Budget Committee - Regular Meeting

Do you zoom in?

I wonder if we have to go back and Yeah.

Maybe a quick quick one. That's a

good sign. Okay?

F F two. There

you go. Wow. You're a pro. Okay. We're are set and ready to go. Can you hear us online?

Now we can. Thank you. So,

Susan, just so that you don't scold me, I'm gonna go back and start over again. Alright?

That sounds good. Thank you.

Alright.

I appreciate it.

Okay. We'll call the meeting to order here for a second time. And and and there are no additions or corrections. We'll go to the public comment. But if there's anybody in the chambers or online for wish to make public comment on item not on today's agenda?

No. Hands raised.

I do not see any hands raised. So we will close public comment and move to, approval of the minutes, which I would I'm good. We

minutes ago

that Yep. Two times now. Yep. And we'll go to any public comment on that, and I don't see any on that. So we'll close that and approve that by consensus and move to the consent agenda for any public comment on there. And I

I am with the consent as well.

Okay. I am as well. So we'll, move on and approve the consent agenda and close public comment as well and move to the regular agenda. So, Becky, we'll let you do act two.

Okay. Good good afternoon, supervisor Lejos, supervisor Church or chair Church. Sorry about that. I'm Becky Cromer from the Monterey County Social Services finance manager, and I have presenting with me Erin McDougall, who's a management analyst with Community Benefits. And we are here to talk about some potential changes to the general assistance program to reduce the cost of the program.

And so we're gonna go over where we're at currently with the expenditures with our aid payments, and we'll talk about our proposed cost saving measures. There will be different options for you to choose from, and then we'll have our recommendations. I'll turn it over to Aaron.

Thank you for your time, chair of church, adviser. Right now, we're gonna go over the total aid payments for the general assistance program for Monterey County's fiscal year of 2024, 2025. So the table here below, it does break down the payments by the type of general assistance received. So for those that were receiving general assistance during that fiscal year and that were temporarily disabled, they received maximum they they received payments of $725,000 in the fiscal year. For those that have been determined to be permanently disabled, they received 20 $729,000 of aid.

And for those that are employable, in other words, they were they're able to work, and we had work sites available for them so they could go and gain work experience. The county spent a $190,000, giving aid to those individuals. And then for job search, those are individuals that are employable, but for whatever reason, there was not a worksite available to them, so they just had to submit applications for jobs. We, as a county, paid out to them a $105,000 in this last fiscal year. And then we do have an other category here because it's kinda just a it it's the the it's a minimal amount for for a group.

It's for those that are receiving, aid to the assistance program, for those that are time expired refugees, those that are time expired refugees receiving earn interim assistance. And this is CAPI here, and that's an individual that has applied for the cash assistance program for immigrants. And, also, if an individual was a part of a student or an ESL program, we spent $54,000 in in aid payments to those individuals. So currently, for temporary disabled recipients, there is no time limit to the the length of aid that they can receive. So in other words, they can continue to receive aid as long as they are declared temporary disabled.

So temporary disabled individuals, again, they did receive $725,000 in aid during the review period. This aid was approximately 40% of the GA aid give the general assistance aid given to our customers. And those that that are temporary disabled and that received aid in excess of six months, they come they comp they compromise fifty nine percent of our cases. So fifty nine percent of the time, these individuals received aid in excess of six months. And then these individuals are generally receiving the maximum aid payment of $340 a month.

So in Monterey County, the maximum aid payment is $340. For temporary disability, we had two hundred and ninety six cases. Of those two hundred and ninety six cases, a hundred and seventy four of those cases or individuals received aid greater than six months. So the expended the the aid payments to to these individuals that received aid greater than six months alone was $573,000 approximately $573,000. So one of the options that we are posing for the general assistance program is introducing a time limit for those that are temporarily disabled.

So the recommendation would be to implement a six month annual time limit. So that means out of 12 every twelve months, they could receive aid for six months. So this option would provide savings of approximately $229,000 annually to the county. It would also reduce workload on staff, and then it would also reduce the number of requests for additional appropriations, that our department is making for this program. So excuse me.

So as stated on the previous slide, currently or the last fiscal year, those that received aid in excess of six months under this temporary dis temporary temporary disability pay code that we paid out approximately $573,000. Now if those same customers if we had if we had implemented a six month aid, time limit, that will reduce the aid payments down to $344,000 in the fiscal year.

With the savings With the savings of 229,000.

Yes. Approximately $229,000 would be saved. So we before we go into the the next option, I just wanted to go over some county comparisons with you all. So below this chart is regarding those that are employable. So, again, it's meaning that they are assigned work hours at our local sites and they do work them, or they're considered job search customers. So that, again, that's meaning they are employable, but for various reasons, they were unable to work at a at a worksite. So I I did pull a list of comparison as well as a list random list of noncomparison counties. So on the left, we have our comparison counties. So as you can see, if I I I did put it in order by max grand amount. So Monterey County does sit kinda in the middle of our comparison counties.

For example, if you look at Monterey and you go down to San Benito, there's only approximately a $24 different range between us and and Santa Clara, San Luis Obispo, and San Benito. For the months allowed, so that means, basically, out of a twelve month period, how many months an individual can qualify for the work experience program. Most of the comparison counties only allow three out of twelve months, every twelve months. Now we do have Santa Clara, Santa Cruz, and San Mateo who allow it indefinitely. They have a very robust general assistance program.

And then there's us, and we allow six months. And then when looking at other counties, not comparison counties, as as you can see, the aid payments do vary greatly. Like, for example, Los Angeles, they only allow a maximum payment of $221 all the way down to San Diego, who does allow $589. But I what I would like to really emphasize here is the months allowed the allowable months of aid. While the sun while Los Angeles does allow nine months because they have a lower maximum aid payment, the other the other counties only allow, three months out of every, three months, to work out of every 12.

And I didn't include other counties because the list would have been along, but the super majority of counties, within California do only allow three months to work out of twelve months for the GA program. And so that does, take us into option b. So regarding this our employable individuals and those that are completing job searches. So the recommendation would be to implement a three month annual time limit, aligning Monterey County with the majority of counties in California. So this would provide savings of roughly $64,000 to the county.

This would also reduce workload for staff, and it would but it would also allow more customers to gain work experience as the number of potentially available slots for employable customers would increase. So before when we mentioned the job search individuals, these are individuals that usually they can work at a site, but usually because we have limited space, we just don't have the space to send everyone, and so they do a job search. This option would actually open up slots so that we can move people from that job search pay code into an actual employable a code and give them the work experience that will help them get a job. And so that would be a benefit to the customers right now that are unable to work due to limited spaces. So for our total cases for for the work program, we have 288 cases.

So of those, a 105 of them received aid in excess of three months. So our total aid payments for the fiscal year to these individuals was $294,000 approximately. The current expenditure for customers that were receiving aid in excess of three months was approximately a $161,000. And so if we did introduce a time limit and did align with the, with the majority of counties in California, that would produce a savings of approximately $64,000 to the county. So another we we do have two more options.

The fur the the option c here is reducing, the maximum aid payment by a $100 a month. So if we implemented a $100 grant reduction, so we would be taking it from $340 a month down to $240 a month, that would result in a savings of approximately $501,000 per year. Now this would allow customers under the employable and job search categories to continue receiving six months of aid out of every twelve months. It would also allow those permanently, or temporarily disabled to receive benefits during the duration of the disability, so that means we would not be requesting any time limits. And this option also, there would be no impacts to to the staff's workload.

So so, again, for, if if we just reduce the maximum ground by a $100 all across the board, this last fiscal year, we spent approximately, $11,801,000, and we would be reducing that to approximately $1,300,000 with a savings of approximately $501,000, annually. Now option d is a little less it's less drastic than option c. So the recommendation would be to implement only a $50 grant reduction. So that would take that maximum aid payment from $340 and bring it down to $290 a month. This would result in savings of approximately $245,000 per year.

And so, again, this option, it's very similar to the previous option. This would also allow the customers under the employable and job search categories to continue receiving that six months of aid out of every twelve months. It would continue to allow those that are permanently and temporarily disabled to receive benefits during the duration of their disability, so there would be no implementation of a time limit on them. And then this option also does not reduce there there's no impact to the staff's workload. So and it's the same as last time. So this savings would be approximately 245 $246,000.

Okay. So we do have these four options that are just they're options. You don't have we're not suggesting you choose all of them. We wanted to lay out different options and show you the savings for them. The program the cost over the last three years for GA has increased 45%.

And we have we asked for an augmentation for next year. And the current year, we had also asked we've asked for augmentations every year. And I think in the current year, I think we were probably it was reduced in the final budget hearings. And I will be coming back to the board to ask to increase appropriations next month. However, we have savings in other budget units, so I won't be asking for GFC.

I will be requesting to transfer GFC from other units to cover for this budget gap. But I will be asking for probably it's a look gonna be over 300,000. And so when I look at next year, we, you know, are gonna probably have a shortfall of around a couple of $100,000. It it's it's an entitlement, and the you know, we never know how those trends are gonna work. We when during the pandemic, our caseload went down and the cost went down.

But as we came out of the pandemic, it's just risen. And so, you know, we wanted to bring some options to you to entertain and provide us guidance. Our next steps would then be to update the GA resolution and go to the board if you are recommending some of these options. So I'll just quickly go over them again. We have the option a, which is a six month annual time limit for the temporary disabled.

We will still continue to work closely with the customers to try to get them eligible for SSI, and that has a potential savings of about 229,000. Option b would be changing our current six month time limit down to three months for the nondisabled. Those are the employable customers. And we would have a savings of 64,000 annually. Option c is and d are really looking at, a grant reduction.

And so a $100 would bring the grant reduction down to $2.40 from three forty. Option d is the $50 grant reduction, where would they go from $3.40 down to $2.90. So that, you know, also has the savings of the 245, or 246,000. So with that, we're open for questions and seeking your guidance.

Sure. A couple questions. The the money for this, is it all comes from the general fund, or does it come from it's all general fund

money.

It's a county general funded program.

And so there are no state or federal restrictions on how we spend it, or is there?

No. We're the county's mandated to have this program. Every county has a general assistance program, but we have the options to implement time limits. And we do have to, as supervisor Alejo had mentioned prior, we have to be careful about the grant amount. You know, we are we do live in a higher cost of living area, but we wanted to put all options on the table for you.

So the I guess what I'm looking at here is just you know, I wanna put everything in perspective. And so we're mandated to have a general assistance program, but there must be a mandate on how it's gonna be spent then, for example. Isn't or I'm assuming, is there? Or to rehab.

So we are mandated to provide the general assistance program and provide support for the in indigent members of our community as well as to provide a work experience for those that are employable. Now when it comes to actual regulations and rules, that is that is left entirely to the county's discretion. There's nothing that we have to follow federally or or or or for the state. They they don't give it's not like CalFresh or Medi Cal or CalWorks where they pass it down to us. So we just have to make sure that we are meeting that mission.

I I what I'm raising this up for is I'm just wondering if, I mean, you're looking at things on savings and this and that because the budget has increased, and the budget's increased because there's a need. So when I look at savings, I see, yes, we're saving some money on that, but that means we're not addressing a problem that is out there. And I am just trying to get a grasp of just if we can look at this in a different way, a more creative way, and maybe where we're spending this money in a different way such as, use the fund solely for, keeping people in their homes. I don't think that it doesn't sound like it's that's something that is feasible in this one here from the and that's why I was asking you for those particulars on their end because there's job training and other things. So, yeah, I I I don't know.

It's this is this is a real tough one because I see the need, and I feel uncomfortable with the savings on. But

Do you have any questions on that? Question. What what caused the 45% increase? Was that just more people applied and were eligible? And so then the the cost increased by that significant amount?

So there's a combination. I think there was an increase in caseload. There's also where people are staying on longer on the program. And I think we need to do probably kind of improve our services more on the end where we try to get these people eligible for SSI. Our budget does receive back payments on SSI when they're granted, and they do pay back the program.

And so we do have that as a budget item where offsets. It's hard to count on that. It it'll go up, and then it'll go down. And right now, I'm kinda trending a little lower than what I had budgeted for the current year to receive an SSI. And so, you know, I think we need to look internally on how we can improve on getting these people, you know, eligible for SSI. That's our hope Great. Is that they will become eligible.

And under option a, the six month time limit for temporary disabled, What's the limit now? There's there there are

no limit?

It's

Six months?

Yep. So now there's there's no limit. So for temporary disabled,

they

can receive benefits for as long as they are considered temporary disabled. But the county does have our own we created our own rule regulation where if someone's temporarily disabled for a minimum of twelve months, we automatically we will just switch them into a permanent disability aid code and then have them apply for SSI as a school.

Good. Well, I I certainly wanna encourage that. SSI is certainly not a lot. I think back in the day when I was working these cases, when I was working at legal aid, it was, like, 800, a little bit over 800. Might increase more, but probably not that much more. And that was over fifteen years ago. So I do I am sensitive on this because this is these are, like, some of the programs that last resort to help our most vulnerable, our our poorest residents. And this money is used for food, medicine, other necessities like it's not a whole lot. Right? And as you recognize, we live in a very expensive coastal county, where the cost of living is just astronomical.

So I'm trying to just figure out how do we minimize the the impact to the people that we're we're serving in this program. Right? And recognizing, hey. Trying to approach it with the compassionate lens. Even a $50 amount is significant, for these folks. So, the the goal here is try to address the 300,000 budget shortfall. Right? It may change. It might get worse as you're saying maybe down the road. But I'm just trying to say how do we keep it as minimal as possible?

And I and I do see a and b a little differently. Those who are nondisabled versus the temporarily disabled, I think they're in a different situation, medically, physically in their lives. You know? If if they're they're just limiting their age to six months and, dropping them off after for the remainder of the six months and a year doesn't, for me, that's that's that's different than somebody who who is nondisabled and employable, and making a change to curtail that two to three months in alignment with the counties that you said. I'm I'm more comfortable with that.

And and out of the 100 versus 50, obviously, 50 is is still a significant impact, but it's not as drastic as as a 100, which would be almost like a third of the the benefits. But b and d together get us to the 300 that we're aiming at. Right? So and I I wouldn't wanna cut more just for the sake of cutting more. I'm I'm trying to adjust your concerns.

How do we keep this program solvent and not, cut into the limited general funds that we do have? But even then, I I I know this is gonna inflict pain on the folks that are dependent on these programs. So but that that for me is what seems to be, gets us to the goal and minimizes the pain. And I am cognizant of of, you know, the law firms that look at these programs, and I try to challenge any decisions that we make. So I'm trying to make sure that we're doing the minimal that we can that would help us address our budget issue. So that's what I'm comfortable with.

It's BND.

BND. How many, people are health individual in in this program?

It's a if I remember correctly, it's approximately around 500.

So I kinda recall that too. Yeah. I'm I I I'd be you know, if I had to make a choice, I'd probably go b and d, but I don't I don't know if I I I don't know if I can favor cutting the program because it is the last resort. It is it these are these are people that have nowhere else to go at this point for this 500, and we cut back on something here. We're putting people out without medicine, without food, out on the street.

Maybe it keeps them in a room somewhere. I don't know what it does. But I'm it's it strikes me as just one of those real essential things that we have to do. So, I mean, I that's that's what's going to public comment here anyway while we're debating on this. Is there anybody who would like to make comment on this? Chambers are online. Don't see anybody. Nobody online? Nobody. K.

So, I mean, we need to pass some kind of a recommendation back on to the board. I I I I I just think I think really personally feel we just have to find a way to to fund this program. I know it's tough in these times, but it's just it's just really basic needs. I mean, this is this is why we're here.

So there'd no recommendation there. We just we just bump it to the board to make a decision here.

I mean, I think I mean, do you I'll I'll be happy to recommend up b or d as a as as an option, but, I don't know if I'll support that at the board level.

Supervisor Church, supervisor Leo, if I may, we could certainly come forward to the board with that the budget committee had considered options b and d, but wanted the board to see the full list of options and for those to be fully considered by the entire board.

Well, as well as as as not taking any of these steps, but funding the program That means

an option.

That mean taking money from the general fund then. Right? To augment to augment the 300,000.

Yeah. It

it would entail, I mean, as we go through the year and we see how the finances progress. But, yes, it would entail most likely an additional request at some point late in the year for additional funds from the general fund to cover the program.

That's why we're on the budget committee. So these are the tough choices we've gotta make sometime. How do you keep a balanced budget? You know? And, and, that's why and we're gonna see more incidents like or more issues like this come to this committee, right, where it's not it's not easy. This is one of the one where we're going to really kind of have to make some tough decisions on on them because this is one of many. And, and I'll we'll see a lot more departments come and I I'm doing similar ask, wanting to get more from the the general fund, and the general fund can only take us so far before we're really cutting into reserves and cutting into our our contingency accounts. We're already doing that now. Right? We're even before the year starts, we're already eight half the contingency already.

You know? So that's that's I would just say that Yeah. We should just be keep keep keep focus that we're gonna get many more of these types of issues come before us.

Yeah. And I and I get that. We are gonna have to we are gonna make those decisions. On this one here, is 300,000, so it isn't 3,000,000 or a million or anything. It's it's a potentially manageable amount. The second thing is it is one thing I really like about programs like this is it actually just puts the dollars into people's hands that and it it I mean, is it do they have to give a a receipt on this? How does this exactly work? I mean, they just we realized they're qualified and they need it. And that's why it's called general assistance. We give them $340, for example, and they get and they can spend it as they feel they need to Yep.

Which I think is one thing that needs to be done more because people understand I mean, understand some people have addiction issues and everything, but generally, as a rule, people know what they need most of all. And that's what makes this one particularly hard for me. I'm sure, you know, it's not easy for you either.

But even even with the $50 reductions, they're still above Valley County, right, which is also a very expensive county to live in Fresno County. Yeah.

Yeah. I mean, if we if we had to do something, but we're we're taught well, there's a potential savings of $2.45, but that's probably where the direction of the board will go as as I read this, frankly. But I anyway,

we

Yeah. Leave it to

the full board. We'll give it to the full board. We'll say we'll consider we'll say that with Yeah.

But but it may be it's it's we have to we'll make that decision in May in light with all other budgets is we gotta make. Right? Because we asked we asked for 300 from this for more from the general account. There's gonna be a lot of other asks. We're we're able to have it all on the table to decide, hey. What are we able to fund out of out of general fund for the coming fiscal year?

Yeah. I It won't

be in isolation. It'll be it'll be on the table with all the other assets that are coming, before us.

We I'm okay if you wanna recommend d and d up into the boards. The board has something to, to consider in there, but I'm I will I will I will state that I'm

You may change your mind.

That well, I I will I will state that I'm not I'm not, know, I'm fully I'm just moving it up as a reasonable recommendation, but I will I'm really in favor of funding the whole program. Got it.

Okay. Thank you so much. We'll be clear

that the budget committee is recommending options b and d. However, we will provide all four options to the board

There you go.

And and for their consideration, including maybe a fifth option, which is to

do Which

is funding. Funding, which is

in status.

I'm probably Right. Going at. But I understand. Okay. Well, I think that is our recommendation. I don't anything nothing else on you. We just adjourned.

You wanna give public comment. Right? So

yeah. We do. We did public comment. There's nobody

Alright.

Nobody jumped in. And Great. We're good. Next meeting, May 26. Alright. Thank you.

Alright, everybody.

Thank you

for your time. Okay.

Thank you.

We're in a

good meeting.

Yeah.