COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO BOARD OF SUPERVISORS



STATEMENT OF PROCEEDINGS

COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO BOARD OF SUPERVISORS

REGULAR MEETING

TUESDAY, DECEMBER 5, 2006, 9:00 AM

Board of Supervisors North Chamber

1600 Pacific Highway, Room 310, San Diego, California

MORNING SESSION – Meeting was called to order at 9:03 a.m.

Present: Supervisors Bill Horn, Chairman; Ron Roberts, Vice-Chairman; Greg Cox; Dianne Jacob; Pam Slater-Price; also Thomas J. Pastuszka, Clerk.

Invocation was led by Pastor James Christoferson of Coastline Community Church.

Pledge of Allegiance was led by John Malo with the Mira Mesa Senior Center.

Approval of Statement of Proceedings/Minutes for the Meeting of November 14, 2006.

ACTION:

ON MOTION of Supervisor Slater-Price, seconded by Supervisor Jacob, the Board of Supervisors approved the Statement of Proceedings/Minutes for the Meetings of November 14, 2006.

AYES: Cox, Jacob, Slater-Price, Roberts, Horn

|Public Safety |1. |SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT REQUEST TO UPGRADE THE COUNTY’S WIRELESS DATA SYSTEM |

| | |[FUNDING SOURCE(S): FUND BALANCES AVAILABLE IN THE PROPOSITION 172 SPECIAL REVENUE |

| | |FUND AND THE SHERIFF'S ASSET FORFEITURE FUND] |

| | |(4 VOTES) |

| | | |

| |2. |DISTRICT ATTORNEY – PROPOSITION 64 CONSUMER PROTECTION PROGRAMS |

| | |[FUNDING SOURCE(S): CONSUMER FRAUD CIVIL PENALTIES] |

| | |(4 VOTES) |

| | | |

| |3. |PROBATION DEPARTMENT: CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION, |

| | |DIVISION OF JUVENILE JUSTICE (CDCR-DJJ) SERVICES |

| | | |

| |4. |ADOPT A RESOLUTION PERTAINING TO INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS IN THE|

| | |DEPARTMENT OF CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES |

| | |[FUNDING SOURCE(S): FEDERAL TITLE IV-D AND STATE CHILD SUPPORT REVENUE] |

| | | |

|Health & Human Services |5. |PROCUREMENT OF IMMUNIZATION SERVICES) |

| | |[FUNDING SOURCE(S): HEALTH REALIGNMENT FUNDS AND IMMUNIZATION FEES] |

| | | |

| |6. |PROCUREMENT OF COMMUNITY SERVICES FOR FAMILIES EVALUATION |

| | | |

|Community Services |7. |AWARD PROFESSIONAL SERVICES/DEMOLITION, RESTORATION CONTRACTS, AMEND INTERNAL SERVICE|

| | |FUND, TRANSFER APPROPRIATIONS FOR CAMP WEST FORK RESTORATION |

| | |[FUNDING SOURCE(S): PUBLIC SAFETY GROUP MANAGEMENT RESERVE] |

| | |(4 VOTES) |

| | | |

| |8. |COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY FISCAL YEAR 2005-06 ANNUAL REPORT |

| | |(RELATES TO REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AGENDA NO. 1) |

| | | |

| |9. |SECOND AMENDMENT TO LEASE FOR SHERIFF’S MEDICAL SERVICES DIVISION, 8525 GIBBS DRIVE, |

| | |SAN DIEGO |

| | | |

| |10. |ADOPT A BOARD POLICY “HEALTHY CHOICE OPTIONS IN VENDING MACHINES ON COUNTY PROPERTY” |

| | | |

| |11. |SITE SEARCH RESULTS FOR OFFICE AND WAREHOUSE SPACE AND REQUEST FOR APPROVAL IN |

| | |PRINCIPLE TO LEASE SPACE |

| | |[FUNDING SOURCE(S): EXISTING DEPARTMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS FOR OCCUPANCY COSTS AT |

| | |BUILDING 11, FUND BALANCE IN THE PURCHASING AND CONTRACTING INTERNAL SERVICE FUND, |

| | |AND GENERAL PURPOSE REVENUES AND OTHER DEPARTMENTAL RESOURCES. ] |

| | | |

|Financial & General Government |12. |SUPPORT THE REAPPLICATION FOR A WAIVER OF SECONDARY TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR SAN |

| | |DIEGO’S REGIONAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT |

| | | |

| |13. |PROPOSED CHANGES TO RETIREE HEALTH BENEFITS |

| | | |

| |14. |NOTICED PUBLIC HEARING: |

| | |CONFLICT OF INTEREST CODES: VARIOUS AGENCIES OTHER THAN COUNTY DEPARTMENTS |

| | | |

| |15. |NOTICED PUBLIC HEARING: |

| | |CONFLICT OF INTEREST CODES: COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY DEPARTMENTS |

| | | |

| |16. |BONSALL UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT GENERAL OLBIGATION BONDS, ELECTION OF 2005, SERIES 2007|

| | |B |

| | | |

| |17. |ASSESSOR/RECORDER/COUNTY CLERK CONTRACT TO SUPPORT IMAGING SYSTEM |

| | |[FUNDING SOURCE(S): RECORDING REVENUES AND RECORDER’S MODERNIZATION TRUST FUND] |

| | |(4 VOTES) |

| | | |

| |18. |2007 LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM |

| | | |

| |19. |AMENDMENT TO THE COMPENSATION ORDINANCE AMENDING COMPENSATION FOR THE DISTRICT |

| | |ATTORNEY, SHERIFF, AND THE TREASURER/TAX COLLECTOR |

| | |[FUNDING SOURCE(S): COUNTY GENERAL PURPOSE REVENUES] |

| | | |

| |20. |PUBLIC ORAL AUCTION TAX SALE OF TAX-DEFAULTED PROPERTY) |

| | | |

| |21. |DELEGATION OF INVESTMENT AUTHORITY, TREASURER’S INVESTMENT POLICY, APPOINTMENT OF |

| | |OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE MEMBERS |

| | | |

| |22. |ESCHEATMENT OF MONIES TO THE GENERAL FUND |

| | |[FUNDING SOURCE(S): TAX REFUNDS] |

| | | |

|Communications Received |23. |COMMUNICATIONS RECEIVED |

| | | |

|Appointments |24. |ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM: |

| | |APPOINTMENTS |

| | | |

|Financial & General Government |25. |ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM: |

| | |SECOND CONSIDERATION AND ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE:URGENCY ORDINANCE AMENDING SOCIAL HOST|

| | |ORDINANCE TO CORRECT NUMBERING TO SUBDIVISION REFERENCES |

| | | |

| |26. |ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM: |

| | |SECOND CONSIDERATION AND ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE: INTRODUCTION OF AN ORDINANCE ADDING |

| | |CHAPTER 16, SEX OFFENDER LOITERING ORDINANCE, TO TITLE 3, DIV. 2 OF THE SAN DIEGO |

| | |COUNTY CODE OF REGULATORY ORDINANCES |

| | | |

|Closed Session |27. |CLOSED SESSION |

| | | |

|Presentations/Awards |28. |PRESENTATIONS/AWARDS |

| | | |

|Public Communication |29. |PUBLIC COMMUNICATION |

| | | |

|1. |SUBJECT: |SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT REQUEST TO UPGRADE THE COUNTY’S WIRELESS DATA SYSTEM (DISTRICT: ALL) |

| |OVERVIEW: |

| |The County of San Diego has utilized a mobile data computer (MDC) system since 1998 to provide the Sheriff’s Department patrol |

| |vehicles with electronic information. This current system is capable of transmitting text messages of limited size back and |

| |forth between the Sheriff’s Patrol vehicles and the Sheriff’s Communications Center. The Sheriff is capable of sending calls for |

| |service to units, checking on the unit status and tracking the units as they move and displaying that information at the |

| |Communications Center. In order to further improve the County’s ability to provide safe and reliable public safety services, |

| |including protecting the safety of the patrol deputies, an upgrade of the seven year old 800 MHz data system is necessary. The |

| |proposed upgrade will provide deputies in the field with the ability to send and receive high-resolution photos, such as photos |

| |from either the DMV or Jail files or a picture of a |

| |missing person. |

| | |

| |These enhanced capabilities will allow deputies to provide a more immediate response in searching for a missing person or a |

| |wanted fugitive. Overall, this upgrade will make deputies more efficient in answering requests for service from the public. The |

| |MDC will also provide access to the Sheriff’s network and records management reporting system, enabling deputies to spend more |

| |time in the field and less time at a computer in the Station. Supervisors will have near real time unit deployment information |

| |allowing them to more effectively reposition units to handle call flows or respond to an escalating incident. The cost of the |

| |upgrade is $6,876,121 and will be funded with Proposition 172 Special Revenue Fund and the Sheriff’s Asset Forfeiture Fund. This|

| |is a request to amend Contract No. 43095 with Motorola, Inc. to utilize sole source procurement for |

| |the upgrade of the County’s existing mobile data system. |

| |FISCAL IMPACT: |

| |Funds for this request are not included in the Sheriff’s Fiscal Year 2006-07 Operational Plan. The funding sources are fund |

| |balances available in the Proposition 172 Special Revenue Fund ($5,876,121) and the Sheriff's Asset Forfeiture Fund ($1,000,000).|

| |If approved, this request will result in $6,876,121 current year costs and revenue, no future |

| |costs and revenue, and the addition of no staff years. |

| |RECOMMENDATION: |

| |SHERIFF |

| |Waive Board Policy A-91, Mid-Year Budget Changes. |

| | |

| |Establish appropriations of $5,876,121 in the Proposition 172 Special Revenue Fund (Operating Transfer Out) for transfer to the |

| |Sheriff, based on Fiscal Year 2005-06 fund balance available. (4 VOTES) |

| | |

| | |

| | |

| |Establish appropriations of $1,000,000 in the Sheriff’s Asset Forfeiture Fund (Operating Transfer Out) for transfer to the |

| |Sheriff, based on Fiscal Year 2005-06 fund balance available. (4 VOTES) |

| | |

| |Establish appropriations of $6,876,121 in the Sheriff’s Department, Wireless Services Division, for services and supplies based |

| |on operating transfers from the Proposition 172 Special Revenue Fund ($5,876,121) and the Sheriff’s Asset Forfeiture Fund |

| |($1,000,000). (4 VOTES) |

| | |

| |In accordance with Board Policy A-87, Competitive Procurement, authorize the Director, Department of Purchasing and Contracting |

| |to amend Contract No. 43095 with Motorola, Inc. to add the upgrade of the County of San Diego mobile data system, subject to the |

| |availability of funds; and to amend the contract as required to reflect changes to services and funding allocations, subject to |

| |the approval of the Sheriff. Waive the advertising requirement of Board Policy A-87. |

| |ACTION: |

| |ON MOTION of Supervisor Slater-Price, seconded by Supervisor Jacob, the Board took action as recommended, on Consent. |

| |AYES: Cox, Jacob, Slater-Price, Roberts, Horn |

| | |

| | | |

|2. |SUBJECT: |DISTRICT ATTORNEY – PROPOSITION 64 CONSUMER PROTECTION PROGRAMS (DISTRICT: ALL) |

| |OVERVIEW: |

| |In November 2004 California voters passed Proposition 64 (Bus. & Prof. Code §§17200 et seq.), amending the California Unfair |

| |Competition and False Advertising laws. The proposition restricts the parties that can bring unfair competition or fraudulent |

| |business activity lawsuits to the California Attorney General and local prosecutors. As a result of Proposition 64, a portion of |

| |the civil penalty imposed by the court now goes to the participating prosecutorial jurisdictions. These penalties are to be used|

| |exclusively to supplement existing resources that support the enforcement of consumer protection laws. The San Diego County |

| |District Attorney’s Consumer Protection, Environmental Protection and Identity Theft programs are eligible to use Proposition 64 |

| |Funds to enhance consumer protection for the residents of San Diego County. This is a request to establish these programs by |

| |adding staff to increase the District Attorney’s ability to prosecute unfair competition and false advertising cases. |

| |FISCAL IMPACT: |

| |Funds for this request are not budgeted. If approved, this request will result in no additional staff years. The department |

| |will fill nine (9) frozen positions to accommodate the staffing needs, four (4) of those positions will be reclassified. The |

| |annual cost of this proposal is $1,445,531; Fiscal Year 06-07 mid-year costs of $481,600. The funding source is consumer fraud |

| |civil penalties. |

| |RECOMMENDATION: |

| |DISTRICT ATTORNEY |

| |Waive Board Policy A-91, Mid Year Budget Changes. |

| | |

| |Establish appropriations of $481,600 in the District Attorney’s Office for Salaries and Benefits ($478,000), and Services and |

| |Supplies ($3,600), based on revenue from Proposition 64 consumer fraud civil penalties. (4 VOTES) |

| |ACTION: |

| |ON MOTION of Supervisor Slater-Price, seconded by Supervisor Jacob, the Board took action as recommended, on Consent. |

| |AYES: Cox, Jacob, Slater-Price, Roberts, Horn |

| | | |

| | | |

|3. |SUBJECT: |PROBATION DEPARTMENT: CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION, DIVISION OF JUVENILE |

| | |JUSTICE (CDCR-DJJ) SERVICES |

| | |(DISTRICT: ALL) |

| |OVERVIEW: |

| |In 1997, a contract between the County of San Diego and the California Youth Authority (CYA), now California Department of |

| |Corrections and Rehabilitation, Division of Juvenile Justice (CDCR-DJJ), was established to provide funding for specific |

| |short-term juvenile diagnostic services ordered by Juvenile Court. Welfare and Institutions Code Section 704 authorizes Juvenile|

| |Courts to refer juveniles to the California Youth Authority (CYA) for a maximum of 90 days for observation, diagnosis, and |

| |report. Section 1752.1 of the Welfare and Institutions Code provides that youth diagnostic services may be provided by the |

| |Division of Juvenile Justice or its successor agency, CDCR, by contractual agreement with the County upon request of the Board of|

| |Supervisors. This is a request to renew the contract for Fiscal Year 2006-2007 at the same level as Fiscal Year 2005-2006 |

| |($150,000) and authorize the Chief Probation Officer to execute subsequent contract renewals that do not materially impact |

| |or alter either the program or funding level. |

| |FISCAL IMPACT: |

| |Funds for this request are included in the Probation Department’s Fiscal Year 2006-2007 Operational Plan and can result in costs |

| |up to $150,000. The funding source is the General Fund. This action will not require the addition of staff years. |

| |RECOMMENDATION: |

| |CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER |

| |Approve and authorize the Chief Probation Officer to execute a contract (C06.107) renewal to the CDCR-DJJ for FY 2006-2007 for |

| |$150,000 and subsequent year renewals that do not materially impact or alter either the program or funding level. |

| | |

| |Adopt resolution entitled “A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO RELATING TO CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT |

| |OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION, DEPARTMENT OF JUVENILE JUSTICE DIAGNOSTIC SERVICES” to authorize the County to enter into a |

| |contract with the Director of the State of California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Division of Juvenile Justice |

| |to provide specific juvenile diagnostic services per Section 1752.1 of the Welfare and Institutions Code. |

| |ACTION: |

| |ON MOTION of Supervisor Slater-Price, seconded by Supervisor Jacob, the Board took action as recommended, on Consent, adopting |

| |Resolution No. 06-227 entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO RELATING TO CALIFORNIA |

| |DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION, DEPARTMENT OF JUVENILE JUSTICE DIAGNOSTIC SERVICES. |

| |AYES: Cox, Jacob, Slater-Price, Roberts, Horn |

| | | |

| | | |

|4. |SUBJECT: |ADOPT A RESOLUTION PERTAINING TO INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS IN THE DEPARTMENT OF |

| | |CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES |

| | |(DISTRICT: ALL) |

| |OVERVIEW: |

| |The outsourcing of the County’s information technology and telecommunications functions in October 1999 has provided a reliable |

| |integrated network and the technology to achieve effective communication and business efficiency. The Department of Child |

| |Support Services (DCSS) is not currently receiving all the technology services available through the County’s information |

| |technology contract. On January 1, 2007, DCSS will fully participate in the services available from Northrop Grumman Information|

| |Technology (NGIT) under the information technology contract approved by the Board on January 24, 2006 (11). This transition to |

| |the services of the County’s information technology vendor includes the reduction of 11 positions due to a lack of work on |

| |January 25, 2007. A Workforce Support Team has been established through the Department of Human Resources to provide assistance |

| |to the employees affected by this action with considerable effort being made to find other employment opportunities throughout |

| |the County. |

| |FISCAL IMPACT: |

| |Funds associated with this proposal are included in the Fiscal Year 2006-08 Adopted Operational Plan. The funding sources are |

| |Federal Title IV-D and State Child Support revenue. This request will delete 11.00 staff years in the Department of Child |

| |Support Services. |

| |RECOMMENDATION: |

| |CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER |

| |Adopt the resolution making the determination, pursuant to Section 14.1.1 of the Civil Service Rules, that it is necessary due to|

| |a lack of work to reduce the number of staff in the Department of Child Support Services. |

| |ACTION: |

| |ON MOTION of Supervisor Slater-Price, seconded by Supervisor Jacob, the Board took action as recommended, on Consent, adopting |

| |Resolution No. 06-228 entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO RELATING TO THE REDUCTION OF|

| |STAFF IN THE DEPARTMENT OF CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES. |

| |AYES: Cox, Jacob, Slater-Price, Roberts, Horn |

| | | |

| | | |

|5. |SUBJECT: |PROCUREMENT OF IMMUNIZATION SERVICES (DISTRICT: 1) |

| |OVERVIEW: |

| |In line with the Board’s goals toward improving public health, the County has offered vaccines at its regional public health |

| |centers for decades. South Region Public Health Center provides immunization services through a contract with the University of |

| |California San Diego (UCSD). |

| | |

| |The current contract with UCSD for South Region immunization services is due to expire on June 30, 2007. Today’s action requests|

| |Board authority for the Director of Purchasing and Contracting to issue a competitive solicitation for immunization services for |

| |a term of two-years with three option years, from July 1, 2007 though June 30, 2012 and up to an additional six months if needed.|

| |FISCAL IMPACT: |

| |Funds for this request are included in the FY 2006-2008 Health and Human Services Operational Plan. If approved, this request |

| |will result in no current year costs, $250,000 annual costs and no additional staff years. The funding source is Health |

| |Realignment funds and Immunization Fees. There will be no change in net General Fund cost. |

| |RECOMMENDATION: |

| |CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER |

| |In accordance with section 401 et seq of the County Administrative Code, authorize the Director, Department of Purchasing and |

| |Contracting, to issue a competitive solicitation for South Region Immunization Services and, upon successful negotiations and |

| |determination of a fair and reasonable price, award a contract through June 30, 2009, with three additional option years and up |

| |to an additional six months if needed, and to amend the contracts as needed to reflect changes in funding or service |

| |requirements, subject to approval of the Director, Health and Human Services Agency. |

| |ACTION: |

| |ON MOTION of Supervisor Slater-Price, seconded by Supervisor Jacob, the Board took action as recommended, on Consent. |

| |AYES: Cox, Jacob, Slater-Price, Roberts, Horn |

| | | |

| | | |

|6. |SUBJECT: |PROCUREMENT OF COMMUNITY SERVICES FOR FAMILIES EVALUATION (DISTRICT: ALL) |

| |OVERVIEW: |

| |The Board of Supervisors has demonstrated a long-term commitment to protecting children who are at risk of abuse or neglect. In |

| |order to achieve the goals of protecting children and assisting families, State and federal funds are utilized to provide a |

| |continuum of family support activities through contracts with community organizations, including the Community Services for |

| |Families (CSF) program. |

| | |

| |On February 10, 2004 (2), the Board authorized a competitive solicitation to combine three Child Welfare Services contracts into |

| |one program in order to streamline service delivery. As a result of the competitive solicitation, the CSF program is now the |

| |County’s primary provider of in-home and community-based support services for foster children and their families. In order to |

| |monitor the program’s effectiveness, a local research firm was retained in July 2006 to provide an expert evaluation of services.|

| |As a result of the professional evaluation, the CSF program has modified services to best fit client needs. |

| | |

| |The current contract for evaluation services expires January 31, 2007. Board action is requested today to authorize the Director|

| |of Purchasing and Contracting to negotiate a sole source contract to continue evaluation services for the Community Services for |

| |Families program to be effective through June 30, 2009, with an additional six-month option period. This action will support |

| |meeting your Board’s objective to improve outcomes in the foster care system. |

| |FISCAL IMPACT: |

| |Funds for the CSF Evaluation Project are included in the FY 2006-2008 Health and Human Services Agency’s Operational Plan. If |

| |approved, this request will result in a cost of $200,000 annually over the next 3-years. The funding source is Children’s Trust |

| |Fund. There is no change to the net General Fund cost or staff years. |

| |RECOMMENDATION: |

| |CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER |

| |Waive Board Policy B-29, Fees, Grants, and Revenue Contracts – Department Responsibility for Cost Recovery. |

| | |

| |In accordance with Board Policy A-87, Competitive Procurement, approve and authorize the Director, Department of Purchasing and |

| |Contracting, to enter into negotiations with Harder+Company Community Research, and subject to successful negotiations and |

| |determination of a fair and reasonable price, award a contract for the continuation of the evaluation project for the Community |

| |Services for Families program effective February 1, 2007 through June 30, 2007, and two option periods through June 30, 2009, and|

| |up to an additional six months, if necessary, and to amend the contract as needed to reflect changes to services and funding |

| |subject to the approval of the Director, Health and Human Services Agency. Waive the advertising requirement of Board Policy |

| |A-87. |

| |ACTION: |

| |ON MOTION of Supervisor Slater-Price, seconded by Supervisor Jacob, the Board took action as recommended, on Consent. |

| |AYES: Cox, Jacob, Slater-Price, Roberts, Horn |

| | | |

| | | |

|7. |SUBJECT: |AWARD PROFESSIONAL SERVICES/DEMOLITION, RESTORATION CONTRACTS, AMEND INTERNAL SERVICE FUND, TRANSFER |

| | |APPROPRIATIONS FOR CAMP WEST FORK RESTORATION (DISTRICT: 5) |

| |OVERVIEW: |

| |The former West Fork Honor Camp is located in the northeast portion of San Diego County within the Cleveland National Forest |

| |under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Forest Service. The facility address is 33259 Fink Road, approximately eight miles northwest |

| |of the community of Warner Springs. |

| | |

| |From 1966 through 2002, the Probation Department operated the West Fork Honor Camp under a lease from the U.S. Forest Service. |

| |During the lease term, the County constructed 12 single-story, wood-frame buildings with concrete slab foundations. In 2002, the|

| |Probation Department closed the facility. |

| | |

| |Under the terms of the lease, the County is obligated to remove all improvements and to restore the site to its pre-lease |

| |condition. Restoration will include removal of slabs, roadways, and recontouring and restoration of disturbed areas. The |

| |estimated cost of demolition and required restoration measures is $6.6 million. |

| | |

| |An environmental study and public review of the environmental findings has been completed for the project. That survey resulted |

| |in a final Negative Declaration completed on October 11, 2006. |

| | |

| |This letter requests Board consideration of the final Negative Declaration, authority to contract for demolition and restoration |

| |contracts at Camp West Fork, and amendment of the Department of General Services Facilities Management Internal Service Fund |

| |Spending Plan based on funds available in the Public Safety Group. |

| |FISCAL IMPACT: |

| |Funds for this project are not included in the Fiscal Year 2006-08 Adopted Operational Plan. If approved, this request will |

| |result in a one time cost of $6.6 million. The funding source is the Public Safety Group Management Reserve. No additional |

| |staff years are required by this proposal. |

| |RECOMMENDATION: |

| |CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER |

| |1. Find, on the basis of the whole record, that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect |

| |on the environment. Consider the final Negative Declaration, completed October 11, 2006, together with comments received during |

| |public review, and adopt it, finding that it reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the Board of Supervisors. |

| |(Attachment A) |

| | |

| |2. Authorize the Director, Department of Purchasing and Contracting to take any action authorized by Article XXIII, Section 401, |

| |et seq. of the Administrative Code to contract for professional services for design, surveying, and engineering services for Camp|

| |West Fork Demolition and Restoration. |

| | |

| |3. Authorize the Director, Department of Purchasing and Contracting to take any action authorized by Article XXIII, Section 401, |

| |et seq. of the Administrative Code with respect to contracts for the subject public works project, Camp West Fork Demolition and |

| |Restoration. |

| | |

| |4. Designate the Director of General Services as the County Officer responsible for administering all awarded contracts. |

| | |

| |5. Amend the Fiscal Year 2006-07 Department of General Services Facilities Management Internal Service Fund Spending Plan in the |

| |amount of $6.6 million to provide funding for Camp West Fork Restoration based on charges for services received from the General |

| |Fund. |

| | |

| | |

| |6. Transfer appropriations of $6.6 million from the Public Safety Group Management Reserve to major maintenance for the Camp West|

| |Fork Demolition and Restoration. (4 VOTES) |

| |ACTION: |

| |ON MOTION of Supervisor Slater-Price, seconded by Supervisor Jacob, the Board took action as recommended, on Consent. |

| |AYES: Cox, Jacob, Slater-Price, Roberts, Horn |

| | | |

| | | |

|8. |SUBJECT: |COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY FISCAL YEAR 2005-06 ANNUAL REPORT (DISTRICT: ALL) |

| |OVERVIEW: |

| |This is a request to accept and approve the Fiscal Year 2005-06 Annual Report of the County of San Diego Redevelopment Agency and|

| |to authorize the Director of the Department of Housing and Community Development to transmit the Fiscal Year 2005-06 Annual |

| |Report of the County of San Diego Redevelopment Agency to the State Controller in order to comply with State reporting |

| |requirements for redevelopment agencies. Redevelopment agencies are required to submit an annual report to the State Controller |

| |for the purpose of providing financial data to the State Legislature and other interested parties. |

| |FISCAL IMPACT: |

| |There is no fiscal impact associated with this action. |

| |RECOMMENDATION: |

| |CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER: |

| |Acting as the Board of Supervisors |

| |Accept and approve the Fiscal Year 2005-06 Annual Report of the County of San Diego Redevelopment Agency. |

| | |

| |Authorize the Director, Department of Housing and Community Development, to transmit the Fiscal Year 2005-06 Annual Report of|

| |the County of San Diego Redevelopment Agency to the State Controller by December 31, 2006. |

| | |

| |(Relates to Redevelopment Agency Agenda No. 1) |

| |ACTION: |

| |ON MOTION of Supervisor Slater-Price, seconded by Supervisor Jacob, the Board took action as recommended, on Consent. |

| |AYES: Cox, Jacob, Slater-Price, Roberts, Horn |

| | | |

| | | |

|9. |SUBJECT: |SECOND AMENDMENT TO LEASE FOR SHERIFF’S MEDICAL SERVICES DIVISION, 8525 GIBBS DRIVE, SAN DIEGO |

| | |(DISTRICT:4) |

| |OVERVIEW: |

| |The Sheriff’s Medical Services Division currently occupies 7,455 square feet of office and pharmacy space at 8525 Gibbs Drive, |

| |San Diego. Today’s request is for approval of a Second Amendment to Lease, which will provide an additional 3,946 square feet of|

| |space at this facility for pharmacy and office staff. Approval of this recommendation will allow the Sheriff’s Medical Services |

| |Division to continue providing quality medical services to inmate patients with increased operational efficiency and a minimal |

| |increase in lease cost. |

| |FISCAL IMPACT: |

| |Funds for this request are budgeted. If approved, this request will result in a current year cost of $36,180, an annual cost of |

| |$74,351, and will require no additional staff years. |

| |RECOMMENDATION: |

| |CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER |

| |Find, in accordance with Article 19, Section 15301 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, that the Second|

| |Amendment to Lease is categorically exempt from the provisions of the guidelines, as such leasing involves a negligible expansion|

| |of use beyond that previously existing. |

| | |

| |2. Ratify approval in principle for the lease of 3,946 square feet of new space for the Sheriff’s Medical Services Division at |

| |8525 Gibbs Drive, Suites 101 and 303, San Diego. |

| | |

| |3. Authorize the Director, Department of General Services, to execute three copies of the Second Amendment to Lease for 8525 |

| |Gibbs Drive, San Diego, County Contract Number 37498-E. |

| |ACTION: |

| |ON MOTION of Supervisor Slater-Price, seconded by Supervisor Jacob, the Board took action as recommended, on Consent. |

| |AYES: Cox, Jacob, Slater-Price, Roberts, Horn |

| | | |

| | | |

|10. |SUBJECT: |ADOPT A BOARD POLICY “HEALTHY CHOICE OPTIONS IN VENDING MACHINES ON COUNTY PROPERTY” (DISTRICT: ALL) |

| |OVERVIEW: |

| |On August 1, 2006 (23), the Board of Supervisors directed the Chief Administrative Officer to develop nutritional guidelines that|

| |can be incorporated in a policy for all County vending machine contracts and to use the County Department of Parks and |

| |Recreation’s Vending Machine Content Policy C-36 as a model. It was further directed that the policy include a provision that |

| |vending machines located at County facilities that primarily serve youth have 100% of the displayed products in compliance with |

| |the healthy-choice nutritional guidelines and those at all other County facilities be in 50% compliance. The requested action |

| |today is to adopt a new policy that would require healthy choice options in all vending machines on County property. |

| |FISCAL IMPACT: |

| |There is no fiscal impact associated with the adoption of this proposed new Board policy. There will be no additional staff |

| |years as a result of this action. |

| |RECOMMENDATION: |

| |CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER |

| |Adopt Board of Supervisor’s Policy “Healthy Choice Options in Vending Machines on County Property,” to be effective January 1, |

| |2007. |

| |ACTION: |

| |ON MOTION of Supervisor Slater-Price, seconded by Supervisor Jacob, the Board took action as recommended, on Consent, adopting |

| |Board Policy K-14, entitled: HEALTHY CHOICE OPTIONS IN VENDING MACHINES ON COUNTY PROPERTY. |

| |AYES: Cox, Jacob, Slater-Price, Roberts, Horn |

| |

| |

|11. |SUBJECT: |SITE SEARCH RESULTS FOR OFFICE AND WAREHOUSE SPACE AND REQUEST FOR APPROVAL IN PRINCIPLE TO LEASE SPACE |

| | |(DISTRICT: ALL) |

| |OVERVIEW: |

| |On August 1, 2006 (11), your Board authorized the Director, Department of General Services to conduct a site search for |

| |replacement space to house County functions presently using Building 11 at the County Operations Center. Prior to constructing a|

| |new building for the Medical Examiner, Building 11 and an adjacent outdoor storage area will be demolished, requiring alternate |

| |leased space in San Diego County. |

| | |

| |The Board is requested to accept the results of the site search, approve in principle the leasing of alternate space, and |

| |authorize negotiating new lease agreements for office space for Purchasing and Contracting and warehouse space for use by |

| |Purchasing and Contracting, Health and Human Services Agency, Farm and Home Advisor, and the Sheriff. Staff anticipates |

| |completing the next phase of the lease process and returning to your Board for approval within 30 to 60 days. |

| |FISCAL IMPACT: |

| |Funds for this proposal are not included in the CAO’s Approved Operational Plan for Fiscal Year 2006-07 for the Department of |

| |Purchasing and Contracting and three other County departments (Health and Human Services Agency, Farm and Home Advisor, and |

| |Sheriff). If approved, this request will result in $1,194,202 current year cost for the relocated departments, which includes |

| |$796,000 in one-time relocation costs and lease costs of $398,202, net of current facilities costs in Building 11. The projected|

| |net lease cost for Fiscal Year 2006-07 is $1,077,424, and ongoing annual costs of $1,119,158. Appropriations increases will be |

| |requested when the lease negotiations have been completed and returned for final approval. No additional staff years are |

| |required. The funding sources are existing departmental appropriations for occupancy costs at Building 11, fund balance in the |

| |Purchasing and Contracting Internal Service Fund, and general purpose revenues and other departmental resources. |

| |RECOMMENDATION: |

| |CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER |

| |Find that the proposed action is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under Article 5, Section |

| |15060(c)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines, because it is not a project as defined by Section 15378. |

| | |

| |Approve, in principle, the leasing of approximately 13,870 square feet of new office space for the Department of Purchasing and |

| |Contracting and approximately 46,060 square feet of warehouse space for the Department of Purchasing and Contracting, and replace|

| |34,500 square feet of warehouse space at Building 11 used by the Sheriff, Health and Human Services Agency, and the Farm and Home|

| |Advisor with alternate leased space, which includes an additional 4,200 square feet of space for the Sheriff’s Department and an |

| |additional 4,000 square feet of space for the Health and Human Services Agency. |

| | |

| |Authorize the Director, Department of General Services to negotiate leases to accommodate the space requirements, and return to |

| |the Board of Supervisors for approval. |

| |ACTION: |

| |ON MOTION of Supervisor Slater-Price, seconded by Supervisor Jacob, the Board took action as recommended, on Consent. |

| |AYES: Cox, Jacob, Slater-Price, Roberts, Horn |

| | | |

| | | |

|12. |SUBJECT: |SUPPORT THE RÉAPPLICATION FOR A WAIVER OF SECONDARY TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR SAN DIEGO’S REGIONAL |

| | |WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT (DISTRICTS: ALL) |

| |OVERVIEW: |

| |The City of San Diego Metropolitan Wastewater System (METRO System) provides regional sewage treatment and disposal services to |

| |over 30,000 families and businesses within the County’s unincorporated areas. Based on the percentage of total flow to the METRO |

| |system, unincorporated county ratepayers currently pay approximately 6.5 percent of METRO’s operations, maintenance, and capital |

| |improvement costs. |

| | |

| |The Point Loma Wastewater Treatment Plant treats and disposes 80% of the total capacity of the METRO system. The Plant operates |

| |under a waiver of treatment standards that will expire on June 15, 2008, and the City is evaluating whether to re-apply for |

| |another waiver or to change to more costly secondary treatment. Current cost estimates for construction of secondary facilities |

| |at the Point Loma Plant range from $540 million to $1.2 billion. This would result in rate increases of 20% or more. The County |

| |is unaware of any credible scientific data that suggests that secondary treatment is necessary. |

| | |

| |On December 14, 2006, the Metro Wastewater Joint Powers Authority is scheduled to consider whether to recommend that the City |

| |re-apply for another waiver or implement secondary treatment at the Point Loma Plant. |

| | |

| |Today’s action proposes that the Board of Supervisors support the pursuit of additional, available waivers and to oppose changing|

| |to secondary treatment to avoid the unnecessary considerable costs to ratepayers. |

| |FISCAL IMPACT: |

| |There is no fiscal impact associated with this action. |

| |RECOMMENDATION: |

| |SUPERVISOR JACOB |

| |1. Support the pursuit of waiver renewals for the current treatment process and oppose changing the Point Loma Wastewater |

| |Treatment Plant to secondary treatment. |

| | |

| |2. Direct the Chief Administrative Officer to draft a letter for signature by the Chairman to the Mayor of the City of San Diego|

| |stating the Board’s position urging the City to re-apply for a waiver of secondary treatment standards for Metro Sewage; and, |

| |send copies of the letter to the Metro JPA Board Members and San Diego City Council prior to December 14, 2006. |

| |ACTION: |

| |ON MOTION of Supervisor Jacob, seconded by Supervisor Slater-Price, the Board took action as recommended. |

| |AYES: Cox, Jacob, Slater-Price, Roberts, Horn |

| | | |

| | | |

|13. |SUBJECT: |PROPOSED CHANGES TO RETIREE HEALTH BENEFITS (DISTRICTS: ALL) |

| |OVERVIEW: |

| |The Board of Retirement of the San Diego County Employees Retirement Association (SDCERA) provides vested pension benefits to |

| |retired employees. Vested, or guaranteed, benefits are set by the County and guaranteed to employees upon their hiring. As such,|

| |SDCERA is obligated to continue making these payments. SDCERA also provides a health insurance program to retired members, their|

| |dependents, surviving spouses and registered domestic partners. As non-vested, or non-guaranteed benefits, payments for health |

| |and dental insurance premiums are awarded to eligible retirees at the discretion of the SDCERA Board. |

| | |

| |Recent changes in the accounting standards issued by the Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) have brought to the |

| |forefront the serious fiscal impact that the County of San Diego faces if SDCERA continues to subsidize retiree health benefits |

| |as they are provided today. It is estimated that the total amount the County should invest today that would cover the costs of |

| |non-vested retiree healthcare, or the “actuarial accrued liability”, is $640 million. The estimated Annual Required Contribution|

| |(ARC) that the County should make for SDCERA to continue providing retiree health benefits at their current levels could be as |

| |much as $60-70 million a year and will increase in the future. When added over a 20 year period, the amount of the County’s ARC |

| |payments is estimated to be $1.8 billion. These amounts represent a significant cost to the taxpayers that cannot be sustained. |

| | |

| |Today’s action asks the Board of Supervisors to urge the Board of Retirement to exercise its independent authority and eliminate |

| |the subsidy that SDCERA pays toward the health insurance premiums for Tier A safety and general members, those retired members |

| |who are entitled to the highest vested retirement payments among all retirees. |

| | |

| |Preliminary estimates indicate that limiting these benefits only to Tier I and II members would reduce the ARC from an estimated |

| |$60-70 million a year to approximately $20-30 million, thereby reducing the total estimated cost to County taxpayers from ARC |

| |payments over 20 years from $1.8 billion to $637 million. Additionally, adoption of today’s recommendations would reduce the |

| |actuarial accrued liability from about $640 million to approximately $290 million. Although the County would no longer |

| |contribute to the cost of non-vested health benefits for Tier A retirees, those retirees would continue to be eligible to |

| |participate in SDCERA’s health insurance programs at their own cost. The estimated $20-30 million expense to the County is |

| |significant. However, at this time it is believed that the County can identify funds to meet an obligation at this level. |

| |FISCAL IMPACT: |

| |The current health allowance program provided by SDCERA to retirees is estimated to result in an Annual Required Contribution |

| |(ARC) of approximately $60-$70 million to a retiree medical care trust account. The County would be required to report a |

| |liability in its financial statements for Fiscal Year 2007-08 if this contribution is not made in full. The ARC is estimated to |

| |be significantly reduced to approximately $20-30 million if the health allowance program were restricted to Tier I and Tier II |

| |retirees. By adding the ARC payments over 20 years, the total estimated costs to the taxpayers from this action would be reduced |

| |from $1.8 billion to $637 million. Because the ARC is calculated on a level percent of pay basis, the amounts grow each year as |

| |base payroll grows until the unfunded liability is reduced to zero. At that time, the ARC would be reduced to the amount |

| |necessary to sustain the benefit going forward. By limiting the benefit to Tier I and Tier II employees, the ARC would eventually|

| |be eliminated altogether, resulting in significant savings to San Diego County taxpayers. As of June 30, 2006, SDCERA has a |

| |balance of approximately $217 million in health reserve accounts funded by excess earnings of the Retirement Fund that may be |

| |used to help mitigate the County’s ARC for the next few years. |

| |RECOMMENDATION: |

| |SUPERVISOR JACOB AND SUPERVISOR SLATER-PRICE |

| |Adopt the attached resolution that directs the Chief Financial Officer to designate the County’s contribution to SDCERA for |

| |retiree health care payments if the following actions have been taken by SDCERA: |

| |By June 30, 2007, SDCERA has adopted and continues to maintain a policy limiting health care allowance payments to Tier I and |

| |Tier II members only. |

| |Except as provided in (a) above, that SDCERA continue the provisions of its retiree health allowance program relating to |

| |qualifications for benefits and maximum payments at levels no greater than what is currently authorized. |

| | |

| |Authorize the Chief Administrative Officer, through the County’s designated Labor Relations representative, to continue |

| |discussions with authorized employee representatives on the development and implementation of a Voluntary Employee Benefit |

| |Association (VEBA) as a method for future funding of retiree health care. |

| | |

| |Authorize the Board Ad Hoc Subcommittee on Retiree Health Benefits to send a letter, prior to the completion of SDCERA’s |

| |actuarial valuation of postretirement health care benefits, to the SDCERA Board of Retirement advising it of the actions of the |

| |Board of Supervisors, and transmit with the letter a copy of this Board Letter and the adopted Resolution. |

| | |

| | |

| | |

| |Note for the official record that all County elected officials including the members of the Board of Supervisors, whose |

| |membership in the County retirement system currently makes them eligible upon retirement for payments toward health benefits, |

| |will have such eligibility terminated as a result of the adoption of the attached resolution. |

| |ACTION: |

| |ON MOTION of Supervisor Slater-Price, seconded by Supervisor Jacob, the Board took action as recommended adopting Resolution No. |

| |06-229 entitled: A RESOLUTION PROVIDING DIRECTIONS TO THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER REGARDING THE DESIGNATION OF THE COUNTY’S |

| |CONTRIBUTION TO THE 401(h) ACCOUNT MAINTAINED BY THE SAN DIEGO COUNTY EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT ASSOCIATION. |

| |AYES: Cox, Jacob, Slater-Price, Roberts, Horn |

| | | |

| | | |

|14. |SUBJECT: |NOTICED PUBLIC HEARING: |

| | |CONFLICT OF INTEREST CODES: VARIOUS AGENCIES OTHER THAN COUNTY DEPARTMENTS (DISTRICT: ALL) |

| |OVERVIEW: |

| |The Board of Supervisors serves as the Code Reviewing Body for any Local Government Agency, other than Cities, with jurisdiction |

| |wholly within the county per Government Code Section 82011. This letter is a result of the Biennial Review of Conflict of |

| |Interest Codes pursuant to Government Code Section 87306.5. |

| | |

| |Additionally, new agencies, the Helix Charter High School and Albert Einstein Academies have recently adopted their Conflict of |

| |Interest Code, and request your approval. |

| |RECOMMENDATION: |

| |CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER |

| |Approve the Conflict of Interest Code adopted by the: |

| |Albert Einstein Academies |

| |Carlsbad Unified School District |

| |Chula Vista Elementary School District |

| |Del Mar Union School District |

| |Encina Wastewater Authority |

| |Escondido Union School District |

| |Fallbrook Public Utility District |

| |First 5 Commission of San Diego |

| |Grossmont-Cuyamaca Community College District |

| |Helix Charter High School |

| |Helix Water District |

| |Lemon Grove School District |

| |Leucadia Wastewater District |

| |Mountain Empire Unified School District |

| |North County Cemetery District |

| |North County Fire Protection District |

| |North County Transit District |

| |Olivenhain Municipal Water District |

| |Padre Dam Municipal Water District |

| |Pine Valley Fire Protection District |

| |Rainbow Municipal Water District |

| |SANDAG |

| |San Diego Community College District |

| |San Diego County Office of Education |

| |San Diego County Regional Airport Authority |

| |San Diego County Water Authority |

| |San Diego Educational Facilities Authority No. 2 |

| |San Diego Pooled Insurance Program Authority |

| |San Diego Unified Port District |

| |San Dieguito Water District |

| |San Elijo Joint Powers Authority |

| |Santee School District |

| |San Ysidro School District |

| |Solana Beach School District |

| |Southwestern Community District |

| |Sweetwater Union High School District |

| |Vista Irrigation District |

| |Warner Unified School District |

| |Water Conservation Garden Authority |

| |ACTION: |

| |ON MOTION of Supervisor Slater-Price, seconded by Supervisor Jacob, the Board of Supervisors closed the Hearing and took action |

| |as recommended, on Consent. |

| |AYES: Cox, Jacob, Slater-Price, Roberts, Horn |

| | | |

| | | |

|15. |SUBJECT: |NOTICED PUBLIC HEARING: |

| | |CONFLICT OF INTEREST CODES: COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY DEPARTMENTS (DISTRICT: ALL) |

| |OVERVIEW: |

| |Pursuant to Section 87306.5 of the Government Code, the County of San Diego has conducted its Biennial Review of Conflict of |

| |Interest Codes for County departments. On October 31, 2006, Minute Order No. 21, the Board adopted Ordinance No. 9803 (N.S) |

| |County of San Diego Conflict of Interest Code, to the San Diego Administrative Code. This “global” County Conflict of Interest |

| |Code replaces each County department’s Conflict of Interest Code, and serves as the County’s single official document |

| |representing the County of San Diego Conflict of Interest Code applicable to all County departments. Today’s action adopts the |

| |listing of designated positions from each department who are required to file Form 700, Statement of Economic Interest, and the |

| |applicable disclosure categories. |

| |FISCAL IMPACT: |

| |None. |

| |RECOMMENDATION: |

| |CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER |

| |Approve the listings of positions and disclosure categories for individuals designated to file a Statement of Economic Interest |

| |from the following departments: |

| |Agriculture/Weights & Measures |

| |Air Pollution Control District |

| |Alternate Public Defender |

| |Animal Services |

| |Assessor/Recorder/County Clerk |

| |Auditor & Controller/Chief Financial Officer |

| |Board of Supervisors Staff - # 1 To #5 |

| |Board of Supervisors General Office |

| |Chief Administrative Office |

| |Child Support Services |

| |Citizens Law Enforcement Review Board |

| |Civil Service Commission |

| |Clerk of the Board of Supervisors |

| |Community Services Group |

| |County Counsel |

| |County Library |

| |County Technology Office |

| |District Attorney |

| |Emergency Services |

| |Environmental Health Department |

| |Farm and Home Advisor |

| |Finance & General Government Group |

| |General Services |

| |Health and Human Services Agency |

| |Housing and Community Development |

| |Human Resources |

| |Land Use & Environment Group |

| |Media and Public Relations |

| |Medical Examiner |

| |Parks and Recreation |

| |Planning and Land Use |

| |Probation |

| |Public Administrator |

| |Public Defender |

| |Public Safety Group |

| |Public Works |

| |Purchasing and Contracting |

| |Registrar of Voters |

| |San Diego County Employee Retirement Association |

| |Sheriff |

| |Treasurer Tax Collector |

| |ACTION: |

| |ON MOTION of Supervisor Slater-Price, seconded by Supervisor Jacob, the Board of Supervisors closed the Hearing and took action |

| |as recommended, on Consent. |

| |AYES: Cox, Jacob, Slater-Price, Roberts, Horn |

| | | |

| | | |

|16. |SUBJECT: |BONSALL UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS, ELECTION OF 2005, SERIES 2007 B (DISTRICT: 5) |

| |OVERVIEW: |

| |On November 8, 2005, an election was held in the Bonsall Union School District, San Diego County, California (the District), |

| |whereby at least 55 percent of the voters of the District approved the issuance of $17 million in general obligation bonds. |

| |Proceeds from the sale of the bonds was planned to be used to finance the repair and rehabilitation of schools, and the |

| |construction and acquisition of new classrooms and school facilities. |

| | |

| |At this time, the governing board of the District requests the Board of Supervisors to issue a second series of such bonds in an |

| |aggregate principal amount not to exceed $4 million, designated as the Bonsall Union School District General Obligation Bonds, |

| |Election of 2005, Series 2007 B (the Bonds). The first series of bonds were issued in March of 2006 in the amount of $8.92 |

| |million. After the issuance of the Bonds, approximately $4.08 million of the authorization will remain. |

| |FISCAL IMPACT: |

| |These bonds are general obligations of the District to be paid from ad valorem property taxes and do not constitute an obligation|

| |of the County. |

| |RECOMMENDATION: |

| |CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER AND DEBT ADVISORY COMMITTEE |

| |Adopt the resolution authorizing the issuance and sale of the Bonsall Union School District General Obligation Bonds, Election of|

| |2005, Series 2007 B in an amount not to exceed $4 million. |

| |ACTION: |

| |ON MOTION of Supervisor Slater-Price, seconded by Supervisor Jacob, the Board took action as recommended, on Consent, adopting |

| |Resolution No. 06-230 entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE AND|

| |SALE OF BONDS OF THE BONSALL UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT, ELECTION OF 2005, SERIES 2007 B. |

| |AYES: Cox, Jacob, Slater-Price, Roberts, Horn |

| | | |

| | | |

|17. |SUBJECT: |ASSESSOR/RECORDER/COUNTY CLERK CONTRACT TO SUPPORT IMAGING SYSTEM (DISTRICT: ALL) |

| |OVERVIEW: |

| |The Assessor/Recorder/County Clerk (ARCC) operates an imaging system that is the backbone of the department’s operations. Wave |

| |Imaging Corporation (WIC) custom-developed this imaging system and is the sole vendor that can provide maintenance/ support |

| |services and upgrades to this system. This system is outside the scope of the current Information Technology contract. ARCC |

| |currently contracts with WIC to maintain this imaging system. Approval of this request will allow ARCC to continue to utilize |

| |WIC to ensure the continuing operation and upgrade of the department’s imaging system. |

| |FISCAL IMPACT: |

| |Funds for this request are partially budgeted. The funding source is recording revenues and Recorder’s Modernization Trust Fund. |

| |If approved, this request will result in $580,180 in current year costs with offsetting revenue and will require no additional |

| |staff years and no cost to the General Fund. |

| |RECOMMENDATION: |

| |ASSESSOR/RECORDER/COUNTY CLERK |

| |Waive Board Policy, A-91, Mid-Year Budget Changes. |

| | |

| |Establish appropriations of $410,180 in Services and Supplies in the Assessor/ Recorder/County Clerk (org. 33295, account 52396) |

| |for the maintenance and support of the Recorder’s imaging system based on the Recorder’s Modernization Trust Fund |

| |(#513402). (4 VOTES) |

| | |

| | |

| |In accordance with Board Policy A-87, Competitive Procurement, approve and authorize the Director of Purchasing & |

| |Contracting to amend contract # 503247 with WIC as required to reflect additional services and funding allocations, |

| |subject to the approval of the Assessor/Recorder/County/Clerk. Waive the advertising requirement of Board Policy A-87. |

| |ACTION: |

| |ON MOTION of Supervisor Slater-Price, seconded by Supervisor Jacob, the Board took action as recommended, on Consent. |

| |AYES: Cox, Jacob, Slater-Price, Roberts, Horn |

| | | |

| | | |

|18. |SUBJECT: |2007 LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM (DISTRICT: ALL) |

| |OVERVIEW: |

| |This is a request for Board direction to the intergovernmental staff and the County’s Sacramento and Washington representatives |

| |regarding the Board’s 2007 Legislative Program. |

| |FISCAL IMPACT: |

| |There is not fiscal impact associated with this item. |

| |RECOMMENDATION: |

| |CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER |

| |Authorize staff to pursue the legislative proposals summarized in the 2007 Legislative Sponsorship Program (Attachment A). |

| | |

| |Authorize staff to support the proposals summarized in thte 2007 Legislative Program Support Proposals (Attachment B). |

| | |

| |Authorize staff to pursue State legislative efforts as detailed in Priority State Issues – 2007 (Attachment C). |

| | |

| |Authorize staff to pursue Federal legislative efforts as detailed in Priority Federal Issues – 2007 (Attachment D). |

| | |

| |Adopt the proposed revisions to the 2007-08 Legislative Policy Guidelines as detailed in Attachment E). |

| |ACTION: |

| |ON MOTION of Supervisor Slater-Price, seconded by Supervisor Jacob, the Board took action as recommended, on Consent. |

| |AYES: Cox, Jacob, Slater-Price, Roberts, Horn |

| | | |

| | | |

|19. |SUBJECT: |AMENDMENT TO THE COMPENSATION ORDINANCE AMENDING COMPENSATION FOR THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY, SHERIFF, AND |

| | |THE TREASURER/TAX COLLECTOR (DISTRICT: ALL) |

| |OVERVIEW: |

| |The Board of Supervisors directed the Chief Administrative Officer to prepare the necessary Compensation Ordinance Amendments for|

| |Board action on January 10, 2006 to approve the establishment of salaries of the District Attorney, Sheriff, and Treasurer/ |

| |Tax Collector recommended by the Advisory Commission.  The salary increases associated with the recommended salaries of $207,953 |

| |for the District Attorney, $188,758 for the Sheriff, and $146,544 for the Treasurer/Tax Collector were to be implemented over a |

| |two year period:  the first 50% of the increase was approved for February 24, 2006 and the remaining 50% of the increase is to be|

| |brought forward to the Board for consideration in December of 2006. Accordingly this action amends the San Diego County |

| |Compensation Ordinance by amending the salary for the District Attorney, Sheriff, and the Treasurer/Tax Collector which will |

| |implement the remaining 50% of the increase. |

| |FISCAL IMPACT: |

| |Funds for this request are included in the FY 2006-08 Operational Plan. If approved, it will result in a current year cost of |

| |approximately $39,350 and an annual cost of approximately $78,700. The funding source is County general purpose revenues. There |

| |will be no impact on the funded status of the San Diego County Employees Retirement Association (SDCERA). |

| |RECOMMENDATION: |

| |CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER |

| |Approve introduction (first reading) of ordinances; read title and waive further reading of ordinances (MAJORITY VOTE): |

| | |

| |AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE COMPENSATION ORDINANCE AND ESTABLISHING THE COMPENSATION FOR THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY, SHERIFF, AND THE |

| |TREASURER/TAX COLLECTOR. |

| | |

| |Submit ordinances for further Board consideration and adoption (second reading) on December 12, 2006. |

| |ACTION: |

| |ON MOTION of Supervisor Slater-Price, seconded by Supervisor Jacob, the Board took action as recommended, on Consent, introducing|

| |Ordinance for further Board consideration and adoption on December 12, 2006. |

| |AYES: Cox, Jacob, Slater-Price, Roberts, Horn |

| | | |

| | | |

|20. |SUBJECT: |PUBLIC ORAL AUCTION TAX SALE OF TAX-DEFAULTED PROPERTY (DISTRICT: ALL) |

| |OVERVIEW: |

| |This is a request to approve the proposed sale of 205 parcels of tax-defaulted real property at a Public Oral Auction Tax Sale |

| |No. 7016 on or about Friday, February 23, 2007, pursuant to Revenue and Taxation Code § 3691, et seq. |

| |FISCAL IMPACT: |

| |The selling price of each parcel will be used to redeem the defaulted and current year taxes. It will also pay all required fees|

| |and costs of sale, which includes the Public Auction Tax Sale Fee of $240.00 imposed under San Diego County Administrative Code |

| |§364.4, which became effective August 1, 2004. |

| | |

| |If there are excess proceeds remaining after satisfaction of all redemption costs and fees, they will be retained in the |

| |defaulted tax sale trust fund for a period of one year following the date of the recordation of the tax deed to the purchaser of |

| |the property. During that period, the excess proceeds may be claimed by any party of interest having a recorded lien interest in|

| |the property at the time of the sale. Unclaimed excess proceeds shall be escheated (transferred) into the County’s General Fund.|

| |RECOMMENDATION: |

| |TREASURER-TAX COLLECTOR |

| |Adopt the resolution approving the sale by a Public Oral Auction Tax Sale 7016 of 205 San Diego County real estate parcels which |

| |became tax-defaulted on or before June 30, 2001, and are now subject to the Treasurer-Tax Collector’s Power to Sell pursuant to |

| |Revenue and Taxation Code §3691. |

| | |

| |Should a parcel not sell at the initial minimum bid as defined in Revenue and Taxation Code §3698.5, approve the Treasurer-Tax |

| |Collector’s discretion under Revenue and Taxation Code §3698.5(c), to offer the same property at the same sale or next scheduled |

| |sale, at a minimum price that the Treasurer-Tax Collector deems appropriate in light of the most current assessed valuation of |

| |that property or property interests, or any unique circumstance with respect to that property or those interests. Any parcel |

| |remaining unsold may be re-offered within a 90-day period in accordance with §3692(e) and any new parties of interest shall be |

| |notified in accordance with §3701. |

| |ACTION: |

| |ON MOTION of Supervisor Slater-Price, seconded by Supervisor Jacob, the Board took action as recommended, on Consent, adopting |

| |Resolution No. 06-231 entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO APPROVING A PUBLIC ORAL |

| |AUCTION SALE OF TAX-DEFAULTED PROPERTY. |

| |AYES: Cox, Jacob, Slater-Price, Roberts, Horn |

| | | |

| | | |

|21. |SUBJECT: |DELEGATION OF INVESTMENT AUTHORITY, TREASURER’S INVESTMENT POLICY, APPOINTMENT OF OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE |

| | |MEMBERS (DISTRICT: ALL) |

| |OVERVIEW: |

| |Annually, your Board is requested to take several actions regarding the San Diego County Investment Pool. These actions include |

| |the annual delegation of investment authority to the Treasurer, review and approval of the Investment Policy, and appointment of |

| |Treasury Oversight Committee members. |

| |FISCAL IMPACT: |

| |N/A |

| |RECOMMENDATION: |

| |TREASURER-TAX COLLECTOR |

| |Approve the Resolution, which will delegate the investment authority to the County Treasurer for a one-year period commencing on |

| |January 1, 2007 through December 31, 2007. |

| | |

| |Approve the Resolution to become a member of the CALTRUST JPA, allowing for the Treasurer to serve as a member of the CALTRUST |

| |Board of Trustees. |

| | |

| |Review and approve the Treasurer’s Investment Policy as amended. |

| | |

| |Confirm the appointment of Barry Newman as a voting member of the Treasury Oversight Committee for a term ending December |

| |31, 2010. |

| | |

| |Confirm the appointment of William A. Kowba as a voting member of the Treasury Oversight Committee for a term ending December 31,|

| |2010. |

| |ACTION: |

| |ON MOTION of Supervisor Slater-Price, seconded by Supervisor Jacob, the Board took action as recommended, on Consent, adopting |

| |Resolution No. 06-232 entitled: A RESOLUTION DELEGATING INVESTMENT AUTHORITY TO THE COUNTY TREASURER-TAX COLLECTOR, and |

| |Resolution No. 06-233 entitled: RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO “PUBLIC AGENCY TO JOIN WITH OTHER PUBLIC AGENCIES|

| |AS A PARTICIPANT OF THE INVESTMENT TRUST OF CALIFORNIA, CARRYING ON BUSINESS AS CalTRUST. |

| |AYES: Cox, Jacob, Slater-Price, Roberts, Horn |

| | | |

| | | |

|22. |SUBJECT: |ESCHEATMENT OF MONIES TO THE GENERAL FUND |

| | |(DISTRICTS: ALL) |

| |OVERVIEW: |

| |This is a request to approve the escheatment of unclaimed tax refunds from 1996 to 2002, pursuant to sections 5097.2 and 5102 of |

| |the State Revenue & Taxation Code. |

| |FISCAL IMPACT: |

| |If approved this request will result in $223,840.61 of revenue to be realized by the General Fund. Appropriation and use of |

| |these funds will require subsequent action by the Board of Supervisors. The funding source is tax refunds. This request will |

| |result in no current year cost, no annual cost and will require the addition of no staff years. |

| |RECOMMENDATION: |

| |TREASURER-TAX COLLECTOR |

| |Direct the Auditor and Controller to transfer $223,840.61 from the Refundable Tax Trust Funds and deposit in the County General |

| |Fund. |

| |ACTION: |

| |ON MOTION of Supervisor Slater-Price, seconded by Supervisor Jacob, the Board took action as recommended, on Consent. |

| |AYES: Cox, Jacob, Slater-Price, Roberts, Horn |

| | | |

| | | |

|23. |SUBJECT: |COMMUNICATIONS RECEIVED (DISTRICT: ALL) |

| |OVERVIEW: |

| |Board Policy A-72, Board of Supervisors Agenda and Related Process, authorizes the Clerk of the Board to prepare a Communications|

| |Received for Board of Supervisors' Official Records. Routine informational reports, which need to be brought to the attention of|

| |the Board of Supervisors yet not requiring action, are listed on this document. Communications Received documents are on file in|

| |the Office of the Clerk of the Board. |

| |FISCAL IMPACT: |

| |Not Applicable. |

| |RECOMMENDATION: |

| |CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER: |

| |Note and file. |

| |ACTION: |

| |ON MOTION of Supervisor Slater-Price, seconded by Supervisor Jacob, the Board took action as recommended, on Consent. |

| |AYES: Cox, Jacob, Slater-Price, Roberts, Horn |

| | | |

| | | |

|24. |SUBJECT: |ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM: |

| | |APPOINTMENTS (DISTRICT: ALL) |

| |OVERVIEW: |

| |These appointments are in accordance with applicable Board Policy A–74, Citizen Participation in County Boards, Commissions and |

| |Committees, and Board Policy I–1, Planning and Sponsor Group Policies and Procedures. |

| |FISCAL IMPACT: |

| |N/A |

| |RECOMMENDATION: |

| |CHAIRMAN HORN |

| |Appoint Anne Burdick to the Mission Resource Conservation District, for a term to expire November 30, 2010. |

| | |

| |SUPERVISOR JACOB |

| |Appoint Ron H. Oberndorfer to the County Hearing Officer for a term to expire January 5, 2009. |

| | |

| |Appoint Reed Settle to Seat No. 6 on the Ramona Design Review Board for a term to expire September 20, 2008. |

| |ACTION: |

| |ON MOTION of Supervisor Slater-Price, seconded by Supervisor Jacob, the Board took action as recommended, on Consent. |

| |AYES: Cox, Jacob, Slater-Price, Roberts, Horn |

| | | |

| | | |

|25. |SUBJECT: |ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM: |

| | |SECOND CONSIDERATION AND ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE:URGENCY ORDINANCE AMENDING SOCIAL HOST ORDINANCE TO |

| | |CORRECT NUMBERING TO SUBDIVISION REFERENCES (DISTRICT: ALL) |

| |OVERVIEW: |

| |On November 14, 2006 (8), the Board of Supervisors took action as recommended, on Consent, submitting Ordinance for further |

| |consideration and adoption on December 5, 2006. |

| |On July 25, 2006 (6) the Board of Supervisors adopted amendments to the County’s Social Host Ordinance that strengthened the |

| |provisions of the ordinance. In the course of amending the existing social host ordinance, a new subdivision (a) was added to |

| |Section 32.1508. The existing subdivisions of Section 32.1508 were re-designated and re-lettered accordingly. However, the |

| |re-designated and re-lettered subdivisions contained references to the existing subdivisions that should have been changed to |

| |reflect the re-designation and re-lettering. This action would make those changes, reflecting the original legislative intent. |

| |Due to the impending holiday season, during which there may be occasion to apply and enforce the County’s social host ordinance, |

| |this corrective ordinance should be declared by the Board of Supervisors to be an urgency ordinance necessary to protect the |

| |health and safety of the public, pursuant to Government Code section 25123(d). |

| |RECOMMENDATION: |

| |CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER |

| |Adopt Ordinance entitled: |

| | |

| |AN URGENCY ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 32.1508 OF THE SAN DIEGO COUNTY CODE OF REGULATORY ORDINANCES. |

| |ACTION: |

| |ON MOTION of Supervisor Slater-Price, seconded by Supervisor Jacob, the Board took action as recommended, on Consent, adopting |

| |Ordinance No. 9810 (N.S) entitled: AN URGENCY ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 32.1508 OF THE SAN DIEGO COUNTY CODE OF REGULATORY |

| |ORDINANCES. |

| | |

| |AYES: Cox, Jacob, Slater-Price, Roberts, Horn |

| | | |

| | | |

|26. |SUBJECT: |ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM: |

| | |SECOND CONSIDERATION AND ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE: INTRODUCTION OF AN ORDINANCE ADDING CHAPTER 16, SEX |

| | |OFFENDER LOITERING ORDINANCE, TO TITLE 3, DIV. 2 OF THE SAN DIEGO COUNTY CODE OF REGULATORY ORDINANCES |

| | |(DISTRICT: ALL) |

| |OVERVIEW: |

| |On November 14, 2006 (1), the Board of Supervisors took action as recommended, on Consent, submitting Ordinance for further |

| |consideration and adoption on December 5, 2006. |

| |There are more than 4,000 registered sex offenders in San Diego County, the vast majority not on probation or parole. While |

| |living in our communities, these individuals adhere to just one restriction: each must register a home address once a year or |

| |whenever they change addresses. Sadly, many sex offenders who are required to register have disobeyed the law and have failed to|

| |do so. Experts believe that there is no “cure” for sex offenders and recidivism rates remain disturbingly high. Experts also |

| |warn that sex offenders, particularly child predators, frequent areas where potential victims are present. Individuals already |

| |convicted of heinous crimes against children cannot be allowed to loiter around schools, parks and childcare centers, preying on |

| |additional victims. |

| |Currently, there is no State law or County ordinance that prohibits those who are required to register as sex offenders from |

| |loitering around places where children typically congregate. Several cities in the region have already adopted ordinances to |

| |address this vulnerability. The County also needs to take action to protect children and families in the unincorporated area. |

| |Today’s action brings before the Board of Supervisors an ordinance that prohibits those who are required to register as sex |

| |offenders from loitering on or within 300 feet of public or private schools, parks and other child-oriented locations with the |

| |intent to commit a criminal act. This action will add to the San Diego County Code of Regulatory Ordinances, Title 3, Division |

| |2, a new Chapter 16 entitled “Sex Offender Loitering Ordinance.” |

| |RECOMMENDATION: |

| |SUPERVISOR JACOB AND SUPERVISOR COX: |

| |Adopt Ordinance entitled: |

| |AN ORDINANCE ADDING CHAPTER 16, SEX OFFENDER LOITERING ORDINANCE, SECTIONS 32.1601, 32.1602 and 32.1603 TO THE COUNTY OF SAN |

| |DIEGO REGULATORY ORDINANCES RELATING TO PROHIBITING SEX OFFENDERS FROM LOITERING. |

| |ACTION: |

| |ON MOTION of Supervisor Slater-Price, seconded by Supervisor Jacob, the Board took action as recommended, on Consent, adopting |

| |Ordinance No. 9811 (N.S) entitled: AN ORDINANCE ADDING CHAPTER 16, SEX OFFENDER LOITERING ORDINANCE, TO TITLE 3, DIVISION 2 OF |

| |THE SAN DIEGO COUNTY CODE OF REGULATORY ORDINANCES. |

| |AYES: Cox, Jacob, Slater-Price, Roberts, Horn |

| | | |

| | | |

|27. |SUBJECT: |CLOSED SESSION (DISTRICT: ALL) |

| |OVERVIEW: |

| |A. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - ANTICIPATED LITIGATION |

| |Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to subdivision (b) of Government Code section 54956.9: (Number of Potential Cases – |

| |1) |

| | |

| |B. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL – EXISTING LITIGATION |

| |(Subdivision (a) of Government Code section 54956.9) |

| |County of San Diego v. San Diego Norml, et al.; San Diego County Superior Court No. GIC 860665 |

| | |

| |C. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS |

| |(Government Code section 54957.6) |

| |Designated Representatives: Carlos Arauz and Susan Brazeau |

| |Employee Organizations: DSA |

| |ACTION: |

| |Any reportable matters will be announced on Wednesday, December 6, 2006, prior to the Board of Supervisors Planning and Land Use |

| |meeting. |

| | | |

| | | |

|28. |SUBJECT: |PRESENTATIONS/AWARDS |

| |OVERVIEW: |

| |Chairman Bill Horn presented a proclamation declaring December 7, 2006, National Pearl Harbor Remembrance Day throughout the County of|

| |San Diego. |

| |Supervisor Greg Cox presented a proclamation declaring today Marie Sauber Day throughout the County of San Diego. |

| |Supervisor Dianne Jacob presented a proclamation declaring today Valley Farm Market Day throughout the County of San Diego. |

| |Supervisor Pam Slater-Price presented a proclamation declaring today Mira Mesa Senior Center Day throughout the County of San Diego. |

| | | |

|29. |SUBJECT: |PUBLIC COMMUNICATION |

| |OVERVIEW: |

| |Paul P. Cody and Rodolfo Reyes spoke to the Board concerning medical marijuana. |

| |ACTION: |

| |Heard, referred to the Chief Administrative Officer. |

| | | |

There being no further business, the Board adjourned at 12:00 p.m.

THOMAS J. PASTUSZKA

Clerk of the Board of Supervisors

County of San Diego, State of California

Consent: Vizcarra

Discussion: Hall

NOTE: This Statement of Proceedings sets forth all actions taken by the County of San Diego Board of Supervisors on the matters stated, but not necessarily the chronological sequence in which the matters were taken up.

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download