|
(DISCUSSION/ACTION) Continued review of options for Log Cabin Ranch
a. Status report on the lease/sale of properties at Log Cabin Ranch School, and Hidden
Valley Ranch.
There was no update.
Comm. Ricci asked about the report made by an engineer, at one of the Commission
meetings, that there was oil in the area. Was there a chance for this being a revenue option for the Dept. Comm. Chuck asked if this was a rumor or verified fact. G. Tucker said she didn’t know what the request was, so she answered in regards to what was being done with sale/lease of the property. Comm. Ricci repeated and clarified her question. G. Tucker said that that was an assessment being determined by the City
Attorney, and there was no report available yet. N. Cole did confirm the existence of several oil wells in the vicinity.
b. Status of discussions on option C for Log Cabin Ranch.
Comm Ricci and Bonilla reported briefly that the work in the workgroup meetings were more reconciling and understanding the figures to both J. Berkowitz’s proposal and that of the Dept. and looking at “backing a program” into a budget of $1.2 million, as instructed by the CPO, serving only 15 youth. There were still disparities between the two proposals, even after the workgroup meetings, but they were to be brought up at this meeting for further discussion.
M. Lui passed out the revised proposal from the Dept (plan c) that gave the budget break down, totaling 1.2 mil.
Comm. Bonilla asked if there was the option of modifying all service/program contracts (CBOs) to include additional work with youth at LCR (in the spirit of “volunteering to help through a difficult time). G. Tucker said contracts are for 2 yrs and could not be modified before they were completed.
Comm. Bonilla asked if no one stepped up to do ‘extra work’ for us voluntarily, could contracts be modified to include that extra work? G. Tucker said that if contracts were current and not expired, they would have to honor those contracts.
Comm. Ricci asked to look into the vendor contracts for food and clothing. Perhaps there’s a way to reduce the costs of these through donations.
N. Cole said that the $40K is above and beyond the normal $60K allocated to LCR for maintenance.
Comm. Chuck questioned whether the use of volunteers would violate any union agreements. G. Tucker said that Once, the painters union donated time to paint LCR.
It would be something they could explore, but they would have to explore it so they don’t stress or strain the relationship with the unions, especially at a time when everybody is being cut back and people may perceive that that’s taking their jobs. The whole volunteer thing will have to be carefully negotiated with the unions to make sure there are no conflicts, in terms of the unions.
G. Tucker stressed the fact that what the Chief has said, and what the budget has been passed so far, the funding that is available is $1.2 mil. And that is why the Chief has said that the survival of LCR and the possible programs could be backed into the amount that is available, that has been submitted to the Mayor’s office. We have until May to go back to the Mayor’s office to change the way we are doing it.
Comm Chuck asked if it was imperative that we hold the line at $1.2 mil.
D. Sanders asked G. Tucker to give 3 more counselors in their plan.
J. Berkowitz said that it was his understanding that the Ad Hoc committee’s task was to look at all alternatives to keeping LCR open, and not just one alternative (the Chief’s). His understanding is that the Ad Hoc committee will come up with the best suggestion for keeping LCR for the full Commission to consider.
He further said that the plan offered by the Dept is an insult to staff at LCR. (eg. no holiday pay, no comp time, etc.).
He commented that the comments included in salary column are thoroughly insulting. He said the staffing level suggested by the Dept is impossible and would leave the Ranch vulnerable to dangerous health situations. He presented an alternate plan that was about $500K more than the one proposed by the Dept. but would serve 3x as many youth. (plan available from the JPC office). He asked if it is true LCR is important, as everyone has said, how can the Dept not find the small cuts (1.0%) in each division to maintain LCRS.
There was a question of whether the figures in the plan included TANF funds. M. Lui said that TANF funds were based on population. TANF funding right now is uncertain. It is working its way through Congress. There are many bills going through Congress. We don’t know at this time because of what’s going on outside the Federal level if the program will continue and if it does, at what level. When the population was higher, the funding level was $358K. It was asked does this mean the population has to be at a certain level. M. Lui said that it is presuming our population is in relation with other agencies we’re competing with… (J. Ricci: and what level is that?) M. Lui: it’s based on a complex formulation. It’s a carve out from the main TANF funding, and even as recent as 6-9 mos ago, that carve out was in danger of going away completely. The federal had proposed to take away the governor’s power to do that carve out. Fortunately that plan failed. TANF will expire Sept. 30, 2003. If it does come through, and the Ranch is still open, we could receive some funding, but it would probably be at some reduced level because of our reduced population. G. Tucker further said that if additional revenues came in, it would go to the budget. One of the reasons they have been exploring alternative funding would come in, would they offset the general funding for LCR. So, the answer is yes, if there is a solar farm that is up and producing, that money would be credited toward…. One of the reasons this dept is being hit so hard by the deficit for the city is, we are totally funded except for TANF and a few other little funds, by general funds, so any kind of funding we get that reduces the amount of dependence on the general fund would be appropriately used for where it was generated.
She said the issue was that they are trying to keep LCR open at a minimum, at a guaranteed rate within the amount of money that is available for placement of youth. Within the understanding that the commission has said to them in terms of the desire not to cut the mandated services any further, which are probation services. Their vote also said that there would be no more reduction in juvenile hall services because they’re mandated. She said that all the divisions had been cut some in order to meet the ’03-’04 mandate, so that was the mandate they received from the Commission, not to cut those areas any further.
Comm. Ricci reviewed what the purpose of the committee was, which was to work with the Dept and LCR staff to keep LCR open. To explore different ways. And if need be, maybe to look into the entire Dept budget to see where non-essential costs might be cut. Comm Bonilla agreed with that idea (to look at the entire Dept budget).
Comm. Chuck said the other question has to do with hard and soft dollars. The ideas of energy sources, oil wells, but they are not hard dollars.
What timeline is being forecasted.
G. Tucker said that the Dept submitted the budget as was required to the Mayor’s office. It is at the Mayor’s office as was voted and approved by the full Commission. The expenditures of the entire Dept was a part of that that was submitted, that the Commission did approve of, and had subsequently cut out certain kinds of expenses for the mandatory services. What they do have, and talked to the Mayor’s office about, is that, the office has said to the Dept that they have until the end of April before they enter it into the system, to come up with alternatives to the closure of LCR, and they would consider it if it was hard dollars. The thing that they are very concerned about is exactly what Comm. Chuck said, is the speculative. They cannot accept the speculative dollars
Comm. Ricci said she understands that, and that the Commission can propose cuts to the budget that were not in mandated services.
G. Tucker offered to take D. Sanders' latest plan to the Chief, explore it for whatever alternatives they can come up with. They will report back with this at the next meeting.
c. Potential of creating a solar ranch operation at LCR (V. Rega)
Vicki Rega presented her idea of installing solar panels at LCR, where energy could be generated and used by the ranch, and possibly generate enough to “sell back” to the utility company (this would actually be in the form of credit to the producer). She has talked to various people and found out there are plans out there, with rebate potential for costs of systems. The City has a “solar” division making plans for solar operations in the City. There is also the potential of generating wind energy. She passed out a one-page document with relevant names and numbers. Donald Sanders was put in charge of getting details and figures for the next meeting.
Comm. Bonilla offered that this might be something to pursue after a plan to keep the Ranch open is agreed upon.
Comm Ricci said she agreed with Comm. Bonilla but hoped that perhaps a non-profit group might have a firm program in mind, with firm numbers, that could be implemented.
The generation of revenue for LCR certainly is in line with ways of keeping it open.
G. Tucker said that the ideas being brought up were very exciting.
Comm. Ricci offered that there might still be a possibility of utilizing Hidden Valley as a girls’ ranch.
Comm Chuck asked if the Dept had any discussions regarding solar for existing facilities (such as the new juvenile hall). G. Tucker said that the plans for the new juvenile hall do not include any solar capabilities.
Comm Chuck said that a working group meeting needed to be scheduled before the next Ad Hoc committee.
(public comments)
Shakeel Ali, with Vision Youthz asked about how commissioners are selected, and how this Ad Hoc committee was chosen. Comm. Ricci explained it briefly.
Lonnie Holmes, commented that there was a great deal of concern for the future of LCR from alumni and they wanted to be kept abreast of what was happening and how they might help.
Tony Baldwin, Vision Youthz, repeated his concern about having the opportunity to work with whoever on the future plans for current youth at LCR, so he could play a pro-active role rather than reactive role to what happens to the youth after LCR.
G. Tucker said that they have aftercare POs, and Don Sanders needs to be dealing with how that inclusively can happen.
Liller B Jackson said that LCR staff would be able to make a 4/8 workgroup meeting.
|
