Board of Supervisors — 2026-03-03

BodyBoard of Supervisors
MeetingRegular Meeting
Date📅 March 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 – 0:0212 turns

UnidentifiedMayorProposed · by role0:21

All right. Good morning, everybody. All right. Good morning. If we can go ahead and get started, please. Okay, I call to order the March 3rd, 2026 meeting of the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors. Madam Clerk, can you please call the roll?

Roll call — called by Mayor
Show transcript
Supervisor Lavagnino? Here. Supervisor Lee? Here. Supervisor Capps? Here. Supervisor Hartmann? Here. And Chair Nelson? Here.
Pledge of Allegianceceremonial · click to expand
UnidentifiedMayorProposed · by role0:44

At this time, please stand and join the board in pledging allegiance to our flag.

One nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Our first item of business is approval of the minutes from the February 24th, 2026 meeting of the Board of Supervisors. Can I get a motion?

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisor, District 3voiceprint 0.861:12

Hartmann moves approval. And I second.

UnidentifiedMayorProposed · by role1:14

All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Motion passes unanimously. Next item of business is our CO report.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed1:23

There's no report this morning, Chair.

UnidentifiedMayorProposed · by role1:24

Excellent. Madam Clerk, are there any announcements or changes to today's agenda?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed1:30

Chair Nelson and members of the board, I do have one quick announcement regarding public participation today. 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's 805-568-2240. That concludes my announcements for today.

UnidentifiedMayorProposed · by role2:08

Thank you Madam Clerk. At this time, next I have a business administrative agenda. Would any board members like to pull any items? I have items three and four being pulled by my colleagues and I also have item four being pulled by public. Is there any additional public comment?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed2:21

Chair Nelson and members of the board, the only request to speak was on administrative item number four from the public.

UnidentifiedMayorProposed · by role2:29

All right, I'll go ahead and get a motion at this time to approve the administrative items. I think that's 1 through 16, with the exception of 3 and 4, which we'll take separately after the resolutions.

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisor, District 3voiceprint 0.862:39

So moved.

UnidentifiedMayorProposed · by role2:39

Second. Motion by Hartmann, second by Lee. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Motion passes unanimously. Okay, at this time we'll go ahead and move on to resolutions. Madam Clerk, will you please read item number one to the record.

0:02 – 0:078 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed2:57

Chair Nelson and members of the board, administrative item number one is sponsored by Supervisor Lee. It is to adopt a resolution of accommodation honoring Fire Chief David Neils upon his retirement from the Montecito Fire Protection District after over 37 years of dedicated service to the firefighting profession locally. And joining us in person today we have Chief David Neils and if you can please make your way to the podium and if there's anyone else you'd like to join with you.

I'll go ahead and read the resolution. Whereas during his tenure, Chief David Niels dedicated 37 years of service to the firefighting profession locally, including 21 years with the Santa Barbara County Fire Department and six and a half years with the Montecito Fire Protection District. And whereas he responded to dozens of major local incidents during his 27-year long firefighting career in Santa Barbara County, including the T fire, the Thomas fire, the 1-9 debris flow of 2018, and served on federal incident management teams for over 15 years responding to large emergency incidents across the western United States. And whereas he was a founding member of the Santa Barbara County Firefighters Benevolent Foundation, an organization that provides financial relief for firefighters and families of firefighters when stricken in the line of duty.

Funds scholarships for children of deceased firefighters, created and maintains a firefighters memorial, establish a means of receiving donations to support the well-being of the members of the department. And whereas he wrote and implemented the first Community Wildfire Protection Plan, CWFF, in the County of Santa Barbara for the Mission Canyon community, setting an industry standard of creating localized plans for areas vulnerable to severe wildfire impacts. And whereas Chief Neils now looks forward to a well-deserved retirement, enjoying more quality time with his family, friends, and colleagues. Now, therefore, be it hereby ordered and resolved that this Board of Supervisors of the County of Santa Barbara does hereby honor and commend Chief David Neils for his distinguished service, outstanding leadership, and lasting contributions to public safety and the residents of Santa Barbara County, passed and adopted today.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed5:22

I think back in 1998, I started graduation of our Santa Barbara County Fire Academy in this room. And I was honored to give our class speech that day. A lot of stuff has changed from that point in time and starting the fire service career in 1989. But I do want to thank the board for recognizing me today. It has been a phenomenal career serving the county as a firefighter and through the ranks and now as fire chief for the Montecito Fire Protection District. None of us do this job alone. And from your support in regards to what you do for the citizens of the County of Santa Barbara, to my team who is here behind me, to the fire chiefs that represent the entire OP area, we do this as a partnership and we must maintain those partnerships to serve the community right.

And I really appreciate Supervisor Lee for recognizing me today. A few weeks ago, I told my wife, I'm like, I think we're going to kind of slide through this. Just it's an A item. I don't think anybody's going to find out about it. But from the Montecito Association and many members of our community, I want to say thank you for the honor today. Appreciate

UnidentifiedMayorProposed · by role6:37

it. Supervisor Lee.

ElectedRoy LeeSupervisor, District 1voiceprint 0.706:41

Thank you, Chair Capps. Chief Nielsen, I just want to say thank you. Thank you for all your years of hard work serving our community, and I'm very happy for you. I know you have a big list of honey-do's coming up, but if you ever need anything, please contact me. I'm your friend, and I look forward to seeing you in retirement and out and about in the world, so congratulations.

UnidentifiedMayorProposed · by role7:08

All right, Supervisor Hartmann.

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisor, District 3voiceprint 0.867:10

I just wanted to add on the board of the Fire Safe Council how important CWPP's community wildfire protection plans are and that you pioneered that. It's an important strategy to engage the community and come up with a rational plan for how to make us all more fire safe, fire wise. So really appreciate that foundation that you set for us all. We're still following through and will for years.

UnidentifiedMayorProposed · by role7:39

Supervisor Capps.

ElectedLaura CappsSupervisor, District 2voiceprint 0.917:40

I just wanted to chime in and also wish you well and I appreciated all of our conversations over the years and know how much you care. It's a testament that so many of your team members are here and just wish you well.

0:07 – 0:144 turns

UnidentifiedMayorProposed · by role7:51

All right, thank you. Madam Clerk, we can go ahead and move on to administrative item number two.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed7:57

Chair Nelson and members of the board, administrative item number two is sponsored by Supervisor Nelson. It is to adopt a resolution of commendation honoring Ada Grace, Ashley Benson, Jenny Stitt, Jocelyn Castillo-Ayala, Linda Ou, Marina Lumis, and Romano Cabiles of the County Health Department as the March 2026 Employees of the Month of Santa Barbara County. And if you can please all make your way to the podium.

I'll go ahead and read the resolution. Whereas Ada, Ashley, Jenny, Jocelyn, Linda, Marina, and Ramona exemplify the county's organizational values of accountability, customer focus, equity and inclusion, innovation, trust, and ethics. And whereas Ada, Ashley, Jenny, Jocelyn, Linda, Marina, Ramona model the transformative behaviors of collaborative problem-solving, alignment with the county's vision, risk-taking, data-driven decision-making, and strategic thinking.

And whereas Ada, Ashley, Jenny, Jocelyn, Linda, Marina, and Ramona consistently provide quality public health nursing practice as the maternal child of adolescent health field nursing team, serving over 1,400 vulnerable individuals in our community each year through in-home case management. And whereas Ada, Ashley, Jenny, Jocelyn, Linda, Marina, and Ramona demonstrate strong clinical knowledge and foster relationships with individuals, families, and community to promote physical, emotional, mental, and social health of Santa Barbara County mothers, fathers, babies, children, and youth. And whereas Ada, Ashley, Jenny, Jocelyn, Linda, Marina, and Ramona are valued, trusted, and critical community-focused leaders that advocate for healthcare access and basic health and well-being needs so that all families may thrive.

Now therefore be it hereby ordered and resolved that this Board of Supervisors of the County of Santa Barbara does hereby acknowledge Ada, Ashley, Jenny, Jocelyn, Linda, Marina, and Ramona as employees of the month for March 2026. Pass and adopt it today. Good morning.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 4Proposed10:15

They say the wins and accomplishments of public health are usually silent wins. They almost always go unnoticed. No one celebrates a child getting his first vaccines and the media are not going to write a story about someone who is growing well or a mother who is healthy. However, the work that these ladies that stand beside me, Marina, Jenny, Mona, Ashley, Ada, Jocelyn, and Linda, and of course their director, who is not with us, Kelly, is definitely worthy of recognition and worthy of celebration.

They ensure that healthy babies are born to healthy mothers. They ensure that mothers have a safe and equitable environment to practice well-being and be healthy. They create an environment that is healthy for women, children, and families. They provide equitable access to health care. They provide case management. They go into homes and visit And they cater to an at-risk population, individuals that are of a childbearing age, or that's just given birth, or someone who is pregnant, and even children from the day they are born until they are 18 years old.

So while public health wins might be silent, they are real, and they are real because of these seven public health nurses, my team members, my coworkers, and I'm honored to introduce them as the county employees of the month for this year. Thank you.

CommentLinda OhProposedself-stated12:00

Good morning, Chair Nelson and members of the board. My name is Linda Oh, and I am the supervising public health nurse for the Maternal Child and Adolescent Health Field Nursing Unit, and I've been in this position since 2017. When I first heard that these six amazing public health nurses were selected as employees of the month, I was thrilled. Day in and day out, Morena, Jenny, Mona, Ada, Ashley, and Jocelyn are invited into people's homes and provide nursing care management for the most vulnerable population in our communities.

Just last week, a mom that Morena provided comprehensive and coordinated care for texted Morena saying, I want to thank you from the bottom of my heart for everything you have done for us. You helped us so much with many things, always found time, made calls, supported us through important situations. I truly appreciate your help, kindness, and care. You are not only a wonderful professional, but also a very kind and compassionate person.

It is rare to meet people like you nowadays. Thank you so much for your care and for being there for our family. Each public health nurse has a similar story like this, which goes to show the short and long-term impact they're having on the families that they serve. The trust and bond they form with their families is critical to the case management they provide to improve health and wellness of all family members.

I am in awe of their dedication and passion for what they do every single day, and I am truly honored to be their supervisor. So team, well done. You all truly deserve this recognition. Thank you.

0:14 – 0:208 turns

UnidentifiedMayorProposed · by role14:16

Thank you, ladies. All right, that concludes our resolutions. We're gonna go ahead and move on to the two polled administrative items. The first item that was polled was by Supervisor Hartmann. Item A3, would you mind reading A3 into the record?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed14:34

Chair Nelson and members of the board, administrative item number three is from the Community Services Department. It is to consider recommendations regarding a Tri-County Regional Energy Network 3C REN 2028 through 2035 business plan.

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisor, District 3voiceprint 0.8614:50

Thank you. I think a lot of people don't know what 3C REN is and I wonder if you would talk a little bit about the business plan because I think it's a tremendous tri-county collaboration that we need to lift up a bit.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed15:11

Energy Network. The County of Santa Barbara is partnering with the counties of San Luis Obispo and Ventura. We've been a member for a number of years. I'm going to invite Garrett Wong, our Sustainability Division Manager, to expand on it, but I want to really underscore one important message. Today is the period in which applications are being received to assist homeowners that want to pursue a variety of energy-saving measures in their home.

Last year was such a successful year that the available funding was exhausted almost at mid-year, so we very much want to encourage our residents throughout the region to explore and join in that funding source. So with that, let me invite Garrett to elaborate on 3C-REN.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed16:04

Thank you. Good morning, Supervisors. Garrett Wong here with the Sustainability Division and the Tri-County Regional Energy Network, or otherwise known as 3C-REN. As was mentioned, we are a tri-county partnership with Ventura County as well as San Luis Obispo County, and we are considered what's called a Program Administrator for Energy Efficiency Programs. So that's a special designation that local governments can create in order to access ratepayer funding that comes from the Public Utilities Commission. So these are external dollars that are coming from the state that allow us to design and implement programs for our communities.

And RENs in particular, Regional Energy Networks, are focused on what we call hard to reach customers. So customers that may not typically avail themselves of other utility type programs or other government type programs. So people who maybe don't speak English as their first language, people who are Seniors or live in affordable housing, people of low income. So there's a variety of different criteria that would qualify a hard-to-reach customer and we make sure that those types of customers get enhanced resources when it comes to their projects. We also focus more of our marketing and outreach on those customers as well.

And so the outcome of all of this is that what we're doing is we're delivering incentives and programs so that people can access clean energy benefits in their households and in their businesses. And as Jesus mentioned, every year we have an annual budget for incentives. And over the past two years, we've exhausted that budget, which means that there's a high subscription. There's high demand for people who want to become more energy efficient to save money on their utility bills.

And so we're continually reiterating and reconfiguring the way that we do our programming. What we're doing today with this board item is requesting that this county support the submission of our next business plan, which is done by Ventura County. So Ventura County is our administrator for the three-county partnership. So they will be submitting the business plan formally in two weeks to the Public Utilities Commission.

And what this will do will be to afford us the financial resources to continue these programs as well as expand Our programs. So over the next four years, roughly between 2028 to 2031, this division, the Sustainability Division, is anticipated to receive upwards of $7 million to support our staff and our expenses associated with running this program. So that's a significant amount relative to our modest budget.

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisor, District 3voiceprint 0.8618:56

I really appreciate hearing that and it's a wonderful model of collaboration and local government and kind of leveraging abilities and so glad that we're participating.

UnidentifiedMayorProposed · by role19:08

I have a couple questions as well. You mentioned that the money comes from the PUC and that money comes from Where does it come from before it gets to PUC?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed19:17

Sure. So every utility customer that pays an electric or gas bill outside of publicly owned utility territories have a surcharge. And so that surcharge is collected by the utilities when the customers pay their bills. And that is aggregated at the Public Utilities Commission. And then that funding is redistributed back out, not only to the utilities, but then also to other program administrators. So there's regional energy networks all across the state.

There's SoCal Regional Energy Network, which is based in L.A., which is a very large territory. There's BayRen. There's one in San Diego. There's a new, there's new, I think two, three new, actually, regional energy networks covering the northern central coast, northern, northern, sorry. Thank you all for joining us today.

0:20 – 0:2522 turns

UnidentifiedMayorProposed · by role20:30

There's an extra fee on all of our electricity bills, is what you're saying. And do we get to opt into that or is that mandatory?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed20:36

It's a mandatory fee. It's

UnidentifiedMayorProposed · by role20:37

mandatory. So if we don't have a RIN in our area, would we still pay that or not? Does it only get paid when you're in a RIN?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed20:45

Correct. So all California customers outside of publicly owned utility territories are paying that fee. So if you don't have It's not to say that if you don't have a regional energy network covering your area that you're not being able to access that dollars. You could always go to your utility, whether it's PG&E, Southern California Edison, or SoCal Gas, or SDG&E. They still offer customer programs.

We just offer a different offering. We're trying to fill market gaps when it comes to these customer programs designed to address both projects and customers that typically won't happen through the utilities.

UnidentifiedMayorProposed · by role21:25

But the funding would still be there through the utilities, right? I mean, everybody pays this. So it's an extra tax on your utility bills that pays for, as you said, redistribution of funds to other users for energy-saving projects.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed21:38

It's a surcharge, that's right.

UnidentifiedMayorProposed · by role21:39

What surcharge? You can call what you want. It's tax if you don't have a choice. And then, Jesus, or Mr. Armas, sorry, what's, how much do we, are we contributing in general fund in this program? And does this, What we do today, does that obligate us moving forward? Because I know we're going into challenging budget times and we'll be looking at programs that aren't necessarily required, that might be not moving forward after this year.

Can you talk a little bit about what our general fund contribution is? I do understand that it leverages more dollars, totally understand that, but it's also not required for our county to do this. So could you speak to especially general fund contribution towards this?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed22:15

Thank you, Chair Nelson. The county's participation in 3C RAN, of course, is voluntary, and the board made a determination a number of years ago to be part of that partnership. Fortunately, especially to your point about the difficult financial picture that's facing the county, there are no general fund dollars earmarked for this effort. This is all exclusively external, so we don't need to compete for finite general fund dollars for other county services.

UnidentifiedMayorProposed · by role22:44

Okay so there's no leveraging of general funds for these funds so if we don't have any general fund towards this program it will continue to move on?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed22:52

Yes we have three approximately three and a half positions that are funded through this program and those are all externally funded as indicated.

UnidentifiedMayorProposed · by role22:59

Thank you.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed23:00

I would also just underscore another point if I may, Supervisor Nelson. What we've also learned is that this program also has an economic component to it in the sense that many of the improvements that take place at individual homes or businesses or commercial buildings really take place through individual contractors with whom we contract. And so there's a spillover effect, if you will, in terms of sustaining businesses, offering jobs for those that are in that industry, and at the end of the day, also help us and meet our sustainability goals.

UnidentifiedMayorProposed · by role23:36

Are you guys able to look, actually find out how much of that surcharge is being spent from utility users in Santa Barbara County? Is that something you guys can pull out?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed23:46

Why don't we take a look at that and report back to you?

UnidentifiedMayorProposed · by role23:48

Yeah, it'd be great to know how much we're getting taxed on our utility bills versus what we're coming back on. Are we getting more or less than that?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed23:54

Right, and the advantage, of course, is since it's a PUC determination as to whether or not this surcharge will apply, should the PUC continue to apply it and we fail to take advantage of it, our customers, our residents, our clients ultimately feel the consequence of that.

UnidentifiedMayorProposed · by role24:13

Sure, thank you. All right, do we have a motion on this item or any further? Oh, sorry. Supervisor Lee.

ElectedRoy LeeSupervisor, District 1voiceprint 0.7024:18

This is a quick question. Is there local preference about the contractors that are, that local residents can pull from?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed24:26

All the contractors are local and what ends up happening is that we have a very unique structure here in that it is a performance-based assistance to the end user, meaning that the savings have to be realized before the contractors are compensated. There will be a 50% advancement. The second half is retained until such time as the benefits We've seen a remarkable investment actually on the part of the contractors in North County. They took a very active role and really did a lot of marketing on their own, reached out to homeowners and the like, and it's been very successful in that respect.

UnidentifiedMayorProposed · by role25:11

All right, thank you.

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisor, District 3voiceprint 0.8625:13

Mr. Chair, I would move A through B, staff recommendation.

UnidentifiedMayorProposed · by role25:18

Second. A motion by Hartmann, a second by Lee. Any further discussion? Seeing none, all in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Motion passes unanimously. And now our fourth, or item A4, our final administrative item. Madam Clerk, will you please read that into the record?

0:25 – 0:3620 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed25:41

Chair Nelson and members of the board, administrative item number four is from the County Executive Office. It is to consider recommendations regarding the outdoor festival license for Springfest in Isla Vista and we have four requests to speak from the public on this item.

ElectedLaura CappsSupervisor, District 2voiceprint 0.9125:55

Yes,

UnidentifiedMayorProposed · by role25:55

please. Okay. Supervisor Capps.

ElectedLaura CappsSupervisor, District 2voiceprint 0.9125:57

Yeah I wanted to pull this, I understand that members of the public would like to speak and this item, first of all I just wanted to thank the CEO's office as well as the different departments for moving very swiftly on the enactment of what this board unanimously supported which was really to support a spring festival in Isla Vista that was away from the cliffs as so many different entities came together with a compromise to try to make this spring festival a cultural festival with music and art Thank you very much. Thank you.

all for being here. I know it's been a long time, but I'm so excited to do something on behalf of so many younger people that want to have fun in a safe way, so I appreciate it. I will just give a plug. My office for the last three years has worked with all of these partners to spearhead a Deltopia ahead of this spring festival and we're doing that again on Wednesday, March 11th at 4 p.m. with so many people. Last year we had over 50 volunteers and we hit every household in about an hour and a half. So thanks to behavioral wellness giving us the Narcan. So we'll do that and with that I'll be happy to listen to the public speakers if that's okay with you. Yes,

UnidentifiedMayorProposed · by role27:41

perfect. Thank you Supervisor Capps. So Madam Clerk, we have a few items of public comment here.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed27:48

Yes, Chair Nelson and members of the board, we have five requests to speak from the public on this item. We are going to begin on Zoom with Sarah Erickson to be followed by Julia Barbosa.

UnidentifiedMayorProposed · by role27:59

Before we start with Sarah, I want to go ahead and close public comment on this item.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed28:04

Sarah? Hi, can everyone hear me? Yes, we can. Please proceed.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 7Proposed28:12

Okay, good morning supervisors. I was raised in Isla Vista. with so many other families whom are still here. The IVCSD wasn't formed to spend a significant amount of its budget towards encouraging and funding a college spring break party. Spring Fest is really Deltopia by another name. It's giving mixed messages. I also believe IVCSD is just another student slush fund. Spring Fest and Deltopia are not for all the residents of Isla Vista. It's exclusively for college students. I don't think this Spring Fest is a place for students to just have fun. I think it'll impose and endanger a menace to public health. The fact that Narcan is handed out and that you mentioned that, is also a sign that bad things happen and can happen. CSD doesn't have the authority to organize these festivals.

IVCSD was formed in response to the 2014 Deltopia riots in November 2014. There's a study that was done reporting all the problems and specific recommendations for Isla Vista. And those problems are still here. Ten years later, CSD hasn't done anything. The majority of its funding is staff, it's student controlled. What little it has, but that's not salaries.

Over $100,000 is being spent on a college spring break party. This is not what the funds should be for. This is not the message we should be sending when the Sheriff's Office is taking such strong measures to create a safer Isla Vista for all residents.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed29:52

Thank you.

UnidentifiedMayorProposed · by role29:54

Thank you, Ms. Erickson.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed29:55

We will now go to Julia Barbosa, then we will return here in Santa Barbara with Jonathan Abboud. Julia?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 8Proposed30:05

Good morning. There are two main reasons that I'm concerned about the county approving a permit for the IVCSD to host the Deltopia Alternative Festival. The first is that the CSD, or their LAFCO-granted powers, is violating their jurisdiction when hosting an entertainment festival. They have controversially invoked the argument that its spring festivals over the last four years were a safety measure to reduce harm to the crowds that were already attending parties on Deltopia during the unsanctioned event.

Since you all have, thankfully, approved the Noise Ordinance Amendment, this is no longer needed. Their powers as a special district also explicitly prohibit them from overstepping the Isla Vista Recreation and Parks District jurisdiction. My second concern is liability. The IVCSD Board at the time of voting to support or not the Deltopia Noise Ordinance Amendment said that they were concerned that we wouldn't have enough time to advertise to the out-of-town masses that this change was taking place. So if they were concerned that too many people would show up regardless of the changes on Del Playa, why are they proposing a festival that would only accommodate a fraction of the usual 25,000 attendees? Wouldn't that result in disappointed and possibly destructive crowds left to roam our neighborhood and creating the very issues that they're claiming to prevent?

It also does not sit well that the IAV CST is advertising on their social media that this would be, quote, IAV's biggest music festival ever. On the application documents linked on this meeting's agenda, there are no details listed regarding security or insurance. I'd like to point out that one of the main reasons why IVRPD has been hosting safe Halloween events for the whole community for the last few years is because Halloween had already been dead, so to speak, in Isla Vista for many years prior to that. And at that point, UCSB had already established a traditional on-campus Halloween event that redirected the foot traffic from the streets of Isla Vista. Now the IVCSD wants to host the Deltopia Festival on a transitional year, and from what I see, without showing a solid insurance plan, is this event even really insurable?

Unlike Halloween, which is an event for the entire community, Deltopia is a UCSB event. The cost and the liability of an alternative sanction event for their disaffected portion of the student body should fall on UCSB and Associated Students and not on the rest of us. Thank you.

UnidentifiedMayorProposed · by role32:25

Thank you, Ms. Barbosa.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed32:27

We will now return to Santa Barbara with Jonathan Abood to be followed by Maya Mashadi Ali Reza. Jonathan.

CommentJonathan AboodProposedself-stated32:36

Thank you, Chair Nelson, Board of Supervisors for hearing us today. My name is Jonathan Abood. I'm the General Manager of the Isla Vista Community Services District and a 15-year resident of Isla Vista. I want to thank Supervisor Capps and her office, the CEO's office, Ivy Foot Patrol, the Fire Department, LEMSA, Public Works, IVRPD for working with us on this, and the AS Program Board at UCSB for funding. Most of all, I want to thank Maya, who's sitting here and who will speak, who's braved through one of the toughest timelines to get this done. It's been a very accelerated period of time, and she's done what many have called impossible possible.

I want to emphasize that this festival is a means towards public safety, not an end within itself. We're not doing this for the sake of doing this. Our goal is zero medical calls, zero arrests, zero citations, no public disturbances, and less people near the bluff's edge. We are investing heavily into security, harm reduction, and public sanitation to keep our streets clean and to keep our community safe, and we also are fully insured with county regulations.

We believe this festival is the best opportunity to provide economic development and enjoyment for our businesses and residents while maintaining public safety, just like Fiesta here in downtown Santa Barbara. After the riot in 2014, where I was here for, many of us came together from the county, the university, state representatives, law enforcement, and students, and agreed that an organized sanctioned event that allowed for music, a focus on locals, and provided for public safety was the best course of action. And the IVCSD as an idea gained momentum at that time as a vehicle to do that. We finally arrived at the solution 12 years later. I urge support of the permit. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Bood.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed34:25

We will remain here in Santa Barbara and go to Maya Mashidi Ali Reza to be followed by Karen Hauenstein, who is our final speaker. Maya.

CommentMaya Machadi-Ali RezaProposedself-stated34:33

Hi everyone, my name is Maya Machadi-Ali Reza. I'm the Community Programs and Engagement Director for the Isla Vista Community Services District. I want to echo all of the thank yous that Jonathan just mentioned, and then especially say thank you to Claire, who has been answering my many, many questions and navigating this process, and also Joe, who has been hopping on countless meetings to help me figure out the best way to navigate public safety.

I want to be clear, this is not a new Deltopia. This event is a demonstration of how public safety and community celebration do not need to be mutually exclusive. This is a demonstration of how solutions that do not only involve the community but include them as active participants drive success. We've initiated and supported cross-agency communication and collaboration to bring in four first aid tents, four safety stations, two ambulances, 70 bathrooms, over 4,000 gallons of water, two sheriff safety stations, and over 70 security guards, and so much more to make this possible.

This event is an example of how creating infrastructure that meets the community where they're at, rather than restricting them into what we want them to be, is how we drive sustainable solutions. I'll use fad dieting as an example. The more you restrict, the more you binge. If you make a lifestyle shift and support yourself along the way, you'll see change that lasts the test of time.

The solution is not to restrict, it's to support a healthy change. That's exactly what we're doing here. It's not easy, it's not simple, it's quick on this timeline, but it's a model that will create lasting positive change, and I truly believe that. Thank you.

UnidentifiedMayorProposed · by role36:12

Thank you, Maya.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed36:13

We will now go to our final speaker, Karen Hauenstein. Karen?

0:36 – 0:4217 turns

UnidentifiedMayorProposed · by role36:23

Welcome.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 9Proposed36:25

Karen Hauenstein from North County. My son Noah attends UCSB, so I've had occasion recently to spend some weekends down there in the middle of the activities. And what I've noticed is that the push to shut down the parties at night on the weekends has turned into day drinking, heavy, heavy day drinking and partying in the streets for the student body. And while I was down there during a winter weekend, I noticed the attire of the women on the streets.

And after inquiring of many students and then going back home and talking to a lot of people about this issue, I have come of the opinion that We as a society should not be allowing students to fund their education in our state schools with OnlyFans accounts. This OnlyFans craze is just a form of prostitution. And because the liberal establishment in Santa Barbara seems to be so publicly apologetic towards organized crime on many levels, calling it one thing, calling their efforts towards equality one thing, when really it's sheltering Illegal activity.

We should not be allowing this because it cheapens our experiences, our families, and our community. So when you are talking about these parties, You need to be considering that element because this OnlyFans craze is new. And we have some of the biggest earners in residence now temporarily at UCSB.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed39:09

And that concludes public comment on this item.

UnidentifiedMayorProposed · by role39:11

All right. Thank you, public. Back to the board. Supervisor Lavagnino.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 10Proposed39:16

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm not sure it was clear during the presentation or the public comments. I just want to get it on the record of who's actually funding The party because I think people think it's the county of Santa Barbara that is that is doing this. And so I just like to get it on the record of where the funding is coming for all of this.

ElectedLaura CappsSupervisor, District 2voiceprint 0.9139:38

It's definitely not the county. So maybe Mr. Abboud can answer that.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 10Proposed39:42

Yes.

CommentJonathan AboodProposedself-stated39:45

So the Isla Vista Community Services District, out of our utility users tax, is putting in $140,000, and the Associated Students Program Board is doing another $140,000. That's the majority of the funding. A couple sponsors, M Special is donating the beer for the beer garden, for example.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 10Proposed40:01

Okay, just want to make sure that folks aren't out there thinking that we're going to be spending a lot of time talking about the budget today and so appreciate that.

CommentJonathan AboodProposedself-stated40:08

We're even paying for two of the ambulances that LEMS is going to be putting out there. Awesome.

ElectedLaura CappsSupervisor, District 2voiceprint 0.9140:12

Yeah, this is, thank you for the question, this is a license so that they can just have a festival with the insurance that comes with that and the sanctions so that things are actually planned and not out of control the way that it usually is.

UnidentifiedMayorProposed · by role40:27

That brings up a question for me. I know one of the reasons why we moved forward with this was the amount of resources that we were spending on law enforcement. So do we have any idea, I understand that this year we want to kind of be over prepared, not knowing what that looks like, but do we have an idea of what that, what the law enforcement presence, I know the Sheriff's Department is here, but maybe I don't know what the plan is.

ElectedLaura CappsSupervisor, District 2voiceprint 0.9140:50

I understand that because this is an evolution that the presence is planned for about the same, wanting to be cautious, but maybe Lieutenant Schmidt can speak to that.

UnidentifiedMayorProposed · by role41:02

Thank you, Lieutenant Schmidt. Sorry, I didn't see you there.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 11Proposed41:05

Good morning, Board of Supervisors. Joe Schmidt, Lieutenant of the Isla Vista Patrol. We're going to have the same staffing in Isla Vista that we've had the last three years because we just don't know what to expect with the crowds having a short duration of time to get the message. Our presence in the festival was very minimal. We'll have sheriff safety stations on the east and west sides of the festival with about four deputies each. They will have radios for security so they can hear if something's happening, but Like most events that are sanctioned, we let security handle things at the lowest level and only get involved if it requires our intervention.

UnidentifiedMayorProposed · by role41:40

All right, thank you. And so you're hoping this mitigates your need for future services out there, this event?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 11Proposed41:50

Chair Nelson, yes, we're hoping that after this year, it's going to be a learning experience for the entire community because we don't know if we're going to get another 30,000, but if the population is a lot lower, especially in our presence, we'll probably be on Del Playa and Salvatore, so close to the cliffs to discourage Thank you.

0:42 – 0:4618 turns

ElectedLaura CappsSupervisor, District 2voiceprint 0.9142:35

No, just wanted to, I really appreciated the comments and I know, I also recognize that the long-term residents there have a lot of questions and a lot of concerns. I understand those as well and just will stay in touch with you, daily touch with you as well and we're all just hoping for the best and hoping for safety.

UnidentifiedMayorProposed · by role42:53

Thank you. Can I go ahead and get a motion on this item?

ElectedLaura CappsSupervisor, District 2voiceprint 0.9142:57

I move approval.

UnidentifiedMayorProposed · by role43:00

Second from Supervisor Lavagnino. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion passes unanimously. All right that concludes our administrative agenda. At this time I believe we have public comment for items that are not on today's agenda. Madam Clerk do we have any speakers for public comment today?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed43:19

Chair Nelson and members of the board we have no requests to speak on general public comment today.

UnidentifiedMayorProposed · by role43:23

Okay well that closed general public comment and we're moving along. Do we need to take a break or can we go right into department item number one? Okay, let's go ahead and read departmental item number one to the record.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed43:41

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 an extra help service and retirement waiver for the County Executive Office.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed43:56

Supervisors, I'm going to give that report this morning if you don't mind. So you have a board letter request, my request for a waiver for Tanya Heitman. As you know, Tanya Heitman is an Assistant County Executive Officer. She's been with the county over 30 years. She oversees Health and Human Services and criminal justice portfolio. She is overseeing significant programs. And as you know, with my announcement of my retirement, I'd like to keep her on past March so that the new CEO can get adjusted and acclimated and make future decisions.

and possibly fill that position permanently. So she'd be filling it as an extra hire employee. She has enough hours for the end of this calendar year, but that will depend also on the new CEO. So my request is that you go ahead and approve this waiver. Thank you.

UnidentifiedMayorProposed · by role44:39

Okay, thank you. Any public comment on this item?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed44:42

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

UnidentifiedMayorProposed · by role44:46

Any comments from me and my colleagues? Supervisor Capps.

ElectedLaura CappsSupervisor, District 2voiceprint 0.9144:50

Yeah, I'm just in full support of this decision and will support it. I just think it's, she's extremely necessary. I would love for her to stay on as long as possible.

UnidentifiedMayorProposed · by role45:01

All right, Supervisor Hartmann.

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisor, District 3voiceprint 0.8645:03

She's one of a kind. The longer we can keep her, the better.

UnidentifiedMayorProposed · by role45:08

All right, and I will make my comment. I generally am not a huge fan of extra help coming back for retirement. I think that You know, we need to be thinking about succession planning in our organization. And so I usually call out all these when they come to the board to ask the sponsoring department why in this case. I fully support this moving forward. I think it's prudent understanding the change in leadership that's going to happen in the CEO's office to bridge that gap and give our future CEO the opportunity to hire a tiny successor and that that probably shouldn't happen at this time. So it makes a whole lot of sense. And so actually, I want to thank ACO Heitman for agreeing to come back and to fill that gap and bridge that opportunity.

So I'm going to also be supporting a motion to expand this moving forward. So seeing no additional comment, can I get a motion on this item?

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisor, District 3voiceprint 0.8645:57

I would move A through C on today's staff recommendation.

ElectedLaura CappsSupervisor, District 2voiceprint 0.9146:01

I'll second.

UnidentifiedMayorProposed · by role46:02

Motion for Hartmann, second by Capps. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion passes unanimously. All right, let's go ahead and move on to item number two.

0:46 – 0:4910 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed46:19

Chair Nelson and members of the board, departmental item number two is from the Treasurer Tax Collector Public Administrator. It is a hearing to consider recommendations regarding the housing authority of the County of Santa Barbara, issuance of tax-exempt multi-family housing revenue obligations for San Simeon Oaks Village.

UnidentifiedMayorProposed · by role46:36

All right, Mr. Hagan,

UnidentifiedLaguna SanitationProposed · by introduction46:38

welcome. Good morning Chair Nelson and members of the board. So this item before you today is a TEPFRA hearing and so I don't like using the acronym so TEPFRA is Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982. This is a process that allows qualified nonprofit organizations to access municipal markets and it's codified in 147 F of the Internal Revenue Code.

The county is under no obligation for the repayment of this proposed obligation. It's being proposed for $30 million, an amount not to exceed $30 million, by the Housing Authority of Santa Barbara County and San Simeon Hill Limited Partnership And members of the financing team, John Polanski, Ron Wu, and Tyler White, and the project team should be available to answer any questions regarding the financing or the project in itself.

And I just want to reiterate, the county is under no obligation, either legal or moral, for the repayment of these obligations. That's an important piece. We're holding the public hearing in the jurisdiction of where the project is located. It's located in the northeast corner of San Marcos Road and San Simeon, kind of by the Vons, kind of to the left of that, near the elementary school, is where the project is located.

And if you have any questions regarding the financing or the project itself, the members on Zoom should be able to answer any of those questions you may have.

UnidentifiedMayorProposed · by role48:16

Thank you, Mr. Hagan. You said no legal or moral responsibility, but also no financial responsibility as well. Am I correct?

UnidentifiedLaguna SanitationProposed · by introduction48:22

That is correct, yes.

UnidentifiedMayorProposed · by role48:23

All right. And this is a hearing for the public. So I guess at this point, is there any members of the public that would like to speak on this item?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed48:33

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

UnidentifiedMayorProposed · by role48:37

Okay, so not seeing anybody from the public here to speak on this item and can I get a motion to conclude this public hearing and adopt staff recommendation?

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisor, District 3voiceprint 0.8648:50

Move A through C, staff recommendation. And I'll second that.

UnidentifiedMayorProposed · by role48:54

Okay, motion by Hartman, sorry, second by Capps. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion passes unanimously. All right. Thank you. Moving right along. Let's go ahead and start with department number item number three. We'll do department item number three and then we'll take a break after that and then get to department item number four.

0:49 – 0:582 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed49:22

Chair Nelson and members of the board, departmental item number three is from the County Executive Office. It is a hearing to consider recommendations regarding the fiscal year 2026 through 2027 preliminary budget outlook update.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 12Proposed49:37

Good morning Chair Nelson, Supervisors. Today's presentation is intended as an early checkpoint in the fiscal year 26-27 budget process. This is not the full preliminary or recommended budget, but an opportunity to talk about what's coming and receive guidance on key questions ahead of the April workshops. Unlike the last several years, we're entering this cycle with significant structural challenges, and the decisions you make over the next few months will shape not just next year's budget, but the county's trajectory over this next several years.

At a high level, we are dealing with three drivers. First, state and federal policy changes, especially in safety net programs that are shifting costs to counties. Second, revenue growth that is not keeping pace with expenditure growth. And third, structural operating gaps that were masked in prior years by one-time solutions and stronger revenue growth. Departments have submitted balanced budgets, but almost all include reductions.

Some are also requesting restorations where they believe service-level impacts would be most significant. Today is not about approving cuts or making any final decisions. It's about helping us understand your priorities and tolerance for certain trade-offs so we can refine proposals before April workshops. There are three things we hope to accomplish today.

Give you a preview of how the preliminary budget is shaping up, revisit the out-year forecast, especially the projected fiscal year 27-28 deficit, and get your guidance on eight policy questions that will inform our workshop discussions. In December, we showed a five-year cumulative ongoing deficit of $66.4 million when combining the deficits in the General Fund and Health and Human Services programs.

Some good news is that the fiscal year 26-27 general fund picture improved slightly. Revenues are a bit stronger and costs slightly lower than were projected in December. The challenge is that we're still looking at a roughly $29 million combined deficit in fiscal year 27-28. About $17.5 million in the general fund and an additional $11.5 million in health and human services.

Our strategy so far has been disciplined. We have held general fund contributions flat. We've required programs to balance within their allocations. We've increased general fund contribution only for growth and mandated obligations, such as jail medical and in-home supportive services costs, and adjusted budgets for reduced state and federal allocations. That framework produced the reductions we'll talk about in the coming slides.

Departments collectively have proposed approximately $67 million in reductions. I'll note this number is slightly lower than the $69 million in the board letter, as numbers have and will continue to change and fluctuate as we work towards the April workshops. Only about $9 million relates to the flat general fund contributions. The vast majority, roughly $58 million, reflect other revenues not keeping up with costs, and in the case of social services, reduced state and federal match, among other things.

So how did the departments balance? By cutting contracts, training, travel, and overtime, right-sizing operations, deferring capital and equipment replacement, unfunding roughly 400 positions, including vacancies, and increasing fee revenue where possible. While some reductions are efficiency-oriented, others will slow services, reduce public hours, eliminate some non-mandated services, and in some cases, reduce service levels in mandated programs.

Several departments are requesting restorations in areas like parks, juvenile services, public safety, child welfare, CalFresh administration, animal services, and health clinics. One important point, restoration requests are not recommendations yet. CEO staff is still evaluating all proposals. Today we're looking for guidance to inform that evaluation. The largest impacts we see are in the Health and Human Services Departments.

Social Services is proposing $28.2 million in reductions, about 12.6% of their operating budget. That includes significant reductions in CalFresh administration and child welfare. They are requesting $4.2 million in restoration, which would leverage roughly $10 million in additional state and federal funding. County Health is proposing $24.8 million in reductions, about 25% of its budget, largely in health care centers, partly through rightsizing for a more efficient service level.

They are requesting about $2 million in restorations, primarily in health care and animal services. And this is where the policy question we'll get to later about backfilling state and federal safety net programs is relevant. Historically, the county has not backfilled these types of programs, but that was an area of board discussion last fall, particularly around child welfare.

In criminal justice, the sheriff is proposing reductions in administrative and sworn duties, including custody records, Hilo Vista foot patrol, and dispatch, with a $4.1 million restoration request. Probation and the district attorney also have reductions impacting adult and juvenile probation services and criminal prosecution and investigations in DA. Both departments seek partial restoration requests.

I will note again on this slide that both Sheriff and DA numbers are lower than in the board letter as numbers have continued to be refined. Community Services is proposing $2 million in parks reductions, including park services and trail maintenance, as well as shifting 18% deferred maintenance funding towards regular maintenance staffing with restoration requests around $800,000.

Planning and Development and Fire OEM also have smaller reductions impacting long-range planning, petroleum permitting, and emergency management. They have restoration requests of $134,000 and $191,000 respectively. The next two slides list several departments that are absorbing reductions without asking for restoration. Cuts range from about three quarters of a million dollars in CEO to just under $100,000 in clerk or quarter assessor and treasurer tax collector.

Many of these reductions relied heavily on unfunding vacant positions and reducing non-employee costs. Most of these departments indicate they can absorb the impacts next year, but caution that flexibility will be reduced and future workload pressures may be harder to manage. If further cuts are necessary in fiscal year 27-28, they will be much more difficult for these departments to absorb.

The reductions on these two slides combined for a total of $4 million across 11 departments. A few departments did remain largely status quo. Behavioral Wellness has stronger Medi-Cal revenues due to operational improvements and anticipated growth in Behavioral Health Services Act funding. Public Works has relatively stable transportation, resource management, and flood control funding.

First Five is using planned fund balance draws to sustain their services, and the Board of Supervisors was able to balance due to a decrease in liability insurance rates after a large expense dropped off the rates this year. This slide summarizes the five-year forecast presented last December and highlights the long-term issue. Revenue at the top is growing but not as fast as costs.

After balancing 26-27 with the reductions I just discussed, we face an additional $17.5 million general fund deficit in fiscal year 27-28. Adding a projected $11.5 million in HHS shortfalls in 27-28 could lead to a combined deficit of $29 million in that year. In the December forecast, the cumulative shortfall reached $66.4 million over the five-year period.

And so one of the key strategic questions is do we solve only for fiscal year 26-27 or do we also begin solving for 27-28 today? So on the following slides we have eight specific questions we are seeking board guidance on ahead of workshops. I can pause after each question for discussion and input from the board, but I also maybe should pause here if we have any questions on the on the preceding slides.

0:58 – 1:0829 turns

UnidentifiedMayorProposed · by role58:34

Supervisor Lavagnino.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 10Proposed58:37

Thank you. Let's go back to 13 for just a sec. I was going to my computer. I was like, why didn't you guys move it? That's hard for you to do. All right. So ongoing revenue increase. After the jump in 27-28, what caused the jump in 27-28 and then why does it go back? Why are we projecting the flatness?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 12Proposed59:02

Supervisor Lavagnino through the chair. 27-28 I believe we factored in some anticipated growth due to the Biltmore reopening. So TOT maybe we'll have a jump there as well as that's the year we believe the cost allocation plan will start receiving dollars back from special revenue funds for the implementation of the Workday, Workday project. So it'll be a one-time bump in the baseline, a little bit higher, and then that regular growth around $17-18 million a year is due to just the regular kind of property tax growth and other discretionary revenue growth.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 10Proposed59:37

Okay and then similar question on the ongoing cost increase you show a huge jump in 27-28 and then it's more flat. What what's that for?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 12Proposed59:48

Supervisor I'd say the the biggest thing that's happening there compared to the prior year is there was an OPEB offset in the current year that was offsetting salary and benefit growth by over four million dollars And the pension, the layering in of the different five-year smoothing plans of pension in the current 26-27 or next year 26-27, it's pension growth is basically flat because there were some high gains that's got the fifth year smoothing in and then some losses that are being smoothed in. The next year, 27-28, those gains are fully smoothed in but there's another year still being smoothed in of large losses from I want to say fiscal year 21-22.

And so we see pension growth that year of about four or five million dollars compared to a flat this year. So that plus the OPEB is like a nine or ten million dollar difference between 26-27 and 27-28. Okay and then

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 10Proposed1:00:48

I want to look at, I would assume we're gonna go over these individually, the different departments. I mean we just kind of went over them real quickly, but are we gonna get drilled down more into those? Because I'm, I mean, Like when we say, you know, $11.2 million cut to CalFresh admin, well, what does that really mean? How does that change? How many days longer is somebody's application going to sit there? Those types of things. I think that's important for all of us to understand what these cuts actually

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed1:01:17

Supervisors, we agree and I think we're trying to balance giving you enough information but all that information will be provided in April and that's when we would provide it. The department heads are here to answer your questions. We are trying to keep it high enough because really to get your preference for the questions and not ask you to make decisions today about what's going to be cut or not. So the specificity of whether you want to backfill some of the social service programs, we just want to know is there a willingness to do it and we'll come back with more information in April to say what, to what degree.

But if you feel like you need that information today, we can provide as much as you can as we said the department heads are here as well.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 10Proposed1:02:01

Yeah, I really appreciate the fact that we're doing this. I think it's a great exercise because I think it's important to the whole organization that we all understand where we're at and where we're going and what's the priority. So maybe we do the questions. But, you know, just personally for me, like we're looking at child support services and it says we, we can, you know, we have unfunded vacant positions and reducing services and supplies.

I'm just curious what that, what that means, to what extent are we still gonna meet the state standard? You know, what are these implications? And maybe that's something for April, like you're saying, and maybe I can just hold the rest of these questions and just get to what our eight questions are or whatever, I guess.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed1:02:42

And Supervisors, if you feel like you can't answer any of the eight questions because you need more information, that's fine too. We just wanted to have the, introduce the board to this conversation that we'll have more conversation in April. But if there is greater direction, as Mr. Clemente says, it helps us shape our recommendations to you because we, my office has not made recommendations on whether we think these are the right cuts or whether we think these are the right restorations at this point.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 10Proposed1:03:04

Okay. Well, I'll answer the first one then, I guess, and we can do them one at a time, or how do you want to do that?

UnidentifiedMayorProposed · by role1:03:09

Sure. Actually, I have a question on that last slide, though, if we can, before we get there, Supervisor Lavagnino, and I know Supervisor Capps has her light on as well, so, so I guess we're in the phase of asking questions about what just got presented, and then we'll start hitting, answering those questions. Do you have a question on what got presented, or are you?

Let me go to Supervisor Capps, then I'll come follow up with her.

ElectedLaura CappsSupervisor, District 2voiceprint 0.911:03:28

Yeah, just a process question still before we kind of get into the directional questions. Just how were the, what kind of direction was given to the departments on, on the reductions? Like I'm just wondering, you know, was it, were there targets given, just would help us assess when we see what was put forward.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 12Proposed1:03:51

Supervisor Capps, through the Chair, the only specific direction we gave them was that we held the general fund contribution flat to all departments. So we normally, every year, project what salary and benefits are going to grow by, and then just by formula, different for every department, but we give them growth in general fund contribution to assist with some of that salary and benefit growth.

The rest of their cost growth they always have to balance to with their revenue projections from other sources and things like that. So we didn't tell them you need to go cut here, here, or here. We held their general fund contribution flat. They made projections for the rest of their revenue growth and then they looked at their programs, looked where gaps were and it was really department discretion on what their requested budget was going to be and where they proposed making reductions to balance.

ElectedLaura CappsSupervisor, District 2voiceprint 0.911:04:43

I see. So, okay, so they were just, just a balance was the, was the goal. And then similarly, were they given leeway in terms of making suggestions for restoring those cuts?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 12Proposed1:04:56

They were. The restoration requests that we've received thus far are what the department has determined they feel are the most critical areas, if any, or some of them, many of them said we understand the situation. And so

ElectedLaura CappsSupervisor, District 2voiceprint 0.911:05:15

just to repeat, you all, when we come back to our budget workshops, the CEO's office will make a recommendation about those restorations. If we have the ability to restore any of the cuts, if we have the ability, you'll provide that lens from the budgetary standpoint of the CEO's office. But that has not happened yet.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 12Proposed1:05:40

Correct, so ultimately it is the CEO's recommended budget so workshops we will show up with recommendations on restoration requests or areas of restoration if any and take further board feedback and then is really the May release of the recommended budget that the CEO will package together and that will be the hearing in June for adoption.

ElectedLaura CappsSupervisor, District 2voiceprint 0.911:06:02

Because I think just, I mean, I think it just bears putting out there since these are public documents as they should be, you know, some departments didn't come back with anything. Some came back wanting to restore, you know, 88% of their budget cuts, some 50% and, you know, it's, that has not gone through the filter of the budget department. Correct. Okay. Thank you.

UnidentifiedMayorProposed · by role1:06:25

Thank you, Supervisor Capps. I'm going to have a question, then I'll go to Supervisor Hartmann. So this exercise, though, hits general fund departments a lot heavier than other departments, right? If you're 100% general fund, this is a more painful exercise because some of these other non-general fund departments are receiving other revenues, and those are potentially going up or down in some cases.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 12Proposed1:06:45

Chair Nelson, that's, that's generally the case. I mean there are some general fund departments that receive a lot of other revenue sources as well, but your special revenue funds, your, you know, DSS and County Health, their general fund contribution as a percent of their entire operating revenues is probably 10 percent and you've got general fund departments that are 50, 60, 70 percent.

UnidentifiedMayorProposed · by role1:07:08

And so then when we're looking at these list of restorations, are all those restorations general fund restorations?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 12Proposed1:07:14

All of the restoration requests would be an ask of general fund dollars.

UnidentifiedMayorProposed · by role1:07:18

Yes. So go back to slide 13 for a minute. So are those reductions in this slide yet?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 12Proposed1:07:27

No, this is, this is a recap of the December forecast.

UnidentifiedMayorProposed · by role1:07:30

Sure. So I'm just trying to, do we have it or will we have a slide with those reductions now placed into this?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 12Proposed1:07:36

So, so ahead of workshops we're going to try to update the forecast slide at least for the 26-27 year with what the actual situation is. Yes.

UnidentifiedMayorProposed · by role1:07:46

So I think it's a different picture. Obviously, obviously, some of these departments have made some hard work and I want that to be reflected here because I think that's important to recognize. It doesn't mean that there's not a current and ongoing crisis here that we need to still be addressing. I like this slide because it shows urgency, but at the same time, I also want to make sure we're recognizing some of the work the departments are doing to try to bring these numbers down. Supervisor Hartmann.

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisor, District 3voiceprint 0.861:08:10

What is the assumption about the 18% on that slide 13?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 12Proposed1:08:17

Supervisor Hartmann through the chair, on that slide the 18% continues. It's not growing but it continues at the 16.5 million a year it's currently funded at. So it's not really on this slide because this is incremental change over a year. It's not in those additional cost increases because we didn't assume any increase to it.

1:08 – 1:1319 turns

UnidentifiedMayorProposed · by role1:08:39

All right, other questions from the board on what's been presented so far? OK, so let's go ahead and go to question number one. And so this is the multi-year strategy. Should the county be looking at these next two years and the decisions they're making moving forward? I guess that's the question for the board. And I guess we're not going to take a vote here. We're just going to get some thoughts so we can try to build some consensus to give some vague direction to departments and the CEO's office and budget team. CEO, or sorry, Supervisor Lavagnino.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 10Proposed1:09:09

Boy, I'll take the CEO title,

UnidentifiedMayorProposed · by role1:09:10

geez. And the pay

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisor, District 3voiceprint 0.861:09:12

raise.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 10Proposed1:09:13

Sorry, Mona. It's

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisor, District 3voiceprint 0.861:09:14

something we know.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 10Proposed1:09:15

No, you don't know. Well, because I'm leaving at the end of this year, it would be easier for me to say, yeah, I think you should just leave this year alone and do all these cuts next year, but this is why I'm here. Another reason why I think Mona does such an amazing job is because we're not putting our head in the sand. We see an issue that's on the horizon. It's not today, but good organizations prepare for the future. And so it's going to be a lot smarter and probably a lot less impactful for us to take a bite out of this year. And so I think, you know, I started looking back when I first started. All we did was we did the budget in June.

And it was, I think, Supervisor Wolf that got us to start looking at it in April. And I think now when things are bad, it's good to start taking a look at it even earlier. So I think this is a really good idea, especially because of the fact that one of the questions in the future is, I think question five or six is talking about the money that we have set aside for jail expansion. If we didn't talk about this till next year, that money could have already been expended. And so I think it's very wise for us to take a look at it now. And I think we've got to do, You know, face it head on and let's make some decisions earlier than later.

UnidentifiedMayorProposed · by role1:10:43

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

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisor, District 3voiceprint 0.861:10:46

Yeah, I'm in strong agreement because what we don't reduce this year, we're going to see is a greater deficit next year. So I really appreciate the budget director, the CEO's office, I've been feeling very anxious about this and it's kind of mapped out how we go about this in a rational way and so it's it's not easy but it relieves some of my anxiety and I think that again not only do we plan for the future but we have more options the earlier we plan so we don't want to just go over a cliff later.

UnidentifiedMayorProposed · by role1:11:23

Supervisor Lee.

ElectedRoy LeeSupervisor, District 1voiceprint 0.701:11:26

I do agree. Seeing a multi-year strategy, we don't want to be in a position where we save services this year and then have to cut it the next. So I'm in support.

UnidentifiedMayorProposed · by role1:11:38

All right. Thank you, Supervisor Lee. Supervisor Capps.

ElectedLaura CappsSupervisor, District 2voiceprint 0.911:11:40

I'll chime in in agreement.

UnidentifiedMayorProposed · by role1:11:42

OK, so and I'm as well. I think it's really important for us to build trust with the public here as we go through this process. And I think it'll make this year harder, but will make next year easier is the idea. And so I think it's a prudent thing to do. And so I support that concept. Obviously, the devil's in the details on all of this. And we'll get into that further today and then definitely in April with further discussions. But the concept makes a lot of sense. And I think it's prudent.

So I think you have unanimous consensus up here on that. I want to introduce number two.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 12Proposed1:12:20

Thank you, Chair Nelson. So the second question, is there a desire to use one-time funds in these next two years to soften ongoing reductions, even if it potentially leads to larger reductions in the future? and a higher ongoing annual debt service on jail construction. We currently have $50 million earmarked for the Northern Branch Jail expansion, which would reduce long-term debt service by about $74 million over the life of the loan.

Redirecting those funds could soften reductions now, but would compound structural imbalances next year, as well as increase the ongoing annual cost of the debt service. If used, staff would recommend only a minimal amount and only as a bridge to ongoing reductions, not as a multi-year balancing tool. All right, thank you. Let's go ahead

UnidentifiedMayorProposed · by role1:13:03

and start with Supervisor Lee.

ElectedRoy LeeSupervisor, District 1voiceprint 0.701:13:05

Yeah, I want to say I'm open to it, but seeing the cost of the RFP for the jail is suspensions what going to drive my decision of whether support or not, but I'm open to using that $50 million as needed.

UnidentifiedMayorProposed · by role1:13:19

Okay, Supervisor Lee, Supervisor Hartmann.

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisor, District 3voiceprint 0.861:13:24

I would be open to using a portion of it and I had an opportunity to talk yesterday to Director Nielsen and you know there's there's a certain level of programs and staffing that are required to have a functional department and if we fall below that I think we really Thank you very much.

1:14 – 1:218 turns

UnidentifiedMayorProposed · by role1:14:11

All right and are we going to get into that a little bit on when we, is that, that's a future item as well because I want to talk about that. I think it's important to look at whether, I mean it's a little bit different than whether it's one time or it's ongoing general fund that we use for those items but thank you for that. Supervisor Capps.

ElectedLaura CappsSupervisor, District 2voiceprint 0.911:14:25

Yeah I'm in agreement to use, I'm open to a suggestion from the CEO's office of using a portion of it but tightly controlled to when potentially we see some retirement savings. I mean that's not direction, that would be if you all thought that that would be a smart thing to do. I would be open to that.

UnidentifiedMayorProposed · by role1:14:44

Right, Supervisor

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 10Proposed1:14:45

Lavagnino. I agree and I think it's also time to reflect on the fiscal strength of this county and I know there's people out in the community sometimes that say we're broke and we're doing this and we're doing, we're spending too much. I don't know, there's not too many counties that can make this decision today. Do we spend the $50 million that we've saved, you know, on a down payment on jail or do we backfill services?

Most people don't have that luxury. So I, again, Huge shout out to the budget team, the CEO's office, all the department heads, our employees that have run a fiscally tight ship, and other board members, some that aren't here anymore, that made decisions years ago that put us in this position. So, while we're facing a shortfall in outgoing years, and we can talk about why that's happened, most of it not related to this room, But yeah, I think it's just important that we think about that for a moment, that we are in a position to be able to make this decision. I would definitely support a portion of it. Obviously, we want to be fiscally responsible and make the best down payment that we have. But I think in this crisis, we need to take a look at all options.

UnidentifiedMayorProposed · by role1:16:09

So I support it with conditions. I think that we need to make sure that we're looking at the areas of that aren't necessarily county responsibilities, you know, things that we're doing to subsidize potentially other cities, programs that are nice to have, not have to have before we start to dive into that. That's for me, that's going to be a really important piece to understand.

are what we're doing because when we fund things that aren't county charges, things that are our responsibilities, and then we backfill, then we're really funding those programs, not the ones that we're up here talking about. And so I think we need to keep that holistic view in mind as we move forward. I think if we make the proper cuts in places and we still need to dive into some of these funds, I could support that at that time, but I need to see that we're Making sure we're getting down to our absolute required pieces first, and then everything else is back on the table to look at as an entity. So I say I support it with conditions. And obviously, I think that we're all in that boat, to be honest, moving forward in a minimal amount. And I would like to echo Supervisor Lavagnino's praise of the budget team and the departments for their fiscal restraint.

As we're talking about this as it happening earlier in the year, I do a lot of stuff with counties state and nationwide. There are some counties that don't do their budget till after the fiscal year ends because of what happened. Actually, I would say majority of counties don't. They're not doing their budget till September, which causes significant problems and uncertainty for all of you, causes mid-year layoffs. It's a really bad way to budget county finance. And again, I think we are the gold standard.

From all my experience out there, so again, great appreciation. But that doesn't mean that we should change routes now. I mean, because we've done that, that's how we've gotten here. That's how we're going to be probably the first county in the state to pay off our pension liability. The reason why we have money to put aside for a jail after we just finished building one is because of those fiscal restraints that this board, bipartisan, throughout the different geographies have worked together on. So again, just another kudos to everybody in the county for that effort. So I think you're hearing yes with limitations.

Question number three.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 12Proposed1:18:35

So the third question, does the board wish to establish priority service areas to be protected? Clarity here will help shape the CEO's restoration recommendations as well as future department reductions.

UnidentifiedMayorProposed · by role1:18:51

So we have to pick which one of our kids we love the most.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 10Proposed1:18:56

Supervisor Lavagnino. Thank you, Mr. Chair. For me, I think we've talked about this a lot already, and it's, you know, why we're here, and that is the social safety net. And we've had a giant hole ripped in it. Maybe or maybe not in November, that will change. We don't know. But huge shortfall in federal and state funding. And for me, the most vulnerable should be the most protected. A lot of us can take maybe a little, you know, if a trail isn't open, some other service might take us a little bit longer to get.

It's an inconvenience and we can live with that for a year. But there's kids out there that They're going to be depending on what we do here in this budget cycle. So for me, it's getting back the funding for whatever it takes. And I really appreciate this. I want to know more about how this $4.2 million influx would leverage us for Another $10 million or whatever it is. I want to hear more about that. But for me, that's where it's at.

A lot of these other services that we provide, and I agree with Supervisor Nelson, I was shocked to realize that in library funding alone, you know, we've, over the last five years, we've given $5 million to the City of Santa Maria for library funding. That's important, and a library is important. And it's used not just for books anymore, it's a community gathering place. But, It's not mandated and I'd much rather see, you know, a service going to somebody in child welfare or in social services where it was, or public health, it was really necessary so that we aren't cutting off a service.

And the CEO's office has provided a list of those non-mandatory items that we are funding. But I don't think there was a recommendation, and I guess that's going to be coming, of which of those are up on the chopping block, or at least to scale back so that we can protect some of these essential services that we provide.

1:21 – 1:2713 turns

ElectedRoy LeeSupervisor, District 1voiceprint 0.701:21:25

Got it. Supervisor, I do agree with you. The social safety net is priority for me too. But I do not want to add animal services to it because they just started the licensing program and it's crucial that we give them every opportunity to succeed and I do believe that this time next year they will. And also, by cutting the budget, animals will be longer in those facilities longer, costing us more money. So, It's better if we save the money, so animal services is a priority for me as well.

UnidentifiedMayorProposed · by role1:21:57

All right, thank you Supervisor Lee. Supervisor Capps.

ElectedLaura CappsSupervisor, District 2voiceprint 0.911:22:01

Yeah, I would agree with Supervisor Lavagnino. Just with the starting point that we, it's a reminder that we, our county has the second highest rate of poverty in the state, so our folks are suffering anyway, and if we start to make cuts there, it will have a ripple effect for generations, and we're also living in a time when Supervisor Caput, Supervisor Hartmann.

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisor, District 3voiceprint 0.861:22:40

Well, I think there's broad agreement that the social safety net is county government responsibility and that would then lead us to Department of Social Services and County Health. I just wanted to note that Behavioral wellness, when I was on the board initially there were always huge budget deficits in that department and we don't see that now and I think that goes to really extraordinary work in that department and so I just wanted to, that's not something we have to wrestle with and I'm so grateful for that.

So I guess those are my priorities. I think it takes a long time to recruit, to train, to get a functioning program and department. And so to the extent that we can look at what it takes for each department to continue functioning and not just focus everything on a few and let the rest go, that's going to be my challenge.

UnidentifiedMayorProposed · by role1:23:52

All right. Thank you, Supervisor Hartmann. I'm going to take a little bit different spin. It's close, but it's actually public safety is what my highest priority is and making sure that we're doing everything we can to keep our public safe. You know, there's there's no safety net without a safe community to begin with. So that's something I'm definitely going to be Drilling down into, because I don't want to make cuts to that. If anything, I want to expand our opportunities in public safety. So that's one of my priorities. And then when it gets down into social safety nets issues, especially with some of the restorations that we're looking at, I want to be more specific with my areas of focus. It is on the child welfare services, adoption services, and foster care services.

So those are the areas that I think that are Our public safety as well. And those are, you know, our children are most vulnerable. You know, those are the ones I think that we have the most, the biggest obligation to protect and to support. And so those are the areas that I'm most willing to support backfills or temporary general fund contributions towards. So that would be my feedback from this supervisor.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 12Proposed1:25:10

All right. Question number four. Thank you, Chair Nelson. The fourth question, should the general fund backfill state and federal safety net programs, and if so, which areas are most important? A little overlap with the prior discussion, but again, historically, the county has avoided doing so due to limited discretionary revenues, but this current fiscal year 25-26 year board Have I totaled it up as allocated about 5 million, a little over 5 million one-time dollars to social services in the adopted and then that budget revision we took last fall to the issues we discussed with them. So 5 million in one time already going to social service in the current year.

And at that time your board did indicate child welfare services was a priority.

UnidentifiedMayorProposed · by role1:25:55

Okay, so it is a little bit of overlap because I think we all mentioned which areas. I know Supervisor Hartmann got a little bit into the public health piece. Again, I think, are you guys good with what we've been able to describe to you at this point or do you need a little bit more direction on this item?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed1:26:11

Chair Nelson, I would like to hear from Supervisor Lee. I think all of you spoke to the social safety net already, but Supervisor Lee, since you had different priorities, I think it'd be helpful to hear your input on number four.

UnidentifiedMayorProposed · by role1:26:24

So which safety, Supervisor Lee, I guess the question was for Supervisor Lee from you guys on social safety nets. Are there some specificity that you're looking

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed1:26:32

for? I don't think we heard whether there should the general fund backfill and if so, which areas are most important.

UnidentifiedMayorProposed · by role1:26:38

Okay. So Supervisor Lee, would you mind answering that for COO, what your thoughts are?

ElectedRoy LeeSupervisor, District 1voiceprint 0.701:26:42

Oh, yes, the child welfare, foster and adoption, as you mentioned.

UnidentifiedMayorProposed · by role1:26:48

And I just wanted for the public, the reason why we're doing this is because we can't do this behind closed doors. So that's why we're having this discussion in public because that's how this all works. And so it's transparent for you. I know this looks a little odd and it's a little bit unusual, but this is a way that we don't have a serial meeting. And so this is a part of the Brown Act. It's a banking in public. So you guys can kind of see the sausage making as it is trying to build consensus so we can give some direction to the CEO's office. Supervisor Capps, do you have some additional comments on that item?

On the backfill or do you want, are you ready for number five? Five. Okay. Let me go have Mr. Clemente introduce number five to us.

1:27 – 1:3310 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 12Proposed1:27:27

The fifth question, is there tolerance for elimination or consolidation of specific programs? If so, what are those that should be assessed? Staff can return with more information in April if we hear majority direction on specific programs you would like us to evaluate or eliminate for elimination or consolidation.

UnidentifiedMayorProposed · by role1:27:45

All right, Supervisor Capps.

ElectedLaura CappsSupervisor, District 2voiceprint 0.911:27:48

This is just really a question. It's not eliminating a program or anything. Don't worry. But actually in talking with the sheriff, we talked about the fact that under this administration, federally, the funding is so extremely elevated and the Department of Homeland Security, there's a partial government shutdown now related to it. And so I did some checking. And in fact, the budget is up 65% over the previous administration.

I just wanted to put that out there at this time if there's any opportunity as we're looking at cuts to see if there would be any Supplement in the area of public safety of which I'm very strong supportive to help us out here at this time because that budget has seen such a massive 6.5 billion dollar increase that hopefully we could get some of it at this time in need.

UnidentifiedMayorProposed · by role1:28:55

Right. Thanks Supervisor Capps. Other supervisors that are interested in throwing potential cuts on the table? Supervisor Lavagnino.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 10Proposed1:29:05

Well, this is fun, right? Let's identify something. Well, first off, I want to say, and I know we're going to get to labor in a second, but just the letter from SEIU, very appreciative. I thought it was the perfect tone. And, you know, we, I think we all look at our employees as in this, it's going to take, it's going to take all of us from the county working together to try to get to where we need to be. But this idea of eliminating or consolidating specific programs, I hope the message, and I don't know if it's out there, but from department heads down to frontline is, A lot of times the frontline employees know a heck of a lot more about how programs operate than maybe a department head and definitely more than we do.

So I encourage department heads to be open to listening to folks that are, you know, might know an efficiency that, you know, that we're looking at all of those or, you know, maybe listening a little bit closer, eyes a little bit wider, taking in all this information so that Maybe we don't have to cut or eliminate a certain program because employees have come to us and told us, hey, there's a better way to do this. I think it's a whole Renew22 idea that our CEO's office had of let's hear from ideas. So for me, you know, I'm not a huge fan of the sustainability department. That's just an area where I always just feel like I don't know how much bang we get when we can argue about whether or not, you know, I think the employees that are there doing a good job, it's just, you know, we have these goals where we're reducing GHGs by 35%, 50%, and it turns out we're really not reducing GHGs, they're increasing.

And so in my opinion, you know, in a year where we're looking at trying to save every dollar, for me that's somewhere where I'd be open to cutting. But, you know, mostly I'm just going to be taking my cue from how the CEO And I will say, we have to look inward, too. Because I'm leaving, it's easier for me to say, but I'll be donating back some of my 990 account, which each board has to kind of spend a few dollars here and there on items that are of interest to our district.

You know, I think some of those amounts have gotten larger over the years than what they were originally intended for. And I, for one, you know, will be giving some of that money back, but I think that's an area where we could look. We should all kind of share in the pain in this a little bit.

UnidentifiedMayorProposed · by role1:32:12

Thank you, Supervisor Lavagnino. Supervisor Lee?

ElectedRoy LeeSupervisor, District 1voiceprint 0.701:32:15

Steve, I encourage you to reach out to Garrett and Jesus and learn about that. You'll be impressed as I was, because I have the same questions.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 10Proposed1:32:22

And that's why it's so hard to identify anything because I agree with you, Garrett's doing an awesome job. I'm just, and I would like to see him, you know, saved somewhere. But what I'm just saying is in that department, which I get it, it's hard to be up here and say, and believe me, if you think it's hard now, when we get to April and June, when we're actually identifying things that are getting cut and people, It's not going to be easy, but so eventually we're all going to have to come up with a list. Just saying.

ElectedRoy LeeSupervisor, District 1voiceprint 0.701:32:55

So I'm open to consultations. I'm open to it. I think it's a great idea, but not so much in program eliminations. There's a reason why there's programs up there and we have to do everything we can to keep it. So that's where I'm at.

UnidentifiedMayorProposed · by role1:33:13

All right. Thank you, Supervisor Lee. Supervisor Hartmann.

1:33 – 1:394 turns

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisor, District 3voiceprint 0.861:33:18

No surprise, I'm not in favor of eliminating our sustainability program. I think it's largely grant-funded and really leverages resources and provides tremendous benefits to the wider community. At one point someone floated the idea whether there's a possibility for across-the-board cuts in terms of everybody, in terms of salary, a 1% cut. I know it's a complicated issue in terms of labor, but if things get dire, I would rather do that than eliminate key programs.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed1:33:59

Supervisors, I think that's coming up on the list to have a conversation. And again, I'm not asking the board to pinpoint specific departments or divisions. You could talk about programs for us to come back with information for you to weigh. You know, we're trying to have a thoughtful process and it could be, depending on what happens, we have to work also with our employee unions. You may have to do a little of both or a lot of both. It just depends on what the final decision is. So again, I don't want to put the board in that position. I don't want to scare departments. But it is really just to come back with more information for you to evaluate and to ask us, are there other alternatives? So there's some of the things related to Supervisor Nelson.

Are there alternatives to providing $5 million to a certain city for library funding? So we could try to be more creative with the department as well, but it's just wanted to have that discussion for the departments to hear your thoughts.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 10Proposed1:34:52

Well, that information would have been helpful about three minutes ago. I'm just kidding. I read that wrong. So sorry about that. Sorry, sustainability. All right. But I will say, hey, I want to lump everything in there that is not mandated. So it is libraries for me. And do I want libraries to be number one? No. But it's not mandated. So before I cut something that I feel is essential to this county, it's providing services to the most needy.

It's on the chopping block for me. It's something to discuss. So all these things that are non-mandated, and there's a list, they all have to be part of the conversation. I don't want it to be. None of us want it to be. But this is the reality. I mean, we're facing a big budget crisis. No department head here wants to pare down any of their department, right?

We don't hire these positions because there's nothing for that person to do. There's plenty for people to do. Can we afford to do it? You know, and right now we can't. So we have to figure out what those priorities are. So the day's coming and we just got to get ready.

UnidentifiedMayorProposed · by role1:36:08

All right. Thank you, Supervisor Lavagnino. I'll jump in on here. Supervisor Lavagnino brought up the library services, but I think that really is a There's a broader question here. What municipal services are we providing cities that we're subsidizing? I think it's something that is part of the conversation. So libraries is one of them and you know part of the discussion whether you know we all represent people who live in cities so it's always been a conversation about should we provide money for their libraries but cities don't provide libraries services for unincorporated areas so it's kind of an uneven thing. That's a municipal service and so it's really important that they provide the funding for it is my belief. We're the only county, I think one of the only counties in the state that actually does that, provides libraries for cities.

And so that's a big chunk of our discretionary funding that we do to that. Again, I love libraries. Everybody knows is one of my pet projects that I've been promoting for a long time is building a library. for the Orchid community so it's not an anti-library thing it's more of the overall theme and this is what I would like to have us look at what are the things that we're subsidizing cities for municipal services that we're providing I know you brought up animal services, but we are subsidizing cities animal services through the county. So, you know, that's something we put the pressure on the Sheriff's Office to make sure they get full cost recovery. We ask for full cost recovery on the private sector when we, when they go through a permitting process, we should ask for full cost recovery from our municipal partners as well.

So that's why I think that's a general philosophy that we should be consistent with. And then on the on the table as well is we should be looking at, you know, various grant funding that we provide. You know, we have the Human Services Commission, where every year we spend over a million dollars on non-profits. Great non-profits, great programs, but these are nice-to-haves, not have-to-haves.

We're going to have next week coming up to the board our racial equity grants which was something that was kind of designed to be a bridge during a really tough time in our community. You know does that still make sense moving forward and at the same level that it does now and being administered the same way it is. So I think there's these things that we don't aren't have to have should be a part of this list in the future.

You know getting back to sustainability division maybe we should look at what The general fund contribution is not getting rid of the whole division, but what is the general fund contribution? As it was mentioned today with departmental or administrative item number three, they receive a lot of grant funding and maybe should just be more of a grant funded department at this point and not a general fund funded department. There's other areas out there that I think we should be looking at.

And then, you know, getting to this as well, for those like social services and Public Health, you know, I'm going to really want to dive into their budget and understand before we put any general fund dollars in there what other programs are being kept that could potentially be funding these things as well. I know that you guys have done a really deep dive as a department. Appreciate that. Love the autonomy. But there are some programs out there that I don't want to save those programs.

at expense of having to go backfill general fund programs for the things we actually care about. And so I want to make sure that that exercise is done fully, understand what is going to be restored with your already existing revenue before we backfill that. So Supervisor Hartmann.

1:39 – 1:4921 turns

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisor, District 3voiceprint 0.861:39:23

It's really, you know, when resources are plentiful, it's easy for everybody to get along and be magnanimous. When resources get tight, then we start finger pointing. And I just wanted to say, in terms of libraries, parks, recreational programs, People in the unincorporated areas, such as me, use libraries in the cities and use recreation and park programs. And I've heard some cities start saying, well, maybe we should then start charging unincorporated people more fees when they come in. So I just, that's where this could go. So I think, you know, I agree we may have to look at libraries, but we looked at library models very carefully and came to the conclusion that across our county our libraries are quite underfunded compared to others.

And it's just kind of a matter of happenstance historically when We came online, a lot of the state money was gone, and so we've been kind of jury-rigging a system together. But comparing us to other counties similar to us, we don't spend as much money on libraries overall. So just a pitch for libraries, which I realize this, you know, this is where I think It's easy to try to say, okay, these are essential, these are mandated, this is, I don't know, Maslow's hierarchy, the lowest things, but I don't really, we need these things in combination, and that's what's going to be so hard for me, to have a good quality of life for people.

UnidentifiedMayorProposed · by role1:41:23

Well, you know, I've been, again, a partner in supporting libraries and parks and trails. These are all things I love as well. I would put up what we provide for incorporated residents against what they provide for us in the unincorporated areas any day because I do think that we over serve. And I think the reason why our libraries are underfunded is because we are subsidizing cities with their library services. In other communities, cities put a lot more money into their own libraries.

We don't hear locally because in part because the county subsidizes that. So I think that's the discussion that we can have or not have. But again, I think that's something, you know, why I'm putting that on the table is at least to evaluate that and look at it as a potential cut, because if we're going to backfill subsidize the city's municipal service and at the same time we're laying off a county employee that provides child welfare services, that's a hard discussion for me.

So I want to make sure again we do what our missions are first and then we look at helping the nonprofits in the cities after that. Of course they're all partners, you know, everybody that gets a grant from us is a partner in our community that's trying to make services better. But times are tough for all of us and at some point we got to tighten our belt. We can't say yes to everybody at this point. So that's where I come down on that.

Supervisor Lee.

ElectedRoy LeeSupervisor, District 1voiceprint 0.701:42:38

Yeah, I just want to make a comment that I want to be careful that we don't turn to us versus them, we're county versus the cities because we all serve the same people regardless if the city is accountable for us either way. So I'll make sure that we continue to be better partners, not This is your space and this is mine. I want to make sure that we continue to support each other. I'm sure the cities are willing to come to the table and work with us if we ask them. So that's something that if you're open to.

UnidentifiedMayorProposed · by role1:43:05

Yeah, absolutely. I'm just looking for equity. Again, I would pit up what we spend in the cities versus what they spend in corporate areas. It's for municipal services. Again, there's services that we provide countywide, environmental health countywide, social service countywide, public health countywide. You know, but then there's these different categories that are city responsibilities that we help as well. And so I think that's the discussion that we need to have here at the board, what that looks like and doing that equitable.

All right, so that's program cuts. Can we move on to number six? Are you guys good with moving to six? Okay, number six, vacancies.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 12Proposed1:43:44

So question number six, should departments prioritize reduction of vacant positions and non-employee costs first, regardless of service impact to a particular program? That is to say, should workforce reductions be structured to protect filled positions to the greatest extent possible, no matter the program, or should departments have broader discretion to align staffing levels with their budget constraints and service priorities?

ElectedRoy LeeSupervisor, District 1voiceprint 0.701:44:08

I'll go first. All right, Supervisor Lee. I would prefer to remove vacancies first and preserve jobs.

UnidentifiedMayorProposed · by role1:44:16

All right, Supervisor Hartmann.

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisor, District 3voiceprint 0.861:44:20

I guess I'm on the other side of that. I want to give department heads the flexibility to really meet the demands of the programs that we decide to continue funding, and I would always hope, and I think we're structured to give preference to existing employees to the extent that we can, but I think the program has, and our objectives have to drive our The skills that we need.

UnidentifiedMayorProposed · by role1:44:52

Supervisor Lavagnino.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 10Proposed1:44:55

You know, I think this is something that I'll just follow whatever the CEO and the department heads come up with because I do want to see vacant positions removed. I mean, especially it depends on how long they've been vacant. Something's been vacant for three weeks or six weeks. I don't want to just eliminate it because we haven't had the opportunity to be able to hire somebody. But if something's been vacant for over a year, You know, we found a way to somehow manage to do this service without a person in that spot. That's something that should obviously be identified and removed. But, you know, department heads know their department a lot better than I do, so I will leave the flexibility to them.

UnidentifiedMayorProposed · by role1:45:36

Thank you, Supervisor Lavagnino. Supervisor Capps.

ElectedLaura CappsSupervisor, District 2voiceprint 0.911:45:39

Yeah, I want to keep our people here as much as possible and keep them employed. But I also think it's up to department heads to make wise choices. But good leaders, if they can't fill positions, there's usually a reason for it. The positions that have been vacant for a long time and we've seen those reports, that's a telltale sign that those jobs probably need to be eliminated. So, but I don't think we need a freeze at this point necessarily if that's the nature of the question.

UnidentifiedMayorProposed · by role1:46:12

All right, thank you. And so my thoughts on it again is that similar to some of you that discretion for the department head, you know, even some of those long-standing open vacant positions, They're still being used in some way in part of their budget. It might be covering overtime, might be covering an extra health employee. So, I mean, it is part of the way that we do municipal finance. It's different than, you know, the private sector. And what I want to make sure we're not doing is disincentivizing fiscal restraint for department heads by somehow start to eliminate things and taking that money completely away just because we see it not being filled because then that creates a disincentive for them in the future to be, to show restraint.

And I don't want to do that as a board because I think what we'll see in the future is department heads maybe fill a position quicker because they don't want to lose it in the future. So they might put the wrong person in there now instead of wait for the right person because they're afraid in a tough budget cycle that they might lose that position. So I just really want to make sure that we give as much flexibility to department heads. At the end of the day, they have to be responsible for their budget.

You know, I don't want to see something gross out there where there's this position, you know, a big classification that we leave open just as a slush fund. I mean, I think that should be rooted out and I really trust our budget team to identify that and take those department heads to task on that. But I think an overall strategy for an organization as big as we are is probably not a good idea. I think we should give as much flexibility as possible to the department heads.

Supervisor Hartmann.

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisor, District 3voiceprint 0.861:47:43

Yeah and I just wanted to add I can think of a couple instances where a vacancy was long-term but it's not because the decision wasn't needed in planning and development and in animal services but just we weren't advertising, we didn't have the right, the right salary and the right job description for what we wanted.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 12Proposed1:48:07

Is that a good direction? Yes, thank you. And I can comment a little bit on the on the longer term vacancies. We do look at those every year. We do have a policy that says specifically if it's two years or more vacant, we will every budget cycle be looking at those. specifically to see if it makes sense why it's been vacant. In this cycle with these reductions and loads we've seen a lot of those are coming off and I just talked to my principal analyst I think there's about 10 countywide at this point in this load now that are left with these longer-term vacant and usually that is for reasons that that make sense. And 10 out of the 4,700

UnidentifiedMayorProposed · by role1:48:47

is a very small number so I think that's, thank you. Yeah, CEO Miyasato.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed1:48:53

Chair Nelson, just to let you know on the budget side, when there are vacancies in departments and they have salary savings, we don't let them just move it to salaries and services and supplies to spend. You actually can't do that. So just to let you know that if there's vacancies and they're not using it for extra help or overtime, it falls to the bottom line. That's how we get the general fund savings every year.

UnidentifiedMayorProposed · by role1:49:14

Okay, makes a lot of sense. Thank you. Moving on to our last one, number eight.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 12Proposed1:49:20

We'll touch on question seven real

UnidentifiedMayorProposed · by role1:49:21

quick first.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 12Proposed1:49:24

Should staff pursue countywide labor cost reductions over the next two years that could be one-time or ongoing to address the deficit? Options could include flat wage increases, furloughs, or other labor cost reductions over the next two years. Although similar to the discussion above on the use of one-time funds, generating one-time savings does not address ongoing structural issues.

1:49 – 2:0431 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 10Proposed1:49:49

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Well, like I said, I think, you know, the fact that we received the letter from SEIU, our largest unit, that is, was very positive and looking to work as partners, I think is just a really good sign of we're all understanding where we are right now. I think we just keep all the options on the table. Obviously, we can't say too much because we have to sit down and I work with those folks, so I think they're open, we're open, and let's figure out the best way to keep as many people here as we possibly can, providing the most services that we possibly can.

UnidentifiedMayorProposed · by role1:50:24

Thank you, Supervisor Lavagnino. Supervisor Hartmann?

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisor, District 3voiceprint 0.861:50:27

Hardly agree. Supervisor

UnidentifiedMayorProposed · by role1:50:29

Lee? Supervisor Capps? Yeah. Yeah, and I agree as well. I think that, you know, things should be on the table, you know, potential freezes or, you know, whether those are step freezes and things like that, that we might be able to do to help bring down our numbers. You know, even potential furloughs, those all things should be looked at as a menu of items for discussion moving forward.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 12Proposed1:50:56

Okay, number eight. Finally, the eighth question, which is more of a potential strategy for future years. Should ongoing 18% maintenance funding be reallocated in part or entirely on a temporary basis with a plan for restoration in fiscal year 31-32? We allocate about $16.5 million annually under the 18% policy. Temporarily redirecting some or all of that funding could help address future operating deficits with restoration planned around 31-32 when retirement savings are expected to materialize. But the trade-off is clear. $16.5 million less annually for five years means $82.5 million less going into deferred maintenance over that time frame. The current backlog is over $600 million and will grow that much faster without this additional funding.

UnidentifiedMayorProposed · by role1:51:48

Thank you, Mr. Clemente. Supervisor Lavagnino.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 10Proposed1:51:52

OK. Let's talk 18 percent because I think I was the only one that was on the board. Bob was a big part of it. But let's talk about why we have it and because there's a lot of department heads probably have no idea how this all got started. OK. So, Bob, you can help me with the year.

UnidentifiedMayorProposed · by role1:52:11

2014. OK. 2014.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 10Proposed1:52:16

Bob and I are still friends, so that's good. But Supervisor Adam was the 4th District Supervisor, Bob was the Chief of Staff, and came up with what is everybody in our districts always complain about, and that is the state of our roads, and also that our buildings, that the county owns, had a huge backlog of deferred maintenance, and we were honestly doing the minimal Thank you very much. Thank you very much.

The roads and buildings did not deteriorate worse the next year than they were in the year previous, which makes a lot of sense. There were reasons why I felt that we still could address that issue without having our hands tied in case, you know, there were a lot of arguments on both sides. Let's just say the public was split and it was very, very hotly contested and very close election. I think it was, you would know this, 51-49 or 50-

UnidentifiedMayorProposed · by role1:53:32

50.5 to 49.5.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 10Proposed1:53:34

50.5 to 49.5. Okay, so it was very close and the people spoke and they wanted to see the county address our maintenance issues and our lack of funding for roads. So even though it failed, the board members heard what the public said and decided that we need to start addressing this. CEO's office came back with a plan that we would take 18% of unallocated general fund revenue and that would be then directed towards deferred maintenance. What that's done for us is, and I know Paul said we have still have a $600 million deferred maintenance backlog, but I think in 2014 it was probably close to $600 million or more and it was Going up exponentially. So what we've done is arrested the growth, made significant inroads on that.

And I honestly believe that if we get rid of that formula, that we're gonna just fall off the cliff because, when it comes to maintenance, because it's never, ever, ever gonna be a good time to go and start spending more money on maintenance, never. You see this, I've been very poor before in my life, and the last thing I did was do any maintenance on my car. You know, it was like, as long as there's gas in there, we're good.

You don't do the maintenance, you know, around your house when times are tough. So if you don't have that built into the budget, we're never, this thing's just going to get out of control again. And what will happen is, There will be a ballot measure, and it will pass if we abandon this. And what that will do then is tie our hands, because it could be some draconian measure that we can't control, and it will get addressed.

I look at this as a tool that we've had that's performed very well. Would I rather have the money to spend on other things? Sure. And some would say, well, let's take a hiatus. You take a hiatus from this, you're not going back. No one's going to go and say, oh, yeah, I want to go. Because it's hard for us to go to our constituents and say, And the elevators in the admin building really should be updated or the air conditioning units on our behavioral wellness building are 45 years old.

Nobody cares. So you have to have this built in or it's going to get ignored. And this is what past boards did. They ignored deferred maintenance and the people spoke up. And so I know it's very, very, very tempting. We look at this as a pot of money that's just sitting there. But I'm telling you that if we abandon this, it's going to be way worse. And so as tempting as it is, my advice is let's leave it alone.

It's doing what was intended to do. We have somehow figured out how to manage 12 years with this formula. And I think it would be a big mistake to try to get ourselves away from it.

UnidentifiedMayorProposed · by role1:56:50

Thank you, Supervisor Lavagnino. Supervisor Hartmann and then Supervisor Lee.

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisor, District 3voiceprint 0.861:56:54

Yeah, I think deferred maintenance is a form of deficit spending and I don't like it for that reason. I think of roads, it's not just the county services. I mean, I think roads and parks are the broadest thing that our constituents want and my office, that's probably the number one complaint that I get or, you know, People out there inspecting and feedback. Yeah. And and our Public Works Department is tremendously responsive and that redounds really well, I think, for all of our reputations.

So I You know, it kind of, for me, depends how bad the crunch is and what we have to give up. I would be open to, for a couple of years, not spending the whole 18%, but I would not want to, I would dip into it, but I wouldn't take it all. All

UnidentifiedMayorProposed · by role1:58:03

right, thank you, Supervisor Hartmann. Supervisor Lee.

ElectedRoy LeeSupervisor, District 1voiceprint 0.701:58:06

So you think there's a compromise where we take it down to 15% but year 31 and 32 let's bump it up to 19, 20% that we change this policy. Is that something that you'll be open to that could make sense?

UnidentifiedMayorProposed · by role1:58:21

Well we're doing 18% of zero for the last few years. Right. Right, I mean it's been very small

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed1:58:28

amount. So the growth, so that amount has continued 16 million, but it's we take whatever the excess general fund is after we pay all the things we're obligated to pay, we take 18% of that. So you're right that it hasn't grown. So originally remember we had a lot, we had an extra Property tax revenue, we had a lot of things. And so as that grew, the 18% grew. But as you're correct, as Mr. Clemente said, it's flat because we're not seeing more general fund growth that would then augment the 18% money.

UnidentifiedMayorProposed · by role1:59:00

So I don't understand how that would, I mean, 15% of zero is the same as 18% of zero. So I don't know. If we're just changing the number, what that looks like, if I could, and I'll go ahead and jump in on this one, you know, this is to me also one that I don't want to see us touch because we're just, Supervisor Hartmann, thank you for saying it's debt financing, you know, when we don't pay at least our minimum of what it costs to arrest that curve on our deferred maintenance. Even with this amount of money, It's continuing to rise, and so, and it gets more expensive as it goes up. The other thing that we have actually had a benefit of, but at the same time, SB1 got passed, so we have got a lot more money for roads at that time.

Like it or not, the mudslides, we got a lot of money that came into the county for infrastructure maintenance at that time, so I helped bring down our numbers too. But without SB1 and without the mudslide and the FEMA reimbursement, we'd be in really even worse shape. So I think this is our bare minimum. And again, I'm with Supervisor Lavagnino. I think as soon as you start to eat into this, yeah, we're going to get here when the pension surplus that comes in the future. But there is going to be a lot of other hands out there at that time. I would pray to God that we have the fiscal restraint to do that. But I think that we need to hold strong on this number.

And with that, I completely reject the idea of parks using this for their regular maintenance. I know that's on their list there, so I want to make sure I give feedback on there. I'm against that completely. So this is capital funds. This is stuff that's supposed to be used, that we made a commitment to the voters. And I think we've already kind of raided this, because when this originally started, the reason why it built up to $16 million so fast is because we put this ahead of a bunch of other allocations.

But we've now moved it on the order of, you know, it was property tax growth. It was supposed to be 18% of property tax growth. We've kind of made it more, once we spend it all, then we'll see what we have left and we'll do 18% of that. And I think we've already, if you look at the projections that we had, at this point we were looking at having like $40 million a year that we'd be spending, but because of the way that we've, even though we had the same growth that we anticipated, we already have Change our allocation model, and that's why we have less for it. You know, maybe if we were getting $40 million a year, we might be doing less. We may have arrested that curve, but I think this would be a bad idea for us to start to erode that commitment now.

Other comments? Ms. Capps, anything?

ElectedLaura CappsSupervisor, District 2voiceprint 0.912:01:27

I mean, I appreciate the history. I appreciate all of the background. I mean, I would be open to it if it were temporary change, but I respect the strong feelings that you both have. And I don't like the fact that there already is a huge hole. So let's see, I would be open, but it sounds like there isn't that consensus here.

UnidentifiedMayorProposed · by role2:01:50

So I think it's mixed, I guess is the answer. I don't know if there's consensus one way or the other, but it sounds mixed. I

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed2:01:54

guess that's a surprise. That's a joke. So, but Supervisor Lee, I wasn't quite sure. Did you say you're open to it or you're not open to using part of the funds?

ElectedRoy LeeSupervisor, District 1voiceprint 0.702:02:06

I'm open to it, but I can almost feel Peter Adams looking at us right now.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 13Proposed2:02:09

That's

ElectedRoy LeeSupervisor, District 1voiceprint 0.702:02:09

true. So I just want to keep all options on the table, but Bob and Steve, you do make great points. But just I want to keep the option open. I'm not saying yes or no right now, but

UnidentifiedMayorProposed · by role2:02:21

I guess one of my points is if we take it at deferred maintenance, it's going to get more expensive later on. You know, I don't want to go raid our strategic reserve to do this type of stuff, but that's actually not getting more expensive. So, I mean, you're going to pull it out of one of our piles of dollars and, you know, I don't want to raid our strategic reserve, but that actually doesn't cost us anything. I mean, just we're just below our number. If we take it out of deferred maintenance, You know a million dollars that we don't spend this year is 1.1 next year and it's just it keeps going more and more there. So I just think it's bad fiscal management for us to spending less than we're already spending there is my thought.

So next bag Supervisor Hartmann.

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisor, District 3voiceprint 0.862:03:05

I feel very protective of our strategic reserve because I know if we have a disaster there's a delay time until you ever get repaid. We need to we need to protect that.

UnidentifiedMayorProposed · by role2:03:16

It's a holy grail for me as well. I'm just trying to say that As far as spending this money, this is going to get even more expensive for us if we don't do it now. And so I put that out there is just to show how strong I feel about it. All right, Mr. Clemeni, got feedback there on that?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 12Proposed2:03:35

Yes, thank you, and I really appreciate the board's discussion, and it's going to help us over the coming weeks really formulate what we come into workshops with. I do want to recognize the departments have done so much work already in the past couple months on this. It's been a difficult budget already. Just pulling it together, they've all worked really hard.

My teams work really hard, so I appreciate the discussion today. Our next steps are to continue to work with departments to finalize and refine these budget proposals heading into workshops. Workshops are scheduled for April 13th, 15th, and 17th. Recommended budget we do publish by the end of May and adoption hearings are held June 16th and the 18th if necessary.

Our recommended actions are to receive this update, provide guidance on the questions we discussed, offer any additional direction as appropriate, and determine this is not a CEQA project.

UnidentifiedMayorProposed · by role2:04:30

Before we go into final comments, I do need to ask if there is public comment on this item. I believe we had at least one public commenter and I want to give an opportunity for them to comment on this.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed2:04:38

Yes, Chair Nelson and members of the board, we have three requests to speak from the public on this item.

UnidentifiedMayorProposed · by role2:04:42

Okay, so let's go ahead and move to public comment and then we'll wrap up with our final comments up here on the board and then we'll take a small break before pursuing item number four. Madam Clerk, go ahead and with the public

2:04 – 2:115 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed2:04:52

comment. Chair Nelson and members of the board, we will begin on Zoom with Lee Heller, then we will return to Santa Barbara with Karen Hallenstein. Dr. Lee Heller.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 14Proposed2:05:04

Good morning, Chair Nelson and members of the board. I'm sure it will come as no surprise that I'm here to speak in support of staff's recommendation for restoration funding of animal services budget, maintaining the status quo for a program providing mandated services for the coming fiscal year, 2026-27. Without the restoration funding, my understanding is that the budget would be cut so deeply for this relatively small program that a program enforcing a range of state and local laws would functionally become part-time.

This is penny-wise, pound-foolish, and believe me, I understand the dilemmas you're facing, because a part-time hours for animal services means fewer opportunities for the public to adopt and reclaim lost pets, which removes animals from the system. The greater length of stay means greater cost of animal care, thus the pound-foolish component. Your officers in the field would have reduced presence to enforce laws and prevent problems that end up costing us later on as well.

Although most of you are pet owners, I know that your primary mission is to serve the people of this community, and I think you know that I care about those issues as well. Animal services, in fact, has the same mission. 60% of households in this country have a pet, so the majority of people are touched by and care about animals. Reductions in services from reduced food pantry hours to elimination of low-cost vaccine and spay-neuter clinics hits people through the animals they love, and especially our most impoverished community members.

Maintaining a status quo budget for animal services ensures that the necessary minimum of services for those people and their pets will continue through the next 15 months while we figure things out. And, lest you think that we are not trying to plan ahead for what comes after, rest assured that we are. Tales of Hope, our first large-scale fundraiser for animal services, netted $200,000 last September.

Much of that money is being used to restart the licensed canvassing program that is capable of generating close to a million dollars in revenue annually. That is the best way to address the structural deficit for this agency. But that will take time, and we cannot wait. So we will be doing aggressive fundraising in the coming year, starting with a major donor campaign that I'm working on currently, as well as a repeat of a major fundraiser. The goal is to go into 2027 with the money necessary to fill the gap in fiscal year funds for 2027-28. Additionally, next year, Animal Services will be renegotiating its contracts with the cities, currently in the fourth of five years, so we can't do it this year, unfortunately, to increase cost recovery, something that Chair Nelson has referenced as essential, and which will also make significant headway towards balancing the budget without service reductions.

I want to thank Dr. Hamami and his staff for how hard they are working to minimize disruption of core services. Please know that the voluntary community is much larger than just me and some seriously capable and committed people are rolling up their sleeves and digging in to solve the budget problem for this program. You have much more on your plate than we do, but we will do what we need to here so that you can do what you need to do elsewhere. Thank you very much.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed2:08:06

We will now return to Santa Barbara with Karen Hauenstein to be followed by Leo DeCasas. Karen.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 9Proposed2:08:13

Karen Hauenstein from North County. First of all, Animal Services, which is not a division of the county but is supported by the county, is a completely corrupted organization that showed their law enforcement abilities on my parents' ranch. with a lot of theater and fanfare surrounding hundreds of hours billed to the county, and billings to my father, my 85-year-old father, in the amount of $80,000 in fines, that when the judge saw what Animal Services had done They threw it out immediately.

That's the kind of crap our animal services has done, Joan. You know all about it, because your friend Susan Ashbrook was behind it, your political friend. The political actions that this county does in the name of public service, is sickening. Let me give you case in point. Lompoc Valley. We have a county services office in Lompoc. It's now practically abandoned.

The elevator in our county services office doesn't work and has not worked for years. It doesn't get maintained at all. Why? Joan, Laura, Your political predecessors put this into place a long time ago. Keep Lompoc small. Keep Lompoc unrepresented. And that's what's going on today. And it's very, very evident when you look around our community with an educated eye.

And it's sickening. But grift and graft, the reason why you are having this manufactured crisis, and you do a really good job hem-hawing over the manufactured crisis, is because the Biden administration overfunded federal programs for the millions of illegal aliens who are leaving. And you're capitalizing on that today. You should be ashamed. Because you're very transparent.

And the flow coordinator, who was really just a spy for the chumash that came on our property with animal services. The flow coordinator that was being paid by the county to do nothing.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed2:11:16

Thank you, Karen. That is your time. We will now go to Leo DeCasas, who is our final speaker on this item. Leo.

2:11 – 2:166 turns

CommentLeo DeCasalsProposedself-stated2:11:29

Good morning, Chair and Board of Supervisors. My name is Leo DeCasals. I'm your local union rep. Like many of the hardworking professionals in this room today, I spend my life, you know, speaking and communicating with our county staff. And I just want to start off by saying and thanking the budget department and county staff for this preliminary discussion and overview of the hard times that we're looking at for a lot of people.

We do not begrudge the county for practicing prudent fiscal responsibility. That's the right thing to do. I just want to reemphasize, you know, a lot of the points that were mentioned in our letter, that we just urge the county management to not balance the budget on the backs of rank-and-file employees. We just want to reemphasize that message. And I'm really happy and glad to see all the support there is.

Of course, that Strategic Reserve is there for a reason, right, for emergencies, and this is an emergency. So I'm really happy to see that there is an appetite from you all to use that, you know, in this time of dire need. In addition to cuts, we want to advocate for, you know, revenue generators. You know, there's still time to add that, you know, sales tax that staff presented to you last month, I believe, for the November ballot. So, in addition to cuts, we also should be talking about revenue generators as well to help balance our budget.

Lastly, we just want to recommit to working with you all and thanking all staff, especially the Human Resources Department for keeping us informed and the commitment to working with labor. Thank you. Thank you.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed2:13:17

And that concludes public comment on this item.

UnidentifiedMayorProposed · by role2:13:19

All right. Thank you, Madam Clerk. Now back to the board for some final comments and then we'll go ahead and receive and file this and give direction as we have already. So Supervisor Capps.

ElectedLaura CappsSupervisor, District 2voiceprint 0.912:13:29

Yeah, I had some comments. I didn't know if we were going to go through some of the reductions or not, but the majority of the reductions from the Sheriff's Department relate to my district, the Isla Vista Foot Patrol. And in speaking with the Sheriff and the Undersheriff, I learned that the rationale for that was in part because UCSB hasn't been living up to their commitment to provide personnel and learned also that there was a MOU that hasn't been fulfilled.

And so I just want to formally ask to see that MOU. This is the first time I've heard of it that it's never been presented to me that UCSB hasn't lived up to its commitment fiscally and that bears a lot of relevance to us if we're making decisions as to whether or not to restore that request as has been presented. So I'd like to see that at MOU. I'd like that funding to be restored if possible. It does kind of remind me of the WellPath credits that were not Received and then we did our best to try to get them back, but we can only go so far back. So that really troubles me and I just want you all to bear that in mind as they're asking to restore those cuts because if they're not, if all these years, I don't know how long it's gone back in time, but if UCSB had not been providing its fair share of resources then Why would we be paying double or I don't even know how much.

So my two requests are I'd like to see the MOU. I'd like to know how much UCSB owes this county and if there's any recourse to receive those funds before we make any decisions to restore the recommended cuts from the Sheriff's Department.

UnidentifiedMayorProposed · by role2:15:31

Thank you. Supervisor Capps. Other comments or statements or questions from the board? Supervisor Hartmann.

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisor, District 3voiceprint 0.862:15:41

Just to underscore what you said earlier, Chair Nelson, about the hard work of the departments. This has been a difficult year and I know that they've done yeoman's work and really appreciate again the CEO's office. I'd much rather start feeling, you know, Exploring the options now, understanding what their impacts are going to be, then waiting until the workshops and certainly the budget. So I think, you know, we got the December workshop. We've got this.

So we and the public, we understand. And again, it's been those questions. It's been mapped out in a way that we can bite it off and chew in bits. It's going to be tough and I just would like to reiterate what Supervisor Lee said. We got to not point fingers at the cities. It's going to be tempting to get short-tempered and we have to try to do this with as much grace as we can.

2:16 – 2:2611 turns

UnidentifiedMayorProposed · by role2:16:57

Supervisor Lavagnino.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 10Proposed2:17:00

Yeah, I totally agree with that. At the same time, there's going to have to be hard decisions made that are actually going to cut actual programs and affect actual employees. And so I know we're far away from that right now, but it's coming. I appreciate that, you know, I don't want to get into a battle with my city or my cities. We're trying to work as partners on a lot of other things. But, you know, the reality is that's something that a lot of these things that we've done as a matter of just business as usual has to be looked at because we were given a sandwich from the federal government and We can't just ignore it, unfortunately. So we got to do something about it. And unfortunately, that's going to take tough decisions. So I'm with you.

I'll be as cordial as we can. But eventually, we are going to have to vote on some of these tough decisions. It's not going to be fun. And I do also want it one more time for the budget team, CEOs, all the department heads, employees, this is what we should be doing. We should be out in broad daylight looking at all this. So I think some of the problems happen because there's a lack of communication or we know something somebody else doesn't know or they've been told something. So this is cool. This is everybody knows the same information. We're all working together and we'll get there.

UnidentifiedMayorProposed · by role2:18:33

Thank you, Supervisor Lavagnino. Supervisor Lee.

ElectedRoy LeeSupervisor, District 1voiceprint 0.702:18:35

Well I just want to say I'll be reaching out to my cities and asking them to make difficult cuts with us too, knowing that they will participate in that. So that's my goal.

UnidentifiedMayorProposed · by role2:18:45

Thank you Supervisor Lee. And you know I just want to point out you know the sandwich that Supervisor Lavagnino was talking about. This year is the state sandwich, next year is the federal sandwich right. So a lot of the HR 1, you know we're kind of focusing on federal government, that actually happens next year and that's why it's so important for us to look at a two-year budget. A lot of things that are happening this year is because of the state's fiscal mismanagement that's happened for the last multiple years and so that's really where we're taking this hit this year and you know and that compounds into next year because if things aren't looking like they're going to get much better and then we'll have the federal cuts on that that go live in in 2027.

You know just A couple of areas I did not mention that I just want to put on the table, you know, when we're talking about restorations. We don't have those lists up here, but some of us have looked at them a little bit. We didn't want to daylight those because there's, you know, there's still negotiation. There's employees attached to some of these positions.

But two programs in particular that are near and dear to me that I want to see not only restored, one that's in one-time funding. You know, I've been a big advocate on co-response and I know that's been passed funding with one-time funding. I don't necessarily need ongoing funding there, but it's something I think is really hugely important. I don't want to see that go down, especially my two up in the North County. I know we've been able to restore three of those for next year and the preliminary budget. I'm still looking at that fourth and where that cut might be. So I definitely want to talk about that in April. I think we might have an item that comes to the board in the near future to discuss that. So I want to highlight that as well.

The other item that was on the cut list was at one point was our Rural Crimes Division and my understanding is that the Sheriff's team has looked at that and made sure they found some funding for it. For this next year, I think we get actually some real crime prevention dollars from the state. I actually want to see that grow. You know, we actually only pay for 25% of that position, and it's our biggest industry in this entire county, and that we're only paying for one quarter of one detective on that, to me, seems like a misallocation on those resources. So I'm actually, even though I know it sounds odd about talking about expansion. I'm just actually saying I think we actually have a restoration of that and actually have probably a second rural crimes detective.

Crime that's happening out in our rural areas and our farms is beginning to increase significantly, the amount of crime as well as the intensity of that. And when I see, not to pick on Isla Vista, how much resources is going into Isla Vista versus what we're doing for a $2 billion industry that's countywide, I think we need to look at that when we look at resources.

on our law enforcement side. So that's something I'm going to be bringing up in April. So I just wanted to preview that now for staff, knowing that's going to be a huge priority for my office. And then lastly, and I'll go to you Supervisor Leigh, so you got your light on. I want to again thank all the department heads and all the budget teams on each department for all your hard work.

We're going to need you here in April as well. So thank you for being here today. I want to have every department head here in person. Even if you don't go to your office in person, we want you here in the board hearing room in person for your presentation. It's really important for us to hear from you, for us to ask questions, for us to dig deep into accepting this year is going to be a little bit different than past years where it's been status quo. I think we're going to do a lot of hard work of that week. So I just want all of you to be prepared.

Okay. No further comments, CEO Miyasato.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed2:22:11

I just want to thank your board, Chair Nelson, all the board members for having this conversation. I mean, you have an unenviable job ahead this year, this coming year, and next year, and you're balancing your legal fiduciary duties to ensure the county's financially stable. but also with your constituent demands and what departments have identified. And I just want to thank departments also and from the budget team, we spent a lot of time on this, we'll continue. And departments, I just ask that you continue to work with us and be straightforward and transparent. We are going to be asking a lot of questions, not only about your proposed reductions but your plans for restoration. I'm going deeply into your numbers. I know Chair Nelson has already asked to review some departments' budgets holistically to see all your programs.

So we will be doing that as much as we can in the next month and then to provide some recommendations to the board. But I do want to thank everyone for their time. I am always impressed by the level of cooperation from our departments. And if you saw the departments who did not ask for restoration, they could have, but they didn't because they realized the position that we're in and I appreciate that. So thank you again.

UnidentifiedMayorProposed · by role2:23:20

Okay, thank you CEO Miyasato. So at this time can I get a motion for the receiving file and provide the guidance that we have already today and that this is no project under CEQA.

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisor, District 3voiceprint 0.862:23:33

So move A through D and the guidance as you noted.

UnidentifiedMayorProposed · by role2:23:38

All right.

ElectedLaura CappsSupervisor, District 2voiceprint 0.912:23:39

I'll second.

UnidentifiedMayorProposed · by role2:23:40

Second from Supervisor Capps. Any further discussion? All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion passes unanimously. All right, we'll go ahead and take a five minutes or 10 minutes, five minute break and we'll be back here at 11.30. Welcome back to the March 3rd, 2026 meeting of the Board of Supervisors. We've just completed departmental item number three and we'll be starting on departmental item number four. Madam Clerk, will you please read that item to the record?

2:26 – 2:368 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed2:26:07

Chair Nelson and members of the Board, departmental item number four is from the County Executive Office. It is a hearing to consider recommendations regarding the fiscal year 2025 through 2026 second quarter budget status report.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 12Proposed2:26:20

Good morning Chair Nelson, members of the board. Last item was next year's budget. This item is the current year budget. Today I'll walk you through our second quarter budget status report as of December 31st, 2025. This report provides a mid-year snapshot of where we stand financially compared to the adjusted budget. This slide highlights the thresholds we use for reportable variances, $300,000 for general fund departments, positive or negative, and $500,000 for special revenue or other funds. It's also worth reiterating the county's budgetary control policy. If a department projects expenditures above appropriations, they must first attempt to reduce spending, then consider release of available department fund balance, and ultimately, if still over budget, come to the board with an explanation and a transfer request.

And as a reminder that we include in the report each quarter per government code obligations incurred beyond authorized appropriations may be a personal liability of the official authorizing the expenditure. Here you see the summary of projected year-end variances by department in the general fund. With the exception of the reportable positive and negative variances in blue and red, most departments are projecting modest positive variances, largely driven by salary savings from vacancies.

However, those positive variances are significantly offset by two areas, lower revenues and community services parks division, and most significantly, a projected $9.6 million deficit in the sheriff's office driven by overtime. This leads to a total projected general fund surplus of just over $2 million, which is far lower than prior years. I'll discuss the five reportable general fund departments in the coming slides.

The largest positive variance is in general revenues at $9.8 million, or 2.4% of the departmental budget. The main drivers, as reported in quarter one, are interest income at $3.6 million. Oops, excuse me. Property tax at $3.5 million, transient occupancy tax coming in higher than budgeted at $2.2 million, and sales tax at around half a million dollars. There are some smaller revenues coming in slightly under budget.

But they are outweighed by the tax and interest performance. This higher estimated revenue projection in 25-26 serves as the baseline that we project our growth off of in 26-27, which is to say it's already baked into the preliminary 26-27 revenue estimates that we just discussed in the prior item. CEO and probation are also projecting positive year-end variances at each at just over a million dollars and due primarily to salary savings in both departments.

Several positions were being held vacant this year in anticipation of next year's budget issues and are among those being unfunded as some of the balancing measures we just discussed. We are not likely to see salary savings at this level from these departments next fiscal year. Community Services Parks is projecting about an $800,000 negative variance. They continue to suffer from lower revenues driven by the continued closure of the Kachuma Lake RV area due to construction delays. Additionally, concession revenues at various restaurants within the parks system are coming in under budget.

Important to note, excuse me, Parks holds a fund balance that was meant to return to the general fund but can help offset this shortfall if necessary at year-end. This is the most significant issue in the report. The Sheriff's Office is projecting a $9.6 million negative deficit primarily due to overtime. By the end of quarter two, $9.9 million in overtime had already been expended, which is about 99%, just about 100% of the entire annual overtime budget in the department.

Overall, overtime hours worked in the first half of this fiscal year are only down about 5% compared to the same period last fiscal year. However, when looking at overtime hours per pay period, it has declined 22% from the start, from the peak at the start of this fiscal year to the last pay period of the second quarter. So it's a positive trend that we definitely want to see continue downwards over the next two quarters and hopefully make up a little ground in the second half of this year.

If that downward trend that we saw in the first half levels off where it is now, then even accounting for salary savings from vacancies, the department does remain on track to exceed its total budget by about $9.6 million. As a reminder, on February 10th, your board directed the sheriff to explore additional overtime controls. The auditor to provide monthly overtime updates for six months, as well as looking into other high OT usage departments, and directed HR to explore overtime controls through labor negotiations.

Additionally, today the CEO is proposing additional hiring review before requisitions are opened. Purchase order review for urgency and necessity with the department and review and justification from the department of all current extra help positions. This is about trying to control costs where we can for the remainder of this year and mitigating issues earlier in the next fiscal year. We will be working closely with the department on all of these measures.

Finally, also at the February 10th overtime hearing, your board directed staff to analyze the possibility of implementing an Inspector General via AB 1185 as a means of obtaining greater transparency and controls over the Sheriff's budget. Staff have begun researching this option as well as exploring additional controls that could be utilized within the CEO's authority.

We believe your board may also wish to consider a potentially more cost-effective option under internal audit in the Auditor-Controller's Office. However, additional time is needed to discuss each option with the auditor and council. If this is acceptable to your board, we would propose to bring the initial analysis, including less costly alternatives, on April 21st.

This would still leave adequate time to include any board direction in the recommended budget later this year.

UnidentifiedMayorProposed · by role2:32:28

Mr. Clemente, can you explain that again? I don't see in the slide, so I'm trying to get a visual on this.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 12Proposed2:32:35

Your board on February 10th asked us, as part of the whole overtime discussion, one of the directions was to return before budget and with options on an inspector general driven by AB 1185. Ms. A.C.O. Heitman is leading that effort, but just really just the time, April 7th is kind of the next board hearing before budget workshops, and it's just not feeling like enough time to do what she needs to do to pull in various options. So we're targeting the board hearing on April 21st to come back and have that discussion with you and present various options and analysis on what an inspector general may look like and cost and what other potential options may be as well.

UnidentifiedMayorProposed · by role2:33:20

Okay, thank

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 12Proposed2:33:21

you. Outside the general fund there are two internal service funds showing positive variances. The opioid settlement fund at one and a half million dollars. This is due to the timing of prior year payments coming in in the current fiscal year. These excess revenues will be held in fund balance for future allowable uses. Workers' Compensation is projecting a $1.2 million positive variance as driven primarily by a dividend that we received from PRISM, that's the county's insurance pool, after truing up last year's premium payments.

These funds are used to offset future rate increases to departments. On the next, excuse me. On the negative side, in the In-Home Supportive Services Fund and Social Services, they are projecting a $569,000 deficit. This issue stems from the department's fiscal year 25-26 budget development last year. Their cost estimates at that time included the 4% annual maintenance of effort inflation factor, but they did not include the cost of annual salary and benefit increases that local costs have to share in.

There is no fund balance in IHSS. Realignment revenue in the department has already been allocated to other programs in the current fiscal year. As a result, general fund support on top of the already $5.3 million one-time dollars your board has already directed to the department this year will likely be required at year-end unless unexpected savings materialize in the department that would allow us to shift some of those already allocated one-time dollars into the IHSS program. So we're watching this one closely.

As of quarter two, for funded vacancies, there were about 386 funded vacancies out of the roughly 4,700 total funded positions in the county. That's an 8% vacancy rate, which is slightly lower than quarter one, and we've been seeing it trend down over time, I'd say over the past fiscal year or two. Part of that is due to a lot of the funded vacancies being eliminated over time.

Nine departments have vacancy rates under 7%. The CEO's Department, Behavioral Wellness, and Child Support Services have the highest vacancy rates, over 15%. Many of these vacancies, as I mentioned earlier, are being intentionally held for restructuring or fiscal prudence. And some of these in both, I'd say Child Support and CEO, are part of what was eliminated in the 26-27 preliminary budget that we discussed last item.

In the case of behavioral wellness, their vacancies are often in difficult to fill positions. They're typically around a vacancy rate at this level. So today we are asking the board to receive and file the second quarter report, provide any feedback on the proposed additional oversight of the sheriff expenditures, provide any additional direction, and make the CEQA determination.

UnidentifiedMayorProposed · by role2:36:32

All right, thank you Mr. Clemente. Board, Supervisor Lee.

ElectedRoy LeeSupervisor, District 1voiceprint 0.702:36:36

So who has the lowest vacancy then?

2:36 – 2:4117 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 12Proposed2:36:41

Give me one second, I can pull that up. It'll be the board office at 0%. And county council's currently at one, zero. County council's at 0% as well. Thank you.

UnidentifiedMayorProposed · by role2:36:57

That's not true. All right, thank you, Supervisor Lee. Other questions from the board? Can we go back to slide number seven real quick? One more. That's six. Sheriff. So we're at $10.1 million in overtime. Or sorry, $9.9 million for the first two quarters. We're trending down. We're still expecting $10.4 million. So I'm just trying to understand. That's actually trending up.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 12Proposed2:37:40

So, Chair Nelson, they have a $10.1 million in that line item. That's their total budget. They've expended $9.9 million, so almost all of it right now. If they stay at the rate they were at at the end of the second quarter, if it doesn't continue to trend down, we think they would spend an additional roughly $10 million. That's that they would exceed their overtime budget by 10.4. So that's 20... It's a half million dollars

UnidentifiedMayorProposed · by role2:38:06

more in the second half of the year than the first half and that's why I was just trying to, I was trying to...

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 12Proposed2:38:12

I'd say

UnidentifiedMayorProposed · by role2:38:12

it's roughly $10

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 12Proposed2:38:13

million in each half.

UnidentifiedMayorProposed · by role2:38:16

But it's trending down, okay, I just see it going up. I mean it's a half million dollar difference, right? 9.9 versus 5.4 or 10.4.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 12Proposed2:38:24

Sure. Okay, so that's the case. Sorry, yes, there is some seasonality to their overtime that we try to factor in when we do these projections, particularly towards the end of the fiscal year as summer is coming on and it may be impacted by retirements that happen in the spring. We do typically see The department worked more over time over the back half of the year, especially in the last few months.

I think that was factored in there.

UnidentifiedMayorProposed · by role2:38:47

Okay, then the other additional proposed reviews on the CEO's plan to help review of hiring, purchase orders, and extra help use. I mean what's that different than the existing controls that the CEO's office already has?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 12Proposed2:39:01

Chair Nelson, I'd say on the hiring one, it is within the existing authority that we already have and we are indicating we're going to be kind of doing more scrutiny on all of the positions and talking to the department about necessity and things as these requisitions come up. So I'd say that's already there. We're just indicating it here. We're going to be doing that more.

And then on the extra help as well, that's an ask of the department that we're going to have and work with them on.

UnidentifiedMayorProposed · by role2:39:29

And then the purchase orders, I mean how, to what level are we going to be approving purchase orders from CO's Office of the Sheriff's Department? I think that, is that a certain number above a certain cost or?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 12Proposed2:39:39

So we need to work with the department on that. We won't be approving, we will be reviewing. It's still going to go through the purchasing agent and regular processes, but we're going to talk to the department ahead of time and we do need to work out the specific details of that with them. Probably a dollar threshold or things like that. We want to see Really, what is the need, the necessity, the significance of purchases when a department overall is going to be this far over budget? We are hoping departments will ratchet down spending wherever they can.

UnidentifiedMayorProposed · by role2:40:10

Okay, but we have this with all departments. I mean, because when you do things through our financial systems, it takes approvals from auditor's office and typically budget staff.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 12Proposed2:40:22

Not on purchase orders, certainly board contracts because they have to come, we do a significant review with board letters and things like that, but I'd say the lower levels, it typically goes through the purchasing agent and purchase orders get encumbered against line items and things like that, but it's not really their service and supplies where they have the issue, so encumbrances in the automated system isn't really gonna catch the larger issue that the department has.

UnidentifiedMayorProposed · by role2:40:52

All right. I just want to make sure we're not micromanaging at the same time or slowing things down by micromanaging that department to that level. I mean, obviously, those controls need to be in place. I understand that we need to try to get them to conform to the budget as much as we possibly can. But at the same time, I don't want to create a bunch of extra work for CO's office if these are already budgeted expenses. And, you know, I don't want to go through every single PO. I don't think you should have to.

Chair Nelson,

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed2:41:17

I appreciate that. I don't want us to micromanage. And the question is what remedy does the board have then to review this? If they're already projecting to be nine or ten million dollars over budget, I don't want to get to the end of the year in June. And if it's more over budget, you only have two million dollars in surplus, so that means you have to take any more deficit out of other sources and we're already facing that. So we are happy to Thank you very much.

2:42 – 2:478 turns

UnidentifiedMayorProposed · by role2:42:00

A quarter million dollars of overtime, you know, that's going to get eaten up by that event and there's going to be others. And so, you know, if some of our partners can pitch in, I think that would be important too. Supervisor Capps?

ElectedLaura CappsSupervisor, District 2voiceprint 0.912:42:13

Yeah, I'm just, I'm having a hard time kind of compartmentalizing the two conversations from just the first item we just had and this item. So help me out here because So, in a positive example, probation is a million dollars under budget this fiscal year. Yet, in the last budget item, they put forward, I believe, two million dollars in cuts, but asked for about $900,000 back. So, are those two things Do we consider those two things in the same, or does it just go back into the general fund and those things, we don't consider them in the same fiscal perspective?

I'm giving a positive example first before I go to overtime with the Sheriff's Department.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 12Proposed2:43:07

Supervisor Capps, through the Chair, so they are related but somewhat separate, right? It does create this one-time money when probation has salary savings that drop to the bottom line, the general fund takes anything back, and that's one-time dollars available for them. Their ongoing budget The reductions that they are taking, the savings they're generating this year are mostly due to vacancies and that is a lot of what they're cutting or shifting around next year.

They're indicating that the cuts they're taking are beyond where they'd like to be and that's the restoration request that they're asking for. So if you look at a million dollars right now that they're projecting, They've cut two million next year, but asking for roughly a million back. That delta there is maybe vacancies that they're saying they can live without next year, and that's what's generating these salary savings.

ElectedLaura CappsSupervisor, District 2voiceprint 0.912:44:00

Okay. Okay, so then by the same token, And I appreciate we have a new undersheriff and he's doing what he can to bring things more in balance, but the budget is clearly seriously out of balance. And so if the Sheriff's Department budget this fiscal year is still on track to be nine or ten million dollars out of balance, yet the previous conversation was just four million in proposed cuts and then asking us to restore. How do we, how do we reconcile all of this?

I could have asked it last, in the last budget item, but I just decided to ask it here. And what happens with our budget workshops if, if that is carried over and absorbed by the, the general, general fund?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 12Proposed2:44:52

Supervisor Capps, through the Chair, so none of our ongoing the 26-27 budget we're discussing doesn't count on or take into consideration any expected year-end savings in the general fund the current year. So that 2.2 million dollars we think we're gonna, I just reported, that's not anticipated, projected, or allocated anywhere in the 26-27 budget. If it comes to fruition at the end of this year around that amount is we would likely sit on it and then in the 27-28 budget, it would be available to allocate towards needs at that time. So it's a conservative way. We don't try to, you know, four or five months before the fiscal year's ended. We don't try to predict what that's going to be and build that into next year's budget. So the issues in the current year driven by their overtime and things like that are kind of Contained to this fiscal year, when we get into next fiscal year and the adopted budget that we're talking about, it assumes they stay within their overtime and it assumes that they, you know, hit the salary savings they're budgeting.

As that year goes on, we will need to monitor, like we've done this year, where their overtime is actually trending compared to budget.

ElectedLaura CappsSupervisor, District 2voiceprint 0.912:46:12

Okay, so if a department is over budget at the end of the fiscal year, we somehow, and you propose how to make them whole, the clock starts over and that's not carried forward?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 12Proposed2:46:28

Yes.

ElectedLaura CappsSupervisor, District 2voiceprint 0.912:46:29

Okay. And so these are the, I mean, I applaud your strategies. I also will just repeat myself. It appears to be a plethora of federal funding that exists. I don't know what kind of grant situation requests that the Sheriff's Department has. But now would be the time to seek those funds in the federal government department because, again, what I just read as someone who reads the news, there is a lot of federal funding flowing in the area of equipment, military training, et cetera, et cetera. So that would be just my suggestion that I've made to potentially help us out here as we're looking at cuts. And I'm interested in this position of an auditor Devoting more time. I also recognize that we haven't had a lot of audits. So I don't know if that needs to be another position.

It seems to me that we could do with what we have. And I would just tee up that hopefully there'd be some sort of daylight on the MOU that I just discovered, or we just are now surfacing related to UCSB to, you know, make sure that we're making best use of our funds that do exist.

2:47 – 2:5610 turns

UnidentifiedMayorProposed · by role2:47:45

All right, thank you, Supervisor Capps. Other questions or comments? All right, public comment on this item, or do you have, you're good? So Madam Clerk, do we have public comment?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed2:47:58

Chair Nelson and members of the board, my apologies. We have two requests to speak on this item, and one of our members of the public is not logged into Zoom, so we're going to Santa Barbara with Larry Barrett. Larry?

UnidentifiedMayorProposed · by role2:48:10

I'm gonna go ahead and close public comment on this item at this point.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 15Proposed2:48:24

Chair Nelson, Supervisors, I'm Larry Barrett with Indivisible Santa Barbara. So today we are grappling with the impact of the Sheriff's Office being caught in appalling practices of padding officer salaries with overtime pay even when those officers aren't working overtime. This practice is draining our general fund of money needed for the basic needs you talked about in the last item of our most vulnerable and compounding the crisis that you're facing.

So last month in Santa Maria, we heard the sheriff blame the budget for the fact that he's exceeding it, which is something like speeding through an intersection at 80 miles an hour and blaming the stop sign when you're pulled over. You listened with what I found to be remarkable politeness to the sheriff assert in effect that he reserves the right to blow past his budget whenever he feels necessary.

I think this is one thing the five of you can all agree upon. Republican, Democrat, Independent. You are trustees of a $1.7 billion budget. That trust requires you to ensure the county operates per that budget and not at the whim of one man and his excuses after the fact for his reckless spending. So last month, Supervisor Hartmann, you put forth the seed of what I think is a great idea, to appoint an Inspector General per state law to oversee the Sheriff's operations.

Now, if I understood it, you were asking if the IG could be limited to merely overseeing the Sheriff's budget, but I would ask that you appoint an IG without that limit. The Sheriff's fiscal irresponsibility stems from how he runs his overall operations, and you can't achieve much by limiting an IG to acting as ancillary bookkeeper. Now, I've heard for the first time today the county suggests that there might be a cost-effective way to do something within the audit department instead of an IG.

Again, the state has provided us with the mechanism to deal with a sheriff who's not answering to you, who's not living within a budget, and whose operations are to some extent rogue. I don't see the need at this moment to reinvent the wheel. I'll listen to the cost savings that the county thinks it can achieve. By going a different route, but again following what I heard the last item, let's not be penny wise and pound foolish.

A dollar that you spend today on an IG to oversee the Sheriff's operations could save us $10 down the road in the Sheriff pulling past his budget for next year and the year after that. So let's work together in partnership and The community can work with you. The Civilian Oversight Commission as it exists in other counties. And I'm here to help. I'd work as IG for free.

I've got a blocky inkjet printer at home. I'll print for free. Might not be your best solution, but consider it. Thanks a lot.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed2:51:36

And that concludes public comment on this item.

UnidentifiedMayorProposed · by role2:51:38

All right. Back to the board. Any questions from Board staff. Well, just, you know, resurfacing the Sheriff's overtime issue. You know, they're at their budget now. And I know that we're all frustrated by that. I mean, I share that. And I think, you know, there's some blame that belongs to the Sheriff's Department. There's some blame that belongs with Our board on the MOUs that we have that allowed this. There's some blame on, you know, past hiring practices.

I do feel confident in the new administrative team that the Sheriff has in place that they're really working on this earnestly. I also think that our Deputy Sheriff's Association heard that and will probably be bringing ideas to the table. And, you know, obviously we're going to be moving into negotiations with them in the near future. But I think, you know, when we look at that budget, you know, I don't think any of us want the option of once he spent all of his overtime budget for him to stop providing overtime. I mean, I think if that happened, we'd have problems in the jail. We wouldn't be able to staff, you know, big mass events in our community. So, I mean, there's some rightsizing there that needs to take place and I'm not Saying it's all the Sheriff's fault.

I mean, some of this we may have under-budgeted overtime with the amount of hiring that we did for him, you know, at that time where he had to bring on people and then have overtime to backfill it. I'm confident that that number is going to go down. I think that the number that we're seeing here in these projected numbers will probably be even less if some of these things that the administration is pinning into place. So I'm hopeful that we see a smaller number between now and July 1st.

I do think better days are ahead in that department, but I do think the Sheriff's Department has some, you know, structural challenges with how they deliver services and how they're funded. And it's just, you can't just get to the end of your budget and then stop providing services. It's a 24-hour budget item and, you know, almost 100% of their revenue is general fund, and that's why they're under the spotlight. You know, other departments have other issues, but we don't see it because it's not a general fund department, and it's a little bit different how their funding sources are.

They're having to make tough decisions. So I think there's blame to be spread around. But I'm looking forward to our third quarter budget update where hopefully that number is lower. Supervisor Capps.

ElectedLaura CappsSupervisor, District 2voiceprint 0.912:54:09

Yeah, I appreciate it. I just want to make sure it's clear. I don't think anyone has said that we should get rid of overtime. That we all know that our sheriff deputies work really hard and appreciate the safety that they provide all of us and our kids and Our parents. But we also have to point out that it's the one department that's egregiously over budget. And going into this process of looking at our next year's budget, it's the only department that I know of that made the rounds to try to ask for more and made their cuts and then asked to restore them.

And when I found out that the way in which Their cuts were being made was also had some huge problems with, you know, an MOU that was not fulfilled by UCSB and we have to do some uncovering. So it just raised another huge flag for me about fiscal oversight of what's happening. Why were the supervisor that's Representing this area unaware of an arrangement with UCSB that's not been fulfilled. I'm not sure if Supervisor Hartmann was aware of that and so that just again is another big flag that things aren't in control fiscally and that's why we're focusing on it and that's what we need to do but it's very challenging because we don't have eyes inside the fiscal management of the jail given the structural.

Governance structure here, so we have to take these measures, and I appreciate what the CEO is trying to do, and I'm fully supportive. I like the idea of Inspector General. I don't know if we have time, so I would like to do whatever is prudent, but it's not for lack of support for people who work hard and then need to get paid for overtime. Overtime, after working a long shift, or working eight days straight or four days straight.

All in favor for that. Overtime is a loophole we need to fix. Just to be very clear. Thanks.

UnidentifiedMayorProposed · by role2:56:23

Thank you, Supervisor Capps. All right, not seeing any additional lights. Can I get a motion to receive and file? I believe, I don't think there's been any additional direction from the board, so I'm looking for a motion on items A through D.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 10Proposed2:56:36

So moved.

UnidentifiedMayorProposed · by role2:56:37

Second. Motion from Lavagnino, second by Lee. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion passes unanimously. All right we're gonna go ahead and move on to departmental item number five and then after departmental item five we will go ahead and recess to closed session and then be taking the last item after lunch.

2:57 – 3:024 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed2:57:04

Chair Nelson and members of the board, departmental item number five is from the General Services Department. It is a hearing to consider recommendations regarding the five-year capital improvement program, CIP, fiscal year 2026 through 2027 through fiscal year 2030 through 2031.

UnidentifiedMayorProposed · by role2:57:32

Ms. Estorga, you're kicking it off?

UnidentifiedSupervisor LeeProposed · by introduction2:57:37

Good afternoon, Chair Nelson, members of the board. I'm Diana Estorga, representing the General Services Capital Division, and I'm here today with Director Chris Medin, Public Works, and Jill Ben-Wi, Program Manager for the Community Services Parks Division. Today we will be presenting the annual five-year capital improvement program, specifically highlighting the fiscal year 26-27 for our respective departments.

And before we begin, I'd like to just take a moment to thank all the hands who prepared this document as well as provided oversight, specifically the capital team, Kirk Lagerquist, Daniel Contreras, and Scott Henrickson, as well as the CEO's office, Sarah Gill, Chantelle Ding, and Jessica Steele, as well as Ashley Kurzel with the Public Works Department and many of staff division representatives.

An overview of this year's program includes a total of $202.4 million in projects across the three departments. And I'd like to highlight that that total includes 18% in the following amounts, $6.6 million, which is not just the 18%, but also the baseline maintenance fund for general services, $8.2 million for public works, and $2.5 million for community services department.

And this is spent across various project classes, as you can see here, and also multiple CIP programs ranging from emergency repairs to active transportation and parks. And before we continue with our presentation, we'd like to just take a moment to highlight some of our 25, 26 accomplishments across all departments. This slide represents multiple projects ranging from facilities maintenance to office renovations to new construction. And I'd particularly like to highlight our completion of the Santa Barbara Historic Courthouse roof replacement, Phase 3A, which was the Hall of Records to to the clock tower.

I'd also like to highlight the status of the probation headquarters project, which is approximately 60% complete and is anticipated to be completed in late summer, early fall this year. And then we've advanced the North Branch Jail expansion by completing the criteria documents, and we're now in the design-build entity selection process. I'd also like to take a moment to highlight our Energy Division's accomplishments. These are an effort by our Energy Division Manager, Brandon Kaysen, and our Project Coordinator, Alec Jones.

They've awarded nine solar power purchase agreements this year, costing $57 million over the next 30 years. They've also completed the zero net energy retrofits for Casa Nueva and the Santa Maria Admin Buildings. They've initiated designs to install 150 EV charging stations throughout the county. And they've successfully connected or interconnected the Regional Fire Communication Center and EOC with a 250 kilowatt solar array.

And they've also increased the county's renewable electricity mix from 65 to 88 percent.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 13Proposed3:01:33

In Public Works, this is a sampling of some of the projects that are either complete or in construction this year. Most of these are complete or will be complete by the end of the fiscal year, with the exception being Lower Mission Creek Reach 4, which is going to construction shortly and will be potentially a two-year project. And these four projects represent $44 million of investment across the county from local sources such as, state and local sources such as Measure A benefit assessments and rate payer funded improvements.

3:02 – 3:073 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 16Proposed3:02:15

And as for the Junk Door Department, we have completed this year multiple projects across all districts except for Supervisor Lavagnino's district. We have the Manning Tennis Court replacement, which is set to open this week. We have some paving projects at Goleta Beach and at Kachuma. And we anticipate, finally, a couple of good projects in Supervisor Nelson's district, which is the Orchard Community Park Phase 2 lighting project, lighting of the lower fields, and completion of the Vandenberg Village Park Phase 1, which is grading stormwater and a trail system in the back of the property.

UnidentifiedSupervisor LeeProposed · by introduction3:03:07

General Services would like to recommend that the 18% in annual general fund programs continue and be received for fiscal year 26-27. This table represents the deferred maintenance as well as capital projects over various categories and are based off of critical needs. Those critical needs are further defined by the use of reporting and data collected through our systems, either by maintenance connection, street saver, county's ADA transition plan, and security assessment reports.

This slide is showing the various categories of all of our active projects in the Capital Division for General Services. It's representing, I'd like to highlight the multi-year projects which are represented in the table below that make a majority of our total $101 million budget. I'd just like to emphasize that these projects are mostly funded. However, there are some that are partially funded, partially unfunded.

I'd also like to take a moment to highlight some of our priority projects. Currently, we are constructing the Inmate Reception Center at the Santa Barbara Main Jail. This is just one of a few projects that have already been completed at the Main Jail. Also, as I previously mentioned, the Santa Barbara Probation Headquarters in downtown Santa Barbara is about 60% complete and is scheduled to be or anticipated to be completed in late summer, early fall this year.

And then the Bridge House utility improvements is set to increase on-site water and wastewater treatment for the Bridge House shelter in the unincorporated area just east of the city of Lompoc.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 13Proposed3:05:30

Okay, in Public Works, of the $81 million, about 20 is represented by flood control projects, 43 is transportation programs and projects, and this is, transportation is where the 18% general fund that's used for road maintenance goes in this program, so that's where it's reflected, and this is assuming that funding levels are status quo for the 18% funding.

Next slide. And then Laguna Sanitation, we have about $7 million worth of projects and in resource recovery, we're at 10.1. In terms of highlighted projects, we have Oh, sorry, this is a multi-year project, sorry. And these projects are mostly, are all underway, and they may be impacted if there's budgetary adjustments that are made in terms of slowing these projects down a little bit in delivery. But for the most part, they're all on track to be delivered on the current schedules.

And then in terms of highlighted projects, Is it going? Oh, here we go. It's a combination of projects that reflect your board's investment in infrastructure. So there's mobility improvements in San Yanez and the Orchid area. Habitat restoration as part of resource recoveries, the Higas project, recycled water, and then Lower Mission Creek, which will be enhancing flood control in the Santa Barbara area.

3:07 – 3:1317 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 16Proposed3:07:21

And as for community services parks, we anticipate being, we have about a $20 million budget this year of our $381 million capital and deferred maintenance program. We're spending that across districts as much as possible, with the majority being multi-year projects that are shown on the following slide, slide 17. And those highlighted projects for this coming year, slide 18, are Santa Claus Lane beach access improvements, which is a pretty major step in a long-term planning project in conjunction with public works. Thanks, Chris. The Kachuma Waterline upgrades and pavement renovations. This is the final phase of a major fire suppression waterline going into Kachuma over the past 15, 20 years.

And affordable accommodations at Halama Beach. One thing I really want to note in addressing some of the earlier departmental items this year is Honestly, if given this year and next year, if we're able to complete projects with anticipated funding, we'll have reduced our deferred maintenance, which is this year at 76.3 million. We will be able to reduce that to about 57 million.

That's if these projects are completed. That's over a 20%. It's a great progress. You don't get to see the slide or the chart this year, but I just wanted to know that that's been a great investment. Even just a little 2.5 million that Parks gets over the years. And maybe next year I'll be able to show, since 2014, what that has done. So, thank you very much for the investment in our parks.

UnidentifiedSupervisor LeeProposed · by introduction3:09:08

Due to ongoing budget challenges, you know, tied to increased operation costs, rising salary and benefit costs, as well as the high cost of the North Branch Jail expansion, the fiscal year 2026 to 2031 capital plan does not reflect spending on any new one-time discretionary funded projects. That said, we did complete the annual solicitation process for new capital projects. And this list represents those projects that were either ranked in the top 10 or 11 projects as well as priority projects identified by each department.

And this concludes our presentation, so we'd like to move forward with the recommended actions of receiving and filing the detailed five-year capital improvement program for the 2026 through the 2031 years. Review and grant the preliminary non-binding conceptual approval of the projects contained in the CIP. And refer the new CIP projects to the Planning Commission and request analysis of these projects proposed for planning, initiation, and construction in future fiscal years for conformity review with compliance of 65402, 401, and 402. And also to determine that the proposed actions do not constitute a project within the meaning of the California Environmental Equality Act.

UnidentifiedMayorProposed · by role3:10:43

Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Historia. Mr. Reyes-Lavagnino. Oh, I got a I got a quick question. I'll go to you. If you can go back to that slide. 19 I just want to make Supervisor Lavagnino feel a little bit better. I think the courthouse is in the 5th District, just for the future, on there. So you get a little bit of

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 10Proposed3:11:07

love. I need a project. Yeah, I was going to say,

UnidentifiedMayorProposed · by role3:11:10

I just want to make sure you...

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 10Proposed3:11:11

Give me a roof replacement. Yeah, we got the Santa

UnidentifiedMayorProposed · by role3:11:14

Maria Courthouse on there.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 10Proposed3:11:14

Thank you.

UnidentifiedMayorProposed · by role3:11:15

I just want to make sure we have that. I did have a question though. Yeah, please.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 10Proposed3:11:19

So on the actual Santa Barbara County Courthouse roof replacement, I noticed we're in 3A. How far out? I thought that 101 was a project we would never get done.

UnidentifiedMayorProposed · by role3:11:33

It's 47 sections.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 10Proposed3:11:34

Yeah, I'm starting to think. 3A, so how many are there? How much more do we have to go?

UnidentifiedSupervisor LeeProposed · by introduction3:11:39

There's two additional phases after 3A. Okay. The reason why that split into multiple phases is that when the project was initially presented for that fiscal year, we were asked to reduce the amount, so then we broke that phase into a sub-phase.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 10Proposed3:11:58

Thank you. How long ago, I'm just curious, like how, is this one of those things where we get to 5 or 3C or whatever that one is? Do we got to go back to one again? I mean, how long was it? That's a 50-year project, right? Something like that, 40? Okay, good. Thanks.

ElectedRoy LeeSupervisor, District 1voiceprint 0.703:12:16

Supervisor Lee. So I see a lot of improvements at Cochuma Lake now in the next couple of years. So the question is, I remember Steve brought it up about discussion about swimming at the lake. I don't know if this is the right place to ask it, but does anybody know

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 10Proposed3:12:31

when or if? I can give a quick update real quick. So the federal government's fine with it. It's all the water purveyors downstream. Okay. Carpinteria, Goleta, Santa Barbara. I would say it's not that they don't have any interest, but their number one priority is water, purveying for their customers drinking water. Recreation is not anything that they're concerned about or feel that is like important to them. And so any additional costs, any additional, it's not something that they're really interested in.

If there is additional cost, we would be picking it up, which obviously I think that's important to us, but in the fiscal situation we're in right now, I would say that's something for a few years down the road, at least. But yeah, the water purveyors downstream. The federal government's the one that would make the decision, but they want us to have everybody on the same team, and unfortunately right now, not everybody's on the same team. Thank

ElectedRoy LeeSupervisor, District 1voiceprint 0.703:13:34

you for that.

3:13 – 3:1812 turns

UnidentifiedMayorProposed · by role3:13:37

If we go back to slide number nine, I've got, I just wanted to highlight something for a moment. So this is the general services 18% and general fund programs. And I just wanted to I want to point out, you know, we're talking about potentially eroding the 18% in the future budget year, so I'm going to take this opportunity to kind of point out on this one. You know, I think the 18% has given up the office quite a bit because I think originally when we did the 18%, it was supposed to be for deferred maintenance projects, but we've now started to use that more and more for other capital and maintenance projects that also help bring down our deferred maintenance backlog.

So we've kind of, we've broadened that definition over this period of time. So I think there needs to be some appreciation that it's not just this place we, you know, that it's a zero-sum game. You know, we, right here you see $5.3 million of 18% is going to general services, but really what we consider deferred maintenance projects is only $1.5 million of that.

So I just want to Again, point out that deferred maintenance from its original intention back in 2014 has gone through some multiple evolutions and, you know, including changing what unallocated revenue looks like, changing what we can spend that on. So I think that that funding source, again, I didn't want to skip this opportunity to point out. What an important piece of the overall capital and maintenance strategy we have in the county, that money is. And again, just lobbying and putting that bug in all of your eyes and ears, it's really important that we keep that ongoing with at least where it's at right now in the next couple of years. So just wanted to point that out.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed3:15:30

See you all, Miyasato. Chair Nelson, just maybe Director Lagerquist could answer this question. So your list of deferred maintenance, we have a general line. Of your other list of projects, are those not deferred maintenance?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 17Proposed3:15:49

I'll bring that list back up. So while we have the one line there, deferred maintenance, I mean, that is what it says. But I mean, the other ones like flooring and window maintenance, electrical systems, these are all items that are well past their useful life. And so, I mean, we're replacing items that are necessary and would become or basically are deferred maintenance. So, yeah, they're broken into different categories, but they're all considered deferred maintenance.

UnidentifiedMayorProposed · by role3:16:23

Well, I think that's where deferred maintenance has allowed us to have a capital budget, right, before we didn't really have that. And so this new growth that we've been able to, year after year, do has allowed things like that to happen and get it paid for and yet solve some deferred maintenance issues when we've replaced capital and it helps bring our backlog down.

But I just want to point out how important that is ongoing. That was really the focus there.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed3:16:47

Thank you. I didn't mean to argue against it. I just want him to point out those are all deferred maintenance projects.

UnidentifiedMayorProposed · by role3:16:52

And we build a new building. Potentially, like let's say probation, you know we're going to build a new probation building. On day one that should have zero deferred maintenance. We have a probation building with a lot of deferred maintenance and so we're going to tear that down and so that number will go down. So capital and deferred maintenance are two pieces of that solution and again I don't want to see any of that eroded, if possible, in this budget cycle. It's good because I think we've done a lot of hard work to get where we're at right now. I think, you know, as Jill mentioned, at least Community Services, they've got a good story to tell that their number is going down. I don't know if General Services and Public Works can say that their numbers are going down.

That'd be a great luxury. And, but I, so I, again, I think we just need to be, keep riding this ship as far as we can. Jump back

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 17Proposed3:17:40

on Supervisor Lavagnino's question earlier about the courthouse roof. So yeah, when we did that project, it was, I don't know, like $10 million range to do the entire roof at one time, which was not a very palatable number. So we broke it into multiple phases. It was built in 1929 and coming up on its 100 years, and this is really kind of the first time we've addressed the roof. So I would envision the roof lasting for about another 100 years.

UnidentifiedMayorProposed · by role3:18:07

Supervisor Capps.

ElectedLaura CappsSupervisor, District 2voiceprint 0.913:18:08

Just a compliment on the probation building since you brought it up. I drive by it daily and it's just, it's incredibly fast, that construction. So I just want to give a shout out to the workers. Thank you.

UnidentifiedMayorProposed · by role3:18:20

All right. Go ahead and if we can get a motion to receive and file. Oh, I'm sorry. Is there any public comment on this item? I didn't see any. Sorry.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed3:18:29

Chair Nelson, members of the board, I just want to note for the record, we have no requests to speak.

UnidentifiedMayorProposed · by role3:18:32

All right. So can I get a motion to items A through D?

3:18 – 3:2410 turns

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisor, District 3voiceprint 0.863:18:38

So moved.

ElectedLaura CappsSupervisor, District 2voiceprint 0.913:18:41

I'll second.

UnidentifiedMayorProposed · by role3:18:42

All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion passes unanimously and we will go ahead at this time and break for closed session here at 1231.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 18Proposed3:18:55

Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the board. The board is scheduled for one item closed session, anticipated litigation. It's significant exposure to the litigation, one case, and there's a claim that's attached to the agenda that gives the details. And the time estimate for closed session is about 20 minutes, but I'm not sure if you'd like to add any time on for eating or a break or anything.

UnidentifiedMayorProposed · by role3:19:16

Yeah, we'll be back no earlier than 1 o'clock. All right, welcome back to the March 3rd meeting of the Board of Supervisors. We're coming out of closed session. Madam Council, can you please read us out from closed session?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 18Proposed3:19:51

Thank you, Mr. Chair, members of the Board. The Board met in closed session on one item of anticipated litigation, significant exposure to litigation, and the facts are listed in the agenda. The Board took no reportable action.

UnidentifiedMayorProposed · by role3:20:03

All right, thank you. And now we're on to our sixth and final departmental item. Madam Clerk, will you please read departmental item number six into the record.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed3:20:13

Chair Nelson and members of the board, departmental item number six is from the Community Services Department. It is a hearing to consider recommendations regarding the economic impact of the creative economy in Santa Barbara and Ventura counties.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed3:20:25

Director Armas, take it away. Thank you, Chair Nelson, members of the board. Jesus Armas with the Community Services Department, joined this afternoon in person by our phenomenal Executive Director of the Office of Arts and Culture, Sarah York Rubin. Today, we're here to share with you some really exciting news about what it means to have a creative economy, not just in Santa Barbara County, but in the region.

We often think of arts and culture as the qualitative side of our lives. But really, when we look at it more carefully and more critically, we find that it has some very significant quantitative aspects to it. And then more locally, that it has some enormous positive influences on the local economy, both in terms of serving the economic value of a variety of fronts and also in the employment arena. So this afternoon I'd like to invite Sarah to make the presentation. I would note, as stated in the board letter, this is not the first report of this type. The county has been involved in preparations of this or similar studies for over 25 years, so we have the benefit of a longer term perspective. And with that, Sarah, if you would.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 19Proposed3:21:40

Good afternoon Chair Nelson, members of the board. Today we'll take a look at how the county's creative economy drives jobs, income, tax revenue, and long-term resilience. We often talk about arts and culture in terms of community and identity, which remain important, but this afternoon we're focusing on their significant economic contributions. I'll begin with some national and statewide context before we go into our local analysis.

Increasingly, state and federal agencies are recognizing the unique role of creative industries in helping regions diversify commerce, attract talent, grow small business, and adapt to change. Their public policy and workforce investments are aligning accordingly. For the county to be competitive for these funding opportunities and to participate holistically in regional economic planning, it became clear that we needed to better understand and articulate our local creative economy.

The Regional Economic Development Collaborative, with representatives behind me today, came to that same conclusion. They approached us and together we engaged the UCSB Economic Forecast Project to analyze the data, which is even stronger than anticipated. So, despite the stereotype about starving artists, the creative sector contributes over $1 trillion annually to the U.S. economy.

California leads the nation, unsurprisingly, and our state's creative economy generates over $230 billion annually. It's almost 8% of the state's GDP and supporting more than 850,000 jobs. Right now, the California Arts Council is launching the state's first ever creative economy strategic plan. And they're collaborating with GO-Biz. Our office just helped to facilitate a regional summit to gather input on that plan. And the state will be compiling feedback and presenting recommendations to the governor and legislature next month.

We anticipate outcomes from that briefing to inform the arts funding landscape for the foreseeable future. Having the UCSB Economic Forecast Project report in hand will help to ensure that our county is well positioned to engage and succeed. And it's my honor to welcome from the UC Economic Forecast Project, Dr. Peter Rupert, who should be joining us on Zoom.

3:24 – 3:382 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 20Proposed3:24:26

Yep, I'm here. Thank you, Sarah. Sorry, I'm on Zoom. Maybe it's better. I had the flu last week, and so it's probably good that I'm just not around people. But I was on my way, and then there was some traffic, and I couldn't make it in time, so I had to end up just veering off and coming home. Anyway, yeah, I've been working for a while on this, and I can tell you there's a few other ancillary things that We're doing, in particular, I've been talking to the Santa Barbara Bowl, you know, and I think many of these organizations, Music Academy of the West, et cetera, you know, what Sarah said is right. I mean, it's part of our community. And, you know, I can tell you now without certain arts and arts education and music, Theater, etc.

You know, Santa Barbara would not be such a great place to be. And so it attracts tourists. It attracts locals. People here come here because they want to live amongst a lot of art, etc. So, you know, it is a big thing. And so let me explain a little bit on the next slide. So we ran this thing and it's called Implan. And Implan It is a well-known device. It's a computer program that's based on what are called the United States input-output matrices.

And what they are, We know every dollar that gets spent from some company, we know where it goes. We know if there's a dollar spent, that 15 cents might go to legal fees, 12 cents might be to get furniture, 37 cents to get employees. We know where those things are. And given that, we also know the next stage. We know that if they, for example, buy furniture from a local source, then we know that that local source had to have inventory, they had to have employees, they had to have the size of the shop, they had to do all these things. So that trickles down to the rest of the economy. And what you can see here is the economic output in Santa Barbara County.

It's actually not 3.77 billion, it's 3.83 billion. But, you know, it's a hefty number. you know, the size of this industry. And again, it's very difficult to say what the industry is. We'll talk about that in a second. And, you know, there's some things that you think should be included or not included. You know, my best guess is that this is a lower estimate for the following reason, that there are lots of people who might be doing something that are, it's hard to describe whether it's in the arts and education, culture, et cetera.

And the way these data come is when somebody is providing data on their forms, they have to list what industry they're in. And so that's what this goes by. So you can see there's $3.83 billion in output, $1.3 billion of labor income alone. and 469 million that goes to payments and taxes. Let me mention what this number means. This is not based on certain rates. This is actually based on the amount of tax that's actually paid by the various institutions. Okay, next slide.

So in general, this is what's in there. Again, you know, we have to make a little bit of a judgment call here. And we sort of stuck by what several other people have done in California, the California study by Otis, etc. Entertainment, architecture, interior design, performing arts, communication arts, you can read it as well as I can say it. So, you know, all those things are in there.

And we We wanted to do this to sort of bring it all together. I mean, if you look at any one particular part, it may be tiny, you know. And so what we've done is basically add these up into these groups. We have organized them according to what are called the National North American Industry Classification System. And what that does is every industry has a code.

And it starts out with a two-digit code. This is used by the Small Business Administration, by the Census Bureau, all kinds of things to find out where people are, okay? So we wanted to really, you know, Okay, the next one. So, it's responsible for roughly 11,232 jobs. Now, again, let me explain what that means. There's going to be a direct effect. This comes from M-Plan. We'll see this in a second. It comes from M-Plan. The direct effect simply means how many people are employed or self-employed in Santa Barbara County directly associated with a particular area, like design.

And then what happens is, well, those people have to buy supplies, and so they have to rely on other people who are local in the area, or perhaps not even local, you know, to buy certain products. And then because of that, those individuals are also here going to restaurants, you know, those kinds of things, who are employed in these areas. So these are called direct, indirect, and induced effects. And this 11,232 sums all of those, and I'll break it down in a second. And it's not a small part. I mean, it's 5% of the workforce is, you know, is pretty good. And as Sarah was mentioning, you know, many people believe that, you know, there's starving artists out there, but in particular, We actually don't see that in the data. I mean, I'm sure there's a lot of them, don't get me wrong, but it's going to turn out that artists in our categories that we looked at have about a 10 to 15 percent higher wage than the average across many other professions.

40% of them are self-employed, so those are a little bit harder to find and to use because they're going to categorize themselves perhaps differently. So, okay, next slide. So as you can see, this is sort of the size of employment. I wanted to show this slide just because, you know, we know we have some very large sectors. Some people could say government's too big. I'm not going there because I'm hired by the So obviously we have some very, very big sectors, government, ag, et cetera. But as you can see, once we get out of the very large sectors that are out there, it's as large pretty much as construction, manufacturing, finance, et cetera, et cetera. So this is not a small area that we're dealing with.

This has to do with nonprofits, and again, you know, a lot of this is with nonprofits, Music Academy of the West, et cetera. And this sort of comes from the reporting from the nonprofit sector. But again, you know, having the arts here, you know, does draw these kinds of institutions, nonprofits, donations, et cetera, because it's a valuable resource, you know, for our community.

Okay, next. So, as I said, I've been talking a little bit to the Santa Barbara Bowl. They have, obviously, if you've been to the Santa Barbara Bowl, you know how lovely it is. But it turns out it's also an economic engine. They sell out almost every show that they have. They reinvest in themselves. They bring in about a little over $12 million in revenue. And let me just make a small pitch here.

Everyone should realize that they're restricted to the number of days they can actually have concerts. And so, you know, this number and, you know, when you talk to Rich or somebody at the Bowl, you know, we know that they turn away so many big concerts and they send them up north to, you know, Paso or something like that. And so we've made a conscious decision, you know, to limit the number of shows here. But I think the work we're going to be doing with the Bowl I want to get a cost of how much it is that we're not letting happen here so that we can go to the county again and say, hey, you know, here's what we're giving up by not having some of these things. And as you can see, each show has 73 volunteers, typically 260 paid personnel. So these are viable, viable economic engine.

There's no doubt about it. Next slide. Again, this is this idea of this kind of ripple effect that, you know, one could imagine not having Music Academy of the West here, or the Santa Barbara Bowl, or the Santa Barbara Film Festival, you know. We don't have those things, and I'll tell you that the desire to live here, the desire to come here to, as a tourist, would fall dramatically. And while many people probably don't want to hear this, The arts is part of a burgeoning community. Without the arts, the community is lacking.

And that has several dimensions. One dimension is we know that children that are enrolled in some of these arts programs, they typically go on to college more often than those who are not enrolled. They provide a lot to the county. And second of all, the desire to live here comes into things like Obviously rents and house prices that drive property taxes. Without all those things, we end up being not as attractive as a community to come to.

Next slide. So there's many initiatives out there that Sarah knows much more about, and I'm sure she can answer any of those questions. It turns out I'm just the one inside the office that crunches the data. They get to go out and have fun. They call me when they want to know the economic impacts. But there are a lot of programs that are out there that the community could certainly take advantage of with, I think, support of the rest of the community.

Again, maybe this is Sarah's part, I don't know, or whomever should do this. To accept this sort of thing as a viable report, in the report that we're going to present that the Arts Council will have, it will have all of the various facts and figures, as well as being able to drill down to get into the nitty-gritty of the various areas that are there. So, Sarah, I think I'd leave that to you.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 19Proposed3:36:57

Well, thank you again, and we're grateful to Peter Rupert for his support over several years at this point. We've been measuring the growth of the sector, especially as it's rebounded post-COVID, as well as some of the struggles there. To his note about arts on a policy level, we're grateful for your board's support of the Studio Tours Ordinance Revision or the Land Use Development Code. And in thinking, I think, holistically about the role that policy can have in shaping economic opportunities for our working creatives.

Work with your board over the last 25 years, as Mr. Armas noted, on these studies has positioned us well. And recent grants that we've received from the state, including the Individual Artist Career Awards and the California Creative Corps, which was $4.75 million, were both targeted towards workforce investment. Additionally, we're slated to receive funding from the Uplift-CA Jobs First initiative to help local artists pursue careers in public art.

And we were able to support that ask with Percent for Arts funding. So there's a big intersection I think of the policy and direction we create here and receive from your board in our viability for public funding at the state and federal level. So with that, the recommended actions for this item are to receive this update, thank you, and offer any additional direction as appropriate and determine this is not a CEQA project.

3:38 – 3:5216 turns

UnidentifiedMayorProposed · by role3:38:44

All right, thank you Ms. Corcoruban. Questions from the Board? Supervisor

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisor, District 3voiceprint 0.863:38:51

Hartmann. I just, I'm excited about this project. I, the arts are to some extent of, at least when you think about the economics of it, hard to get your arms around and so I really appreciate this report. Santa Barbara is known for its natural beauty and for the artistic community, the theater, the visual arts, the music, that it's a happening scene. And that makes people want to come here, both to live and to visit. And I think how it situated Santa Barbara vis-a-vis its neighbors, I mean, I think that that really distinguishes us.

There's just little stories. I asked a teacher in Lompoc, she was Teacher of the Year, what drew you here? What kept you here? And she said, the murals. And I was sort of shocked. But that was, you know, it distinguished the community. I remember in Guadalupe when they had the The sculptures around and it just, everybody just livened up in the whole town. Cyclists came through and wanted to have their selfies.

It just created a vibrancy that wasn't there otherwise. I think of the Lompoc Theater and that's exactly what we're trying to do with that project. Perhaps one of the most Impressive things I saw was Alma Hernandez and my staff works on the Corazon del Pueblo in Santa Maria and how important that is, arts, for Latinos in that community. Two young men came and they were learning, just to talk and share their enthusiasm because they were just learning about the music of their cultural tradition and I can't impart how Significant this was to their sense of self and who they were and that it grounded them and connected them to their ancestors and something that they could offer and something that they could reach into the future about. So it's ineffable and this helps to try to Articulating in some ways but I you know it's so much more and it is I think what makes us quintessentially human and it's at the core of culture and so I just appreciate this opportunity to talk about what it means for us.

Thank you. Thank you.

UnidentifiedMayorProposed · by role3:41:46

Supervisor Capps.

ElectedLaura CappsSupervisor, District 2voiceprint 0.913:41:48

Yeah, thank you. It was nice, very helpful to read this report and see the economic heft. I wanted to just ask if there were any surprises to this report. You said the data was stronger than even you expected. Anything else or specifics that jumped out?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 19Proposed3:42:05

Thank you, Supervisor Capps. Something that was striking to us was that the number of direct jobs and employment in Santa Barbara County is 25% higher than Ventura County. Despite the population differential and their proximity to Los Angeles County. So I think that speaks to the density even of arts organizations here. We have over 400 arts and culture nonprofits and they've remained a major employer. So I think that was something we were excited to see and speaks to the investment through things like the cultural arts grants that the county does.

ElectedLaura CappsSupervisor, District 2voiceprint 0.913:42:43

Well that's, yeah, thank you. That's good to hear. And I was, yeah, I'm happy to hear Peter Rupert speak about the wages being higher than I would have necessarily thought. But what about the jobs, housing imbalance? Did you get into that? I mean, are people actually living here if they're working here?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 19Proposed3:43:01

The arts and culture sector, I think, is experiencing the same challenges that the others are. It's certainly, you know, feedback that we receive frequently. And we are having some attrition with our local artists, especially the emerging ones, who I think are some of the most dynamic, who just can't make that stronghold. And it's even impacted our calls for art. People who consider themselves Santa Barbara County artists live in San Luis Obispo or Ventura, and we expanded our calls to Tri-County, just so the artists who identify as local can still participate.

It's a major issue and we have seen a lot of models like WAVE, which is like an artist studio live work space down in Ventura County that have been very popular and successful.

ElectedLaura CappsSupervisor, District 2voiceprint 0.913:43:54

So that's a studio, does that have housing?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 19Proposed3:43:57

Yes, it's like a live work. It's a government, essentially one of the projects for affordable housing.

ElectedLaura CappsSupervisor, District 2voiceprint 0.913:44:04

Oh, interesting. Yeah, my niece is an artist and she participated in one of those in Marin County. It was interesting. So, yeah, and I just want to speak with what Supervisor Hartmann said about the cultural breadth of the artists and the art that's here because, you know, as a child of the 70s here, I do strongly associate Santa Barbara with an arts culture. I kind of grew up in this sort of hippie, solstice-y type vibe, but very white, very predominantly, you know, That's my memory, right? But now it's so much more diverse and to see that reflected and to see so much progress and so much diversity and richness to the culture here. And just a shout out to my colleague, Daniel Aguirre, who was one of the founders of the Harris Makers Market, which is allowing artists to You know, sell their, their art in this very grassroots way.

So I know that's just one of many, many examples. Anyway, thanks for the report.

UnidentifiedMayorProposed · by role3:45:07

Thank you, Supervisor Capps. And I was, you know, what I didn't see and I want to understand, maybe you have some thoughts on it, but the dichotomy between North and South with arts, you know, a lot of things that you guys are mentioning in this report are South County focused. And I think a lot of the nonprofits are South County focused. I know Supervisor Hartmann mentioned a couple of things in Lompoc and and Guadalupe, but can you talk a little bit about the differences between the two parts of our county on arts and arts investment?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 19Proposed3:45:37

Absolutely. Thank you, Supervisor Chair Nelson. Regarding the county's arts investment for the funding that is for the Arts Commission or discretionary project based, we always pursue a holistic county wide lens and even I think make an effort when possible to double down in North County specifically. And I think we've been grateful to see the state kind of align on some of those same investments, I think with advocacy from your board.

Supervisor Senator Lamone has been able to procure funding investment for the Lompoc Theater Project, for the Royal Theater in Guadalupe, And there's been, you know, real critical mass behind that, and staff on the back end, and you don't see that as much, I think, have been working to support those initiatives, to help them find contractors, and to really do what we can to make sure that those thrive, because as you know, I think the capital funding is just part of the equation.

But yeah we've really tried to to calibrate investment up there and also even established a North County office via Hannah Rubicava here with me and Waller Park just to make sure that there's physical access to meet with county staff members more equitably.

UnidentifiedMayorProposed · by role3:47:06

Were you able in the study to I mean was there a percentage difference North and South? Could you could you look could it dive in that deep on on the investment?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 20Proposed3:47:15

Yeah, so I could talk a little about that. So, you know, the package we have in INPLAN, you know, we can basically get down to the zip code level. The problem is when you get down to finer and finer populations, you know, you don't have enough data to really make a significant call. Could we do it for north versus south? We can. You know, we can. We can go out and look at it. We're kind of constrained a lot by what gets collected by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, for example. You know, once you get down to, you know, 40,000 and 50,000 people, it's very, very difficult to get the data. But for a lot of it, we can, if we can categorize it north versus south, you know, maybe north of Goleta, whatever.

You know, we can add those together. And just one quick comment about the nonprofits. I actually did a little work on this, and it's true that, you know, 95% of the nonprofits are headquartered in South County. It doesn't mean they don't have a reach up in North County. It's just, for lots of reasons, it's easier to be headquartered, you know, in South County. So that's why a lot of them do it. But a lot of the outreach is, you know, across the county.

UnidentifiedMayorProposed · by role3:48:38

Thank you. Yeah, I'd like to see those numbers at some point. If we're able to dive in there, I think it's helpful just so we can see where our investments should go, right? If we're overly weighted in one area of the county versus another, maybe then when we're spending our county dollars that maybe they need to be more allocated in one direction than the other to try to make up for some of those historical differences. You know, it's one of the reasons why I keep pushing for more North County investment in public spaces.

You know the South County they developed and we did Santa Barbara Bowl and a courthouse and we spent millions and millions of dollars for decades down here on public spaces and we never did that up north. You know we did community centers down here, never did that up north. In fact usually we turn to Non-profits in North County to fundraise and then spend hundreds of thousands of dollars in our very punitive planning process to get through that just to have public spaces. You know, we have areas that want to open up concert venues, but it's cost prohibitive to get through our process. You know, in the South County, you never had to do that because it was a very simple process because it was a long time ago.

Right, or the county actually did it themselves. So again, I think there's the investment, there's also this wave of change, and I just think it's just, it's a shining, another shining example of the inequities that happen in our county and the lack of investment and prioritization of North County. And, you know, I think that's, that's going to hopefully, hopefully, I think it will bear itself out in the numbers if we look at it when we see the huge difference between those two. You know, I acknowledge that there's, you know, investment by South County nonprofits up here, totally get it.

But it is, you know, if you're going to change those numbers, there has to be a concerted effort to do that. And I still don't necessarily see us make that full commitment in this county. Hopefully that we do when things are a little bit better in our budgets. But it's definitely going to be something I keep saying up here from this dais until I see that actually change.

Supervisor Hartmann.

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisor, District 3voiceprint 0.863:50:32

Yeah, well, I do think our Office of Arts and Culture has made tremendous strides to broaden the kind of art and artists that are featured and to make it much more geographically equitable. And I know that Sarah's an ambassador for that. I've heard her talking to the Santa Barbara Bowl and encouraging their activities more in North County, which they were very receptive to. So it's an ongoing effort, but I do think we need to credit that a lot has happened in the time that I've been on the board.

I also, I'm not sure that the economic analysis gets to this, but so often it's artists that come into a blighted area and redevelop. They're the ones, and then the prices go up and they're priced out. And I think that happens residentially. I think it also happens in commercial areas, and that's of course what we're hoping with the Guadalupe Theater and the Lompoc Theater Project, that that will drive redevelopment, that will increase property taxes, and really kind of lead the charge for greater Dr. Rupert, if you would comment on that.

3:52 – 4:0011 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 20Proposed3:52:12

That's a great question and the answer is yes, it does work. And by the way, it's just not arts necessarily, but what happens is that in these areas that are not doing so well, a little bit blighted, obviously the rents are lower. And so what you get are kind of innovation. You get innovative people to come in, whether it's restaurants or artists or little art communities, et cetera, that come in.

You know, all of a sudden it's like, wow, this is a really nice place to be. And I do think it starts with that. I mean, to be honest. So I don't think that, you know, it's like construction goes in there or a manufacturing firm. I really do think it starts with You know, people are able to get in there. They need space, you know, back to Bob's point. You know, they need space to have some public space, maybe as art, you know, whatever. But it's really the coming together of a lot of people.

And then what you need is, you know, once you get this agglomeration working, You know, then you have people there who open galleries. And, you know, so it does drive it. It does drive rents up, of course. You know, anything that becomes nicer. But, you know, I think it is an economic driver and we've seen it in many, many, many different places around the U.S.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed3:53:35

Thank you. From experience, if I may, Supervisor Hartmann, Chair Nelson, it is fairly common to see communities that maybe are experiencing blight to become a place where folks are willing to experiment and to try new things. The challenge is their success has a consequence and their success is you start to see escalation in rents and the like. And if care isn't taken, the very value that's been derived by their introduction is lost. And what a number of communities have done to try to address that is also move in the direction of Thank you very much.

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisor, District 3voiceprint 0.863:54:36

If I might add it, I keep thinking where could we do this in County Unincorporated. It's mainly sort of a city policy and a city issue, but maybe there are opportunities in the county where you can create a zone for experimentation and try to drive innovation and arts and bring something, raise it up.

UnidentifiedMayorProposed · by role3:55:04

All right, thank you. Any other comments from the board? Madam Clerk, do we have any public comment on this item?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed3:55:10

Chair Nelson and members of the board, yes, we have two requests to speak from the public on this item. I do believe Karen Hauenstein has left our meeting, so that leaves Bruce Stensley, who is our only speaker on this item. Bruce?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 21Proposed3:55:26

Thank you, good afternoon Chair Nelson, members of the board, staff. Bruce Densley, President and CEO of the Economic Development Collaborative. We're based down in Ventura County, but do lots of projects from Los Angeles to Santa Barbara's Central Coast. Thrilled to be here and to see that you listen to this dialogue today. Just a couple of quick points. Some six years ago, looking at the larger economy of the two-county region, we commissioned a report through the Los Angeles Economic Development Corporation and the Otis School or College of Art and Design, and very specifically looking at the idea of the creative economy. We were very passionate about the players in the arts and culture, but we were also interested in understanding what was what was happening in the larger innovation economy.

And so you may have heard from the presentation and the materials that that analysis includes a look at everything from architecture to design and communications and fashion and the film industry. And we're really looking at the manifestation of creative, innovative activities across a variety of industry sectors. and thrilled about arts very specifically, but about the way people find their pathway in expressing that economically and in occupations. What we learned back then is it was in the two counties together that we looked at, Ventura and Santa Barbara County, about $6.5 billion then, but tragically, we got that report I think in February of 2020, and you may recall that the next month the economy was shut down, and we lost some momentum, and we were interrupted, And we are thrilled now, to the real point of my being here, it's the leadership of your team and Dr.

Rupert and others taking a fresh look at this data, updating it, and getting the same kind of information with its rich diversity. And we're thrilled to be a partner in that. So I guess really what I want to focus on is what do we know or what have we learned from this process and we think there are three kind of core takeaways. One is the core economic sort of data and the reality is we think we're looking pretty closely at apples to apples in the previous report and using these models. And from pre-COVID to today, it looks like this economy, the creative economy writ large in the two counties, has grown from $6.5 billion to more like $8-plus billion. That's a remarkable improvement and increase, fighting headwinds of all kinds, especially when the creative economy tends to be human contact, engagement, and so interrupted for that COVID period.

So thrilling to see that it's a piece of the economic recovery for the region. The second point that we've learned for a long time, and had reinforced especially by this data, is this extraordinary correlation that I think you've been talking about here in a variety of ways. There's a correlation between the performance of the creative economy, arts and culture, and all manifestations, and what is the performance of the larger economy. We use a number of phrases about this, come here because we want to live, work, and play. Well, that play piece, and the community engagement, and the quality of life, If we don't have this kind of innovation and creativity, people don't want to live here. They don't want to overcome the barriers. And related to that, you can't pick up a newspaper anymore and not discover a story about the impacts of automation or of And finally, the third point is You know, your behavior and what you do both in the community and at policy and at the staff level is always influenced by what we know.

And now that we know this, I know that your team, our team, and others working with you will be better stewards, better able to allocate resources, better able to be informed about the kinds of investments that support arts and culture, but even more broadly, what are we doing to support innovation and education at the university level and opportunities to network resources across all industries, taking our creative talent and human capital and making out a contribution to the larger economy. Without this data, we can't do that, so we're thrilled to be a partner. Thank you.

UnidentifiedMayorProposed · by role3:59:46

Thank you, Mr. Stensley. And I gave him additional time just since he was one of our partners on this, and I thought it was important for us all to hear from him. Thank you.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed3:59:53

And that concludes public comment on this item.

UnidentifiedMayorProposed · by role3:59:55

All right, any additional comments from the board? All right, seeing none, can I get a motion to receive and file, which is items A and B?

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisor, District 3voiceprint 0.864:00:05

So moved. And I'll second.

UnidentifiedMayorProposed · by role4:00:07

So motion from Hartmann, second by Capps. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion passes unanimously. All right, that concludes today's meeting. We are adjourned to Tuesday, March 10th, 2026 in Santa Maria. See you then.