Tuesday, July 14, 2009

"Found" money doesn't inspire confidence

By LOIS HENRY, Californian columnist
July 15, 2009

Government budgets are complicated, things were moving fast, it’s the worst financial crisis of our generation.

Yadda, yadda, yadda.

The county can make all the excuses in the world, but discovering we have $36 million in the bank rather than a $12 million deficit, as we’d been told over and over, isn’t exactly like finding a fiver in your jeans after you pull ’em out of the dryer.

Based on this little budget “oopsie” and others (oh yes, they have priors), it’s hard not to wonder who’s counting the chickens over there.

“There’s no question, and I said it long before we knew about the $36 million, that one of the biggest obstacles we face with potential layoffs and cutting services, is people thinking we’ve been here before,” Sheriff Donny Youngblood told me about how this “surprise” money affects department heads. “They feel like we’ve bluffed and we’ve bluffed and we’ve bluffed. I have a hard time convincing the staff that it’s real this time.

“And it is real.”

Even more so when you figure what the state might grab from counties in its tortuous efforts to close its own gap. Kern’s “found” money is likely to be swiped entirely and then some, forcing us to cut even deeper.

Until then, the Sheriff’s Department plans to:

• Lay off 15 civilians who manned the phone service desk. They took 7,500 reports last year. Deputies will now have to take over their duties.

• Lay off six of 12 evidence technicians who process crime scenes.

• Lay off 45 detentions deputies and move deputies into the main jail.

In the face of these kind of dire circumstances, Youngblood and others I spoke with were embarrassed by the mistake.

“It’s hard to convince the public we’re competent when this kind of thing happens,” Youngblood said.

“The public should be skeptical,” Supervisor Don Maben told me.

“It definitely raises a credibility issue, there’s no escaping that,” Supervisor Mike Maggard said.

“The heart of the issue is, these aren’t just numbers, it’s about credibility,” Supervisor Mike Rubio agreed.

While timing has put a brighter spotlight on this goof, it’s happened before.

In October 2007, the County Administrative Office found an extra $18 million between the county’s seat cushions. Most of that, $10 million, was unexpected revenue.

About $8 million, however, was leftover from the previous year’s budget, which makes me wonder, again: Did someone forget the batteries in their calculator?

We pay people good money — new CAO John Nilon earns $191,278.81 a year in salaryplus $93,973.77 in bennies and Auditor/Controller Ann Barnett pulls in $153,779.26 salary and $80,875.27 in benefits each year (holy cow!) — to keep their eye on the county’s fiscal ball. This latest episode shows that, clearly, someone dropped that ball.

Everyone I talked with reminded me the $36 million was in the black rather than the red column.

Well, whoopee for us, but given what we know of this snafu so far — Barnett’s and Nilon’s offices apparently not sharing information — it could just as easily have gone the other way.

Supervisors reiterated on Tuesday their call for an investigation into what the heck happened, including a report on whether the county needs a more centralized budgeting system (each department currently uses its own budget methods and software).

Good.

Because despite Nilon’s comments that we can’t “live life looking in the rearview mirror,” you can’t fix what you don’t know is broken.

Opinions expressed in this column are those of Lois Henry, not The Bakersfield Californian. Her column appears Wednesdays and Sundays. Comment at people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/noholdsbarred, call her at 395-7373 or e-mail lhenry@bakersfield.com

Planting a seed for animal welfare worthwhile

By LOIS HENRY, Californian columnist
June 28, 2009

A potential solution to our depressing animal overpopulation problem has been staring the Board of Supervisors in the face for months now and they’ve done nothing.

I’m not talking about a theoretical solution (and no, not mandatory spay/neuter, either).
This is tried and true and not just in far-away places like Calgary, Canada. This technique has worked right here in Kern County and Bakersfield.

Getting it done takes political courage, however, and so far Supervisors have only been willing to talk, talk, talk, about animal control problems. Time to walk the walk, fellas.
It’s all about licensing.

We need to ramp up our public outreach to let people know A) they need to get their dogs licensed B) how to get them licensed and C) what will happen if they don’t get them licensed. Then follow up.

In Calgary, which has a very aggressive and successful licensing program, they’ve shown that once you can get people and their pets into the system, you can work with them to get their animals fixed, return lost animals and deal with problem owners. Licensing also brings in the money to pay for it all.

We actually had survey crews years ago that did this, but foolishly got rid of them to save costs. We’ve watched our unwanted pet population, and costs, skyrocket ever since.

The program sounds simple, even a bit tedious. But it works.

The city did a four-month trial starting last September, sending a team of two people door-to-door 40 hours a week in randomly selected neighborhoods. They used one city-owned vehicle.

Costs for salaries, benefits and the truck were $24,649 during that trial period, September to December last year.

License and rabies vaccination revenue jumped — substantially — each of those months.

Overall license revenue increased 81 percent over 2007 for that four month time period and rabies vaccination revenue (at the low-cost clinics) jumped by 107 percent.

The program not only paid for itself, the city made a net profit of $14,836.

The county, meanwhile, knew all about this program and Animal Control officials were trying to get Supervisors to cut loose with some money so they could try it as well.

They aimed way too high, though, asking for more than $400,000 last summer to pay for three outreach teams and fund a low-cost spay/neuter program.

After much delay, Supervisors wouldn’t give up the money and said to do it with existing staff.

At the time I rolled my eyes (I do that a lot). But their shortsighted, invertebrate-edness, so to speak, ultimately underscored how well this approach works.

County Animal Control officers fit their outreach duties in as best they could, maybe canvassing neighborhoods one or two days a week. A county report lists only 106 hours spent in field work between January and April.

And STILL the program made money.

After all the costs were subtracted (including volunteer time, which struck me as odd) the county made more than $4,000.

When I spoke with Guy Shaw, director of Animal Control, he was somewhat timid about the program. He agreed, that, yes, it had made money but, “it’s just not feasible using existing staff without hurting our customer service.”

And he’s about to cut five positions, including Animal Control Chief Denise Haynes, who had coordinated the outreach program — the only program ever to make money for the department — one other person and the department’s extra help.

He said he was hoping to wait until after all the budget dust had settled before going back to Supervisors about the outreach program.

“The problem is you have to pay up front so you have to really sell it to the board so they’re sure this $300,000 will work,” Shaw told me.

There’s that $300,000 again, which I think is overshooting.

Tammy Davis with Bakersfield Animal Control told me her department just got the OK from the City Council to spend $40,000 on another six-month trial that will again use their team of two plus a blitz of advertising.

When I spoke with Supervisors Ray Watson and Don Maben, both supported the idea of bumping up outreach. But $300,000 wasn’t going to fly.

A $20,000 or $40,000 program, now that’s different.

“We could invest a little, get one team going full-time and then look at it from there,” Maben said. “Hopefully, if we gave it some seed money, it should grow and fund itself.

He wasn’t sure about the other Supes, though.

“I’ve heard comments about ‘people before animals,’ so it could create some conflict.”

We’ve been “working” on this problem for nearly five years, however, without much progress and this is the first real glimmer of hope. It’s worth the seed money.
Maben agreed.

“I don’t want, 20 years from now, my grandkids seeing barrels of dead puppies and kittens on the front page of The Californian again.”

Believe me, we don’t either.

Opinions expressed in this column are those of Lois Henry, not The Bakersfield Californian. Her column appears Wednesdays and Sundays. Comment at people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/noholdsbarred, call her at 395-7373 or e-mail lhenry@bakersfield.com

Idiots blowing it on 4th of July

By LOIS HENRY, Californian columnist
June 24, 2009

Last summer I called for a ban on personal fireworks.

Hoo boy! The reaction was swift and furious.

I was called a Nazi, hysterical, told I should move out of Kern County and likened to a “sheeple.”

You’d think I would have learned from that experience, but no. I’m hard-headed that way.

We absolutely must BAN ALL PERSONAL FIREWORKS.

Perhaps you feel that would impinge on your freedom.

Yes, it would.

And that’s too bad.

But we’ve gone well past the tipping point where “safe and sane” fireworks are used responsibly versus morons endangering large swaths of the community so they can make things go boom.

In other words: Your freedom to explode stuff shouldn’t trump my freedom NOT to have my house burn down.

Other communities have banned personal fireworks and their worlds did not collapse. The charities that relied on proceeds from fireworks sales found other ways to make money, people found other ways to celebrate, enforcement against illegal fireworks became easier and so on.

Rest assured, however, the political landscape on this issue hasn’t changed over the last year.

The only local politician who supports a ban is Councilwoman Sue Benham (her main issue is air quality).

Councilman Harold Hanson continues to support the use of personal fireworks on the grounds of tradition.

“It’s a patriotic deal for me,” Hanson said.

Even if the city did ban personal fireworks, it wouldn’t work without the county joining in, Councilman David Couch reminded me.

Nope, I got no takers over at the county either.

“I’m for fireworks,” Kern County Supervisor Mike Rubio told me. “It’s one of the greatest celebrations we have as a nation.”

Supervisor Mike Maggard said the focus should be on curbing illegal fireworks and Supervisor Don Maben said he would only support a ban if the Fire Chief told him it was absolutely necessary for the sake of safety.

Fire Chief Nick Dunn wasn’t ready to go there.

“If they’re used as intended, I don’t think fireworks are a hazard,” he said.

That’s the problem (well, that and the unbelievable number of illegal fireworks brought in for the “festivities).

Bakersfield City Fire Chief Ron Fraze has unapologetically led the crusade to ban personal fireworks here.

“Yup, I’ve been singing the same song for about 11 years now,” he said. Fraze and I both believe the professionally run shows should continue. Perhaps we could even have more and make them more cost-friendly for families.

But we have to get incendiary devices out of the hands of the masses, who might be the nicest folks you’ll ever meet in broad daylight but whose “brains fly out their backsides,” as Bakersfield Fire Capt. Ed Watts cogently noted, when the sun goes down and they get ahold of a little cardboard and gunpowder.

Last year, 30 teams of firefighters and law enforcement spent the 4th of July racing around metro Bakersfield responding to hundreds of calls and scanning the skies for tell-tale streaks from bottle rockets and Roman candles.

Watts expects this year will be much like last, when the following happened:

• More than 60 citations were written (that doesn’t include those issued by regular engine crews).

• Six people were arrested.

• More than 1,000 pounds of illegal fireworks were seized .

• There were five fireworks-related fires (including two houses).

• At least one person suffered a severe eye injury.

• And there was one armed robbery of a fireworks stand.

Happy Birthday, America!

Opinions expressed in this column are those of Lois Henry, not The Bakersfield Californian. Her column appears Wednesdays and Sundays. Comment at people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/noholdsbarred, call her at 395-7373 or e-mail lhenry@bakersfield.com

Fireworks basics
Anything that explodes or leaves the ground is illegal (that includes throwing or launching otherwise legal fireworks)

Buy fireworks only from licensed booths

Only “safe and sane” style fireworks are legal to buy and use in Kern County

Children shouldn’t be allowed to light fireworks without adult supervision

Make sure a water source is nearby

If you’re caught possessing or using illegal fireworks in the city you will be issued a misdemeanor ticket.

In the county, you will be issued a $1,500 fine.

Smart growth talk is cheap

By LOIS HENRY, Californian columnist
June 21, 2009

As usual, when it comes to sprawl, the Board of Supervisors is talking out of both sides of its mouth.

It happened again last week when supervisors denied one mega, leapfrog project making all the appropriate “smart growthiness” noise about stretching services too far, traffic impacts, yadda, yadda, yadda.

Then they turned around in the very same meeting and approved a different mega, leapfrog development and tabled yet another, which will likely be approved in August.

Good work, Sybil.

This all comes right on the heels of a what should be considered an ominous visit by a representative of the state Attorney General’s office earlier this month.

The deputy AG came to Kern to discuss how we’re planning to meet tough new state mandates on sustainable growth and greenhouse gas reductions.

Given the AG’s recent spate of successful lawsuits over other cities’ general plan updates that haven’t met those standards and our tradition of sprawl-to-the-wall, you’d think supervisors would sit up and take notice.

But no.

Instead, they happily approved the Bakersfield Land Investment project on 238 acres — 1,110 houses, no commercial, no industrial — waaaaaay out west at Greeley Road just north of Rosedale Highway.

I say they did it happily because as part of the approval, they required the developer to reduce the project’s greenhouse gas emissions by 29 percent.

Planners told me the greenhouse gas reduction requirement is unprecedented in Kern County and most other cities and counties.

Oh, psh! I can’t even muster a golf clap for such a backward baby step, nor for the other requirements of narrow streets and more open space.

This is sprawl, pure and simple.

It will tax our already overtaxed law enforcement and fire services, increase traffic and likely get us in dutch with the AG’s office.

As for the greenhouse gas requirement, may I just say “DUH!”

If they had denied the project there wouldn’t be a need to reduce emissions because there wouldn’t be any in the first place.

I know a lot of you are rolling your eyes about the greenhouse gas issue.

Regardless of whether you buy that humans are causing or hastening global warming, the laws on greenhouse gases are being vigorously enforced and we can ill afford our tax dollars being squandered in defense of dumb planning decisions.

I spoke with the deputy AG, Harrison Pollak, about his visit here and he said it was just a meet and greet.

“There was no threat at all,” he said.

Uh, yeah and when a Mafia wise guy comes over for coffee, there’s no message there at all.

Pollak said the AG’s office just wanted to know more about planning efforts in the Central Valley so they made a stop here, in Fresno and Madera.

He was very encouraged that Kern County planners will be using a $250,000 grant to create a climate action plan as part of the city/county general plan update. The city, on the other hand, doesn’t believe it has to account for greenhouse gas emissions in environmental documents.

“We would strongly disagree with that position,” Pollak told me.

Uh oh.

“One of the other concerns we have is that it looks like projects are being approved that aren’t consistent with the general plan update so far as it’s been done.”

He’s referring to growth boundaries roughly mapped out by planners that show a currently developable area called the “urban core,” which is more than 200 square miles by the way, then an outer ring that’s not supposed to be developed until after 2035 and a further ring where development should start after 2050.

Guess where the Bakersfield Land Investment project is? Smack in the 2035 ring.

It’s all the more galling when you consider that we already have more than 50,000 yet-to-be built, approved housing lots on the books (and, no, I’m not including the ones in developments that have gone belly up).

“I guess our question would be, why not wait?” Pollak asked.

Good question.

Too bad the only answer I have is double talking politicians.

Opinions expressed in this column are those of Lois Henry, not The Bakersfield Californian. Her column appears Wednesdays and Sundays. Comment at people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/noholdsbarred, call her at 395-7373 or e-mail lhenry@bakersfield.com