Board of Supervisors — 2026-06-09

Good morning, I will call to order the June 9th 2026 regular...

One moment. All right

we'll try that again. Good morning, I will call to order the June 9th 2026 regular meeting of the Santa Barbara

County Board of Supervisors. All

right let's go ahead and pause for a second while we figure that out We good? Excellent. Okay, Madam Clerk will you please call the roll.

Hartman moves approval. I'll second.

All right all in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion passes unanimously The next item of business is our county CEO's report. CEO Miyasato, do you have any report this

morning? There's no report this morning chair.

All right.

I have a report about the CEO.

Okay.

Supervisor Lavagnino, the floor is yours. This past week, Supervisor Lee and I were lucky enough to be present while our CEO was honored. Mona Miyasato was honored by Girls Inc as one of the bright leaders of our young women in Santa Barbara County and had an amazing event over at the Santa Barbara Club and just wanted to acknowledge our CEO did an outstanding job.

Well, thank you Supervisor Lavanino. I'm sure it's the first of many recognitions that we'll be bestowing on our CEO over the next couple months so thank you for bringing that up and sharing that with the public. Next item Madam Clerk are there any announcements or changes to today's agenda?

I do have a few announcements this morning. The first announcement is regarding compensation items associated with administrative item numbers 40 and 41 from the human resources department. Administrative item number 40 is regarding an appointment and employment Employment contract for incoming county executive officer Jana Peterson and administrative item number 41 is regarding the performance-based salary adjustment for County Council. In accordance with Government Code Section 54953C3A of the government code, prior to taking final action the legislative body shall orally report a summary of a recommendation for a final action on the salaries, salary schedules or compensation paid in the form of fringe benefits of any local agency executive during the open meeting in which the final action is to be taken.

The oral reading of the recommendations with this action is intended to satisfy that requirement. For administrative item number 40, the recommended action is approval of the appointment and employment contract for Jana Peterson to serve as the Santa Barbara County Executive Officer with an annual salary of $380,000 An annual deferred compensation contribution of $20,000. One-time relocation support of up to $30,000, life insurance of up to one time salary, professional development allowance of up to $10,000 per year and other benefits as may be provided to appointed executives under existing county policy including but not limited to pension, family health benefits, car allowance and paid time off effective August 20th, 2026.

Additionally for administrative item number 41, the recommended performance-based salary increase for County Council results in a 4.97% increase and a biweekly salary of approximately $13,147 effective June 22nd 2026 Additionally, an addendum was posted on Friday June 5th 2026 amending administrative item number 58. Administrative item number 58 is from the Public Works Department Board of Directors Flood Control and Water Conservation District. It is to set a hearing on Tuesday July 7th 2026 to consider recommendations regarding the flood control benefit assessment program from fiscal year 2026 through 27 The recommended actions have been revised to reflect the addition of the language acting as the Board of Directors, Flood Control and Water Conservation District before Recommendation A.

This addendum has been posted and made available online to both the board and the public Additionally, we received a request to withdraw administrative item number A-54. Administrative item number A- 54 is from Supervisor Hartman. It is regarding a board appointment of Steve Oaks to the Fire Board of Appeal. This withdrawal request has been posted online and made available to both the board and the public.

Lastly 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 who wish to provide verbal public comment may do so via Zoom by registering in advance using the link provided on page 2. Please note that Zoom is available solely for the purpose of providing verbal public comment and is not intended for viewing the meeting. Alternative viewing options are listed on page two of the agenda. If you have any questions, please contact the Clerk of the Board's Office at area code 805-568-2240. And that concludes my announcements for this morning.

All right thank you Madam Clerk. Next item of business is the Administrative Agenda Are there any items that the public is pulling? Are there any public items?

Chair Nelson and members of the board, it doesn't appear that we have any requests to speak from the public on the administrative agenda.

Be Well, For her insight and continued support through the years. To Anne-Marie Cameron of Mental Wellness Center for allowing us to fall under their financial umbrella and being a constant supporter of our work. To Rachel Stettle for working with us for the last few years, and to all the carpentry organizations and businesses who supported us along with the city of Carpinteria for providing us with a small community service grant for the last 13 years.

I would especially like to recognize all of the HopeNet board members who gave their time, passion and encouragement for many years. Some of our board members will continue to work with the city of Carpinteria and local agencies in spreading the message about suicide prevention Mental health resources and the 988 toll-free national crisis line. Our website will list local mental health resources for the next two years Individually and collectively, all of us must continue to support our own mental health and to assist our friends, neighbors, and community with warmth, kindness, and support. Let us pledge to do so today and every day. To all of you, thank you for your support, kindness, and consideration over the years.

I offer this recognition to you Along with my heartfelt gratitude and appreciation for your support. Thank you. All

right Madam Clerk, I think we have our third and final item to be presented. Will you please read that into the record?

Yes, Chair Nelson and members of the board. Administrative item number three is sponsored by Supervisor Nelson and Supervisor Lee. It is to adopt a resolution declaring the month of June 2026 as Elder Abuse Awareness Month in Santa Barbara County. And joining us in person today we have District Attorney John Savernock and DA Chief Investigator Christina Perkins.

Whereas June is recognized nationally as Elder Abuse Awareness Month and World Elder Abuse Awareness Day Is observed annually on June 15th to raise awareness of the abuse, neglect and exploitation that can be experienced by older adults. And to reaffirm our commitment to protecting seniors and promoting safety for all older adults. Whereas Santa Barbara County values and honors its older adults for their lifelong contributions to families, neighborhoods and the broader community. And remains committed to fostering a safe supportive and inclusive environment where seniors can live with dignity independence and respect. And whereas elder abuse including physical abuse emotional and psychological abuse neglect abandonment isolation and financial exploitation can affect older adults in every community And through increased awareness, education, outreach, enforcement and access to supportive services.

Santa Barbara County continues working to strengthen prevention efforts and ensure that older adults receive the protection and care they deserve. And whereas protecting older adults requires strong collaboration among public agencies, advocates, caregivers and community partners including the District Attorney's Office, the Sheriff's Office, Adult Protective Services, The Public Guardian and the Long-Term Care Ombudsman Program All of which work together to prevent, investigate and respond to elder abuse and exploitation while providing support and advocacy for vulnerable seniors.

And whereas Elder Abuse Awareness Month serves as an opportunity to encourage our community to recognize the signs of abuse, support older adults and caregivers, promote reporting and prevention efforts, strengthen community partnerships and reaffirm the shared commitment that every senior deserves to age safely independently and with dignity and respect. Now therefore be it hereby ordered and resolved that this Board of Supervisors of the County of Santa Barbara does hereby proclaim June 2026 as Elder Abuse Awareness Month, passed and adopted today.

Chair Nelson, Supervisor Lee thank you for the recognition. This is such an important topic that we actually need to discuss needs come to the public light our seniors are the people that built our community they built us they cared for us they developed us and now it's our turn so our turn to watch out for people when they need us And as you can see, we've thinned out a little bit. But during the photo all the agencies involved and I can tell you that APS Adult Protective Services Public Guardian, the Ombudsman Law Enforcement, the District Attorney's Office in true County of Santa Barbara fashion We all cooperate, we all work together on this issue. We work together to keep people safe. We work together to address people who haven't been properly cared for, who are being abused or being taken advantage of.

And this proclamation gives us a wonderful opportunity to highlight one of the fastest growing crimes out there and that is financial abuse of elders. In the FBI database, those are people that choose to report scams. Last year alone they received approximately 350 complaints in Santa Barbara County alone totaling over $34 million. And of that $34 million of those complaints, over 70% of the people complaining about being victimized were over the age of 60.

The unfortunate part about financial abuse of our elders is oftentimes it has occurred by actors who are not only not within the state, maybe not within the country. So oftentimes people that have no ability to replace the money because their earning capacity, their years in the workforce are long since past They suffer tremendously as a result of this. So the best thing we can do as law enforcement, as people caring for our older citizens, as a community is to educate, to inform, to communicate, to talk. To that extent, we have a hotline report fraud at countyofsb.org I know the DA's office is willing at a minute's notice to any community group, any entity, any group of neighbors that want a presentation on financial crime or financial fraud.

We're willing to present because until we talk, until we put this in the public consciousness We'll never stop it because the only way to stop it is to prevent it from happening in the first place. To those who commit physical elder abuse, I can assure you our law enforcement, our care agencies and the district attorney's office will respond but with financial abuse we need to stop. We absolutely need to stop it before it happens If somebody in your life is older, maybe a little bit isolated. I encourage everybody to reach out to talk to them to have contact with them to show them how to do online banking. Whatever you can, show care and concern and then if something bad is happening or about to happen your concern may prevent harm from occurring in the first place so thank you for giving us a public forum to highlight this issue in this problem and I know the Caring is in the DNA of Santa Barbara County, and I know together we can make a huge difference.

Sheriff Brown

Chair Nelson members of the board just let me echo some of those sentiments one of the things that two things I'd like to say one is that we have this A terrible problem that occurs in our community and across the nation where people prey on the vulnerable, the most vulnerable and oftentimes people who are senior citizens. In many times going after potentially their life savings making life incredibly difficult for them it's I'd like to say that they are kind of a new low of lows in terms of low lives.

And I just want to send the message out to those who think that they can do this and I want to just let that message be known. Don't think about coming to Santa Barbara and taking advantage of our seniors. Thank you, Sheriff.

All right we will now take up the administrative items that were pulled in numerical order. Madam Clerk you please read item 820 into the record.

Chair Nelson and members of the board, Administrative Item number 20 is from the clerk recorder assessor elections department it is to consider recommendations regarding a request for waiver of competition and the purchase of a ballot sorting system from Blue Crest Inc.

All right thank you do we have anybody from The elections office here. All right, thank you. I have a few questions about this item I pulled that I think also Supervisor Hartman may or may not have some questions as well. Anytime I see an item that is asking for the waiver of bids, I'm always going to take a deeper dive into it as a supervisor just because the reason why we go out to competitive bidding is to make sure that the taxpayers get the most value in the most transparent way possible for the purchases that we make. And so this is for, I believe, a voting sorting machine and I had some questions about it.

It seems that from my research, I know that in the board letter it says that it's unique but it does seem that with only you know most of the counties and you know we actually use a different machine now some different software other counties use different software. I guess I'm concerned why we didn't go out to for additional bids and different proposals why we were just have this single proposal before us

Okay, good morning Chair Nelson. My name is Christina Valenzuela I'm the division manager of the Elections Division and I have with me today Matt Niblett he's our IT Department IT Manager and Vanessa Grafe Fiscal Manager And they both have information regarding contracts in the machine that equipment that we're purchasing So they can answer some of your questions and I can assist with answering some of those questions for you as well regarding The going out to bid we do have basically there's three companies who provide this kind of service to us, Pitney Bowes, Runbeck and Blue Crest. And we did do some research and decided on or the best service would be through Blue Crest and Matt Niblett could answer some of those questions for you.

Well thank you please Matt and I have no objection to the selection specific vendor, what I have an objection to is a sole source process where we need to waive that. And so I guess my question is not necessarily about the product, it's more about the process and why are we asked to waive that today when we could have gone through procurement process you know, would have vetted these things so it was transparent to the public that we evaluated all three through some kind of scoring metrics or by price or all those types of things. So again my issue is more process here.

Thank you for allowing us the opportunity to address you. One of the key things that we looked at when doing this is evaluating our existing vendors and also looking at what our similar county folks are using with their systems as well. The current Blue Crest device, which is integrated with other Elections information management systems that we use in-house is about two thirds. That's including our county who currently does not use that if you look at statewide, that percentage goes up It's about 75% of counties are using this device statewide So I just wanted to make sure that we let you guys know that too. That's one of the reasons we're looking at this Additionally for other products that Blue Crest has they are a member of the NASPO which is the National Association of Procurement Officers, or purchasing agents essentially who look at that.

So we are aware of those and are wanting to make sure that we're getting the best value for it. I also would like to emphasize too that the device that we're proposing to replace would significantly relieve some of the constraints that we currently have with the existing machine. The Agilis machine that's currently in use was designed to handle about 40% of vote-by-mail throughput. We're currently handling about 90% of that, so we are definitely using more volume on that machine.

I'm more than satisfied it is probably a good product. My issue is about the competitive bidding process and why we didn't go through that because No, it's a good product and gone through that process so that we didn't have to approve a waiver today. And I guess that's what I'm asking is why didn't we go through the competitive process? Why did we... We have procedures for reasons so that we just don't have to say hey trust me it's the best thing out there. So that we don't do our individual research again my issue on this item and as for all departments is that you know if there's time You should go through a competitive process. And I guess I'm not getting an answer that I want to hear on why we get into the competitive process when I looked at the proposal, it seemed like the proposal you guys received was in March of 2025 for this machine.

We're sitting here and halfway through June of 2026. It seems like you had more than ample time. I know you had an election, you know, you guys had to prepare for But I really don't like it when people come and run to us at the last minute and say, hey we have to purchase this. We have no other process when we've had plenty of time to do that so. So I'm looking for some justification

on that. Allow me to weigh in a little bit on that too. We actually were taking this back in December or January of this year once we had some information and it was delayed by the EITC process. So we're sitting there for months waiting for that to go through which is being evaluated by other ITD The CISO and several other agencies. So it's not like we're just sitting here twiddling our thumbs doing that to you. I don't mean to be antagonistic or disrespectful on that,

sir. And I don' either but my point is that we have a procurement process. And I guess that's what I'm trying to understand why we didn't go through procurement process. Again, especially around elections we need to have a lot more faith in our elections and so that's why there's a lot more eyes on it but this should be true for any department that comes to the board is that you know I know that there's exceptions that we can make on waiver of competitive bidding and that's absolutely the purview of this board and that's why we have a transparent process to do that but it's my preference that we don't do that and again I'm looking for an explanation on why it wasn't done

Fiscal stuff, I'm not the expert on that.

Hi Chair, sorry for the delay but ultimately this equipment is 12 years old, Agilis and because of the timing in how long it took to get through these other official processes, which took many months. There was limited time and because of the time constraint and the very severe demands of time during the election this is you know March 25th is right in the swing of things. This is when they're doing candidate filing or doing many preparations.

And I think in the future we're going to take note I think that the hope was that we could, we would pursue this because it had been vetted by many counties and many of our peer counties that were comfortable with. And because it had been through that process so many times in two thirds of the county using DFM or other system, we felt that it was appropriate. But it is noted and we will take that into consideration going forward.

Thank you, Miss Green. And I have full confidence that that will be a fix in the future. And just for the record, it wasn't March 25th of 2026. It's actually March of 2025 that this proposal originally hit the elections office. So again, that's I know you guys might been tied up since December, but there was time before that to go through procurement process before went through the evaluation through or so again.

I think I've made my point. Hopefully it's heard by your department and others that make sure you've gone through the process. Again, we are more than happy to approve things if there is urgency as a board. We're not anti-approving things but these are exceptions for a reason so we shouldn't just make that the rule. Supervisor Kaps?

Well, as I understand it you said that we went from 40% to 90% vote by mail in our county and because you have to verify each signature on the envelope to make sure that the person who's voting is actually the person. Thank you so much for your time.

The ballot envelope is still going to be looked at by person for review as it goes through procedurally. But this will significantly help with that processing, but the bottleneck in processing ballots is our current Agilis machine.

Thank you. I think again, while there's delay it gives people opportunity to be uncertain about the results so anything we can do to get results more quickly I think is very positive thank you.

Supervisor Hartman through the chair I also want to add that by using this other software or equipment it would enable us to open up to other printers right now with Agilis we are limited to one printer And so it would increase the opportunity for competition, which we understand that competition needs to be very public and transparent.

Thank you. Thank you, Supervisor Hartman. Thank you, Ms. Green. Supervisor Kaps?

Well, it's interesting to hear about the technology and the new printer. And I think it's always interesting to go behind the scenes and hear more about the elections division which is good that we learned a little bit more this year than we have in the past. But I don't think we are talking about the product. I agree with Supervisor Nelson on two points with the chair This really is about process and especially on something like voting, we need to have as much transparency as possible. So my question is it's too late at this point to go out for a competitive bid?

Ms. Green your light. There you go.

Supervisor Caps through the chair, yes it is. The monies need to be spent by August 31st so that puts us... It's our state voting system replacement funds grant and so we do have time limitations.

Okay, well I guess I appreciate the chair bringing this forward because I do think the signal needs to be sent that these aren't just rules for rule's sakes. That we have to be very transparent that this again is people's money and we need to have these systems upheld so thank you.

I got one last question. Do we know if they use this in LA County or not?

I believe they have their own. I'm sorry, excuse me, Chair Nelson. They have a different equipment. L.A. County is completely different from some of the other counties because of their size.

Perfect. Thank you.

Chair Nelson, if I may. We hear your point and your perspective is absolutely right. And just last week the department heads got together and we talked about things we need to improve and one is purchasing. Having more consolidated centralized purchasing so that there's one source of looking at everything is more helpful. So thank you for those comments. All right.

Thank you CEO Mayes-Sato. Can I get a motion on this? I'm not going to oppose it because I know we have a grant. I don't want to spend these dollars twice because we don't get it done this time around but I think in the future My point has been heard, so.

I'll move election staff recommendation.

Second. Okay motion by Hartman second by Lee all in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion passes unanimously. All right thank you Madam Clerk can you please read item A23 into the record

Joe Nelson and members of the board administrative item number 23 is from the Community Services Department. It is to consider recommendations regarding the county loan to FLT San Simeon Oaks LP for development of a multi-family affordable housing development in the unincorporated area of Eastern Goleta Valley, an agreement to provide affordable housing and this is in the second district.

All right thank you and I pulled this item as well. As I was reviewing reviewing this project Our office had some questions about the source of the in lieu funds. And so again for the public, in lieu fees are charged to market rate homes as a fee to help subsidize affordable housing and with that being said we have these different housing rate mark areas where these funds are generated and I asked for A little memo that all the board members got where I asked where the source of these funds were, and I was disappointed to find out that most of these funds are coming from the North County to pay for a South County project.

And I think there's something inherently wrong with making North County housing more expensive to subsidize these projects down here where, you know, developers get a higher level of rent and there's other economics involved. Ironically you can't use South County funds in the North County so we have an unfair process I don't think that we should continue that And so I guess I'm going to personally oppose this at this time. And I think that we should be looking, I'm asking staff to maybe look at someplace else to find funds but then to raid North County in lieu of funds for South County projects.

So that was my point on this and Director Armas if you'd like to maybe provide some additional context for the board?

Chair Nelson, members of the board. I appreciate that pretty straightforward and direct question. Let me speak to a couple of elements that maybe puts this in context. As you know, the county does have the inclusionary housing ordinance that provides developers an opportunity Board of Supervisors meeting We're seeing really an abundance of units coming down the pipeline that ultimately will allow us to address our affordable housing goals. There is obviously an imbalance here, as you rightly point out.

If the board would like we could in our next round of reviews of inclusionary housing ordinance speak to that point more directly so that again if The matter in which those funds can be used and can be allocated, can be revised. So we're open to that direction. It's a valid point. We recognize it.

And so it's still within the board's discretion on whether we approve this today?

It's entirely within the board's discretion as to whether or not the loan should be provided. I would note that the board did consider this approximately a year ago, we spent a lot of effort, the developers really on the verge of pulling building permits to start the project and its whole financing package assumes this source of funding.

Again, I think it's just all just you know love to hear from my colleagues as well. But I just think there's something very inherently unfair and inequitable in our county if this is the route that we're going to go for these types of housing projects. We have projects in the North County that our office is working on and trying to facilitate. These funds are gonna get exhausted by being sucked down to the South Coast, and again this is the issue that I keep bringing up on this North-South imbalance that we have in our county on how we operate and do business, and I think this is a glaring example. And so again, I'm gonna vote against this today. Supervisor Hartman?

Well, I thank you for bringing this forward. I guess what I interpret Director Armistead have said is that this is really a board responsibility when we failed in the inclusionary ordinance to bring this up so I think he's and his department has been operating and invested a great deal under the rules I'm prepared to support it this time with direction that we come back with revisions to the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance going forward, to take account of what you've very significantly raised.

Thank you. And I'll just point out sort of bigger picture, I appreciate that you pointed this out and I would be open to changing this for the future but just to zoom out a little bit, this is an important project in the South Coast because so many people do work in the South Coast and live in the North and so we're trying We are one county, and we're trying to make it so that people can live closer to where they work. And that's sort of a bigger picture perspective.

And I appreciate those things as well. You know, I've been working with Director Armas and others on trying to solve some of our North County problems on affordability not only for Our residents and people who live there that are having a hard time as well. So we're just trying to solve all of our problems, maybe something I don't think again, I'm not going to vote for this today but something to think about and maybe chew on is find a way to maybe repay these funds back to the North County to make them available. I would hate to just transfer them down south and then not have find a way to maybe bring them back up north before as we have projects that we hope to move forward in the north in the future.

If that's the board wishes, Chair Nelson. That's an excellent suggestion so that we could make note in all our records that indicate that the funds when the loan is repaid should be reserved for the HMA in which the funds have been collected.

Well I mean these funds aren't due till 2081 so I figured I'll be 102 at the time. So and I might still be on this board God willing, no just teasing. But again I think that there might be some other avenues that you guys could bring these funds back up north instead of exhausting those and so they would not be available for some of the future things that we're working on in the north. I just again hate to not be able to move some of our innovative ideas that we have forward because these funds were exhausted somewhere else.

We'll take a look at our other funding sources that come in through the federal government see what kind of opportunities are available.

Right Thank You Director Armas. Supervisor Lavinia?

Well, thank you. I didn't know if that was a motion that Supervisor Hartman was making but okay. I agree with Supervisor Hartman and I appreciate the chair bringing this up, but I think we've got to move forward but fix it in the future.