|
(DISCUSSION/ACTION) Continued review of options for Log Cabin Ranch, with potential recommendations to the full Commission.
a. Status report on the lease/sale of properties at Log Cabin Ranch School, and Hidden Valley
Ranch.
The Chief didn’t have any details or figures to report. They have touched base with the Dept of Real Estate and an appropriate contact will begin the process. But this may take upwards of a year or more to complete.
b. Status of final option for Log Cabin Ranch.
The Chief read a draft document which laid out what the expectations of the LCR plan would be and the various steps to assure accountability (plan available from the CPO’s office).
Comm. Ricci asked about TANF Ranch funds. It was explained that in the past, LCR received $358K a year in RANF Ranch funds, based on a higher population. Even though this last year the population was significantly down, the allocation remained the same. It is expected to be less next year due to the current population, so only $200K have been allocated to plan “c”. This is how the figure has reached $1.4 mil from the original $1.2 mil. Ques: if TANF funds does remain at current year level, couldn’t the entire amount go for the plan? Ans. Whatever the amount, it is all dedicated to LCR needs.
Comm. Ricci asked to add to pg #4, the item regarding power to close LCR, that this would be done in consultation with the Commission. The Chief offered to include, “with the Commission’s approval” to those citations.
It was pointed out that the present plan does not provide for relief staff (if any staff took sick, vacation, training, or other time off). The Chief thought that it was agreed the staffing level was appropriate. This led to a conversation about the need to go further and increase the budget. There was a question about what was attempted in the Finance Committee, where proposals for additional funds to be allocated to LCR, were made. Some felt that this was in contradiction to the work of the Ad Hoc Committee, which was supposed to come up with a plan to present to the full Commission. Finance Committee members stated that they felt the limited workings of the Ad Hoc Committee (knowing it was not the charge of the Ad Hoc to go deeply into the budget) did not allow them to open up the entire Dept budget for consideration when searching for funds. But in the Finance Committee, such a topic was germane to their charge and in fact it appeared to them that there was room to re allocate funds within the Dept for one use rather than another.
The Chief stated that he did not know where in the budget they could cut from, and he wouldn’t recommend they try to do it.
Comm. Chuck said that all he could do was work with what was presented to him in this committee, which is the $1.4 mil plan. If they wanted to not approve this and go back to have another meeting, it would only take a vote.
Comm Bonilla asked the Chief if they directed him to go back to look for additional cuts to bring the $1.4 mil to $1.6 mil.. is that something they could do.
The Chief said that that he wasn’t in the position to do that, and he felt that it would place the Commission, this Committee, and the entire budget process at risk.
Comm. Bonilla asked if there were processes which would allow re allocation of Dept funds to LCR during the course of the fiscal year. The Chief referred to the section of the plan, which addressed revenue generation, and said that if any of those produced revenue during the year, that would go into LCR.
Berkowitz said that the original staff taken from LCR and moved to the JH budget, could be returned to the LCR and make them a counselor and a cook. That would satisfy the staff need. That, with the TANF funds and the $1.4 mil balance would bring the plan back to $1.7 mil.
The Chief said he couldn’t respond to that at this point. He wasn’t clear whether putting those positions back in LCR would create an OT problem and liability in JH.
Comm. Ricci moved to “add one counselor and one cook to plan “c”, 2nd by Comm. Bonilla, with the caveat that this would be pending what comes out of the next workgroup meeting. Further that perhaps it should not specifically mention positions but rather dollar amounts.
Comm. Chuck recounted his understanding, that plan “c” is still being considered, but now with an attempt to increase its budget.
Comm. Ricci stated that it would be her recommendation that if the workgroup could not come up with a recommendation which would allow for the additional staff as mentioned, then it would be her intention to go back to the Finance Committee and re visit the potential of re allocating funds from contracts and certain positions, to LCR.
Comm. Chuck stated that this then would preclude any decision and recommendation being made at this meeting and taken to the full Commission, until the workgroup met.
Comm. Ricci repeated that it was her request was to have the Dept look at adding those two positions to plan “c”. The Chief asked if she had any directions as to where the funds should come from. Comm. Ricci replied, look into the PrIDE contract, the Owens Information contract. If that wasn’t possible, then her option would be to look into another position within the Administration.
The Chief asked, the Asst. Chief’s position? Ans. Yes.
The Chief said that with such a direction, he didn’t need to respond. He would not make such a recommendation. Comm. Ricci said then, she would make that recommendation.
Berkowitz said that if the positions were returned from the JH budget, to LCR, then this would solve the problem.
Comm. Ricci said that she had wanted the Chief to re look into re appropriating the cuts made at the full Commission the night before. This is her first choice, but if that couldn’t be worked out, then this recommendation is what she would like done.
The Chief said that there was no vote to add additional positions or cuts to LCR, and the item about additional recommendations from the Commission about additional positions, was taken off the agenda, because the statement of record was that it was covered under item “d”. It was not his decision not to pursue the discussion. It was the Commission’s. His understanding is that the Dept is to look into adding the two positions mentioned, and that the 3 places of potential funds were identified for them to look at. He said this recommendation superceded J. Berkowitz’s request to take back the 2 positions taken from LCR’s budget.
Comm. Dupre stated that there was a motion on the floor, with a 2nd. He needed clarification on what exactly was being called for.
Comm. Bonilla said that his 2nd with an amendment was to allow the Chief and the workgroup to meet and answer Berkowitz’s question of returning two staff from JH to LCR, and that if this wasn’t possible, to move forward with Comm. Ricci’s recommendation of where to find the funds (the 3 sources mentioned).
The Chief revisited his understanding that the workgroup is to discuss the potential of the return of those two LCR positions from JH.
The question was called, and upon voice vote, carried 3-0.
c. Report on Supervisor Sophie Maxwell’s request to visit LCRS
Cassis Coleman reported that they are in discussion with Supervisor Maxwell’s office in setting up a visit.
Comm. Ricci asked that the Chief’s office keep the Commission and its Secretary abreast of any plans such as the Supervisor’s visit, so that they could try and accommodate their schedules for such events.
d. Report on the PUC visit/assessment of LCRS for potential solar site.
Comm. Ricci asked for this item. She also requested that the Commission and its Secretary be kept informed about the progress on this issue. Comm. Ricci asked if an update could be gotten no later than Monday so that they may have something to report Cassie Coleman said that it is her understanding that the Dept wants to be the lead in making the arrangements for this. The Commission Secretary will pass on the names and numbers of the relevant parties to C. Coleman for follow up.
(public comments)
there was none.
|
