Hall could be shut down, hundreds of mentally ill residents may be without services they’ve needed and received for years, or the Public Defender’s office may have operations scaled back to the point where it has too few attorneys to accept cases they’re constitutionally obligated to take. Or all of the above.
With every budget presentation to the Board of Supervisors come more questions about what will be done to put the county in a better position for the upcoming fiscal year, which begins July 1. The proposed budget shows $759.3 million in recommended spending, a $5 million increase over the current fiscal year’s estimated expenditures. But because of slowed revenue and an increase in employee retirement costs — set by the separate entity that is the County Retirement Board — the county should expect to see a service cut of $15 million, according to CEO Mike Brown, as well as another potential $8.4 million from Alcohol, Drug & Mental Health Services (ADMHS). The budget is technically balanced, but the tightrope holding up the balancing act is fragile. Staff has recommended a reduction of 215 full-time positions throughout the county’s workforce of more than 4,000, but salary and benefit costs will increase nonetheless by $20.2 million. Primarily because of retirement costs, the average cost of a full-time position will increase from $97,600 to $106,700.
The cuts come as a result of a $17 billion state deficit, which Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger announced in his May budget revision of his inital proposal and which will cause a $5 million shortfall in state funding for the county’s social services and a $900,000 shortage in public health funding. County Fire also anticipates shortfalls in coming years as a result. The revision did come with a bit of good news, however: The county will be reimbursed the $1.5 million it spent running the February presidential primary, and will also receive $3.5 million in Proposition 42 funds — money raised by fuel taxes that must go to road repair and public transit.
But future problems — such as the possibility that November voters will reject Measure A, the replacement for the expiring road fund Measure D — are in the back of the supervisors’ minds this week while current challenges loom over the boardroom during the hearings, which 2nd District Supervisor Janet Wolf described as “not … a positive experience.” After hitting a peak of $34.7 million this past fiscal year, the county’s reserves are now down to $24.3 million. The board could use that cash to help offset the overall deficit, but with funding problems on the horizon, that may not prove to be a good solution. Perhaps the most obvious new cash commitment will be the new North County jail. The state has already put the county on a short list of jurisdictions set to receive money for a new jail, but first the county must raise matching funds and promise to pay the annual $12 million needed for its upkeep.
The budget hearings certainly won’t be a positive experience, given the stark realities presented to the board during the first two days. Public Defender Greg Paraskou explained Monday that, given the recent number of high-workload cases his department has received, cutting three attorney positions and three other positions would push his department into disaster. “I don’t know what the courts would do if we declare ‘unavailable,’” Paraskou said. Following him, District Attorney Christie Stanley took the podium to explain that if the public defender receives the funding to keep his attorneys, then she should receive funding to keep those slated to be dropped from her office, in order to maintain the two departments’ traditional staffing balance.
In the afternoon session, right before news from the Probation Department that Santa Barbara Juvenile Hall may be turned into a booking facility with all youths being taken to Santa Maria Juvenile Hall, Sheriff Bill Brown outlined nine vacancies, reduced services, and other belt-tightening measures his department is undergoing in “wanting to be a team player” and in trying to balance out custody service and supply cost increases, unrecovered state and federal Zaca Fire costs, and more.
And then there is the county’s ADMHS department, whose current fiscal year $6.9 million deficit was balanced with funds from the county’s reserves. Some supervisors, Wolf and 5th District Supervisor Joe Centeno in particular, have mentioned making ADMHS a priority, and community advocates for mental health services have opposed any cuts that would remove any mentally ill persons from care.
The supervisors are expected to pass a final budget Friday. Check independent.com for updates.
Double-clicking on any word or phrase in this story will open a reference window with definitions and links to other reference material.

Print friendly
E-mail story
Tip Us Off
iPod friendly
Comments
Bookmark This
Previous Month


Comments
Discussion Guidelines
Why is it that Sheriff Bill Brown is able to outline cuts and cost saving measures, but no other county department is willing to do the same?
Readers say: Thumbs Up: 0 of 0 • Thumbs Down: 0 of 0
VoiceofSB (anonymous profile)
June 12, 2008 at 8:26 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Your implication that retirement cost increases are the result of the independent County Retirement Board's action shows the difficulty folks have with the complicated funding issues facing government. Certainly the County Retirement Board is responsible for setting rates to meet the retirement obligations. However the increase in retirement obligations is almost entirely due to the willingness, one might even say joyousness, with which the Board of Supervisors and the County Executive Office have been giving benefits to "safety personnel" over the past decade or so. A cynic might suggest that this is because these same groups have extremely effective political operations to support candidates who give such benefits and to defeat candidates who would follow a more prudent course.
At the same time Mike Brown has been outrageously willing to up pay of county employees from clerical to department heads. One hears rumors that this is the cost he pays for not getting bounced for his many expensive transgressions over the years. In any event, these increases translate in higher retirement obligations for the future and despite good investment decisions and very good returns on these investments, the long term obligations have to be actuarialized and money has to be set aside to meet the costs that such studies indicate will be engendered. Of course these problems are decades in the future and the present incumbents will be gone or moved on to other political positions by that time.
Readers say: Thumbs Up: 0 of 0 • Thumbs Down: 0 of 0
RHS (anonymous profile)
June 12, 2008 at 1:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)
RHS, your inappropriate and narrow view of the tribulations facing the Board of Supervisors is laughable, to say the least. Your bias to the issue is also evident- Referring to Law Enforcement, Fire, and Probation personnel in quotation marks as "safety personnel" shows only that you have no basis as to what they do, or why. Unfortunately, your perspective has allowed you to believe that the retirement costs will somehow go down, or should go down, if the Board did what you want- give no pay increases to cops or firefighters. That's not going to happen. Basic financial common sense indicates otherwise. Further, if no pay increases were given, the County would be hit even harder, as the Sheriff's Department would be unable to hire new personnel, as they would go elsewhere in the state to gain employment with some other police department or sheriff's department. I would guess (but feel free to check for yourself) that less than 5% of agencies in California have 100% employment, as the pool of candidates drops every year. If SB County offered benefits significantly less than what everyone else had, the Sheriff's Department would have to hire sub-standard employees, resulting in less than quality service, and resultant litigation costs that would be sure to follow. This, of course, is assuming that anyone, even the sub standard ones, would even bother to apply. Good luck getting any cops in your neighborhood if any Board Member listens to you, though. Our Deputies could, no doubt, move on to some other occupation that would give them a salary commersurate with their proven ability, and our paradise would become less Halcyon and more hell...
Readers say: Thumbs Up: 0 of 1 • Thumbs Down: 1 of 1
justsomeguy (anonymous profile)
June 14, 2008 at 6:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Post a comment