Board of Supervisors — 2026-02-03

BodyBoard of Supervisors
MeetingRegular Meeting
Date📅 February 3, 2026

UnGovr Transcript

iHow this transcript is madeUnGovr transcribes the official recording with automated speech-to-text, separates speakers by voice, and matches voices to the seated roster. Names and attributions are AI estimates and may contain errors.Verify any quote yourself: click anywhere in the transcript and the official video jumps to that exact moment, so you can check any quote against the recording.
  1. PendingQueued for transcription.
  2. AIYou are hereAuto-transcribed and summarized; not yet human-verified.
  3. VerifiedReviewed and corrected by a person.

0:00 – 0:0316 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed0:31

All right, good morning. I'll call to order the February 3rd, 2026 meeting of the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors. Madam Clerk, please call the roll.

Roll call — called by Unidentified speaker 26
Show transcript
Supervisor Hartmann. Here. Supervisor Lavagnino. Here. Supervisor Lee. Here. Supervisor Capps. Here. And Chair Nelson. Here.
Pledge of Allegianceceremonial · click to expand
UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed0:50

Would you all please stand and join me in pledging allegiance to the flag. Ready, begin.

Indivisible with liberty and justice for all. Our next item of business is the approval of the minutes from the January 27th, 2026 regular meeting. Can I get a motion?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed1:24

Hartmann moves approval.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed1:27

Second. So we got a motion from Hartmann and a second by Lavagnino. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Aye. Motion passes unanimously. Next item of business is the County Executive Officer's Report.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 4Proposed1:41

There is no report this morning, Chair Nelson.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed1:43

Excellent. Moving right along, Madam Clerk, are there any announcements or changes to our agenda today?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed1:50

Chair Nelson and members of the board, I do have one quick announcement regarding public participation this morning. For information on the Board of Supervisors methods of public participation and instructions on how to provide public comment on items listed on today's agenda or during general public comment, please refer to page 2 of the agenda. Individuals that would like to provide verbal public comment may do so via Zoom by registering in advance via the link available on page 2. If you have any questions, please contact the Clerk of the Board's Office at area code 805-568 2240, again that number is 805-568-2240. And if the board would, oh, nope, that concludes my announcements for today, thank you.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed2:29

All right, thank you. The next item of business is the administrative agenda. Would any board members like to pull any items from the administrative agenda? Okay, seeing none, Madam Clerk, any items being pulled by the public?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed2:42

Chair Nelson and members of the board, we have requests to pull A10 and A13. Okay,

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed2:47

and that's by a single member?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed2:48

That is correct, yes. For

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed2:49

that member of the public you'll get five minutes to speak on both those items. So if I could at this time get a motion to approve the balance of the agenda so all the items besides item A10 and A13. So moved. Second. Motion by Hartmann, second by Lee. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Motion passes unanimously. Okay we're going to go ahead and move along into our administrative agenda and our presentation of our resolutions. Madam Clerk will you please read administrative item number one into the record.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed3:21

Chair Nelson and members of the board, administrative item number one is sponsored by Supervisor Lee and Supervisor Capps. It is to adopt a resolution honoring and commemorating the life of Frank J. Frost, Jr. And joining us in person today, we have Alex Frost. And if you can please make your way to the podium, and I'll go ahead and read the resolution.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed3:41

Oh,

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed3:47

we can try it. Yeah.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed3:49

It sounds like Ms. Frost isn't here yet, so we'll go ahead and trail that one to either at the end of the administrative agenda or at the end of the resolutions. So let's go ahead and move on to administrative item number two.

0:03 – 0:092 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed3:59

Chair Nelson and members of the Board, Administrative Item Number 2 is sponsored by Supervisor Hartmann. It is to adopt a resolution proclaiming the month of February 2026 as ComUnify's 211 Community Celebration Month in Santa Barbara County. And joining us in person today, we have Patricia Keelan, Chief Executive Officer of ComUnify, and Joni Kelly, Communications and Outreach Coordinator of ComUnify.

Whereas the 2-1-1 helpline is an information and referral system connecting people to free or low-cost health and human services and up-to-date incident and emergency related information via call, text, and web-based platforms. And whereas the 2-1-1 program was established by the Federal Communication Commission In 2000, it now covers 85% of all households nationwide, with 96% of the residents of the State of California having access to 2-1-1 services. And whereas, the 2-1-1 program has been available in Santa Barbara County since 2005, providing 24-hour free and confidential service in more than 150 languages to residents countywide, and became a program of ComUnify, a Santa Barbara County non-profit organization, in November 2014.

And whereas in 2024, the 2-1-1 program recorded over 22,400 web visits, including 17,154 new users, to 2-1-1-SBCO.org and provided approximately 10,000 referrals to residents throughout the county through live call specialists addressing urgent needs such as housing, mental health, utility assistance, family and community support services, and legal and public safety services.

And whereas, ComUnify's Energy Services and Head Start programs will be hosting the free 211 Community Day celebration on Saturday, February 7th, 2026 from 11 a.m. to 3 p.m. at the Dick DeWise Community Center in Lompoc with over 50 nonprofit agencies, free health screenings and vaccines, children's activities, food, entertainment, and additional community resources. Now, therefore, be it hereby ordered and resolved that this Board of Supervisors of the County of Santa Barbara does hereby proclaim February 2026 as 2-1-1 Community Celebration Month and acknowledge ComUnify's years of serving the residents of Santa Barbara County, passed and adopted today.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed6:19

Good morning Chair Nelson and Supervisors. Thank you so much for this proclamation and recognition and for your continued partnership and support of 2-1-1. I know you're very familiar with the 2-1-1 service, but very briefly for those in the audience who may not be familiar with 2-1-1, Communify has proudly sponsored 2-1-1 services since 2014, providing A free 24-7 referral and information line to all residents of Santa Barbara County in more than 150 languages by phone, text, or even via website. When people are in need of information or in crisis, 211 is often the front door to help. providing vulnerable families and connecting them with needed housing, utility assistance, mental health support, disaster information, as well as so much more.

This past year, we're very proud to have launched an immigration resource website as part of the 211 service. Providing information confidentially around Know Your Rights, rapid response networks, what to do if a family member or someone you know has been detained, tools for family preparedness, as well as information on how to connect with your consulant. So, very important services in this past year. We're also excited to be launching a new youth app We're very excited about that. We're deeply grateful to the county for your continued support.

I would like to personally invite you to come to our Community Resource Day in Lompoc this Saturday from 11 a.m. to 3 p.m. It's all kinds of family-friendly activities. There will be free haircuts, free health screenings, free food. And all kinds of activities for our families. And we're very proud this year to have over 60 organizations participating. So it's a great opportunity for all of our community to come out and get information on the many nonprofits and resources that they offer here in Santa Barbara County. So again, thank you so much for your continued support.

0:09 – 0:155 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed9:16

Well, I just wanted to thank Communify for taking this on. You know, sometimes in life you want to talk to a real person. You want to call a number and talk to a real person, and especially when you're in some kind of a crisis. And so 211 does that. I actually had to make some remarks about it and called myself and talked to the dispatch person. She'd been there for seven years and really seen it all. So these are really professionally trained people.

And they integrate across nonprofits and federal, state, and local agencies. So it's a one-stop shop and really is a tremendous resource. And so thank you so much for keeping it alive in our county.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed10:04

All right, moving along to administrative item number three. Madam Clerk, will you please read that into the record?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed10:08

Chair Nelson and members of the board, administrative item number three is sponsored by Supervisor Capps. It is to adopt a resolution commending UC Santa Barbara professors John Martinez and Michelle DeVore for their 2025 Nobel Prize in Physics. And if you can please make your way to the podium. And anyone else you'd like to join with you? And I'll go ahead and read the resolution. Whereas the Nobel Prize in Physics is one of the world's most prestigious honors for individuals whose discoveries have profoundly advanced humanity's understanding of the world.

And whereas UC Santa Barbara professors John Martinez and Michelle DeVore were awarded the 2025 Nobel Prize in Physics for their breakthrough work that revealed quantum physics in action at the macroscopic scale. And whereas the work laid critical groundwork for modern and emerging technologies, including the development of superconducting qubits, the underpinned efforts to build practical quantum computers. And whereas in addition to the groundbreaking scientific achievements, Professors Martinez and DeVore have served as distinguished educators and mentors at UC Santa Barbara, shaping the next generation of scientists, engineers, leaders, and innovators through their teaching, research, guidance, and commitment to academic excellence.

And whereas Professors Martinez and DeVore's Nobel Prize brings international distinction to UC Santa Barbara and Santa Barbara County, reflecting our community's deep commitment to academics, scientific discovery, and innovation that improves lives locally and globally. Now, therefore, be it hereby ordered and resolved that this Board of Supervisors of the County of Santa Barbara does hereby commend Professors John Martinez and Michelle DeVore for their 2025 Nobel Prize in Physics, passed and adopted today.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 7Proposed12:14

I just wanted to thank the University of California, for one, as they hired me in 2004. I assume that's a good decision. And also, you know, as we were working on the quantum technologies at the University of California, at some point it made sense to actually transfer that research to, it turned out, Google. And I would just again thank the University of California for, you know, understanding what we were trying to do and being supportive, of course, you know, in the right way to do that. And I'm actually very proud that when we did that move, in the end we've been able, Google has been able to I have a big program in Santa Barbara with high-tech jobs, really well-paid jobs, which I think is good for the county and good for UC Santa Barbara.

I've since moved on and I'm doing my own startup company, and I'm working hard to try to have at least a satellite office in Santa Barbara, bring a few more jobs and maybe a lot of jobs. But I think that's great that there's support. from the university, from the county to bring in these good jobs for all of us.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 8Proposed13:44

So, dear Chairman Nelson and members of the boards, I would like to thank the county for the honor of this resolution. I have to say that I am a more recent member of this community since I have moved from the East Coast three years ago. But I have found the welcoming atmosphere here really wonderful. I would like to thank, of course, the University of California.

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to start a new lab, whose theme will be the continuation of the work we did, both Joan and I, and it will partner with Google, where I am a chief scientist for the building of a quantum computer. So, thank you again. And I have to say that if I have this mask today, it's a little bit because of the wonderful sun that you have here in this wonderful region. I have been.

0:15 – 0:216 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed15:12

Congratulations and thank you. Supervisor Capps.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 9Proposed15:17

Well, I wanted to remark that we might be making some history here this morning to have in our County Board of Supervisors hearing not one, but two Nobel laureates. So thank you for coming. When we had the idea to bestow upon you a county resolution, we thought, well, wonderful idea, but could we ever get them to actually come here giving The global demands on your time, so thank you for being here. We are so immensely proud, and when I attended the celebration of the award in the days that followed, you know, in that over-packed room at UCSB, it was so clear the many ways in which your award has this ripple effect on the campus environment and the county environment, the ways in which it attracts more professors, more research, more jobs, as you've just spoken to.

It's a ripple effect and we here, we know how much, we're so immensely proud of the university. We know what it means to this entire county, what it means to the next generation. But if I could just speak to one thing that I was struck by was the number of students that stood up And that packed outside in the overflow to kind of get the aura of this celebration and spoke to what it was like to be in your office hours. And I can only imagine what that means to them to have had office hours with you, Nobel laureates. And what that means to their work going forward and what that means to their children that they can then talk about the fact that they studied with Nobel laureates. So thank you for your research. Thank you for your work. Thanks for sharing it with us and thanks for being with us today.

All

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed17:02

right, Madam Clerk, we're going to circle back to administrative item number one.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed17:12

Chair Nelson and members of the board, administrative item number one is sponsored by Supervisor Lee and Supervisor Capps. It is to adopt a resolution honoring and commemorating the life of Frank J. Frost Jr. and joining us in person today to receive this resolution is Alex Frost. And Alex, if you can please make your way to the podium. I'll go ahead and read the resolution.

Whereas Frank J. Frost, Jr. was born on December 3, 1929 in Washington, D.C. and lived a remarkable 96 years defined by intellectual curiosity, creative expression, public service, and a deep devotion to family and community. And whereas Frank demonstrated exceptional brilliance and moral conviction from a young age, entering college at 16 and later choosing to enlist in the United States Army at 18, where he served honorably during the Korean War, including frontline duty and service connected to atomic testing.

experiences that profoundly shaped his lifelong commitment to civic responsibility and ethical leadership. And whereas after settling in Santa Barbara, Frank enriched the cultural life of the community as a gifted jazz pianist, supporting his young family through music and continuing to perform locally for decades, becoming a cherished and familiar presence whose artistry endured until just months before his passing.

And whereas Frank pursued academic excellence with equal passion, earning a PhD from UCLA while mastering multiple languages, teaching at institutions including the University of California, Riverside, Hunter College, and Princeton University, and ultimately fulfilling his dream of joining the faculty at the University of California, Santa Barbara, where his wide-ranging scholarship encompassed classical studies, underwater archaeology, and fiction, And whereas Frank brought his intellect, integrity, and independent spirit into public life as an elected Santa Barbara County First District Supervisor from 1972 to 1976, championing pioneering environmental protection and managed growth policies that continue to shape the region today, and living his values fully, often found engaging directly with the landscapes and communities he worked to preserve, including the beloved coastline of Moore Mesa.

Now, therefore, be it hereby ordered and resolved that this Board of Supervisors of the County of Santa Barbara extends our deepest condolences to his beloved wife Amanda Mandy Clark, his children Frank J. Frost III and Victoria Rafina Frost, the memory of his daughter Esme Eugenia Frost, his grandchildren Jacqueline, Nicholas, Kristen, Alexandra, and Jared, And to his great-grandchildren and great-great-grandchildren, as well as to all whose lives were enriched by knowing him past and adopted today.

CommentNatalia AlarconProposedself-stated19:57

Yeah, I'm his granddaughter. One of the many grand that are in his life. Great, great, great grands. Yeah, he was a man of so many titles, but one thing that he was so proud of was his time serving Santa Barbara County. And while he was a county supervisor for A term he really was involved in Santa Barbara politics in the community up until his day of passing at 96.

I'd like to say he was a politician, but I think he was really just a man who just deeply cared. He really deeply cared. And if you have time, there's an article about One way that he really personified how much he cared and how much fight he would take to get a law passed or to get the community on board, and it involves his nudity at one of our nudist beaches. So this is the kind of man he was, just hilarious and also just deeply cared. So thank you so much for honoring him. I know that this means the world to him and means the world to his wife, Amanda, and also all of the other grandchildren and children of his. So thank you so much.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed21:16

Thank you.

0:21 – 0:234 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 10Proposed21:24

I wasn't going to say anything, but it occurred to me that it might be interesting to point out that when Frank became county supervisor here, there was certain dissension in the community, and he was forced to go on halftime at the university. So that magnificent salary at the university was halved and replaced with the small salary of the county supervisors, but he felt he had to sacrifice himself, and he loved every second that he spent sitting up there.

Thank you very much.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed22:01

Supervisor Caps and Supervisor Lee.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed22:03

Yeah, I just want to share a story. So last March, Frank reached out to me and asked me to fix something in the county that I'm still working on. He led the way, and we're still continuing his work, so thank you, and to your family for being here. Frank meant a lot, and once a supervisor, always a supervisor, so he always be part of the family. Thank you.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 9Proposed22:28

Yeah, I'll share my story and thank you so much for being here. It's wonderful to be able to pay tribute to such a legend. I was born with Frank Frost sitting in these seats. So he was a household name when I was a kid and my parents would talk about him around the dinner table and the nudity and the saving more Mesa. I just want to extend my thanks. My mom is actually watching right now and wanted to pay tribute to him and your family. for the service. My memories of him more recently were cruising around Mission Canyon. It was a Vespa, right? Is that what he had? Oh, yeah. I think it was green or silver or something like that. But just such a character in the best way of Santa Barbara politics, caring so much. And you're right, more than a politician, really an activist, a communitarian.

And so it's our honor to be able to pay tribute to someone who served this community for such a long time. And what a life at 96. Thank you.

0:23 – 0:295 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed23:31

All right, we're going to move on to administrative item number four. Madam Clerk, will you please read administrative item number four into the record?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed23:37

Chair Nelson and members of the board, administrative item number four sponsored by Supervisor Nelson. It is to adopt a resolution of commendation honoring Sarah Elterk, Philip Ng, Ileana De Hoyas, and Martha Sanchez Galvin of the Youth Defender Team in the Public Defender's Office as the February 2026 Employees of the Month for Santa Barbara County. And if you can please make your way to the podium, I'll go ahead and read the resolution.

Whereas Sarah Elterk, Philip Ng, Ileana De Oyas, Martha Sanchez-Galvin, the Santa Barbara County Public Defender Youth Defender Team exemplifies the county's organizational values of accountability, customer focus, equity, and inclusion, innovation, trust, and ethics. And whereas the Youth Defender Team models the transformative behaviors of collaborative problem-solving, alignment with the county's vision, risk-taking, data-driven decision-making, and strategic thinking.

And whereas the Youth Defender Team has demonstrated exceptional dedication to the county's mission and the Public Defender's Office, Values by providing zealous, compassionate, and high-quality representation to youth and families, centering dignity, fairness, and rehabilitation in their advocacy. They have shown leadership and adaptability by proactively engaging with justice system stakeholders, translating evolving law into meaningful local practices that advance equity, reduce unnecessary system involvement, and improve outcomes.

And whereas the Youth Defender Team has distinguished itself through rigorous and innovative litigation, holding the prosecution to its burden through timely strategic motions, practice, and trial readiness, resulting in a significant number of acquittals at trial and or dismissals on or near trial, reflecting both legal excellence and discipline preparation.

And whereas the Youth Defender Team exemplifies collaboration and mutual trust, working cohesively across roles to mentor one another, communicating effectively, integrating legal advocacy with holistic support, and fostering a culture of shared responsibility and continuous learning. Through commitment, professionalism, and teamwork, they have made a measurable and positive impact on the juvenile system, earning recognition as a model of public service whose efforts embody the highest standards of integrity, Advocacy and service to the community.

Now, therefore, be it hereby ordered and resolved that this Board of Supervisors of the County of Santa Barbara does hereby acknowledge the Youth Defender Team, Sarah Elterk, Philip Ng, Ileana De Hoyas, and Martha Sanchez-Galvin, as the employees of the month for February 2026, pass and adopt it today.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 11Proposed26:24

I thank you, Board of Supervisors. Matt Spitalozy, Chief Trial Deputy for the Public Defender. It is my profound honor today to introduce this team to you. Ileana De Hoyos, who's our holistic defense advocate, who works with our clients getting high-level assessments done and regularly getting our youth into less restrictive placements. Martha Sanchez-Galvan, the true glue behind the scenes, spotting conflicts, sending them to me, talking with the clients, and providing high-level support behind the scenes.

Phillip Ung, a Deputy Public Defender whose aggressive litigation has resulted in countless dismissals, trial wins, and has seriously changed lives over this past year. Deputy Public Defender Sara Elturk, who is really the conscience of the team, whose policy advocacy with Justice Partners and the JJCC has proven instrumental in putting together a local system that treats our kids with dignity.

They're recognized today because when they came together as a team this year, they really changed the culture of how we represent youth in our system. Advocating at the trial level, advocating at the local and policy level, and really making our county and our community a better and safer place to live. And I just want to turn it over to Sarah Elterk, our senior member of the team, for a couple of comments. Thank you.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 12Proposed27:57

Our Youth Defender Team. In our team, our clients come to us with their own unique background and their own unique story. But with each client we have, they all have one thing in common. They are a young person standing in the face of an overwhelming and often scary system that has the power to affect their lives, surely in the short term, if not for years and years and years to come.

We as a team strive to work together to provide this youth-centered holistic defense in what we do day to day. We stand with our clients and help them to use their voice. We work hard to empower them to make the best choices for themselves, not only in their cases, but in their lives. Our goal is that at the end of our representation, that the work we've done has had a positive effect on these teenagers and young adults.

It is our goal to ensure we are part of their success stories, to ensure that the weight of this system does not crush them or crush their spirits, and that they are able to overcome these experiences and thrive. We want to thank the Board of Supervisors for recognizing us, especially recognizing us as a team, because this is work that none of us could do alone. We do together, and we just want to thank you. Thank you.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 11Proposed29:26

Thank you.

0:29 – 0:363 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed29:38

All right, Madam Clerk, can you now read Administrative Item Number 5 into the record?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed29:43

Chair Nelson and members of the board, Administrative Item Number 5 is sponsored by Supervisor Lavagnino. It is to adopt a resolution honoring John Green upon his retirement from the General Services Department after over 29 years of faithful and dedicated service to the citizens of Santa Barbara County. And joining us in person today, we have John Green. If you can please make your way to the podium.

And I'll go ahead and read the resolution. Whereas John Green has served the County of Santa Barbara General Services Department for over 29 years, entering as a blue collar building maintenance worker and retiring as an executive as assistant director. And whereas John began his career as a general contractor running a vibrant and robust private construction company before joining the County General Services Department Facilities and Maintenance Division in 1996, where he learned all aspects of the county and was able to apply his skill set as a woodworker to construct custom cabinetry for various county facilities.

And whereas John's general contractor experience influenced his transition to General Services, Capital Division, where he developed construction specifications, assembled bid packages, managed public bidding, and contract awards, inspected projects for quality and code compliance, executed change orders, and represented the County General Services Department to various contractors, outside agencies, and the public. And whereas John was selected to lead the $125 million Northern Branch Jail Construction Project, developing a piece of farmland into a 350-bed, state-of-the-art jail complex. The extension effort was not without challenges, and John rose to the occasion, frequently meeting with state officials and forging alliances with the Santa Barbara County Sheriff's Office to ensure that they receive the best facility to meet their needs.

And whereas John was then promoted to lead the entire capital division, overseeing two division managers and ten project managers, where his leadership was critical in getting through the COVID-19 pandemic, a new hybrid work approach. And whereas in his final 18 months with the County of Santa Barbara, John was once again promoted to the executive ranks as an assistant director overseeing the facilities and maintenance Capital and Energy Divisions. And whereas John is the epitome of working your way up the ladder and is proof positive that through hard work, determination, and a belief in your abilities that the county provides opportunities for career development and professional growth. John's steady leadership, calm demeanor, and dedication to public service will be sorely missed.

John's next chapter of life will be filled with opportunities to share time with family, travel, and explore new adventures. Now, therefore, be it hereby ordered and resolved that this Board of Supervisors of the County of Santa Barbara does hereby acknowledge John Green for his years of dedicated service to the citizens of Santa Barbara County and congratulate him upon his retirement. Passed and adopted today.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 13Proposed32:59

John, time has come. I think general services makes up about 90% of the audience here today, so hopefully nothing goes wrong in the county. And so I thank everyone for being here. I mean John is the epitome of a humble public servant. He's been an inspiration. He started out, these guys in the back row in the blue shirts, that's where John started. And so seeing everyone here today, general services wise, I mean that's just a great show of respect for you and to respect your years of service.

You know, nearly 30 years ago, I'm not sure John would have realized that he'd be standing here today retiring and sharing the stage with some Nobel laureates. So that was pretty cool. I've been here about three years now, and about a year and a half ago, two years ago, John was ready to throw in the towel and call it a career. And, you know, having come off the Northern Branch Jail Project, which was very challenging, had a lot of challenges and issues out there, but he saw that through.

Then the workplace dynamic was off for him, but I convinced him to stay and appointed him as interim assistant director and then selected him I knew John wouldn't be here long term. I figured I'd get one to three years, so I guess 18 months is a good compromise. But I knew that he would be the bridge that was needed to take general service from where they were and help get us to the future, and so I appreciate that.

Of course, this past year, the Northern Branch Jail has continued to be kind of a thorn in his side and continues to haunt him. And he's been deeply involved with some arbitration there. In fact, I think county council saw him more than I did this past year. But I know that's greatly appreciated by council and is important for the county as well. So I am grateful that John has stayed on.

And while I may be the boss, I've also looked up to John as a, even though we are different generations and we laugh about that some, but I do look at John as an older brother. We've bonded over cars and campers and quality beer. And so I look forward to our continued friendship. And so I want to thank you, John, and best wishes as you head into retirement and to Glenda.

I know you've thrown my name around a lot with Glenda and hopefully in a good way. And obviously with your children and now grandchildren. And so I know they're looking forward to seeing more of you in retirement. So I want to leave with a quote here. It is amazing what you can accomplish if you do not care who gets the credit. Harry S. Truman, and I believe Ronald Reagan actually had that on his desk.

And that's John, and that's John's leadership style. Again, very humble, and just wants to be part of the wheels that get things done here. So that's how he's lived his service, and we thank you. And having been former Navy, our farewell is fair winds and following seas. I wish you the very best. And for the rest of GS, there is a reception downstairs in the lobby, in the courtyard, so I hope to see everyone down there as well. So thank you, John, and the floor is yours.

0:36 – 0:423 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 14Proposed36:46

So Chair Nelson and members of the board, I appreciate the recognition and the resolution today. It's humbling and honored. I'm honored to have that. So when I started here nearly 30 years ago, I hadn't even thought about the concept of retiring. Prior to working at the county, I was working in the private sector in a partnership general contracting company.

So I took my first role in facilities more or less as I saw it as just another project that would eventually complete. After all, this was consistent with what I had been doing as a general contractor for 15 years. So retirement was a foreign concept to me that I saw only applying to others like my grandfather and my father and those other older co-workers that I worked with when I first started at the county.

But not me, I still saw myself as a young guy. It wasn't until my three-year-old granddaughter, Cambria, learned to speak and began to call me Popper, which was her word for grandpa, that's when I realized I should start paying closer attention to my birthday. Then, of course, there's those awkward cooler moments, water cooler moments around the office where staff are asking you constantly, so how much longer are you going to be here? Definitely not something I heard in my first 20 years.

And yet just another subtle reminder that I'm no longer a young guy that I think I am. Then, of course, you start getting the AARP emails and mail in the mailbox every day, which are unfortunately addressed to me. So that's when I began to realize I should take a closer look at my work plans. So here I am today, nervously standing in front of the Board of Supervisors and a room full of people and co-workers who now know exactly how much longer I'm going to be here.

Instead of another job, I've had an amazing career with the County of Santa Barbara. I have nothing but gratitude and appreciation for all the opportunities, benefits, and challenges. And yes, there have been challenging projects for sure, but the last 30 years have gone by really fast. My wife, Glenda, has retired from teaching and has been asking me frequently when I plan to retire After I finally told her my retirement date, I also told her that that meant that I'd be home all the time.

Her response was, that's okay, I have friends you know. So I'm super excited to start the next chapter of life, spend more time with my grandchildren, and perhaps complete some of the honey-do list projects, which are naturally over budget and behind schedule. However, I will absolutely miss this place. I'll miss the people, the relationships, and even the challenges.

I must thank all my mentors over the years, my coaches, my staff, my managers, who promoted me and pushed me and encouraged me to push myself even further than I believed that I could be pushed. Some of the most dedicated and hardworking and brilliant people that I know work here at the County of Santa Barbara. And I feel very fortunate to have been a small part of this organization.

So I must also recognize my wife, Glenda, who I'm sure will be encouraging me to find a part-time job soon when I get out of the house, and my three children, Nathan, Shelby, and Logan, for all their support and for always tolerating all my dinnertime conversations about the fascinating projects that I was fortunate enough to be part of. And finally, I want to thank Kirk Lagerquist, all the General Services Department, and the Board of Supervisors for this recognition and resolution. Thank you.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed41:25

Supervisor Lavagnino.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 15Proposed41:26

Thank you, Mr. Chair. John, I appreciate the fact that I was the one that got to provide you with the resolution. We all did together, but that was an honor for me. John, I don't know if you play cards or not, but you do have an excellent poker face because I remember being in the room when the bids were open for the Northern Branch Jail and We had no idea what they were going to look like, and when the envelopes were opened, I remember at the time Matt Pontus looking like somebody was holding his family hostage when he was looking at them.

And I looked over at John, and John just kept a straight face. And even when all hell was breaking loose during the construction of that, every time I'd go out there for a visit, John was just even-keeled. This is a big project. There's always problems. He was very calming and reassuring. It's exactly what I needed because I was ready to freak out. And so if in that part-time job means Coming back, we do have another construction job up on that site that we would love to have your expertise on. So I just wish you all the best. And you've been a real pillar of strength here for the county and appreciate all your hard work. So you've earned this retirement. Congratulations.

0:43 – 0:504 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed43:06

Yeah, I'd like to reiterate that you have been the steady hand in the storm for the county for quite some time, and so you said you've been a small part of this county. I would think that you are definitely underselling it. You've been a large part of this county for the last 30 years, and especially over the last few years, and it's with gratitude on behalf of the entire county for your service, John. Thank you.

All right, we'll return back to the administrative agenda. Thank you everybody for being here to celebrate. All right, then I'll take up the administrative items pulled in numerical order. Actually, we've had two items pulled by the public, item number 10 and number 13. So, Madam Clerk, will you read both those items into the public, and then we'll have Ms. Hauenstein come up for a five-minute public comment on those two items.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed44:44

Chair Nelson and members of the Board, Administrative Item Number 10 is from the District Attorney's Office. It is to consider recommendations regarding the acceptance of a $25,000 grant from Craig Thompson Environmental Protection Prosecution, CTEPP, fund to support the District Attorney's Consumer and Environmental Protection Unit. And there is a four-fifths vote required on this item. Additionally, Administrative Item Number 13 is from the Sheriff Coroner's Office. It is to consider recommendations regarding an Astound Business Solutions LLC Astound Service Order to the Agreement for Services of Independent Contractor for Dark Fiber Services. And we have a request to speak from the public, Karen Hauenstein, and she will receive five minutes for both items.

Karen?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed45:28

Welcome.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 16Proposed45:30

Karen Hauenstein, North County Coast Audits, soon to be Coast Observer TV. So I had a question. You guys combined these two very different items that I'll speak on together. So my first question was about dark fiber. I'm having a hard time identifying what dark fiber is. So just wanting to learn more about the dark fiber that we're paying for for the Sheriff's Office. And do I ask the Sheriff's Office about that?

Who knows about that? Well, I'll find out later on. And then this other item, the District Attorney's Office, who's getting special funding to go after people for environmental reasons. Before I ever started being a public speaker, I was attacked by the District Attorney's Office in civil court. They used a similar grant to target my family and their property.

The county wanted to get on our title. I was even told that by one county employee. The legal case that bankrupted me, personally, is case number 20, CV 02746. In that matter, the liberal District Attorney, Joyce Dudley, very skillfully left the man who was responsible for any suggested environmental violations Completely off the complaint. Himself and his business entities were completely unscathed.

Later on, this man claims, through non-judicial foreclosure fraud, that he owns my parents' ranch. This all happened right in front of you, Mona. The whole entire time I've been talking to you. And my issue, personally, in this, is not going to die until my family is satisfied, and I personally am satisfied, for the abuse that I've suffered at the hands of this county.

Just like the memory of Liliana Cecilia Zuniga, the young woman who was killed inside the Lompoc Police Department in 2023. And I understand the local law enforcement wants that to die. But her memory is still very much alive. And so is my umbrage until things are satisfied. And the more I learn about the workings of our county, Mona, and how the county is being manipulated by some of the most liberal operatives in the state, I'm being friendly. You can understand though, That because personally my life was destroyed before I even understood what was happening.

And when my father and I came to you, Joan, it got worse. And the lives of my neighbors who are in their, their transplants from LA, but their trust fund babies from Manhattan, their lives have gotten increasingly better. And their word has been promoted by you.

0:50 – 0:5713 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed50:22

And that concludes public comment on A-10 and A-13.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed50:25

All right, so is there any further discussion from board members on items A-10 or A-13? Seeing none, I'll take a motion on approval of A-10 and A-13.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed50:35

Herman moves approval.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed50:37

Second. A motion by Hartmann, a second by Lee. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Motion passes unanimously. Now it's time for members of the public to speak on items that are not on the agenda. Madam Clerk, are there any requests to speak on general public comment?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed50:56

Chair Nelson and members of the board, yes, we have two requests to speak on general public comment today. We are going to remain here in Santa Barbara and begin with Adan Kiss the Comedian to be followed by Karen Hauenstein. Adan? Is Kiss the Comedian in the room? Already, we will go to Karen Hauenstein. And if Adan returns, we will go to him next. Karen?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed51:28

Go ahead and Karen first and then we'll have Kiss next.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 16Proposed51:38

The Good Samaritan nonprofit operating in this county that has increased their employee base significantly is billing Medi-Cal and Medicaid for daycare services that they're not providing, especially in Lompoc. But we're also finding out something about, it seems like maybe political interests are being maintained through these non-profit agencies. Because as soon as someone reveals that they voted for Donald Trump or they like Donald Trump, they get exited from the program.

We've seen this happen in Lompoc. We've seen this happen in Santa Barbara. What's really going on with the Good Samaritan nonprofit? Because what's been suggested about California, that California is also washing money Through nonprofits, NGOs, and even the government agencies that we see operating and having budgets of $1.7 billion. You guys want to take more taxes from people after you make decisions that lose money for purposes that never should have been considered? Like the AMR debacle.

That's a big deal. You guys want to have more taxes on the tail end of that? Okay. Thanks.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed53:35

Thank you, Ms. Hauenstein. Ms. Hauenstein.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed53:38

We will now go to our final speaker and general public comment. Adan Kiss, the comedian. Adan?

CommentAdanProposedself-stated53:52

Thank you. Thank you, guys. Good morning, Supervisor Roy Lee, Laura Capps, Joan Hartmann, Bob Nelson, and of course, my favorite, Steve Lavagnino. My name is Adan. Some of you guys know me as Kiss the Comedian. Today, I'm not here as a comedian, but as a victim and a citizen. I was a client at the Step Down Program Sober Living Housing Unit here in Santa Barbara. which is owned by Good Samaritan Nonprofit Shelter and funded by the county taxpayer and the federal taxpayers and the donors.

I was wrongfully kicked out after being cursed out by Good Samaritan staff members named Jack and Ryan. I was called every name in the book, a monkey, a nigger, African, and a Trump supporter. The Good Samaritan staff members treated me like Adolf Hitler, genocide. After they found out, I posted a video on YouTube. They kicked me out and said, we don't want our staff getting exposed. You're homeless. You will be replaced by 5 o'clock today by another bomb. And St. Cam Medica will still pay us $5,000 for each client.

I am begging you from the bottom of my heart, do not let Good Samaritan get away with this. Please open an investigation. Key staff members include Josh Rodriguez, program manager. Donna Flores, Director of the Program. Todd Johnson, Operations Manager. If you don't believe me, please ask my lawyer, Russell Brown, at RBX Law, right here in downtown Santa Barbara, how many homeless people he's representing currently against Good Samaritan, and how many complaints he gets of the behavior of the staff.

The video and audio evidence is available on my YouTube channel, Kiss the Comedian. Thank you so much. I just want to say sleeping on the beach at night is really cold. I've been sleeping in elevators. And Good Samaritan, they own like 50 properties and over 600 clients. And yeah, I'm really mad. I'm really pissed. You know, I've been sober for five months and I'm afraid, you know, I'm going to pick up, start using. I don't want to overdose.

I would like to To please check and balance this. Do not let these people get away with this. You guys can contact my lawyer if you don't believe me. He's representing a lot of people. Russell Brown right here in downtown Santa Barbara. They treat us really bad and do not care. And they get funded by the federal taxpayers' money, county taxpayers' money. And Mr. Roy Lee, he sent me to the Farrell Center and I got legal advice. Thank you so much.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed56:51

Thank you, Adan.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed56:52

And that concludes general public comment for today.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed56:56

All right. With the conclusion of the general public comment, we will now go into the departmental agenda. Madam Clerk, will you please read departmental item number one into the record?

0:57 – 1:144 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed57:08

Chair Nelson and members of the board, departmental item number one is from the County Executive Office. It is a hearing to consider recommendations regarding a proposed transactions and use tax ballot measure for the June 2026 primary election ballot.

CommentBrittany OdermanProposedself-stated57:39

Good morning, Chair Nelson, members of the Board. My name is Brittany Oderman. I'm Deputy CEO, and I'm here today to present to you a proposed transactions and use tax ballot measure, otherwise known as a sales tax. I'm joined by Paul Clemente, our Budget Director, who will provide some additional information on the five-year cumulative deficit toward the end of this presentation.

I just do want to point out that the PowerPoint was revised and you should have received a revised copy this morning. And that has also been posted online. Thank

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed58:15

you.

CommentBrittany OdermanProposedself-stated58:18

Just a quick overview of our presentation. I'm going to cover the budget forecast and projected deficits to set some context. Talk about our tax measure options, the rates and revenues. We are today presenting two options for a one cent sales tax. A general purpose sales tax in the unincorporated county for a limited term of five years. So it would sunset after a five-year period.

The second would be a general purpose sales tax in the unincorporated county until ended by voters. So in perpetuity, until it went back on the ballot to be ended by voters. I also want to present some polling results and proposed ballot language, as well as a process and timeline. And then, as I mentioned, Mr. Clemente will talk about the five-year cumulative deficit before I present the recommendations.

On December 16th the board received a five-year budget forecast for fiscal years 26-27 through 30-31. Over here on the left you can see the projected shortfall for next year's budget 26-27 and At that time, if all current service levels were maintained, is $23 million across all department services and funds. The forecast anticipates an ongoing cumulative deficit of $66.4 million by fiscal year 3031 across the general fund and key special revenue funds that support safety net services.

This ongoing annual deficit would have to be covered by ongoing additional revenues and or cost reductions. The shortfall is driven by state and federal policy changes and reductions, as well as expenses outpacing available revenue and increased mandates and obligations, such as the Murray versus the County of Santa Barbara stipulated judgment regarding jail conditions.

Without additional revenue generation, significant budget cuts could impact services used by county residents. So to address these challenges, the county proposed a budget balancing framework work that includes the approaches on this slide. Additionally, the 26-27 budget development policies recommend earmarking $50 million in one-time funds and $8.5 million in ongoing funds for the Northern Branch Jail Expansion.

Putting $50 million toward the project is expected to save $3.7 million annually in debt service. This depletes the ability to backfill proposed cuts in fiscal year 26-27 and beyond using one-time funds. The item before you today focuses on looking at alternative revenue generation options, the most promising being a potential sales tax increase. Increasing the unincorporated county sales tax is estimated to generate an additional $16.7 million annually, helping preserve important community services.

I'm going to do some tax measure options. So first, just want to talk about the county's taxing authority. The county actually has the authority to impose a tax either countywide, that would be inclusive of all the cities, or imposing a tax in the unincorporated county only. A countywide measure requires legislation to give authority to the county to exceed the maximum rate set in law of 0.25% since the City of Santa Barbara and Carpinteria are at or near the maximum rate.

The legislation must be in effect prior to approval of the resolution to place the measure on the ballot. This time frame to pass this legislation proved to be too difficult to accomplish in the first few weeks of the 2026 legislative session in time for placement on the June primary ballot. Staff was pursuing this option with our lobbyists and our delegation.

If this legislation is in place, this measure can be placed on the ballot by a four-fifths vote of the Board of Supervisors and would require a yes vote from a majority of voters voting countywide inclusive of the cities to pass. For the unincorporated county only, This would allow a sales tax increase of up to one and a half cents in the unincorporated county areas only before meeting the 9.2% maximum threshold.

This measure can be placed on the ballot by a fourthest vote of your board and would require a yes vote for majority of unincorporated voters only voting to pass. The increase would be for sales tax in the unincorporated areas, for example, Orchid, Eastern Gleta Valley, San Ynez Valley, Montecito, Isla Vista, Just want to give you some context for our current sales tax. So the general sales tax in Santa Barbara County, on the left is a table of the current breakdown.

So in 2025, the total tax in the unincorporated county is seven and three quarters percent, 7.75. The state share of that tax is 6%. There's a roads and transportation General tax, the state applies at 0.25%. And then we have a regional sales tax, Measure A, that the Santa Barbara County Association of Governments administers at half a percent. And then our local share, referred to as the Bradley Burns share, is 1%.

So in fiscal year 24-25, that 1% generated $16 million in revenue to the unincorporated county I also, on the right here, have a chart that shows the sales tax for all the cities in the county from highest to lowest. Raising our unincorporated sales tax to 8.75%, which is the proposal today, would put it in line with our neighboring jurisdictions. As you can see, Santa Barbara City is at 9.25%, Carpinteria is at 9%, The cities of Goleta, Solvang, Guadalupe, Lompoc, Santa Maria are all at 8.75%, and then Buellton and the unincorporated county are at seven and three quarters. I'm going to provide a bit more detail on the next slide.

So as I said, seven of the eight cities in the county have additional voter approved sales tax as shown in this table. So we're showing the base tax rate of seven and a quarter, and then I have the half cent from Measure A countywide, And then each jurisdiction. If they have placed a ballot measure on the ballot or multiple, in the case of the City of Santa Barbara, the date of the last election is in the fourth column, and then the local share increase by tax measure. So it varies from one and a half percent all the way down to one percent, and then of course, Buelton and the County of Santa Barbara are, we do not have any additional sales tax, so we're at the seven and three quarters.

The final column shows the capacity remaining for each of those jurisdictions if they were to go on the ballot to increase their sales tax without legislative authority. This is the max. I do just want to highlight that the latest sales tax increase was the City of Santa Barbara. They approved a half percent from 8.75 to 9.25 in November of 2024. That became effective April of 2025.

And then the approval of a June 2nd ballot measure for a sales tax increase in the county would be effective October 1st, 2026. So here are the two options that I mentioned earlier. We're discussing a general sales tax for general purposes. Again, it requires a four-fifths vote of the Board of Supervisors to place it on the ballot. It must be approved by a simple majority of the voters in the unincorporated county only, and it can be used for any purpose the county funds.

Examples include community health, Medical clinics, increased workforce housing, emergency services, wildfire prevention, addressing homelessness, and other local community services. Option one is the limited term, the five years, and that would expire on September 30th, 2031, as proposed. And option two is in perpetuity and expires when ended by voters. We like to present this slide just to set some context for the lay of the land in the county.

As you all know, the county is largely agricultural or federally owned land. So on this slide, the yellow is the government owned land, primarily federal, the national forest. And then the green is all the Ag Preserve or Ag Zone land that would not be available for commercial development. The pink areas are the incorporated cities and then those orange areas which make up just 1.6% are the unincorporated urban areas. We're just highlighting that we have very limited space for commercial development in the county.

And that means that we have limited number of Places that are capable of generating significant sales tax. Mainly because most of the unincorporated areas do not contain large retail hubs. In fiscal year 24-25, the total gross taxable sales in the unincorporated County was approximately 1.6 billion dollars. In comparison, the cities of Santa Barbara and Santa Maria's gross taxable sales were $2.9 and $3 billion, respectively.

Most large purchases occur in incorporated cities, regardless of where a resident lives. Purchases such as vehicles, furniture, electronics, and appliances take place in cities and are subject to a city sales tax. As a result, the county's strongest opportunities for sales tax revenue are often tied to lodging, restaurants, tasting rooms, and destination retail that are frequented by tourists and regional visitors.

Since docketing the board letter, we have conferred with our consultants, HDL, that work with us on our sales tax projections and the estimated actuals for current year sales tax have increased slightly from $16 million to $16.7 million. This results in $33.4 million total if the sales tax increased from $7.75 as proposed to $8.75. So that's an estimated annual increase of $16.7 million.

Now I'm going to pivot to just give you a little bit of information about our polling efforts. Back in December of 2025, polling was conducted by a firm, FM3, that the county hired. The sample size was over 800 respondents countywide, inclusive of the cities, and the total number of unincorporated respondents was 305. So just wanted to highlight a few things that the top priorities identified by respondents were addressing the threat of wildfires, investing in emergency services, preventing layoffs to local healthcare workers, and maintaining access to affordable local health services.

Our county residents really favor accountability and transparency. They prefer and favor independent oversight and expanding locally controlled revenue, meaning that the money that's generated in the county stays in the county. Six in ten voters believe the county has need for additional funds and concerns about the cost of living, particularly the cost of housing, heighten sensitivity around sales tax increases.

Other top concerns identified by respondents also include the cost of health care and addressing homelessness. So in the poll, survey respondents were read sample ballot language and then asked, if the election were held today, would you vote yes or no on this measure? These percentages are the overall for the unincorporated. There was a total yes of 55% and that includes undecided lean yes, all the way up to definitely yes. You can see the breakdown there.

And then 39% no. From definitely no to undecidedly no, and we have a 5% group that's undecided. Our poll includes split samples to test different language related to the term of the measure and potential increase in sales tax. I would say the environment is challenging all around. But we were encouraged by these numbers. Due to the split sampling, the margin of error for the unincorporated area is a plus or minus 8%, which is a little higher than we typically like, but we believe there's still a path to success.

I do want to also report that the vote after education, so when during the poll people were given educational statements about the ballot measure and the funding and what it could be spent on, the numbers did not change too much. We had a 55% yes remained, 42% no, and a 3% undecided. And then we also gave oppositional statements to respondents. And the vote after the oppositional statements, the yes dropped down to 52%, the no 43%, and 5% undecided. So fairly stable.

The ballot language is limited to 75 words or fewer, so if the board approves placing the measure on the ballot, the proposed recommended language is provided here as follows. The Santa Barbara County Affordable Health Care Housing and Community Service Protection Measure To offset federal government funding cuts to prevent layoffs to local nurses, healthcare workers, provide affordable housing and healthcare at community clinics, maintain wildfire prevention emergency services, address homelessness, protect services in local communities and other general county services, shall the ordinance enacting a one-cent sales tax for five years, and I included the parentheses, that would be the difference in language between the measure with a sunset of five years versus ended by voters, Generating approximately $16.7 million annually requiring public disclosure of spending audits, local control be adopted.

So just a little bit about the process and the timeline. As I said, we conducted the polling in December of 2025. We developed the sales tax measure proposal last month. Today we're coming to you with an introduction of the sales tax ordinance. On the 24th, if the board approves moving forward, we would bring back adoption of the sales tax ordinance and a resolution with approved ballot language. Again, that requires a four-fifths vote.

In February, the week of 17th to 26th is the period for submitting direct arguments for and against. There's another period to submit rebuttal arguments. March 9th is the deadline for impartial analysis. March 12th for fiscal impact statement prepared by the auditor controller if the board directs them to do so, and then March through May would be a public information and education period, and then the election is on June 2nd.

Now I'm going to turn this over to Budget Director Mr. Paul Clemente to cover some information related to the five-year cumulative deficit.

1:14 – 1:206 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 17Proposed1:14:51

Thank you, Ms. Oterman. Good morning, Chair Nelson, members of the board. I was asked to just provide a little more information on the cumulative deficit that we discussed in the five-year forecast and kind of visualized it up here. That's what we see in each of these columns. Is that cumulative ongoing deficit, excuse me, that we presented at the forecast with $23 million in 26-27.

$29 million is added on top of that in 27-28 for a total cumulative ongoing deficit of $52 million. Another $9 million or so gets added to $61.5 and growing up to that $66.4 million in the fifth year. So we see the first two years really are the bulk of the forecasted deficit here of $52 million in those first two years. And on the far right here, we've added a column that's sort of the five-year cumulative total dollars spent. If you'd add up the $23 million plus the $52, the $61, $62, and then $66.4 over those five years, that's $265.4 million.

What we've layered in next to this is the anticipated, what, excuse me, a sales tax revenue would bring in about three quarters worth in that first year and then annualized up to the $16.7 million annually that Ms. Oterman discussed. If we stack on top of that the remaining deficit, what that would do to that, we can see side by side, it's lower by $16.7 million per year. So that $52 million in year two becomes $35.3 all the way up to that final year where you got a $49.7 instead of the $66.4.

If we look at the right-hand column, we've accumulated the total five years of that sales tax. That would be roughly $80 million collected over five years, put towards that $265 million, still leaves $186 million remaining, but it does cover, it's about 30 percent or almost one-third of the total deficit we're looking at. We've also taken another look, Ms. Oderman spoke to the $50 million towards the Northern Branch Jail and what that would look like if we put that towards the cumulative deficit instead.

And the first, these are the same numbers up to the $66.4 million. And what I've done is layered in the increased debt service we would see if we put the $50 million that we would put towards the jail to lower that debt service instead towards this deficit, we would have another $3.7 million annually in the debt service that would get added into this cumulative deficit.

So that's just raised those totals by 3.7 million a year there. And on the far right, that cumulative number, it's another 18.5 that gets added in. So the 265 on the right becomes 283. And then I've layered in next to this, if we put $50 million in one time towards the deficit, and just assuming it is put towards the full amount in that first year, and then whatever is remaining of that $50 million, $23.3 million, put towards the deficit in the second year, we're left still with a $32.4 million ongoing gap in that second year.

And then because these are one-time dollars, they don't come back. In 28-29, we're still met with the full $65.2 million ongoing deficit, growing up to that $70.1 million in the fifth year. So that $283 that I had on that far right column is lower by $50 million. It still leaves $233.9 remaining. So the two slides I pulled together, and I can pass it back to Brittany for the rec actions.

CommentBrittany OdermanProposedself-stated1:18:55

Thank you. Just quickly, I want to go over the recommended actions today. So we're here today to consider the first reading of an ordinance imposing a 1% sales tax in the unincorporated areas of the county. We're looking for direction on options one or two, option one being A tax for five years, option two, until ended by voters. And then we will read the title, if you can indulge me, an ordinance of the County of Santa Barbara imposing a transaction and use tax to be administered by the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration and waive further reading of the ordinance in full.

We're also looking for some direction from the board to approve and authorize members of the board to author and sign and submit on behalf of the board an argument in favor of the 1% sales tax ballot measure and any rebuttal if necessary unless those authorized members determine that it that argument is not necessary because other individuals or entities have submitted an argument in favor.

And we're asking for this action today because of the timing that I went through on the process and timeline. And then set a hearing for February 24th to adopt the ordinance and resolution required to place the sales tax measure on the ballot. And that concludes our presentation. Thank you.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed1:20:13

All right. Thank you, Ms. Oterman. Questions from board members. Supervisor Lee.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed1:20:19

Do you know if Billton is planning to put a sales ballot on their schedule?

CommentBrittany OdermanProposedself-stated1:20:26

Thank you for the question, Supervisor Lee, through the chair. At this time, we're not aware of any actions by Buolton to place a ballot measure on the ballot in this year, but that could change.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed1:20:41

Thank you.

1:20 – 1:3120 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed1:20:44

Other questions from the board at this time?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 9Proposed1:20:49

Supervisor

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed1:20:49

Capps.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 9Proposed1:20:49

Yeah, thank you. If you could go to back to slide three, please. And while you're doing that, I just want to say this was an excellent presentation and I really appreciate, I think the staff, you all have done a very responsible thing by bringing this proposal forward. You are setting us up for the future and that's your job to be looking at all options. But I wanted to just have you, you discussed a few things in this last bullet. We well, we've talked a lot about the state and federal policy changes and I'm certainly one that's I'm quite upset and outraged by what's coming down the pike, particularly from the federal government, but I'm not going to go there right now. I just wanted to talk about sort of our obligations, and you mentioned the jail.

I know that's not before us in terms of any policy changes on the expansion, but can you just review what your comments were and how that might impact

CommentBrittany OdermanProposedself-stated1:22:02

Thank you Chair Capps, I'm sorry Supervisor Capps. I did mention the Marie versus County of Santa Barbara stipulated judgment. This is the case that is requiring a And expansion to the northern branch jail. And so those pods that we are proposing to build are a requirement of that stipulated judgment. And so we are under obligation, the county, to do something.

Is that what you're referring to? Thank you.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 9Proposed1:22:34

Yeah, I mean, I just, again, just, I'll just, the nature of my question is what I'm hearing as this has come forward is just the pushback from my constituents. Some of them are, you know, you don't need to do this. It's better to look at other areas related to the Sheriff's Department over time, etc. So I just, it's, I would love to get into it and we can do that in deliberations of, is this the only option? Can we be looking at other areas?

And how do we do that? What's the mechanism by which we do that as a board? I don't really understand. I don't really know. But it does feel as though the pressure from the Sheriff's Department is a significant factor for the reason why this proposal is before us. And the need to expand the Northern Branch Jail. It's no surprise. It's been well established that Supervisor Hartmann and I are at the lower end of that expansion. Others are elsewhere. That discussion is not one that we can reopen at this point, but I do believe it's fundamental to this conversation.

So that's the nature of my question.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed1:23:50

All right. Supervisor Hartmann.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed1:23:53

Yeah, I think I have two questions. One is, what are the assumptions about capital improvement and infrastructure in what you're presenting in the five-year forecast? And then, Some people suggest that our retirement benefits will have paid off a lot of our pension obligations, I think by 2031, and the five-year would give us a bridge. I'm just wondering how much we're expecting, and then, you know, what is our current, is it 7.5, or there's always assumptions that they want to reduce that.

Great. So, could you fold that into the discussion a bit?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 4Proposed1:24:47

Supervisor, through the chair, let me try to start in response to your questions and I'll have Mr. Clemente fill in the gaps. You talked about capital. So, as you know, last year we had to make the painful decision of coming to your board and not funding general fund capital projects. We split the list in half, I believe. This year's preview is we've been working with the departments. I don't think we'll have any general fund dollars to spend on capital projects this year, so they're going to be coming to you talking about what special fund revenues they're funding, but not general fund.

The board has done a great job over the last seven, eight years since Supervisor Adam was on the board of building up a deferred maintenance fund because we needed money for a lot of our deferred maintenance. So it's deferred capital maintenance and it's at about $16 million now. It's about $16.5 million now that the board is putting general fund towards. Our deficit projections still I have signaled to the board and to our staff that depending on how we solve the budget, that is somewhere that we would likely look to see if we need ongoing revenue.

That is on the capital. On the retirement, it is true that, again, because of the diligence of the SB CSRS Board and your board's policies, we have been able to pay down the great unfunded liability that accrued because of the Great Recession. And through the policies and maintaining continued funding, the SB CSRS Board expects that by 2031, 32, we have a significant savings across the county departments.

And Mr. Clemente can talk a little bit about that. But in general, that savings will help us and could help with this large deficit. But the problem we're seeing is that we can't figure out from here until there how we accrue enough money on ongoing revenue for these ongoing operations. And that's the issue. That's why when we were talking about this, Ms. Odomen talked about sales tax that we're proposing. We think it should only be five years because we believe there will be enough savings and we don't want to overburden our residents. Mr. Clemente.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 17Proposed1:27:04

That's correct, CEO Miyasato. To speak to the SB CSRS number, the 20-31-32, our projections, it should cut in half kind of the employer contribution at that time, which should be over $200 million. So as a county, we would expect a reduction potentially of $100 million or so. General fund contributions specifically that could save up to $35 million or more that we could reallocate to other uses. And then across all of those other special revenue funds and things, it is dependent on that fund and those aren't really as fungible, right? We couldn't pull it out and use social services revenue over in public works, things like that. So that's a little more unknown kind of What the savings by fund may be at that time. And we know our deficit is mostly driven in our health and human services funds.

So whether the savings at that time and those funds is enough to solve their problems that we're seeing in the deficit now is unclear. I'm not sure that it would be. But overall, it will be a significant savings to the county in 31-32.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed1:28:15

We hope.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 17Proposed1:28:16

We hope. But that depends on not

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed1:28:18

reducing the, is it 7.5

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 17Proposed1:28:21

now? It's 7%. And

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed1:28:23

there's talk of taking it down to 6.5 and then we can't have another recession or major problem. So it's an optimistic projection.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 15Proposed1:28:35

Can I answer a little bit of that? Yeah. It's always interesting to me that we take our five-year forecasts. Those are golden. Those are, you know, we have to make a lot of decisions based on what that five-year forecast is. It's an assumption. That's what it is. It's what we're hoping for. If you went back and looked five years in our past, we did not identify this issue.

So it's always interesting to me that we look at the SB CSRS projections, as those are some lofty, hopeful, We look at our five-year forecast and we're like, this is what we have to... So to me, it's like, forecasts are forecasts. This one, obviously, is not good. And we have to react to it. But regardless if there is a recession or if The numbers come down if there's pressure, and I don't believe that there is. The SB CSRS Board has gotten to the point where we've really de-risked the fund. We're not going to see the great returns that some other counties do that have a lot of money in the market. And so we've really reduced what the risk is.

We're not going to see these great returns, but we have positioned it to where it's a lot more stable. And I think it would be appropriate that if we do get to 2031, 2032, and there is a huge windfall, that some of that is also used to de-risk the fund even more, slightly. But it's not going to drastically reduce the $35 million, which I believe is going to be even higher than that.

So, I just kind of wanted to talk on the SB CSRS thing for a second. But I did have some other questions if it's

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed1:30:23

okay. You can keep

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed1:30:25

going. Yeah, no, no. Thank you very much for that. So, I think, you know, if we can get to 2031-32, things look much better, but we do have this issue for the next five years. But I just I'm I'm not saying it's a rosy assumption. I'm just saying it relies on certain assumptions. Let's be clear about what they are. All

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed1:30:47

right. Thank you, Supervisor Hartmann. Supervisor Lavagnino.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 15Proposed1:30:51

Thank you. So I just want to look at first off, I do I want to I want to follow up on Supervisor Capps that this is what staff supposed to do. This is awesome. This is there's a problem out there. Let's provide the Board with some options. We don't all agree on what options we're gonna go, but that's what you guys are supposed to be doing. And so I really appreciate the fact that, you know, I had even some constituents, why are you guys even talking about this? This is what we're supposed to be doing. We're supposed to be weighing all the options.

And thank you for bringing this forward. So, because I think it gives us a chance to really look at this from a bunch of different angles. I guess my question is, I wanna make sure that I'm getting this math right for me. And that is, so if we'd look at just general fund only, so over the five-year forecast, I think it's a $26 million cumulative hole.

1:31 – 1:3918 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 17Proposed1:31:50

Supervisor Lavagnino through the Chair, that is correct in the general fund only, I think our five-year forecast by the fifth year had an annual ongoing $26 million.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 18Proposed1:32:00

And so the general fund is a little over $400

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 15Proposed1:32:03

million, correct, a year?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 17Proposed1:32:07

The discretionary general fund revenue that we receive, yes.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 18Proposed1:32:13

So over five years, that's $2 billion, correct?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 17Proposed1:32:20

Yes, if you're talking about it in the annual that you bring in, yes, but then I would say that that ongoing number we're talking about, $26 million or it starts off $17 million in year two, you'd want to add those up each year as well to get you probably close to

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 18Proposed1:32:35

$100 million.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 15Proposed1:32:36

Okay, so you get to $100 million. So really what we're talking about, if we take general fund and non-general fund separate, is we're talking about maybe a $100 million hole inside of a $2 billion universe.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 17Proposed1:32:51

That's probably accurate to state it that way, yes.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 15Proposed1:32:54

So the reality is, I mean, a $26 million hole over five years for the size of our county, for general fund, is very manageable. It's doable. We can, there's ways to figure that out. Now I know we have this 800 pound gorilla behind us, which is the big beautiful bill and what that did to us. But I want to talk about just the general fund for a moment, because quite honestly, This board's taking heat for, oh, you guys are in a financial crisis. Well, we're not in a financial crisis.

This county, with what we control, we're not in a financial crisis. It's a $26 million hole over five years. That's doable. The problem is we have a lot of people out there that rely on the services that come from federal programs, managed by the federal government, Funded with federal dollars, and they decided to turn off the spigot. So now we're left holding the bag of what do we do at this point? Do we walk away from all these people that use our services?

Or do we figure out a way to backfill it? And that's what we're really talking about today. So I just wanted to make sure I had that right about general fund, non-general fund. I've got a lot of comments, but I do want to hear from public comment. Again, I appreciate staff bringing this to us. I think it was well presented. I think you guys did the right thing and went out and did the polling.

To me, a poll as a plus or minus of eight, if any of us, and I know, you know, we only have so much money to spend on a poll and so much time. But yeah, if we did this, we would be looking at this like, okay, I don't know what this is really telling me. I'm going more off of what I'm hearing just from my constituents. So I will wait to hear from the public, and then I'd be happy to talk about. And I do think we need to have this discussion, all of this. Sheriff's Overtime, SPSRS, We have a fully funded strategic reserve that is $48 million in there. At the same time that we have that, staff was able to find an additional $50 million that we could put towards a down payment on the jail.

I don't know any other county or city that's in a position like that that can go out and find a huge down payment like that without even getting into their strategic reserve. So I think we're in an excellent position. If we hadn't been delivered this steaming, I'll leave it there. And I'm interested to hear from the public.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed1:35:42

All right. Thank you, Supervisor Lavagnino. I've got a few questions before we head to general comment. I know the issue of potentially looking at the $16.5 million that we're spending on deferred maintenance in the county might be on the chopping block. We already have a deferred maintenance backlog in our county, right, of significant hundreds of millions of dollars, right, and any reduction of that would just mean increasing that backlog, right, and so basically it would be essentially debt financing.

Yeah, we're not spending the dollars today, but in the future it will probably be more, is that correct?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 17Proposed1:36:18

Chair Nelson, that would be correct. If we weren't putting annually any amount into deferred maintenance, that backlog would grow and likely be more costly down the line.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed1:36:28

And I want to acknowledge that I understand that we are in a difficult position. And I do want to also acknowledge our budget team and our CEO's office because I go around throughout the state talking about what a great job that they do. I talk about it, various local Meetings where people are typically down on the county. I talk about how it's a really false narrative there that we're so fiscally irresponsible. You know, I think there's a lot to be proud of. I think this board and past boards have really tightened their belt. I think there's few counties in the state that are in as better position as we are. That doesn't mean that we're not in a great position. We still have struggles here and that's why this is before us. So I just kind of want to acknowledge that.

The other thing that I want to acknowledge for the public that I hear a lot is that, you know, we have this huge deficit. We have a huge deficit if we don't change our behavior, right? So we have to have a balanced budget, right? We don't get to have ongoing deficits. That's not how it works, the County Budget Act. We don't get to print money like the federal government.

or borrow unlimited monies like the state government and you know so we have some different fiscal realities or I like to call fiscal physics that we have to deal with. So I just kind of want to set that as part of where we're at financially. I know there's some challenges ahead of us. I think we're going to be looking at various ways to solve the problem and plug the holes.

Meanwhile trying to move the county forward. But I want to take it from a little bit different perspective when we're looking at this tax specifically, especially how it has to do with the unincorporated areas because that's something that I'm you know really near and dear to my heart as someone who represents the largest amount of unincorporated area of population in the county, someone who feels that his constituents that are often underserved by county services.

Do we have an idea right now of about the revenue that's generated from the unincorporated areas for sales tax, property tax, franchise fees. Do we know that number?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 4Proposed1:38:19

I don't know if we know for property tax, but remember, it's a good question that you raised, because sales tax, the only sales tax we get is the Bradley Burns, the 1%, and that is only generated in the unincorporated areas. So just something to remember, people talk about sales tax. I ask my staff, tell me where you shop, and I bet you it's not in the unincorporated area, unfortunately. So just from our sales tax. On property tax, I don't, Mr. Clemente, do we have an idea in the unincorporated area?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 17Proposed1:38:48

I don't off the top of my head have an idea of property tax generated unincorporated versus incorporated and then even more granular specific. I mean I can talk to the auditor controllers office. I'm sure we can pull up, pull together kind of general by area numbers like that.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed1:39:03

Yeah, so and those are in like franchise fees. We probably don't know what those are necessarily for the incorporated areas or maybe it's the whole franchise fee amount which is.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 17Proposed1:39:12

It's roughly four, four and a half million I want to say countywide.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed1:39:16

And the reason I bring up those different revenue sources is like if you're a city and you're trying to fund municipal services, those are the things you look at to fund your municipal services. And then when you want to have more municipal services, you go out and get a sales tax to do more things. Do we know how much money we spend on municipal services in non-incorporate areas?

Can we pull that out separately?

1:39 – 1:4923 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 17Proposed1:39:39

That's likely something we can do maybe at a high level because certain departments that we have, Public Works and CSD, P&D, those types of things are kind of only operating in the unincorporated area. So we could look at their budgets as a whole versus some of those public safety and HHS ones that are really providing a countywide service.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed1:40:00

And my greater point is that Paul and I are probably the people in the county that probably know those numbers the best when it comes to that, and we both would have a hard time figuring out what those things are. And so the reason why I make that a point is that, you know, the sales tax potentially is proposed on unincorporated residents. All the cities that have above a 7.75% sales tax, are any of them using the amount above to pay for countywide services?

CommentBrittany OdermanProposedself-stated1:40:29

Chair Nelson, not that I'm aware of. I would guess the answer is no. And so that's kind of,

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed1:40:35

I ask these questions, they're somewhat rhetorical, right, but I'm just trying to frame the conversation about what I hear from my constituents and I'll get into that a little bit more deliberations, but I think that You know, there's two things going on here. You know, there's, there's, there's, you know, taxes going to the services that the, that's from its generation. And then there's also this county wide problem that we have.

So I'll get a little bit more into deliberations, but that was kind of something I wanted to frame part of this conversation around. So Supervisor Capps.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 9Proposed1:41:05

Yeah, you just reminded me of something that I hear from my constituents. One, one question. So when we bail out the Sheriff's Department on overtime, does that come from our general fund?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 17Proposed1:41:17

Supervisor Capps, through the chair, yes, it does.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed1:41:22

Supervisor Hartmann.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed1:41:25

Just exploring, if there were a tax that the benefits were just for the unincorporated area and collected just from the unincorporated area, how would you think about that?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed1:41:38

So I've had that conversation with my constituents quite a bit, and I think this is more of a deliberations, but, you know, I think the first step is showing to the unincorporated area that they're already getting their tax dollars. I mean, that's the first exercise, because I think there's a lot of people in the unincorporated area that feel like they're neglected from county government.

And so that's the first, is proving to them that they're not with their existing tax dollars before you ask them for more.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed1:42:03

So not now?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed1:42:06

I think it'd be difficult. Supervisor Lavagnino.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 15Proposed1:42:09

Thank you. Paul, I want to go back to, and I don't know if you have this because it's not really part of this discussion, but I feel like it's going to have to be, and it's something we'll probably talk about during workshops and everything, but I think all of this ties in together and that is on the jail funding. So I think we're anticipating, last I heard, that the jail was going to be somewhere at one and a half, it was going to be like 160,

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 18Proposed1:42:31

maybe something like that. I believe 165 million

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 15Proposed1:42:33

was

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 18Proposed1:42:33

the number. Okay.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 15Proposed1:42:34

So, I know we, the way we say it is, so if we put 50 million down, so we're financing, you know, 115 or whatever, so then we always talk about how much that we would save, we would save 3.7 annually. Is that all interest or are we counting Because what I'm trying to look at is, what I'd really like to see is a chart that says, okay, if we put 50 million down, here's what the payment's going to be. If we put 40 million down, here's what the payment will be.

30. Because, I mean, the way I'm seeing this, I think it's, again, I think staff's doing the right thing. You want to present what would be the smartest thing to do. And the smartest thing to do, as anybody who knows who's buying a house or a car, is you put as much down as you can possibly afford, and you make the payments lower. 99% of the time I would agree with that.

When you're super cash poor at the time, and you have other things that need to be done, I'd really like to see what it does look like, because, I mean, I think we all agree that 2031 it could get better, and maybe we'll have the resources at that time to better fund, you know, a debt service payment, And that money could be better spent in the next two or three years here.

And I don't know what that decision is, but it's something I feel like I need to make a really informed decision better of how that really looks and how much is actually being saved. Because again, we're saving it in this year's dollars. I mean, down the road dollars, we're talking about $3 million, but in eight years from now, is that really going to make that much of a difference? So I guess that's something I just need a chart on or something.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 4Proposed1:44:34

Supervisors, we can provide that chart and actually if Mr. Clemente, I know he's prepared that, if he could even figure out how to get it on a slide and put it to the board, we could show it today. He's worked on it and so maybe someone can help from our office assist in doing that. I think that's a good question and that's one that we've talked about was For whatever cash you have, given that we have this issue now, how can you distribute that cash in a way since we know we'll have more money? I think what Mr. Clemente's chart, could you put your chart up on how that would work? I think the issue that we're facing as staff is that we see an ongoing deficit, and you're right, it's not all in the general fund. And heretofore, the board has been split on whether we backfill state and federal programs that have lost funding.

But when we look at this cumulative deficit, what Mr. Clemente is showing is annual, the annual deficit. So even if we do use the $50 million, and let's say we just use it over two years, we're still saying we're still going to be, because it's using one-time money for an ongoing problem, our concern is that that ongoing concern doesn't go away. And so that, great, we could maybe solve it in the first year, and then in the second year maybe half of it, but in the third, fourth, fifth, It just grows because you haven't solved it. And I just want to, I think that's the issue. It's the trade-off of what we would be looking at.

And maybe because history is a lesson, I was looking back in the last few days about when I got here. I've been more reflective, as you know, looking about what's happened. In 29-2010, the county was facing a $19 million deficit, and it was trying to solve it, very tough choices, using some cuts, but also a lot of one-time money. In 2010-2011, that grew to $40 million. In 2011-12, that grew to $72 million. So I think Chair Nelson's right about structural changes that we're gonna have to think about and make, and we're just concerned about using any one-time money as a bridge when we see that it's growing.

And that's why staff is trying to present all options to the board.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 15Proposed1:46:37

And I totally understand that and appreciate it. And I think that's very well stated. I wanted to add that I didn't feel, I wasn't trying to say that without any cuts or without any changes, I just think we have an asset there right now that has to be part of the conversation and along with some structural changes and some cuts. So maybe soften those a little bit with some of this.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed1:47:00

All right, thank you Supervisor Lavagnino. Anything from staff before we go to public comment? All right, Madam Clerk, let's go to public comment.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed1:47:09

Chair Nelson and members of the board, we have six requests to speak from the public on this item. We are going to remain here in Santa Barbara and start with begin with Laura Robinson to be followed by Lawrence Severance. Laura?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed1:47:20

And before Laura speaks, we're going to go ahead and close public comment on this item.

CommentLaura RobinsonProposedself-stated1:47:24

Good morning, Chair Nelson and the Board. My name is Laura Robinson, Executive Director of SEIU Local 620, representing the public employees who deliver the safety net services our community relies on every single day. I'm here today because the county is unfortunately facing a significant deficit driven primarily by federal funding cuts, cuts that target the most vulnerable residents and whose consequences fall squarely on the local workforce and the people they serve.

Social services, public health, and other core programs are already bracing for reductions that will directly affect children, families, and seniors, those who rely on essential support to survive. The proposed sales tax increase for the unincorporated area is not a perfect solution, and it is not the only solution, but it is one of the few immediate available tools to prevent deep service reductions and the loss of workers that provide those services.

These are the people who process emergency benefits, conduct child welfare investigations, protect public health, and keep our communities functioning in times of crisis. I also want to highlight that the county does have other funding options. Future allocations, particularly those set aside for long-term jail-related costs, could be redirected to address this urgent need. When the crisis is happening now, our response must happen now. We cannot afford to protect future projects at the expense of today's essential services.

This is not a one path forward only moment. We need to pursue every reasonable approach available because this is temporary. The federal government will stabilize, funding will be restored, and we do have an unfunded actuarial pinch and windfall coming in the future. Right now, we just need to tread water and make it through. So we need to look at revenue solutions, strategic use of reserves, and reallocation of funds where appropriate. The sales tax measure is one critical piece of the broader strategy. I'm asking you to approve this measure and give voters the opportunity to decide.

Our community deserves the chance to protect the services that hold the safety net together. Our workers deserve a chance to keep doing the jobs that keep the county running. Please make the decision to move this forward. The need is immediate and impact is real and the consequences of inaction will be felt by every resident who depends on these programs. Thank you.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed1:49:43

Thank you Laura. We will remain in Santa Barbara. Our next speaker is Lawrence Severance to be followed by Karen Hauenstein. Lawrence.

1:49 – 1:566 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 19Proposed1:49:55

Good morning Chair Nelson and Supervisors. I'm Larry Severance, resident here in Santa Barbara. I support the sales tax idea for the county. Although it would be in the county, unincorporated, it affects all of us. And we have a serious budget gap. I noticed in the comments from supervisors and also in the presentation, there was talk of cost reductions and cost of looking at options. And I'm here to talk about one of the options that I think now is a time you should also incorporate into your thinking.

The jail is planned to house one and a half housing units, and that was passed in April before this board asked for a study of diversion possibilities that could reduce the jail population and reduce the size of the needed beds. That study was carried out by the CCP. I'm a member of CLU Santa Barbara. We were involved as participants in the public in that work, and the board received that report in December outlining specific diversion alternatives that could reduce the size of the jail.

The timing of the budget crisis caused by the federal government suggests that you could defer one half of that housing unit for at least five years, and the savings on that deferred building could be applied to meet the budget gap that the sales tax itself will not meet. And the question then is, do we need that half unit in the long term? Well, if you look at the alternatives, the diversion alternatives that have been offered, and you project how those could have an impact, it may be that we don't need that extra half housing unit. The projections that the population expert made were over 10 years, there would be 60 additional beds needed. Well, there's solutions right now to reduce those beds well beyond 60.

There's concern about the Murray case and I've heard that mentioned. I've submitted written public comment today attached to which is a copy of the letter plaintiffs counsel in the Murray case sent to the board in 2023. It is very clear that they are not mandating building more beds as the solution to addressing the marine case requirements. Frankly, plaintiff's counsel, we have inquired whether they would consider updating their position on that because I think it is a struggle the Board is having whether They have to follow a mandate in the Murray case and their hands are tied, or whether or not. My ask to you is that you ask your staff to update the cost comparison between 1.5 units and One unit, and take into account operational costs, financing, and the initial expense.

And I think the public and yourselves would benefit from knowing those numbers as you consider options. Thank you very much.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed1:53:18

Thank you, Larry.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed1:53:19

We will now go to Karen Hauenstein, then we will go to Zoom with Maureen Earls. Karen?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 16Proposed1:53:29

Good morning again. Chair Nelson and the board. Deficits in this county are reduced when the county stays in its lane. You're talking about using this increase in sales tax for housing. The county should not even be considering owning and building housing for its residents. This county should be allowing The different systems that are in place to build housing that can be owned by citizens and residents inside the county.

The fact that the county, under your stewardship, Joan, in our area, has disallowed for owned structures to be built in the Lompoc Valley to such an extent and then is now asking for a sales tax that they eventually want to use to fund housing. That's socialism. And we the people don't want that. We want to own our own homes. We want to be able to identify with owning and living in our own homes, not have to subscribe to socialistic networks And have the county own us, okay?

So the county should be staying in its lane and not focusing on trying to compete in the housing market at all. How about that? It's going to bring down our deficit. But the other issue of whether or not we're going to be able to live without expanding our jail You got to look at your state government leaders because they saddled you with a big ask, and that's SB43 and Proposition 1.

When the trigger gets pulled on that, it's going to be statewide, and the people who are being conserved are not going to go voluntarily. They're going to have to be wrapped up and incarcerated. And that is the reason why you have to expand your jail or you're not going to be able to handle the impact of SB43 and Proposition 1. So talk about that in reality.

You're not going to be able to live without it, without expanding the jail. Thanks, Governor Newsom.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed1:56:22

Thank you, Ms. Hauenstein.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed1:56:24

We will now go to Zoom with Maureen Earls to be followed by Angelina Detemonte. Maureen?

1:56 – 2:037 turns

UnidentifiedSupervisor LavagninoProposed · by introduction1:56:38

Can you hear me?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed1:56:39

Yes, we can, Maureen. Please proceed.

UnidentifiedSupervisor LavagninoProposed · by introduction1:56:42

Thank you. Good morning, Supervisors. I'm Maureen Earls. The Santa Barbara County is facing a significant budget crisis, and the board is discussing potential revenue measures, including a sales tax, to protect essential services. At the same time, the board is considering the size of the North Branch jail expansion, one of the largest and most consequential capital and operating commitments in the county budget.

In December, the board accepted a jail population reduction report, identifying that actions can safely reduce the jail population, including early legal representation and ensuring that people who have already been court ordered into community treatment or residential programs are not left waiting in jail due to system delays. The board has also received a public defender staffing report documenting that Santa Barbara County does not meet state workload standards.

That report shows how insufficient staffing causes court delays that keep people in jail weeks or months longer than necessary, harming individuals and creating avoidable costs for the county. Taken together, these two reports show that a significant portion of the jail population is driven by delay rather than public safety need. And that funding and implementing these recommendations would reduce jail population enough to avoid building the additional 0.5 jail unit, saving what will ultimately cost $147 million. We ask the board to direct staff to return with only one versus one and a half North Branch jail expansion budget.

That size is not Clearly not required by the Murray case. And we ask that that budget explicitly incorporate updated jail population reduction estimates from the board-accepted recommendations, including early representation, public defender staffing to state standards, and timely placement into court-ordered community programs. As the county considers potential tax increases and service reductions, we also ask you to present the option in a report to fund these proven reductions instead of the unnecessary jail capacity, costing us eventually $147 million, which is the fiscally and responsible, less harmful path forward. Thank you.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed1:59:41

And we will now go to Angelina Datamonte to be followed by Gail Osherinko. And for our speaker, Angelina, we did get a request for an extended time due to an ADA requirement, and the chair has allotted four minutes. So, Angelina, you will have four minutes to speak.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 20Proposed2:00:04

Good morning, board.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed2:00:05

Can everyone hear me? Yes, we can. Please proceed. Thank you.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 20Proposed2:00:13

Good morning, Chair and members of the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors. I am making public comment today to share my clear and firm opposition to any proposal to raise taxes or to place a ballot measure imposing a 1% transaction and use tax in the unincorporated areas of Santa Barbara County. This proposal is not only ill-conceived, it's fundamentally regressive.

A sales tax increase disproportionately harms those who can least afford it. Working families, seniors on fixed income, and small businesses are already struggling under the weight of rising prices in one of the most expensive counties in California. For a board that often speaks out about an affordability crisis, endorsing another consumer tax directly contradicts that message and worsens the very crisis you claim to address.

To make matters even worse, the State of California is moving towards implementing a mileage tax, another regressive form of taxation that will unfairly penalize commuters, rural residents, and working families who must rely on their cars to get to work, school, or essential services. Between the record fuel taxes, vehicle registration fees, sales tax, and now a proposed mileage tax, residents are being squeezed from every direction. Adding a local 1% sales tax on top of these burdens is economically reckless and morally indefensible.

Real leadership means confronting the root of the problem. The county's unfunded liabilities and unsustainable spending Not passing those costs on to taxpayers through endless layered tax schemes. California residents, and Santa Barbara County residents in particular, are among the most heavily taxed in the nation. Asking them to bear more tax in order to fix structural budget issues is a failure of fiscal leadership.

Before demanding more revenue from the people, the county must earn their trust through fiscal responsibility. Conduct an independent audit of all departments to identify inefficiencies, duplication, and waste. Undertake a line-by-line review of the budget to eliminate unnecessary expenditures. Explore public and private partnerships to reduce pension liabilities and improve service efficiency.

Tax increase should be the last resort, not the first reflex of government unwilling to reform itself. Raising taxes is not leadership, it's avoidance. I urge you to demonstrate real courage by voting no on any proposed 1% transaction and use tax increase, and no on placing such measure on the ballot. The hardworking taxpayers of this county deserve transparency, accountability, and sound management, not another punitive and regressive tax layered on top of the state's impending mileage tax.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

2:03 – 2:097 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed2:03:25

And we will now go to Gail Osharenko, who is our final speaker on this item. Gail.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 21Proposed2:03:35

Chair Nelson, members of the board, thank you for this opportunity to speak about a complicated issue. I'm generally quite supportive of what Laura Robinson said. I'm generally not one to like regressive taxes, and I don't know what the solution ultimately will be because We really cannot afford to lose essential services and the things that most benefit those who are in the biggest trouble in our county, which includes the homeless.

We think there are about half of the people in the jail. Maybe not half, 44%, something like that, who came in homeless. We hope that they aren't going to go out and be homeless, but I'm not sure. I totally agree with what Larry Severance said and Maureen Earles, so I don't need to go over that. I do want to tell you that this is a quote from Don Stemmen from an article in July of 2017, The Prison Paradox, More Incarceration Will Not Make Us Safer, comes out from the Vera Institute of Justice. A lot of material you should read from them. It says, research consistently shows that higher incarceration rates are not associated with lower violent crime rates.

I think some of you know that because you've approved a set of measures that would help us to reduce the numbers in the jail. We have a lot of people who do not represent a risk to the community if they were released on some kind of diversion program or probation. There are many ways to reduce the numbers in the jail and the length of time they are left there. Jails do not actually address the problems of people with serious mental illness, and we have quite a few of them in the jail, and they get worse when they're there, even when we've done these behavioral health units, which are definitely an improvement. I recognize that in order to close the main jail in South County, except for all but the beds at the IRC, the Intake and Reception Center.

So all but about 116 beds. We probably are going to need one housing unit addition up in the North Branch Jail. And then we should stop at that and really get these measures working that help to get people out of jail and get them the help they need. And we need the programs that we have and we need Probably more programs, definitely more acute and subacute mental health beds, which, by the way, are locked beds.

So that's what I wanted to say. Would you go back and give us the numbers that Larry asked for, if you look at if you only build one housing unit, about 256 beds?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed2:07:04

Thank you, Gail. That is your time.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed2:07:06

Yeah, thank you. Thank you.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed2:07:08

And that concludes public comment on this item.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed2:07:11

All right, we're back to the board for deliberations. Yeah, let's go ahead and take a five-minute break, all right? Okay, we're gonna take a five-minute break, come back for deliberations. Welcome back. We are still on departmental item number one. Just returning after public comment. We don't need to get back in the record. We can just get started. Is that right?

Okay, so we're down to deliberations on this item. And Supervisor Hartmann, I'll let you lead it

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed2:07:58

off. I have some questions for us. I guess first a statement. And to talk about this, we need to talk about our bigger budget. We can't put blinders on. So I guess I would start by saying that I don't think we should take money out of our strategic reserve. I believe we need that money in case we have an emergency. And we don't know what we could depend on from the federal government even before it takes a long time.

So that money, I think we have to hold. So then the next question for me is, well, we've had a policy that we don't backfill social services, health and human services. We're going to have to do it, I mean, at the federal level, they're really taking apart the New Deal Great Society programs. We do have an obligation to serve the indigent. That infrastructure has been dismantled and we still have that obligation, so we're going to have to figure out how to do that.

meet that obligation, both legally, but in terms of just being humane. So, I mean, the first question for me is, do we backfill? If not, how do we look ourselves in the mirror? And if we do, then how? So that's kind of where I'm starting.

2:09 – 2:2214 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed2:09:47

All right that's a bigger discussion and so I think that's definitely hanging over all of our heads through this discussion. You know some of this is focused to this you know are we going to move forward with this sales tax today and put that on the ballot to see if the voters want to do that or not. So While I appreciate what you're saying and I think that it's a discussion that we're going to be having in our budget workshops and we're going to be having with I think our next update. I think there's a couple more times that the CEO's office is going to bring this to us over the next two or three months.

I think this is going to be one of the more intense conversations. I think even those who came today in public comment to talk about the jail and how that impacts it, I think that that's going to probably come up again. Seems to always come back up every couple of months. So, you know, and I just wanted to say about that, you know, because I think that that that is something that kind of is hanging over our head is, you know, it was kind of said that, you know, obviously Supervisor Capps and Supervisor Hartmann kind of on one side on a pad, you know, maybe Supervisor Lavagnino on the other. None of us want to spend money on a jail. I mean, that's none of us want to do that. That's not anything anybody's excited about on this board.

I do think that we're looking at different We're interpreting it differently on this board and I think that's where we're coming to some different conclusions on what that means from there. So, you know, I do appreciate what you're saying Supervisor Hartmann, but I also, we do need to try to land this today on where we're going to go with this item.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed2:11:26

I understand, but how do we land it if we don't know what we have to pay for? I mean, if we're just looking at general fund, I think Supervisor Lavagnino laid out a really good analysis, but If we're trying to think what are we going to do about child welfare, child protection services, I think we can't let that go. We would face huge lawsuits. It would be much more, the risk is huge, and I don't think we can afford that. Thank you.

What are we going to do with what we have to support with this budget?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 4Proposed2:12:37

Supervisors, I'm Supervisor Hartmann for the chair. You're right, those are the difficult decisions ahead and just because of timing of when we had to bring this. But Mr. Clemente and I talked to the break and he wanted to clarify something about the just to the general fund deficit. Because you're right, over five years, 23 million dollars, we could handle it. But we're seeing that hit not next year, but the following year.

So we need to have a solution earlier and you could make cuts in your general fund departments of $23 million, $26 million. You can always make cuts anywhere and we're just, those are going to be painful trade-offs for all of you. Public safety is our largest general fund expenditure and there's lots of complications about things we must do in that and then a lot of the community serving Services are in the general fund, you know, our CSD director is here as well. So we just know that they're going to be difficult choices and you know that more than anybody, but I just want to remind you that is not just something we get spread over five years, that is hitting us not next year, but the following year. And what is the amount?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 17Proposed2:13:41

CEO Miyasato, I believe it's about $17.5 million of that $26 million general fund deficit. $17 million of it was projected for year two.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 4Proposed2:13:51

So it's just to say these decisions are going to be coming up not just for, as Supervisor Hartmann talked about, the board's desire or policy about what we backfill, but also your immediate community services.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed2:14:04

Understood. Supervisor

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed2:14:07

Lee. So I agree with Joan's points and they were great. So the way I think about sales taxes, why should we spend our reserves while we could possibly build upon it in case of disaster happens in Orchid, Santa Maria, Guadalupe, that we need more funding for to help those individuals that's in need. So just think about this, right? We have more money in place, something happens. Because right now I see that you're optimistic and I'm happy that you see that, but even I can't see that, and I'm proud of the most.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed2:14:40

You're an optimistic guy. I am. Very.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed2:14:43

I want to see your point of view, but I

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 22Proposed2:14:44

can't. Okay. So we have to give. I'll give you the pessimistic part here in a minute.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed2:14:52

Good. Supervisor Capps and then Supervisor Lavagnino.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 9Proposed2:14:56

Yeah, I mean, I just, we'll throw into the equation here. It's not necessarily just about what we want. It's, this has to pass the voters. And these numbers aren't strong. I think it's a legitimate case that's been put forward, absolutely. If you look at the comparisons, we're significantly lower, the county taxes at 7.75. So there's a very legitimate case to be made to increase.

The need is there. And I'm just going to go back to my initial questions of where I hear out in the community, I'm just continually hearing about This overtime pay and to use a metaphor that our CEO uses of being the lighthouse, we have a leaky boat and we are facing strong storms. But I don't know, you know, the question gets asked of me and I'm looking at more senior members of this board.

How do we fix a department that is taking from the rest of the departments? I mean, I don't have the answer to that and I get asked that often. How do we keep funding a department, the Sheriff's Department, that is taking from the rest of the work that we want to do? It's not the entirety of the challenges that we face here, but it is a sizable reason why we're facing such headwinds. And so I think if we're looking at a sales tax, I'm not sure, I think a significant obstacle for that to pass would be The headlines that people continue to see about $21 million of overtime pay, about a huge northern branch jail expansion, about these continual problems with our Sheriff's Department that we would have to then defend.

And I don't know how to defend that. And again, structurally, I don't know how we fix that. It's a sincere question. I

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 15Proposed2:17:08

totally agree with you that that's an issue. And when you go out and you put something on the ballot, we don't get to, you know, we're not going to run a campaign supporting this. And I can tell you that's going to be one of the top five things that I think is standing in the way of this is that Headlines are headlines, and whether, I have a saying, when you're explaining you're losing, you know, I go to people, and I'll tell you what I'm hearing, and I know, and I talked to Supervisor Capps about this, and she's like, well, I'm not getting that in my district, but I'll tell you what I'm hearing right off the bat is, you guys just gave yourself a pay raise.

Now, trying to explain to people that, hey, this $200 million difference doesn't equate to what, you know, what we got, believe me, It's something you got to sit there and try to talk about. And when you're talking about, I mean, I had more than a handful of people brought that up just as their first thing. Well, wait a minute, you just got a pay raise and now you're asking me for more money. And I'm like, okay, well, it's a lot less, you know, try to explain, but I get it. You have the sheriff overtime stories, you know, in the paper.

Unfortunately, we just had the point where one up to the point where One, we had an arrest, you know, of a sheriff deputy. We don't like, it's not something we want to highlight, but believe me, anybody running against this thing is going to highlight that. You're in a June election, during a gubernatorial, most conservative time, in the most conservative areas in this county, Orchid, San Ynez, Montecito.

Even if I thought this was the right thing to do, I think it's dead on arrival. And honestly, it's the easiest way to do it to say, well, let's just increase the sales tax and we'll get $16 million. And I understand it's a $50,000 risk to try to get this. I know it's going to be extremely difficult to figure this out. And for the first time, workshop is going to be emphasis on work more than workshop because we're going to have to do a lot of work. This is going to take, these are going to be long meetings where we lay all this on the table because it is the jail. You know, now I'm sitting here going, hey, you know, How do we finance this? How do we, you know, how do we get more creative? This debt service chart I think was very helpful.

I got a couple questions about it. I'll talk to Paul after. We don't have to talk about it right now. But, you know, there are some other things out there. Spoke with Salud's office this morning. We talked about midterm year elections. How's that gonna affect next year's round of funding if, as I believe, You know, there might be a significant blue wave come in in November. Will that change what our government federal programs look like next year?

So we're gonna have to totally get creative, you know, and I know that there are folks, and I kind of thought this myself, of, well, the easy cop-out for me is, well, let's just let the people decide. You know, just toss it out there to the people. The reality is that we don't do that on everything. And so it's hard for me to say, okay, I want to let the people decide. But I didn't let the people decide on, you know, whether we were going to eliminate oil and gas. So we're not putting everything on the ballot. We just put this one on the ballot.

And so that's difficult for me. I think we are a really creative bunch with an awesome staff. You know, we've got this $50 million and we've got to figure out what's the best way to spend it. I agree with Supervisor Hartmann that I don't want to touch the strategic reserve because we've seen, I've seen how hard it is to get money out of the federal government when I thought we had a really more efficient federal government at the time. And in today's world, I'm not sure what a disaster would look like in this area. So, I can't vote for this now, but I am confident that with all of us putting our heads together, wanting to do the right thing, preserving the safety net as much as we possibly can, especially for kids, And funding our most critical services, while at the same time, as our CEO said, we're basically going to have to make some cuts.

There are some things that are going to have to structurally change. I don't know what those are, but there's a laundry list of things, again, that we do with this county that aren't mandated, that we need to really take a hard look at, that, you know, before I go to the people and tell them that we need more tax dollars, I need to make sure that Every department is maxed out on efficiencies, and we'll see that through the workshops. So I'm open to a lot of things.

I just don't think this is the right time for this one.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed2:22:32

All right. Thank you, Supervisor Lavagnino. Supervisor Hartmann?

2:22 – 2:3411 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed2:22:39

I guess if that's it, that's it. But I guess I'd still like to say that I don't think we should anticipate the campaign. I mean, I think let that take care of itself. I believe this is a decision, a financial decision that we're required to put to the voters, and I think it's of such significance to our county that we really have a duty to do that. I believe that with our current CEO, we have been pursuing more efficiencies throughout this county from the get-go, through Renew, through KPMG, through our IT. We've invested heavily, but we all know that there are other forces at work.

Inflation, the cost of workers' comp, cost of insurance, and things that the state doesn't cover for these state and federally mandated programs. So I think there is a case that we could make. I always come back to the right Thank you very much. Next year, that is 26, 27, 27, 28, that we really have a serious cliff, financial cliff. And I haven't heard anything about how we're going to deal with it.

And just to say we're creative and we can do it, I think it's going to be at a tremendous cost. And next year, we're going to be sitting here and it's going to be a lot worse. And I know our CEO has worked mightily to create one county, one future. But when you have few resources and we're not up here protecting the departments, we've really worked to create a lot of collaboration, a lot of Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

We risk losing that and I just want everyone to be mindful of those things that go along with the financial risk. So I do think that it would be appropriate to put this to the voters because I think once they understand the kinds of trade-offs we're going to be experiencing, they would have wanted that choice.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed2:26:14

All right thank you Supervisor Hartmann. Supervisor Capps.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 9Proposed2:26:18

Yeah I just I really appreciate Supervisor Hartmann your heartfelt comments and you know you make ones that I completely agree with. It takes four votes so it's clear we don't have it today. I will just say that I don't think this is I think that we can bring this back up. I do think a general election is probably a better time to do it. So I hope to be here to do this with you at some point.

But I just do think that one option I want to pursue is A more fiscally responsible Sheriff's Department and a smaller, less than 160 on the jail. And I'm repeating myself because it is that important to me. So I know that we have this item coming with the audit of overtime and I'm hoping it's coming with actual tangibles. of how this problem is going to be fixed so that we're not bailing out from our general fund. I mean, the numbers almost align. We have a $23 million deficit problem from our general fund.

The Sheriff's Department spent $21 million in overtime last year. There's an alignment there. So we have Again it doesn't solve it all but we need we have some obvious things to to tackle and that's my position right now knowing that we do not have the four-fifths vote that we need for again a very admirable solution that our CEO has put forward.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed2:27:59

Supervisor Lee and then I would like to make some comments as well.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed2:28:01

So Bob what is it going to take to for one of you to agree because Just tell me, because Steve, earlier you said you want to prove to your constituents that the tax dollars are working for them, and this is an opportunity for you to do that. For holding us accountable, all of us, to show that we are giving money and being fair, that's just not just the South County, but North County as well. That could be equal. This could be the opportunity that we show that there is, that there's not a divide. There's one county, one future. So thinking like that, Orchid, Santa Maria, all those North County could benefit from this, and they will.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed2:28:42

And I appreciate that, Supervisor Lee. And what I was saying earlier to Supervisor Hartmann was the fact that I think the unincorporated, just because I spent a lot of time in the corporate area, I have seven unincorporated communities, they already feel like they're not getting their share with what they already pay. I mean, that's what I keep hearing from them. It's a different conversation. That's why, you know, when we're having this conversations, I understand globally what's happening in the county. And I'm with you and I will be side by side with all of you as we try to make those cuts.

Maybe the Sheriff's Department, maybe other places. We're gonna have to look at the things that we're doing, but you know when you just tax this one set of constituents to pay for services, which isn't even legal by the way guys. I mean when we tax the unincorporated areas, it's supposed to be spent on unincorporated services, which the quiet, quiet thing out loud is that we're just gonna unfund unincorporated services and put, stick that somewhere else.

So, you know, that's what's happening here and I can't take that to my voters. You know, we have to, you know, show that we are giving them the municipal services that their tax dollars already, you know, deserve. And then I think at that point, I think you get, you build back trust with the voters to be able to approve those types of things. I think what we're looking for right here is really a countywide tax.

Because really all the needs that we're all talking about here are things that hit every one of our constituents, whether you live in a city or in a corporate area. But we're asking here separately as though we're asking one section of the county who feels the most underrepresented and the most underfunded to pay for the rest of the community. Is there

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed2:30:42

a way we can guarantee that money used from such a tax is only for unincorporated residents?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed2:30:48

What we could do, and this is what you would do, you would put a supplantion clause in here so that you would freeze funding on unincorporated areas and say all this money goes towards unincorporated areas. That would solve the budget problem.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed2:31:02

But you could build that trust that you're

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed2:31:04

looking for. Yeah, you could. That could be, and I, but I wouldn't do anything, that would be a different conversation. Love to have that conversation, love to sell that to the unincorporated residents. Hey, here's 17 million dollars of services beyond what you're getting right now. That's a great conversation to have in the future, love to have it, but that's not what we're having up here. Right now we're saying, unincorporated residents, we're going to ask you to pay for these additional services to fill the gap for county-wide services.

And I just don't think that that's a fair, you know, for my constituents. And again, that's why I can't support this today. Supervisor Lavagnino.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 15Proposed2:31:36

Yeah, I just want to respond to Supervisor Lee and I appreciate your desire really to, I think, you know, we're all feeling frustrated. We want to get there. You have to understand, first off, Bob and I represent areas that twice put on the ballot that they want to divorce Santa Barbara County. So you're talking to a different set of people than what you're used to talking to. So they've had it on the ballot twice. We have a lot of people who are not happy that they want to divorce us. That's where we're starting from. When they hear the county, first off, I think counties are being unfairly lumped in with the federal government right now. People are not happy, most are not happy with the way the federal government is working or not working, and their state government.

If we could go to everybody's door and have a 25-minute conversation with them, yeah, I could convince people if I sat down with them and go through this. Problem is, you don't have that opportunity. And so, you know, it goes back to the frustration in the 5th District and the 4th District of long-time items that we don't need to go through all of them, but they just have a mistrust of the county. Bob and I have done As much as we possibly can to try to roll that back and to get people back to where they can understand and respect what we're doing, and I think we've made significant strides there, but not enough to go back and right now ask for a tax increase in today's environment. So that's kind of what it comes down to. Do he and I think that the money would be well spent?

Yeah, I think we both do, that I think we are good stewards of the people's money, and I think it would be well spent. I just can't convince people that All of these people are just so hardened against government, and all the input that they're getting is not supportive of what we're doing. You know, people are waking up every day and watching the news and looking at their social media, and it's negative, negative, negative, negative, negative.

And it's just, it's an impossible sell. Supervisor Hartmann, I don't want you to feel like I'm just saying, hey, we're creative and we'll figure it out. I think there's options. I really do. I mean, if we had no money and we were facing this huge jail, we have $50 million at our disposal to try to help fix this. I don't want to spend it all backfilling. I understand it's one-time money. I know there has to be cuts, but it gives us a little leash, little, very little. To be able to look at what's the most important, but we can't, in today's environment, we cannot continue to fund all, everything that we're doing and everything that the federal government used to pay for with our limited resources. That's not the way this government was set up.

That's not what we're supposed to be doing. That's the federal government's responsibility. And yeah, there is a child that's probably going to not get all the services that they need. At the end of the day, That's on the administration, and they cut the funding. So we're going to do our best to try to mitigate that, but we can't fix all their problems.

2:35 – 2:4129 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed2:35:01

Supervisor Lee, and then I'm going to try to land this with some type of motion or no motion.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed2:35:05

Steve, I agree with you. North County is different from South County, but shouldn't we give people a chance to vote? Give them a voice, regardless of the North County, South County. Because I have some people from my district who agree with you, and some that do not. But I want to give them a chance to vote on this. If we pass today, there's no guarantee that it

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 22Proposed2:35:26

will pass, but at least we're giving people a chance. The problem is we just haven't been consistent in

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 15Proposed2:35:31

that. So my folks are like, well, how come we had Measure P, we voted on removing oil and gas, and we defeated that with 62% of the vote, and then you guys came back and just by fiat said we're gonna eliminate oil and gas. So they're like, we didn't get it, you didn't put that on the ballot, we didn't get a chance at that, and there's a number of those things along the line. But our job is, yes, to put some things in front of the public to vote on, But we're also, I think, I can guarantee you in my district, this would not pass. So, um...

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed2:36:08

Can I ask a question?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 15Proposed2:36:09

Sure.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed2:36:10

I mean, how many voters in your district How many unincorporated voters do you have?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 15Proposed2:36:16

Well, I don't have any unincorporated. That's true. I

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed2:36:17

have very few unincorporated. You don't have to face the voters on this.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 15Proposed2:36:22

Well, I'm not worried about facing the voters. I'm saying, what do the people of Santa Barbara County want or don't want? Do you really believe that if you go into Santa Ynez, that this ballot, that adding a sales tax is going to, the people of Santa Ynez are going to support this?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed2:36:37

Nobody wants to increase the tax, but you can't consider that in isolation. You have to look at what are the tradeoffs? What are we going to give up? And I'm worried about that one child because they're not going to blame the federal government. It's the county who's going to get sued.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 15Proposed2:36:59

Please don't act like I don't care about that one child.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed2:37:02

I

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 15Proposed2:37:02

care as much as you do, but I can't fix everything the federal government dropped on our doorstep.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed2:37:09

Right. I guess what I'm saying is that given what we're seeing at the federal level, the county's going to have to step up in new ways. We just have to. We can't ignore people suffering, and you'd be the first. You were the first.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 15Proposed2:37:30

I

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed2:37:30

think I stepped

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 15Proposed2:37:31

out there, and I

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed2:37:32

still am looking for

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 15Proposed2:37:33

creative solutions to do that, but you can't save everybody. That's not going to happen.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed2:37:38

No, but I think we have to leverage what we have. We have to reduce the risk that we can and explain this to the public.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 15Proposed2:37:48

When you're explaining, you're losing

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed2:37:49

it. I don't want to hear this. I'm an educator. I believe that we all have to explain all the time. I believe in democracy where we're always engaging with each other and talking and learning. But I want to make it really, really clear. You have the biggest heart and you care deeply about social services and they're very, very important in your district.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 15Proposed2:38:16

And I will do everything I can to keep those services running. I think, by the way, I think my district gets 52% of all the social services delivered in this county with only 20% of the population. So I know exactly, these are the folks that I represent that are going to be cut. And that's why it's so difficult for me. So I still think there are options available, and I'm going to be the first one to help work on those. But I don't think this is doable.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed2:38:47

I would

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 15Proposed2:38:48

call for the question.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed2:38:49

So I'm going to walk us through this for you in a second here. With all due respect, and again, thank you, Supervisor Lee and Supervisor Capps, do you want to make a quick... Okay. We probably have three votes to move it to the next meeting because you can actually move it to the next meeting with three votes, but it will take four votes to eventually get it on the ballot.

So we're kind of caught in here in between. I would prefer if we see the writing on the wall that there's not the four votes that we go ahead and take no action today. Because that means there's no vote on it. There's nobody voting for it or against it. Therefore, the staff doesn't have to go prepare this just to come back for it to die. And so for us to relitigate all this, I think our time will be better spent working on these solutions that we're talking about here. So it'd be my recommendation as a chair to take no action at this time. If I can get consensus and not nodding heads for my colleagues. Okay. And is staff okay with and council okay with no action at this time?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 4Proposed2:39:42

Supervisors, that's fine obviously, but if there's any other direction, and you don't have to give it today, but I would ask if the board is considering a November action, we'd have to get everything done by June, which isn't that far away, June or July, June, so just give us time, if you are considering to have us do something in November, please give us time to get that together. You don't have to give us direction today, but I'm just something for you to remember.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed2:40:08

And I think that's helpful because that will be a part of the discussion that we end up having in April and in May as we start to go through workshops. And at that point, if we make sense and there could potentially four or five votes to move forward the sales tax, maybe countywide, you know, that might be some discussion this board might be willing to have at that time. So with that, I'm going to go ahead and close that item. And I'm going to ask Madam Clerk if you could go ahead and read actually where we have a time time check here.

Okay, let's go ahead and hear item D2. So Madam Clerk, we read departmental item 2 into the record. And just for agenda management, those I think we'll go ahead in a closed session after department item number 2. So those of you that are here for department item number 3, which is general package ordinance with planning development, plan on being here after closed session. We're expecting about a 40-minute closed session for time management purposes.

So, please, Madam Clerk.

2:41 – 2:4714 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed2:41:07

Chair Nelson and members of the board, departmental item number two is sponsored by Supervisor Lee. It is a hearing to consider recommendations regarding a funding agreement with the City of Carpinteria for Carpinteria Bluffs Nature Preserve Improvement Project. And there is a four-fifths vote required on this item.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed2:41:24

All right. Welcome, Mr. Cooper.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 23Proposed2:41:30

Thank you. Good to be here. Mr. Chair. Supervisors, D2 is an item regarding funding for restoration of trails at the Carpinteria Bluffs and Rincon Bluffs Preserve. This is an area that's regionally significant. It's a coastal open space that's used by so many people, not just in the Carpinteria area, but throughout the South Coast. It's really an incredible place and these lands provide habitat protection for sensitive species, public recreational access, and it's a key part of the California Coastal Trail.

This funding will accelerate improvements like public access and safety. It'll restore native habitat and support long-term stewardship of the area. This is an $800,000 grant paid out in four $200,000 segments paid out annually. The city sends a written request and then we would make the installment payment and then they would send a written progress report and document the expenditures that are consistent with the goals laid out in the item.

This will assist with restoration of degraded trails, removal of invasive species. There's a lot of those that are coming through all the time now. Expansion of ADA accessible pathways, parking and public amenities, interpretive educational features, planning permitting, and stewardship strategy development. The city of Carp, as far as the coordination and oversight and accountability on the funds, the city of Carpinteria will coordinate improvements with the Carpinteria Open Space Management Advisory Board and the Land Trust for Santa Barbara County. And it occurs to me that I have neglected to, if you guys want to introduce yourself, I apologize. We have some partners here from the city of Carpinteria.

CommentNatalia AlarconProposedself-stated2:43:42

Hi, my name is Natalia Alarcon and I'm the Mayor of the City of Carpinteria. Hi, I'm Tori Cutforth and I'm the Program Manager for Parks, Recreation and Community Services Department.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 23Proposed2:43:52

Welcome. I apologize. Apologize for that. And yes, there will be annual reporting and this money will go to help preserve and allow access for an incredible, incredible part of our county that, like I said, is used by all kinds of folks. Were there any questions? Questions from the board? Supervisor Hartmann.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed2:44:19

As I remember back, initially this money was to go for acquisition, but I gather that that it doesn't go very far and there's the property isn't for sale and so it's not really available for that purpose. Is that correct?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 23Proposed2:44:35

Supervisor Hartmann through the chair. Essentially, yes, so this was an $800,000 sort of starter payment, if you will, to build a fund to acquire a parcel adjacent the parcels that were already acquired and the rest As the price sort of grew and grew and grew, it got beyond the capability of to fundraise that, and so our office, Supervisor Lee felt it was a great use of that funds to do the best that we possibly could with the area that had already been preserved.

And the partner that made the most sense for that was the City of Carpinteria is there. Parks and Rec is doing an amazing job right now with the space.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed2:45:22

All right, thank you. Sue Resoli.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 23Proposed2:45:24

Can we put the

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed2:45:25

picture back on the screen? And I know Steve and Bob will appreciate this, but if you look to the left, the pier is an oil pier. As a Chevron, yeah, Chevron leases it from the state, so I just want to highlight that. But this is, this is a great opportunity. You don't see this often, something really positive to preserve our open space and piece of the land that we fought so hard for, so have a great presentation.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed2:45:55

If I could, maybe CO staff could correct me if I'm wrong, but I remember some of these funds being set aside at the same time we set aside funds for, I think, the Goleta Hills or Forever project, right? As well as, I think at that point, we put $2 million aside for North County operations towards either acquisition or trail work, and I think Supervisor Hartmann's been able to tap into that for some of our sending as Valley Trail. This seems to be some of the same type of costs So even though that this was allocated originally for acquisition, it seems like it's very consistent with what we've done throughout the county with those dollars. Am I, Ms. Oderman, am I remembering that correctly?

CommentBrittany OdermanProposedself-stated2:46:31

Chair Nelson, that is correct. Back in 2021, some money was set aside for open space and trails. In the North County, it was $2 million, and in the South County, $1.5 million. And that money has subsequently been spent On the projects that you mentioned, and also I think, I don't know, you mentioned the Islet Vista Bluffs as well in the South County. There was some fund, a proposed, there was an allocation for that as well, so.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed2:47:01

So just for the public that might come in and see just this one area of the county that's been impacted. We've actually all been impacted by these dollars. They were all cannabis dollars. Got to give Supervisor Lavagnino that. I was

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 15Proposed2:47:11

going to ask that question, but yeah.

2:47 – 2:5011 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed2:47:16

But that was spread across the entire county. So when, you know, sometimes people see projects come to the county and they're like, wait, why are you guys doing that now? You know, we've got a parks project going on right now in my district and people are going, wait, you guys have a deficit and you guys are putting in lights. They just don't know that takes three or four years to actually happen. And that's what you're seeing here with these dollars where it's finally coming to fruition after multiple years of getting through a process and identifying a project. So just for the public information, back to the education, Supervisor Hartmann. Supervisor Lavagnino.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 15Proposed2:47:44

Yeah, and that's I mean, I'm in total support. I think a million and a half of that went to, was that out of the same time that we did the Santa Maria soccer fields? It was around that time. But, you know, and I am, I've also heard from constituents now, they're like, well, I thought you needed money and you spent a million and a half. Well, that came from 2020, 21. So, totally supportive, looks beautiful.

I'll be out there enjoying it. So, congratulations.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 23Proposed2:48:12

Excellent. Supervisor Lavagnino, through the chair, I think this might also fall into the category of grass for grass.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 15Proposed2:48:20

I'm not sure we're going to coin that as a phrase. That's not right up there with one county, one future, but yeah.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed2:48:26

Well, before we get into the deliberation, or CEO

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 4Proposed2:48:29

Miyasato? Just to confirm what you said, and this because the money was set aside as part of the set aside, it does need to be appropriated for a fifth vote today. And I do want to make the distinction that on some of the projects that we funded, And they're all open space and trails, et cetera. But most of them from Supervisor Hartmann, I think in your district as well, and for Supervisor Capps have been in the unincorporated area. And so it's very special, and I know Carp Maria knows that, that we typically don't fund these big projects in cities. We did Supervisor Lavagnino because at the time there was a lot of youth violence and we thought that was a good idea. So I'm just, I know Carp Maria, I know your city manager well, everyone's very appreciative in the partnership, but it's very rare that we would fund a large project in a city.

And Mona is going to be much more fiscally, a fiscal hawk as we go forward and recommend projects that we look discernibly at, but this was a commitment that was made several years ago.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed2:49:24

Okay, thank you. Thank you. Thank you, CEO Miyasato. Madam Clerk, do we have any public comment on this item?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed2:49:32

Chair Nelson and members of the board, we have no request to speak from the public on this item.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed2:49:36

Okay, so I think, I don't know, there needs to be much more deliberation. I think you got a lot of happy and supportive colleagues up here. So Supervisor Lee, would you like to make a motion on this?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed2:49:44

I do, and I want to say I really appreciate the support on this. It means a lot to the Carpenter community. Our blood is our sacred space, and for the county to support a city on this, it does strengthen our relationship. So with that, I move stag recommendation A through D. I'll second.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed2:50:02

Okay, so I've got a motion from Supervisor Lee and a second from Supervisor Lavagnino. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Motion passes unanimously. All right, thank you and congratulations. All right, we're gonna go ahead and recess for closed session. Would you please go ahead and read the agenda for closed session?

2:50 – 3:0314 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 24Proposed2:50:27

Thank you, Mr. Chair, members of the Board. The Board is scheduled to meet in closed session on one item of existing litigation, Anderson v. The County, which is a Santa Barbara County Superior Court case, and Conference with Labor Negotiators. All bargaining units, unrepresented employees, managers, and executives, and the agency designated representatives are CEO Miyasato and Human Resources Director Christine Schmidt. And the time estimate is one hour.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed2:50:52

Excuse me, is that long?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 24Proposed2:50:54

One hour.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed2:50:54

Okay, so it's set for one hour. It's noon right now. Let's go ahead and say that we'll be back at 1245 or be prepared to be back at 1245, but we will more likely be starting at one o'clock. But I want to make sure those in the public and staff are aware that if we get done sooner, we will get started sooner. Thank you. Welcome back to the February 3rd, 2026 meeting of the Board of Supervisors. Madam County Council, will you please read us back in from closed session?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 24Proposed2:51:39

Thank you, Mr. Chair, members of the Board. The Board met in closed session on one item of existing litigation, Anderson v. The County, and conference with labor negotiators for all bargaining units, unrepresented employees, managers, and executives, and the Board took no reportable action.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed2:51:53

Thank you. At this time, we'll go ahead and move on to our third and final departmental item. Again, I want to apologize for the public and staff for an extended closed session, but we do appreciate you guys being ready for us when we're wrapping up here. So, Madam Clerk, will you please read item number three into the record?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed2:52:10

Chair Nelson and members of the board, departmental item number three is from the Planning and Development Department. It is a hearing to consider recommendations regarding the 2025 General Ordinance Amendment Package.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed2:52:20

Director Plowman.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 25Proposed2:52:23

Mr. Chair, members of the board, good afternoon. Today we have an item before the board that we consider our general cleanup package that we bring annually where we capture problems or issues that have come up over a year's period time and sometimes longer. We maintain an ongoing list and so we packed them all together and bring it to the board. So I have Karina Martin, who is our planner. I was going to say your main name, but I've got it right. Martin is the married name. And Alex Tuttle here to provide the presentation. So with that, I'm going to turn it over to Ms. Martin.

CommentKarina MartinProposedself-stated2:53:06

Thank you, Director Plowman. And good afternoon, Chair and Supervisors. Again, for the record, my name is Karina Martin, and this afternoon I'll be giving today's presentation on the 2025 General Ordinance Amendment Package. So this slide just presents an overview of what today's presentation will focus on. And the purpose of today's presentation is to review and adopt an ordinance amendment package that is intended to keep the zoning ordinances accurate and up-to-date by clarifying, correcting, and simplifying existing provisions.

And to summarize, the package before you includes amendments that include minor updates to the Ag Enterprise Ordinance, as well as adding provisions to exempt art, garden, and architecture tours in the coastal zone, as well as in Montecito. Implements revisions to existing State Density Bonus Law provisions. Repeals the Montecito Growth Management Ordinance, which is codified under Chapter 35B.

And finally, initiates minor amendments to correct, clarify, or simplify existing code provisions. So starting with the Ag Enterprise Ordinance, the LUDC includes minor revisions to help clarify that the Ag Enterprise use structures that are currently allowed with a zoning clearance or a land use permit do not count towards development plan thresholds. The amendments remove an inconsistent development standard regarding planted acreage for small processing facilities, and there are minor revisions to the tent, cabin, and yurt definitions for further clarification.

Moving on to the Art, Garden, and Architecture Tours. Last spring, your board adopted an ordinance to add provisions allowing temporary events such as Art, Garden, and Architecture Tours as exempt uses subject to certain standards. And at the time of adoption, the focus was on the LUDC and staff said we would carry it over to the MLUDC and the CZO at a later time.

And here we are and staff has carried over those provisions but has added a standard to clarify that the exemption does not apply to properties operating under a CUP unless expressly authorized or conducted in accordance with that CUP and that new standard was also added to the LUDC for consistency. Now moving on to State Density Bonus Law. On September 24th of 2024, Assembly Bill 3116 was signed into law, and it added additional benefits for student housing developments.

And this bill defines student housing. It also establishes parking ratios for student housing development, which essentially is no required parking for qualifying projects. Additionally, the amendment furthers Program 13 of the Housing Element Update, which tasks the county with updating our zoning ordinances to comply with changes in state law. And now moving on to the Montecito Growth Management Ordinance, also referred to as the MGMO.

The MGMO implements provisions that are intended to pace development in conjunction with the services and resources available in the Montecito community plan area. The MGMO was adopted in 1991 by the board as phase one of the Montecito community plan and it was last extended in 2010 with an expiration date of December 31st, 2030. Then on October 9th of 2019, Senate Bill 330 was signed into law, and it states that cities and counties shall not enforce any moratorium or similar restriction or limitation on housing development.

And the MGMO currently is a restriction and limitation on housing development, so it does not comply with state law. Therefore, staff is proposing to formally repeal the MGMO to remove it from the county code in accordance with state law, as well as to implement Program 16 of the Housing Element Update, which requires the county to amend its zoning ordinances to clarify that the MGMO has been suspended to comply with Senate Bill 330.

And finally, the amendment package includes minor amendments to the LUDC, MLUDC, and CZO, and they're listed on pages 3 through 6 of the February 3rd board letter. The amendments are similar in nature, and I will briefly cover them in the next few slides. So starting with the LEDC and MLEDC, the amendments include simplifying front yard setback requirements to end up with a single standard regardless of the lot being greater than or less than 100 feet in width, includes correcting a subsection error in the telecom ordinance, clarifying that floor area calculations are in gross square feet and not net for consistency, Revising the law interior definition to remove unnecessary language referring to subdivisions.

And finally, correcting a typo in the street primary definition. And then with regard to the ADU and junior ADU amendment, staff recommends removing this change from the package and staff will return and reconsider this edit during an upcoming cleanup of the ADU ordinance. And then in the LUDC, there are two specific amendments proposed, and that includes correcting a subsection error in the road name section, as well as updating the mobile home park conversion noticing requirements to reference the civil code section.

And then specifically within the MLADC, the amendments amend the Accessory Structures and Uses section in the Resource Management Zone to allow garages and carports to resolve a code conflict that currently requires covered parking but does not allow garages. And again, similar amendments are being proposed to the CZO, so I'll just go over the changes that are specific.

The amendments include incorporating initial application review procedures that are existing practices within the LEDC and MLEDC, so they're now being carried over to the CZO. The amendments include adding a new definition for flood control that is consistent with the Gaviota Coast Plan overlay, as well as revising the major public works project and major energy facility definition to comply with Coastal Commission regulations.

The amendments include clarifying the total setback for plant protection structures on lots containing five or more acres is 60 feet or 80 feet, respectively. And finally, to clarify that for lots greater than 12,000 square feet, that up to 750 square feet of an attached three-car garage is not included in the floor-to-area ratio calculation in this Summerland Community Plan area.

And these proposed ordinance amendments to the LUDC, MLUDC, and Coastal Zoning Ordinance, as well as Chapter 35B, are recommended to be determined exempt from environmental review as they would not result in any new significant impacts or increase the severity of previously considered impacts. As a result, no new environmental document is required pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061B3 and 15265.

And to recap, on November 19th last year, staff presented the proposed amendments to the Montecito Planning Commission where they voted 3 to 2 to recommend adoption of the MLADC amendments as well as an ordinance to repeal the MGMO. And they also recommended adoption of the CZO amendments with a minor staff edit to section 35-68.7.4 For clarification that the total setback for plant protection structures on lots containing five or more acres is 60 feet or 80 feet respectively.

And then on December 3rd, the County Planning Commission voted 5-0 to recommend adoption of the LUDC and CZO amendments with staff's minor edit. The recommendations for today's Ordinance Amendments can be found on page 1 of the February 3rd Board Letter. To summarize, they are to make the required findings for approval, including CEQA findings found in Attachment A, To determine that the proposed amendments are exempt from the provisions of CEQA, adopt ordinances amending the LUDC, CZO, MLUDC, and Chapter 35B found in Attachments C, D, E, and F, and as revised at today's hearing, to remove the amendment to the ADU and Junior ADU ordinances.

And finally, adopt a resolution authorizing the submittal of the Local Coastal Program Amendment to the California Coastal Commission for review and certification. And this concludes staff's presentation, and staff is available for questions. Thank you.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed3:02:38

All right. Thank you, staff. Mr. Tuttle, do you have additional comment before I go to Supervisor

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 26Proposed3:02:43

Lee? Yes, Mr. Chair. Thanks. Yeah, just to add a little more context with the staff change presented today with regard to the ADU amendments. ADU law is sort of constantly changing and always evolving, and we know we will be coming back later this year with a more comprehensive package with a set of ADU updates. So I believe it's better to address that one particular change as part of that larger package to avoid any confusion and create any unnecessary headaches along the way.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed3:03:14

All right. Thank you. Supervisor Lee, do you

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed3:03:17

have a question? Yes. Can you define how large a junior ADU is? Can you define how big a junior ADU is compared to a regular ADU?

3:03 – 3:0816 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 26Proposed3:03:34

Supervisor Lee through the chair, junior ADUs are allowed to be up to 500 square feet and they have to meet certain criteria to be considered a junior ADU, specifically a conversion of existing space within a single-family dwelling or an attached garage. It can't involve any new construction. Got it.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed3:03:54

And so on the state density bonus, the state is mandating 23 percent. Is it possible for us to mandate more, up to 32 percent, comparing to what we did recently in Carpentaria with a 32 percent?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 26Proposed3:04:10

Supervisor Lee through the chair. So this is a state law provision. So in order to qualify for density bonus as a student housing project, meaning that 23% and no, we don't have the ability to require a higher percentage than that in order to receive that density bonus because it is established in state law. It's somewhat different than Then the coastal zoning ordinance situation that you referenced with the 32%. In that situation, we were rezoning those properties so we had a little more discretion. And also, it was a 32% in order to obtain a sort of a ministerial or by right approval process.

Thank you.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed3:05:01

All right, other questions from board members? I guess I just have one kind of clarifying question going back to the CEQA exemption slide there. You can bring it up for a moment. I think it's slide 17 maybe, 15, 16. All right so the exemptions we're using here are what they call the common sense exemption, right? And then I think there's a regulatory programs exemption as the other CEQA exemption here. I guess I just wanted to highlight those that, you know, that the use of these exemptions is a great tool for us to use and I hope that we can use it in other circumstances to get things accomplished. I know that this is something we typically use with this and we try to have things that are a little bit less controversial.

But I think it's, you know, I think it's a good use of those exemptions. I hope that staff takes the opportunity to use them more often. So that's my feedback on that. Who doesn't like a common sense exemption? Come on. All right, Madam Clerk, is there any public comment on this item?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed3:06:10

Chair Nelson and members of the board, we have no request to speak from the public on this item.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed3:06:14

I had one more question. Montecito, the 3-2 vote, what was those in dissent? I'm just curious on what the dissent was on the motion.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 26Proposed3:06:29

Chair Nelson, Supervisors, there was some disagreement on the repeal of the MGMO. There was some who voiced interest in keeping it there as sort of a skeleton regulation that we could bring back at a later date, but ultimately voted 3-2 to repeal it.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed3:06:51

I can understand that sentiment. All right. I think no other questions. For the deliberations, I guess we can take a motion on this. Or did you guys have additional comments? Mr. Tuttle or Director Plowman? Or Ms. Martin?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 26Proposed3:07:08

No, just to, we'll pull it back on the screen with the recommended action, but again, just to clarify that in your motion or whatever motion that it would be as revised at the hearing today to remove the ADU amendments. All right. I move staff recommendation A

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed3:07:28

through E.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed3:07:29

All right.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed3:07:29

Does that work for you?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 25Proposed3:07:30

As revised.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed3:07:32

As revised.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 25Proposed3:07:32

As revised. Second.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed3:07:34

Got a second from Hartmann. Any further questions or discussion? All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Motion passes unanimously. Great. All right. That concludes our meeting for February 3rd, 2026. We will next meet in Santa Maria on February 10th. All right, thank you.