LWVVC Comments on LNG
Juvenile Justice Center
First 5, Ventura County
Living Wage Coalition
 

Current Issues

On April 3, 2007, the following letter was sent to the California Coastal Commission, Headquarters Office, 45 Fremont Street, Suite 2000, San Francisco, CA 94105-2219, to the Calif. State Lands Commission, Attn: Dwight Sanders, Division of Environmental Planning and Management, 100 Howe Avenue, Suite 100-South, Sacramento, CA 95825-8202, and to USCG Deepwater Ports Standards Division, U.S. Coast Guard Headquarters, 2100 Second Street, SW, Washington, D.C. 20593:

The League of Women Voters Ventura County (LWVVC) has long-established "Positions" in our "Action Policies and Positions" publication which we use to make comments on various public policy matters. We have applied those positions here to develop our comments on the final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the proposed BHP Billiton International Cabrillo Port. LWVVC has commented at each stage of this process and attended the first public meetings in September 2003. We will continue to study LNG proposals that affect our County.

LWVVC supports air quality standards that will protect public health and welfare. Therefore we cannot support the changes made in the EIR by BHP Billiton and EPA to allow the Floating Storage Regasification Unit (FSRU) to be exempt from mitigation for its air quality impacts. The LWVVC was against this approach from the first mention in the prior EIRs, as expressed in our May 12, 2006 letter of comment. Even though BHP Billiton has submitted better air quality mitigation in this EIR for the vessels assisting the FSRU, it is not a sufficient response. The FSRU alone will create unacceptable levels of air pollution, more than 200 tons of pollutants added each year to this County’s air.

The EIR lists seven types of air pollutants; carbon dioxide is not on that list because it is not classified a pollutant by EPA. However, CO2 is a major contributor to global warming! The use of natural gas produces major amounts of carbon dioxide. The estimated worldwide effects of this Cabrillo Port project, considering all parts of the supply chain sources, are a release of 15.8 million tons of CO2 into the atmosphere annually. In our opinion, the solution is not to seek additional fossil fuel sources, but to reduce our use of them by increasing the efficiency of fuel use, conservation, and increased focus on development of renewable sources of energy. In our view, increased use of natural gas (NG) is not a "bridge" to the future. NG now could keep us tied to fossil fuels for several more generations.

Considering that the problems regarding the Cabrillo port are considerable -- air, ocean, and sea life contamination, risks to the public health and safety, global warming effects, dependence on imported fossil fuel, all negative factors connected to this proposed project -- it is surely logical that the need for this imported natural gas should have been authenticated by the State.

Logic was defied when the California State Legislature and the people of California were denied evidentiary hearings when the head of the State Senate and the Speaker of the Assembly scuttled a bill designed to make such an investigation possible. It has been reported that, as of the close of 2006, BHP Billiton had spent $2.8 million dollars lobbying at the state level.

Presently there is no public evidence that existing U.S. gas supplies cannot meet California’s needs and indeed, many experts disagree that the State will need this supply. Reputable sources have reported that U.S. natural gas reserves recently hit a 20-year high. Investigations by attorney generals from four Midwestern states revealed that price spikes for natural gas have resulted from market manipulation and speculation by industry, and were not due to domestic shortages. These factual disputes point out the need for an official finding of need by the State, based on the best evidence available, before proceeding with this project.

The LWVVC has worked for decades to save and restore Ormond Beach. Even in this last EIR, there is much information we still don’t have and concerns remain about inadequate mitigations.

A new metering station is to be located on existing Reliant Energy property, but the size of the facility is not specified, nor is it clear if the metering station will be staffed part-time, full-time, around the clock or by telemetry. Clarification is needed regarding other operations planned for this facility, if any.

The new metering station’s odorant system has inadequate safety provisions, and no response plans for leaks of odorant are mentioned in the EIR. The safety provisions addressed in the EIR that relate to the storage of hazardous materials at the metering station appear inadequate and do not seem to be consistent with the safety provisions proposed for the FSRU.

Horizontal direction boring (HDB) or horizontal direction drilling (HDD) will cause excessive noise levels and vibration that will seriously affect the birds and other protected wildlife of Ormond Beach. The EIR is not able to mitigate this special habitat. Time estimates of possibly 130 days for the completion of horizontal directional drilling need to be addressed. The applicant should be required to schedule this and other approaches to and on the beach itself, in order to accommodate a full nesting/fledgling period.

The discussion regarding the importance of restoration plans for this area highlights the interest in preservation of this fragile dune and wetland area. We believe the ecologic significance of this area to be a valuable resource and urge that the project’s landfall not be constructed at Ormond Beach.

DECOMMISSIONING

The Executive Summary briefly mentions decommissioning the project. LWVVC calls for more information because the project (FSRU) is expected to last 40 years. We have experience with projects built offshore that have not been properly decommissioned, plus the contamination left by the Halaco Company on Ormond Beach. It is not sufficient to simply state "Decommissioning would be analyzed in a subsequent environmental review at the end of the Project life." Provisions for decommissioning must be made before the BHP project is approved or the public no longer has control over its outcome.

APPLICANT’S INSURANCE COVERAGE

BHP Billiton would carry casualty insurance for their project. The U.S. Maritime Administration does not require additional coverage for third party claims, other than as currently mandated by federal or state law. What liabilities do local governments and their citizens have in the counties of Ventura and Los Angeles? We need to know the limits of liability for our communities.

Respectfully submitted on behalf of the LWV Ventura County,

On July 30, 2006, the following letter was sent to Mr. Joe Lapka (AIR-3), EPA Region 9, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA.

Dear Mr. Lapka,
The League of Women Voters Ventura County (LWVVC) has long standing positions supporting measures to
establish air quality standards that will protect the public health and welfare, and the development of effective
enforcement and implementation procedures at each level of government to attain these standards. Our positions are
consistent with those of the LWV United States (LWVUS) and LWV California (LWVC).

The League of Women Voters of Ventura County has submitted comment letters at each stage of the hearing
process on the BHP Billiton LNG proposal. A copy of those submissions is attached and they are on file with the
California State Lands Commission and the U.S. Coast Guard. In addition individual members of LWVVC have appeared
and expressed their own views, including the most recent EPA hearings on air quality issues.

Air quality continues to be a major priority and concern for the League. In the letter submitted December 19,
2004, we pointed out air quality was already a major problem for Ventura County, even without the FSRU. Therefore we
urged further mitigation. We also refer USEPA to our latest letter of May 12, 2006 which opens with comments on air
quality. LWVVC strongly supports its air quality positions. This requires that we speak clearly to the EPA. Section 4.6.2
of the DEIR states: “Pursuant to the Deepwater Port Act, the USEPA has jurisdiction to administer air quality regulations
and required air quality permits for applicable Project activities that occur outside of the boundaries of California
counties, including operation of the FSRU.”

In our reading of the DEIR, we find that the EPA has made an untenable decision to redefine the FSRU (floating
storage and regasification unit) as if it were located on San Nicolas Island or Anacapa Island and accordingly that its
emissions need not be offset. This approach will establish a unique and questionable interpretation under Ventura County
Air Pollution Control District’s local rule 26.2. The Channel Islands mentioned above have no air quality restrictions,
therefore the FSRU has no air restrictions. BHP Billiton’s FSRU will create a major increase in air pollution for Ventura
County, and beyond. This arrangement cannot be ignored by the good people who live under this threat.

In conclusion, it is unthinkable that the huge FSRU would be classified as though its emissions are not required
to be offset. In fact, there will be significant emissions coming from the FSRU as well as other vessels and the numerous
actions involved in the LNG processes. LWVVC requests USEPA take the steps necessary to completely change its
stance so that appropriate air quality standards are applied to this project and that transparency is brought into EPA
regulations and decision making.

Thank you for your consideration of these comments.

On May 12, 2006, the following letter was sent to Dwight E. Sanders, California State Lands Commission, Division of Environmental Planning and Management.

CSLC EIR No. 727

 COMMENTS ON AIR QUALITY 

The League of Women Voters Ventura County (LWVVC) has long-established positions on air quality standards to protect public health and welfare, including effective enforcement and implementation procedures. Our reading of the DEIR leaves us concerned about the manner in which air quality issues are presented; basically the US EPA determined that air quality regulations are not required to be observed where the floating port Cabrillo Port will be sited. See p. 4.6-21, Table 4.6-15, in box “LOCAL”, and ES-3, lines 23 to 28.  The EPA seems to treat Cabrillo Port, the FSRU (floating storage and regasification, unit), as if it were on one of the Channel Islands, and therefore not subject to air regulations. (Table 4.6-20). Also see footnote ‘b’ of the Executive Summary {Table ES-2 on page ES-21} stating the Clean Air Act, section 112 (r), Risk Management Program 40 CFR Part 68 is not applicable. 

Although natural gas is a cleaner energy source than coal or oil, it still releases CO2 into the atmosphere when burned, contributing to global warming. Further, according to the EPA, when natural gas is released unburned into the atmosphere, it traps 21 times more heat per molecule than does carbon dioxide. We are concerned that methane will be lost to the atmosphere in the processing of LNG, adding unnecessarily to global warming — for example when the very large amount of “treated exhaust gas” is vented from the Submerged Combustion Vaporizer, as seen in Figure 2.2-5, page 2-25, during regasification. See also section 4.6.1.4. The “treatment” of the exhaust should be described in the EIR.

Beachgoers know that ocean winds blow toward the land daily, often with some force. We know the LNG will decrease Ventura County’s air quality because the DEIR indicates that various LNG processes, such as burning fuel for electricity, lighting, water treatment, etc. on the FSRU, are additional sources of air pollution.  There will also be pollution resulting from the construction of onshore pipelines. There will be tanker ships unloading LNG, and the Coast Guard ships, tugs and other vessels involved in this process will continue to play a significant role on central south coast air pollution, even though BHP Billiton announced on April 17, 2006, hours before the public hearing in Malibu, that they will reduce pollution by using new tugboats with cleaner burning engines (Ventura County Star, 4/19/06). The issue of clean air is a current problem that we cannot put off until future years. Polluted air and global warming must be dealt with today.

 COMMENTS ON SAFETY

The LWVVC reviewed the two volumes of the DEIR of March 2006 with special attention to the possible danger to the people of Ventura County and Los Angeles County. The danger posed by terrorist events continues to be a concern. We also are concerned about management of the increased traffic in our waters. The increase in marine traffic is given a Class II impact rating in the EIR. We ask that increased marine traffic receive more mitigation. (See Vol. II, page 6-13, and Vol. I, pages 4.2-23 and 24).  

The DEIR clearly states the US Coast Guard alone is responsible for the security of LNG carriers to the extent that USCG resources allow. The statement, however, does not clarify the duties of the Coast Guard, but rather is ambiguous.  It is further stated that Captain of the Port of Los Angeles/Long Beach (we assume he is a Coast Guard Officer) would take a major role (line 36, p. 4.2-24).  LNG vessels would be escorted by USCG patrol craft; and as local conditions warrant, the USCG would coordinate with federal, state and local transportation, law enforcement and/or emergency management agencies to reduce or minimize risks of activities. The DEIR statements are imprecise and need to be clarified in the EIR.  

The EIR does not anticipate using state or local law enforcement ( p. 4.2-24). We wonder if the counties and local entities are clear about their responsibilities should an accident occur. Have they been consulted?  

We are disappointed that the results of the Scandia research, ordered by California State Lands Commission, were only partially available to the public. A number of pages and lines were blacked out in the EIR. We understand the restrictions of the Homeland Security Act, but the fact remains, citizens cannot evaluate the Scandia report without transparency of information. Transparency of government is a LWV position as well as having citizens participate in planning and decision making processes, especially when hazardous material management is concerned.  

ORMOND BEACH

For several decades LWVVC has actively supported the protection of Ormond Beach and its remaining wetlands because such environments are already gone from most of the California coast. The importance of wetlands was clearly illustrated to the world after the hurricanes across the Gulf Coast area last fall.  Not only do wetlands serve birds, plants, other life, but they moderate storm damage and flooding, and speed recovery. The 2006 DEIR correctly classifies Ormond Beach as a high consequence area (HCA). The League urges BHP Billiton, International to reach beyond this category and not locate the shore crossing on Ormond Beach. The delicate balance of this habitat could be severely impacted by the noise, lights, and activities of large machines and their operators, and could drive the birds and other creatures away permanently. 

These issues apparently are not addressed in the DEIR.  In particular, Vol. I, page 4.8-4, line 9 refers to Section 4.13.1.2 and Vol. II, p. 4.13-2, “Shore Crossing” stating that under the Federal Coastal Zone Management Plan, a separate consistency certification for the proposed Project facilities in the coastal zone would not be required. We do not know the definition of a consistency certification or how deleting this certification will affect the environment of Ormond Beach and its unique, fragile status. We request clarification on this item.  

VIEWSHED, NOISE, NIGHT LIGHTING, IMPACT ON OCEAN

The ambiance of the Pacific Ocean and the special environment of the Channel Islands Marine Sanctuary should be protected from the impact of heavy industry in its midst. The aesthetics of ocean views are an essential, beautiful sight for the human soul. It is a fact that animals need undisturbed places where they can forage, reproduce and protect their young. Ormond Beach has its unique bio-diversity and contribution to the shore. Therefore, keeping heavy industry away from these areas is the best decision.   

Processing LNG will impact the ocean waters in ways that will be new to the area. Sea water will be used to provide ballast in order to keep the FSRU and LNG tankers stable. Various organisms and sea life will be at risk when drawn into vessels during the ballast intake, and again when ballast is discharged. In addition, exotic species could be introduced to southern California waters on the first discharge of the FSRU ballast. These risks need further discussion. 

Thank you for your consideration of these comments.

 

On December 19, 2004 the following letter was sent to the U.S.Department of Homeland Security, U.S.Coast Guard, U.S.Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, and California State Lands Commission.

The League of Women Voters of Ventura County is deeply concerned about the proposed Cabrillo LNG Deepwater Port and finds us troubled by critical issues that raise questions about how best to safeguard our energy resources. The following comments will address our most serious questions.

Conditions of permit/license to operate the FSRU:

We are concerned that there appears to be no time limit placed on the license to operate the offshore facilities. The EIS/EIR indicates that the FSRU has an expected life of 40 years after which a separate environmental impact study would be required to determine how it should best be decommissioned. We recommend the license to operate this facility be established at no more than 40 years.

We also recommend that responsibility for overshight of the decommissioning should rest with the California Coastal Commission and affected local governments. It is after all our coastline and our beaches that will be affected and the federal government’s interest from a national energy policy perspective will no longer be relevant.

State and Local Roles in the location of LNG facilities:

While we acknowledge the interest of the federal government in the location of and number of LNG facilities from a national energy perspective, we believe strongly that the State and local governments what will be affected by proposed facilities must have an equal voice. These entities have legal jurisdiction over integral parts of the project as well as a moral responsibility for the health, safety and welfare of their residents. The best course of action for all concerned is a consensual process where each entity is an equal partner.

Protection of Local Communities:

Ventura County and its cities will be the most affected by the location of an LNG facility off the coast of Oxnard and the construction of the related facilities including over 20 miles of new pipeline across the county. Ventura County and its residents will accordingly bear the health and safety risks and environmental costs associated with the project. The EIS/EIR acknowledges many of these risks, hazards and costs and admits that it is impossible to protect against or mitigate these 100 percent.

The associated risks and costs must be addressed in the best possible manner during construction and operation of the project. There also must be clear responsibility for monitoring performance, correcting deficienncies and assessing penalties if necessary.

In addition, the State of California and local goverments should be provided the opportunity to review, comment and revise (1) the health and safety plan developed by the Applicant to cover both construction and operation phases of all the facilities, including the pipelines and (2) the contingency plans developed by the Applicant for addressing catastrophic events, spills, earthquake damage, pipeline ruptures, etc., including emergency preparedness plans.

In addition, we believe the Applicant should, in conjunction with SoCalGas, be required to guarantee the cities and County adequate supplies of natural gas at reasonable rates for the life of the project; guarantee the State and local goverments that any resulting damage to the coastline or beach or their habitat will be repaired or restored at the expense of the Applicant; and take full financial responsibility for any other damages that might occur directly to persons or property as a result of the project.

Finally, to the agencies that bear the regulatory responsibility for reviewing and approving this and similar projects, we want to emphasize that the acceptance of this project by Ventura County is made possible only by reason of its relatively better location; farther away from land and the County population and having less visual impace from shore. This is the sort of buffer that should be required to all such projects and new facilities proposed closer to shore or on land will meet much stiffer resistance.

Concerns of security and safety:

We are deeply concerned about the dangers associated with the proposed LNG project (FSRU). Section 4.2-1-81 and the EIS/EIR Appendix C raise serious questions and cause us most concern about a range of topics.

The EIS/EIR states that "Although the LNG industry has been operating for 40 years, fewer than 20 marine accidents involving LNG have occurred worldwide, none of which resulted in a significant release of LNG" (page 4.2-1). We do not find this statement a valid argument to demonstrate LNG safety. First, the future environment will not be the same as the past. An offshore port will be a new project and a new subject will potentially be subject to attacks by terrorists. Second, past performance is no guarantee of future performance. It is only safe to assume that anything can go wrong and that assumption must be the basis of any EIS/EIR.

Further, the EIS/EIR states that "Evaluating the potential safety impacts from the proposed Project required the use of a structured process that could make the results available to decision makers and the public, while also ensuring that release of relevant information does not in turn create a security threat" (p.4.2-1, Section 4.2). This information denies the public vital information on the grounds that release of this same information will create a security threat. In fact, not releasing this information may well create a security threat as the result of a false sense of security.

We also are not convinced that "If the license and lease were approved, additional safety evaluations would be conducted throughout the design, construction and operation of the project" (p. 4.2-1, Section 4.2). We ask the proponents of the EIS/EIR these specific questions: what safety evaluations will be conducted? who will be conducting them? what will be available to the public? who will be likely to be at risk? and who should know about risks associated with the project.? Unless these questions are answered, we cannot ask the people of Oxnard and Malibu or the League of Women Voters of Ventura County to be accepting.

A major concern involves the danger of expansion or evaporation from compressed liquefied form into unodorized pipeline quality natural gas. Would the heat of vaporization come from ocean water or from burning natural gas? In either case, what would be the environmental impact ? (P. 4.2-3).

Finally, in this section, we are concerned that the modeling done to date may be insufficient to anticipate potential events, assess damages and determine appropriate safeguards. We recommend that the regulatory agencies responsible for this project pay particular attention to the models being used and require the Applicant to undertake such additional modeling as appropriate to assure the public that all reasonably anticipated events have been evaluated.

Agriculture, soil resources and air quality:

Although the EIS/EIR states that farmers in the area during onshore pipeline construction during the project will be compensated for losses, topsoil may be degraded, dust will be increased, and trees will be lost. The Applicant says that potential harm to the land includes soil compaction, reduced fertility, poor revegetation, and the introduction of noxious weeds, but mitigation measures are spelled out in Table 4.5-5. Trees that the EIS/EIR says will be permanently lost must be replaced as a mitigation measure. Dust could reduce productivity in nearby land during the construction period. Earth-moving activity onshore would require dust suppression during construction. Watering to reduce dust is the mitigation meaure, but we are concerned about how and who will be established as the agents responsible for monitoring this condition.

Ventura County has an air quality problem at present, even without the FSRU, which would worsen the air quality and not be completely controlled by the mitigation measures (4.5-5). Ventura County’s air quality is listed as severe and does not meet NAAQS standards for ozone and particulate matter now. During offshore operations, ammonia could be released in excess of reportable quantities, endangering workers, and in the event of a pipeline accident, volatile organic compounds could be exposed to the atmosphere. We recommend that "mitigation measures" be fully spelled out in the EIS/EIR and that agents be held responsible for any damages to agriculture, soil and air quality and subsequent restoration to the environment in the process of the project.

We are particularly concerned about potential adverse effects on Ormond Beach, about which we addressed the proponents earlier (March 15, 2004 Comment letterr). For 20 years or more the League has supported the recovery of the wetlands and beach on Ormond Beach. The Oxnard Coastal Land Use Plan governs land uses in the Ormond Beach Coastal Zone Area which proposed to cross the project route from approximately milepost 0.0 to MP2 (P.4.11). We are troubled about how the subsea natural gas pipelines come ashore and extend 0.65 miles below the beach terminating at the existing Reliant Energy metering station adjacent at Ormond Beach, and tying in to the SoCalGas sytem. In order to preserve this unique natural environment, we recommend that the project sponsors be required to put money aside to restore the habitat and repair any damage to the beach.’’

Although we will continue to monitor the proposed project, we appreciate the opportunity to address our concerns. Thank you for your attention to our letter.

Letter from LWVVC to LWVC re LNG

Letter from California Coastal Protection Network

Rational Planning and Analysis of Need for LNG in California:

As coastal states and communities across the nation struggle with multiple proposals to construct terminals to import Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG), it has become clear that more comprehensive planning and analysis is needed in the current federal and state process for siting and approving LNG facilities. 

With more than forty pending LNG proposals nationwide, most experts concede that only six or seven would be needed to meet the nation’s need for additional natural gas supplies. Yet, there is still no coherent planning process to assure that only the most needed, efficient, lowest impact and safest of these facilities will be approved and built. 

In California, alone, there are four pending proposals to build LNG import terminals along the coast. Each proposed terminal would employ a different technology in a different location with highly variable impacts on health, public safety, and the environment. Despite these multiple proposals, there has been no comprehensive process that assesses the state’s level of need for LNG and there exists no consistent evaluation criteria for assessing the merits of the different LNG proposals.

Instead, under the current approach, individual LNG terminals are being considered for approval without complete agreement or understanding between the public and the proponents regarding the level of need for LNG or confidence that facilities, if built, will incorporate the best technology and safety precautions that the industry has to offer.

While the state has conducted analysis of the need for natural gas, an additional LNG-specific Needs Assessment must be completed prior to the approval of any LNG facilities in California,. This assessment must be transparent, provide an opportunity for meaningful public input, and include an analysis of whether California’s energy needs can be feasibly met through aggressive conservation, the use of renewable energy sources, and/or supply of natural gas from other domestic sources.  

 In addition, a comprehensive and rigorous set of evaluation criteria must be established that can be used to analyze the different LNG proposals. These criteria will provide a means to evaluate the four proposed LNG terminals for California in terms of their impacts to the public health, safety, the environment and to the local communities in which they would be sited.

Like other coastal states targeted for LNG import terminals, California is facing mounting corporate and federal pressure to quickly approve LNG projects without clear and adequate planning or review.  California must take a lead role in assuring that these decisions are not unduly rushed and are made in a manner that protects the health and safety of our communities, our environment, and the reliability of our energy supply. Then, and only then, will decisions for the State’s energy future reflect sound public policy.


Susan Jordan
California Coastal Protection Network
906 Garden Street
Santa Barbara, CA
805-637-3037

Juvenile Justice Center

In 1994 the League of Women Voters of Ventura County began a study of the local juvenile justice system. In 1995 members adopted a position that expressed the need for adequate physical facilities which included the replacement of outmoded buildings for expansion of court facilities. Over the years several presentations were made to the Board of Supervisors in support of the Juvenile Justice Master Plan.

In March of 1999 the Supervisors authorized that an application be made to the State Board of Corrections for a grant to construct new detention and commitment facilities. Ventura was awarded a grant for $40.5 million (the largest one awarded in the state). As part of the resolution to apply for the grant, the Board of Supervisors also agreed to fully and safely staff and operate the facility within 90 days after completion. Construction commenced in June of 2001, and is proceeding on schedule, with dedication set for September 12, 2003.

The staffing ratios for the facility will be improved as required by the State Board of Corrections as one of the conditions for the grant. On February 11, 2003, despite serious financial pressures the County is experiencing, the Board of Supervisors approved an increase in the number of staff personnel for operating the new complex.

On February 11, 2003 the Board of Supervisors approved the increase in the number of staff members that was requested by the Probation Department for the next one and a half years.

The location of the Juvenile Justice Complex is 4333 Vineyard Avenue in Oxnard. There will be 240 beds for detention and 180 for commitment, totalling 420 beds for juveniles. A special housing area will be available for youths with special needs, such as mental health or security problems. Having all the facilities located on one campus will be more efficient.

On February 21, 2003, construction will commence on the 45,000 square foot Court facility that will house six courtrooms for Juvenile Hearings.

We are fortunate to have Georgiana Daskais, a League member, appointed to serve on the Juvenile Justice Delinquency and Prevention Commission that monitors the Juvenile Justice System. If any other League member is interested in serving on this commission, a letter of application and resume should be sent to the Juvenile Justice Delinquency and Prevention Commission, County Government Center L 3200, County Government Center, 800 South Victoria, Ventura, CA 93009. (Revised February 2003)
 

First 5 Ventura County, Administered by Children and Families First Commission

This Commission was established when Proposition 10 was passed by the voters in 1998, attaching a fifty cent tax on cigarettes and tobacco products.  This tax is used to provide early childhood development services for children from birth to five years of age.  The Commission continues to function with the original nine Commissioners appointed by the Board of Supervisorsof Ventura County  The Commissioners are:

Charles Weis, Ph.D., Ventura County Superintendent of Schools
Kathy Long, Ventura County Supervisor, former chair
Robert Levin, M.D., Ventura County Health Officer
Barbara J. Fitzgerald, Agency Director, Human Services Agency
Debbie Bergevin, Work/Family Coordinator, Ventura County
Charles Watson. Executive Director, Interface Children and Family Service
Jan Iceland, Oak Park School District Board member
Julie Irving, Executivce Director, Child Development Resources
Bedford Pinkard, Council Member, City of Oxnard

Commissioners manage the programs, business and tobacco tax monies.  About $12,000,000 per year comes to the county through the state CFFC.  A portion of that is set aside and invested for future use when and if tobacco sales falter.  Programs for children and their families, prenatal through age five, have been developed and more are being considered.  Promoting "school readiness" for children, the Every Family Counts home visitation program, and the Kit for New Parents with six videos on child rearing and development are examples of the sorts of programs being initiated.  Supervisor Kathy Long served as the first chairperson.  Dr. Robert Levin served as chair in 2001 and 2002. In January 2003, Commisioner Watson was seated as the new Chair, and Commisioner Bergevin as the new Vice Chair.

The League of Women Voters of Ventura County has observers attending the commission meetings.  For further information, contact Claudia Harrison, Executive Director for the commission, or Jamie Cook-Tate, Outreach Manager at 2580 East Main Street, Ventura, CA 93003.  Telephone 805-648-9990.  The First 5 Ventura County web site address is http://www.vcchildren.org.
(Revised January 2002)
 

Living Wage Coalition

The Ventura County Living Wage Coalition (VCLWC), under the leadership of Marcos Vargas, and with the support of over forty community, student, labor and faith organizations, has worked for several years to research both the economic status of Ventura County wage earners and successful methods used by other cities and counties to raise the economic possibilities for low wage workers.  We learned that beyond federal minimum wage law, city and county policy makers can and have been asked to establish a "living wage" or "wage plus benefits" for a targeted group of low wage employees. .

In the year 2000, the VCLWC made preliminary presentations to both the Ventura County Board of Supervisors and the Oxnard City Council, citing current economic status and requesting consideration of an ordinance establishing a living wage standard.  A living wage ordinance states that businesses which receive government (taxpayer) financial assistance in the form of contracts, leases, or tax or bond incentives must pay employees a living wage that brings a family of four up to the poverty level.  In May 2001, the Board of Supervisors adopted the first Living Wage Ordinance of $8.00 with benefits or $10.00 without benefits.  The appeal has continued to the  western cities of Oxnard and Ventura with the  adjusted wage level of $9.00 with benefits or $11.25 without benefits.  (Reapproved December 2001)
 

 All pages on this site reviewed monthly. This page last edited 16 April 2007
© Copyright 2007. League of Women Voters of Ventura County. All rights reserved