BOARD OF SUPERVISORS

Budget Revision Requests

• Staff clarified that a $560,000 transfer related to Tax Revenue Anticipation Notes reflected lower-than-expected interest expenses.
• An additional $1.7 million will be drawn from the strategic reserve to cover Medi-Cal contingent liabilities, reducing the general fund portion to $6 million.
• Staff agreed to clarify public reporting to distinguish between the total strategic reserve balance and encumbered contingent liabilities.

Implementation of Wage Deferrals and Adjustments

• Staff explained that the current agreement saves approximately $7.2 million compared to restoring previous concessions, resulting in a net savings of about $2 million.
• The ongoing cost of the agreement is approximately $6 million per year, including a 3.5% wage increase and a 1.5% equity adjustment.
• The board debated the long-term fiscal impact versus immediate savings and the importance of honoring negotiated agreements.

Employee of the Month Recognition

• The board recognized Brooke Welch and Angela Hacker from the Department of Housing and Community Development.
• Their contributions to the Continuum of Care Plan and EmpowerSBC programs were highlighted during the presentation.

Honoring the Jewish Federation of Greater Santa Barbara

• The board honored the Jewish Federation for its "Portraits of Survival" program featuring 38 local Holocaust survivors.
• The "Mis Tres Caras" program, which pairs survivors with at-risk youth to foster resilience, was specifically highlighted.

Retirement Commendation for Teresa K. Hunter

• The board commended Teresa K. Hunter for her retirement from the Sheriff’s Office after more than 20 years of service.
• Her roles in criminal records, warrants, jail booking, and custody records were noted as essential to department operations.

Honoring Katie Hopp

• The board honored Katie Hopp, a biologist with the County Agricultural Commissioner’s Office, for winning the J. Gordon Edwards Prize.
• Her thesis on beetle diversity and the description of 27 new species were highlighted as significant scientific contributions.

Resolution Celebrating the Life and Legacy of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

• The board presented a resolution commemorating Dr. King's life and the year’s theme, "Retelling Dr. King's Story."
• A representative from the Martin Luther King Steering Committee spoke on behalf of the committee regarding civil rights progress.

State Emergency Proclamation Update

• Staff estimated local public assistance damages at $3.5–4 million and statewide damages at approximately $75 million following recent rainstorms.
• A federal declaration for public assistance is anticipated, while individual home assistance is expected to come primarily through low-interest loans.

Sheriff’s Office Incident Report (Goleta Marketplace Shooting)

• The Sheriff reported that a suspect fired a pellet pistol at deputies, injuring two officers before being neutralized.
• Preliminary findings indicate the deputies' actions were reasonable, and criminal and administrative investigations are ongoing.

Mental Health Services in Sheriff’s Facilities

• Prison Health Services provides 24/7 mental health coverage, including a full-time RN, two licensed mental health professionals, and a half-time psychiatrist.
• The jail spends $40,000–$50,000 monthly on medications, 60–70% of which are psychiatric, with costs borne by the Sheriff’s Department budget.
• The board accepted the report and directed staff to investigate legislative issues regarding Medi-Cal billing for services rendered in custody.

Coastal Commission Certification of County and Montecito Land Use and Development Codes

• Staff presented three options: accept suggested modifications, reject them to revert to Article 2 regulations, or investigate a resubmittal option.
• The board continued the item for two weeks to allow staff to consult with the Coastal Commission Executive Director regarding core agricultural and resource protection issues.
• If no substantive movement is made during the consultation, the board will reconvene to decide on rejection or further action.

Closed Session

• The board unanimously approved a settlement of $190,000 to resolve all current and future claims in the matter of Santos v. County of Santa Barbara.

Meeting Opening and Closed Session Report

• The meeting commenced with roll call and the Pledge of Allegiance. A report from the initial closed session indicated that three items were considered; the matter was continued to the lunch hour, with a full report to be provided at the conclusion of the entire closed session.

Minutes

• A motion was made and seconded to approve the minutes of January 11, 2011. The motion passed.

Administrative Agenda

• Supervisors requested the removal of items A11, A13, and A18 from the agenda. Audience members requested the removal of items A5, A8, and A13. The board proceeded to address items in numerical order.

Item A-5: Resolution of Commendation for Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

• Discussion: A public commenter expressed concerns regarding inconsistencies between the board’s actions and the philosophy of Dr. King, citing specific incidents of alleged discrimination and racism within the county that had not been investigated. The commenter urged the board to investigate these incidents.
• Decision: The item was addressed under the Resolutions section (see Item A-5 below).

Item A-8: Alcohol, Drug, and Mental Health Services Contract Amendments

• Discussion: A public commenter questioned significant increases in funding for substance abuse and mental health services, citing specific budget jumps. The commenter requested that the board inform the public of the reasons for these increases and noted a personal history of discrimination by the department.
• Decision: The item was addressed under the Administrative Agenda Approval.

Item A-11: Budget Revision Requests

• Discussion: Supervisors questioned staff regarding a $560,000 transfer related to Tax Revenue Anticipation Notes (TRAN) and the status of the strategic reserve. Staff clarified that the TRAN adjustment reflected lower-than-expected interest expenses. Regarding the MISC (Medi-Cal) contingent liability, staff explained that an additional $1.7 million would be drawn from the strategic reserve, reducing the general fund portion of the liability from approximately $7.2 million to $6 million. Staff confirmed that the total available strategic reserve is approximately $19–20 million. Supervisors discussed the clarity of reporting these reserves and liabilities to the public, noting that while the reserve exists, it is encumbered by known liabilities. Staff agreed to clarify the presentation to distinguish between the reserve balance and the contingent liabilities.
• Decision: The item was included in the final approval of the administrative agenda.

Item A-13: Implementation of Wage Deferrals and Adjustments (SEIU Local 620 and ETA)

• Discussion: A public commenter representing CoLab requested that the item be moved to the departmental agenda for a full debate, arguing that the county should consider layoffs, privatization, and immediate revenue increases to address the deficit. Supervisors discussed the financial implications of the negotiated wage deferrals. Staff explained that restoring the previous concessions would cost approximately $9.2 million, whereas the current agreement saves approximately $7.2 million, resulting in a net savings of about $2 million. Staff noted that the ongoing cost of the current agreement is approximately $6 million per year, including a 3.5% wage increase and a 1.5% equity adjustment. Supervisors debated the long-term fiscal impact versus the immediate savings and the importance of honoring negotiated agreements.
• Motion: A motion was made to approve Item A-13.
• Vote: The motion passed 3-2.

Administrative Agenda Approval

• Motion: A motion was made and seconded to approve the balance of the administrative agenda, with the modification of continuing Item A-18.
• Vote: The motion passed.

Resolutions

Item A-1: Employee of the Month Recognition

• Discussion: The board recognized Brooke Welch and Angela Hacker, employees of the Department of Housing and Community Development, as the January 2011 Employees of the Month. Their contributions to various community programs, including the Continuum of Care Plan and EmpowerSBC, were highlighted.
• Decision: The resolution was passed and adopted.

Item A-2: Honoring the Jewish Federation of Greater Santa Barbara

• Discussion: The board honored the Jewish Federation for its "Portraits of Survival" program, which features an exhibit of 38 local Holocaust survivors. The "Mis Tres Caras" program, which pairs Holocaust survivors with at-risk youth to foster identity and resilience, was specifically highlighted. Representatives from the Jewish Federation and the program coordinator spoke about the impact of the program on the community and youth.
• Decision: The resolution was passed and adopted.

Item A-3: Retirement Commendation for Teresa K. Hunter

• Discussion: The board commended Teresa K. Hunter for her retirement from the Sheriff’s Office after more than 20 years of service. Her roles in criminal records, warrants bureau, jail booking, and custody records were noted. The Sheriff added that civilian support staff are essential to the department's operations.
• Decision: The resolution was passed and adopted.

Item A-4: Honoring Katie Hopp

• Discussion: The board honored Katie Hopp, a biologist with the County Agricultural Commissioner’s Office, for winning the J. Gordon Edwards Prize for Best Scientific Paper in 2009. Her thesis on beetle diversity and the description of 27 new species were highlighted. Ms. Hopp and a representative from the Agriculture Department spoke about her work and contributions.
• Decision: The resolution was passed and adopted.

Item A-5: Resolution Celebrating the Life and Legacy of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

• Discussion: The board presented a resolution commemorating the life and legacy of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and the year’s theme, "Retelling Dr. King's Story." Bill Spencer, a co-secretary of the Martin Luther King Steering Committee, spoke on behalf of the committee, noting progress in civil rights while acknowledging work still to be done.
• Decision: The resolution was passed and adopted.

Public Comment: State Emergency Proclamation Update

• Discussion: Michael Harris provided an update on the state’s proclamation of an emergency following recent rainstorms. He estimated local public assistance damages at $3.5–4 million and statewide damages at approximately $75 million. He noted that while a federal declaration for public assistance is anticipated, a declaration for individual home assistance is unlikely, with low-interest loans expected to be the primary aid for individuals. He confirmed that the road to Guadalupe Dunes is open, with ongoing safety monitoring.
• Decision: No motion was taken; this was an informational update.

Public Comment and Supervisor Reports

• Public Comment: Dr. Johns presented five historical documents and made comments regarding the qualifications of the District Attorney, alleging fraud in her credentials. The speaker also alleged a 50-year history of discrimination in the District Attorney’s Office regarding the hiring of African-American and Latino prosecutors.
• Supervisor Reports:
• Supervisor Lavagnino reported attending the Santa Maria Black History Month celebration honoring Dr. King, organized by John McCoy, Jr., with Congresswoman Lois Capps as the main speaker.
• Supervisor Carbajal reported attending the Santa Barbara Martin Luther King celebration, including a march and a program at Arlington.
• Supervisor Farr reported attending the Martin Luther King Day celebration in March. Noted upcoming speaking engagements in Isla Vista and at UCSB.
• Supervisor Wolf reported attending the Martin Luther King event. Discussed the transition of the SENCAL board representative role from Supervisor Wolf to Supervisor Farr, noting the attendance of the SENCAL Executive Director and the County CEO at a recent meeting. Proposed a future update on the Regional Health Authority. Discussed taking over the Retirement Board Representative position from Supervisor Gray, including a recent two-hour meeting with Retirement Board staff and the Treasurer, and an upcoming two-day retreat.
• General Discussion: The Chair and Supervisors discussed the sand dumping operation at Goleta Beach, noting that the Sheriff had previously committed to swimming in the beach to verify the safety of the sand.

Sheriff’s Office Incident Report (Goleta Marketplace Shooting)

• Discussion: The Sheriff provided an update on an incident at the Goleta Marketplace where a suspect, described as a 42-year-old transient with an extensive criminal record and a registered sex offender, allegedly pulled a weapon from a backpack after being refused money. The suspect fired a pellet pistol at deputies, injuring two deputies (one in the forearm, one through the cheek). Deputies returned fire, neutralizing the suspect, who was taken to Cottage Hospital.
• Decision/Outcome: The Sheriff stated that criminal and administrative investigations are ongoing. Preliminary findings indicate that the deputies' actions were reasonable. The Sheriff expressed gratitude for the deputies' restraint and noted that the pellet pistol was a high-powered weapon capable of significant injury. The Board expressed thanks and good wishes to the injured deputies and citizens.

Agenda Item 1: Mental Health Services in Sheriff’s Facilities

• Motion/Action: Hearing to receive and file a presentation on the status of mental health services provided to inmates at the Sheriff’s facilities.
• Discussion:
• Sheriff’s Introduction: The Sheriff stated that the jail has become the de facto mental institution for the county due to the closure of mental institutions in the 1970s. In 2009, the County contracted with Prison Health Services (PHS) to provide mental health services in the jail, leveraging PHS’s medical staff to expand services such as discharge planning. The Sheriff expressed satisfaction with PHS’s responsiveness and partnership.
• PHS Presentation (Chief Deputy Patterson & Dr. Bradley):
• Context: The jail population is 80% pretrial/pre-sentenced, leading to frequent court appearances and short-notice releases (often with only 12 hours' notice), which complicates mental health evaluation and continuity of care.
• Staffing: PHS provides a full-time RN, two full-time licensed mental health professionals (LCSW and MFT), and a half-time psychiatrist. Staffing hours were increased from 8 to 10 hours per day, with coverage 7 days a week (previously, ADMHS provided no weekend coverage).
• Referrals & Triage: The team receives over 500 referrals monthly, seeing over 200 individuals and evaluating 70–90 new cases. Acute emergencies are seen immediately; general referrals are triaged for response within three days.
• Medications: The jail spends $40,000–$50,000 monthly on medications, 60–70% of which are psychiatric. PHS does not bill insurance or Medi-Cal for these services due to legal restrictions; costs are borne by the Sheriff’s Department budget.
• Coordination: A business agreement allows PHS to access ADMHS electronic medical records for continuity of care.
• Supervisor Questions & Responses:
• Supervisor Carbajal asked about innovative programs to adjudicate mentally ill individuals outside of jail to reduce overcrowding. PHS responded that this involves complex legal and court system changes beyond their control but acknowledged the need for collaboration.
• Supervisor Wolf inquired about tracking metrics for the three-day response time and weekend staffing. PHS confirmed tracking mechanisms exist and explained that weekend staffing is limited to one mental health practitioner, supplemented by nursing staff trained to handle acute mental health issues.
• Supervisor Farr asked about medication matching at intake and the role of ADMHS. PHS explained that psychiatrists evaluate all new psychotropic prescriptions, which can be done via telephone if necessary. PHS can access ADMHS records to verify medication history.
• The Chair clarified that the County pays for all medications, which are not billed to insurance or Medi-Cal.
• Contract and Billing: Discussion occurred regarding Medi-Cal coverage for individuals in custody and the ability to bill insurance for services rendered within the jail versus outside facilities. It was clarified that while insurance cannot currently be billed for medical services delivered within the jail, it can be billed for services provided at outside facilities (e.g., Cottage Hospital).
• Community Partnerships: The presenting staff outlined efforts to enhance community relationships, including presentations to the Substance Abuse Treatment Court, Mental Health Court, Mental Health Commission, and NAMI. They described the "Mental Health Inside-Outside Meeting," a quarterly meeting involving the Sheriff’s Office, Mental Health Commission, ADMHS, and PHS to discuss process improvements.
• Audit and Reporting: Dr. Lee Howard inquired about the Medical Audit Committee (MAC) established under Section 6.2 of the contract. The staff confirmed the MAC meets monthly and produces reports on performance metrics, such as the number of people seen and medication appointments. Dr. Howard requested that these reports be made available to the Board for contract renewal considerations.
• Staffing and Services: The staff detailed the implementation of 24/7 mental health services, including nursing intake assessments, a psychiatric RN, a half-time psychiatrist, and discharge planning. They noted that custody deputies receive mandatory quarterly training (four-hour blocks) on mental health issues.
• Timeliness of Care: Questions were raised regarding federal or state mandates for the timeliness of mental health services. The Sheriff’s Office stated there are no specific state mandates for timeliness, though they strive to see acute cases within minutes or hours and other cases within three days. The Public Defender provided statistics indicating that 86% of misdemeanor cases and 68% of felony cases in the county are resolved within 30 and 90 days, respectively.
• Public Comment:
• Dr. Johns expressed concerns about the lack of 24/7 psychiatrist availability, particularly on weekends, and criticized the reliance on nurses and social workers for diagnosis. He argued for increased staffing and funding to ensure immediate psychiatric evaluation.
• Ann Eldridge reported that the Mental Health Commission observed improved cooperation between the department and prison mental health services. She mentioned the development of a form for families to submit medication information for incarcerated individuals.
• Suzanne Reardon (Families Act) represented families of individuals with co-occurring disorders, reporting instances where family members were not receiving prescribed medications (e.g., Klonopin) for seven or more days after booking. She cited a lack of residential and acute psychiatric beds in the county as a contributing factor to jail overcrowding.
• Dr. Lee Howard noted that while the presentation was thorough, service gaps remain. She suggested reviewing the contract for cost-saving opportunities and redirecting funds toward increasing psychiatrist hours, citing a $5,000 signing bonus for a correctional health nurse as an example of current spending.
• Motion and Vote:
• Motion: Supervisor Carbajal moved to accept the report.
• Second: The motion was seconded.
• Additional Direction: Dr. Lee Howard requested that the CEO’s assistant investigate legislative issues regarding Medi-Cal billing mentioned during the discussion.
• Vote Outcome: The motion to accept the report passed.

Agenda Item: Closed Session Report

• Item: Report from the closed session regarding the matter of Santos v. County of Santa Barbara (WCAB number ADJ 2919 812).
• Decision: The Board unanimously approved a settlement in the amount of $190,000 to settle all current and future claims arising from the incident.
• Vote Outcome: Passed (Unanimous).

Agenda Item: Coastal Commission Certification of County and Montecito Land Use and Development Codes (Item 2)

• Staff Presentation and Options Review: Staff presented a revised report regarding the Coastal Commission’s certification of the County and Montecito Land Use and Development Codes (LUDC) with suggested modifications. Staff outlined three options for the Board of Supervisors:
• 1. Accept the suggested modifications: This would require incorporating new language into the LUDC, estimated to take several months, with a projected Board hearing in August 2011. Staff recommended requesting a deadline extension from the Coastal Commission. 2. Reject the suggested modifications: This could be done actively via letter or passively by allowing the six-month deadline (May 17, 2011) to expire. This would revert the coastal zone to Article 2 regulations. Pending Local Coastal Program (LCP) amendments would need to be reprocessed in Article 2 format. 3. Investigate a resubmittal option: A new option emerged from discussions with the Coastal Commission’s Executive Director. This would involve staff investigating potential resolutions with stakeholders over the next two months, reporting back to the Board in April for further direction. If directed, an amendment would be prepared, with hearings through November and Board action projected for December.
• Discussion on Principal Permitted Uses (PPU): Supervisor Wolff raised concerns regarding the definition of "principal permitted uses" and appealable development, referencing a 2008 Board action. Staff and County Counsel explained that in 2008, the County accepted a Coastal Commission amendment expanding the definition of appealable development to include any development not designated as a principal permitted use. County Counsel noted that while the initial intent may have been limited to specific items like tract maps, the final language is broad. Counsel advised that courts would likely defer to the Coastal Commission’s interpretation of this language, making it a significant legal consideration.
• Public Comment: Public comment was received from numerous individuals and representatives of various organizations. Comments were divided among the three options:
• Support for Option 2 (Reject): Several speakers, including representatives from agricultural groups, property owners, and local associations, urged the Board to reject the modifications. Arguments included concerns over economic impacts on agriculture, restrictions on animals (horses, poultry), building envelopes, and the perception that the Coastal Commission was overstepping local authority. Some speakers requested a return to Article 2 regulations.
• Support for Option 3 (Negotiate/Resubmit): Other speakers, including representatives from environmental groups and some property owners, supported further negotiation. They argued that rejecting the modifications would waste prior effort, create legal uncertainty under Article 2, and that the County should attempt to resolve specific disagreements (such as agricultural exemptions and bluff staircases) through a new amendment process.
• Mixed/Conditional Support: Some speakers supported a hybrid approach, urging the Board to formally reject the current modifications while simultaneously inviting the Coastal Commission to engage in a bottom-up planning process (e.g., via a Coastal Zone Planning Area Committee) to address underlying policy issues.
• Additional Public Comment: Speakers representing agricultural interests, including owners of the Grow and Rose Company and members of the South Patterson Ag Block, expressed concerns regarding replacement costs for greenhouses, water district permit fees, archaeological site designations, and federal estate taxes. They requested the rejection of the Coastal Commission’s recommendations to retain local control over agricultural land use. Other speakers, including representatives from the Padero Association, Moore Mesa Shores, and individual coastal landowners, urged the Board to reject the modifications (Option 2). Their arguments included the loss of local authority, concerns over private beach access stairways, restrictions on agricultural intensification, and the potential for increased permitting burdens. Several speakers cited the lack of engagement from the Coastal Commission during previous community workshops as a reason to reject the current proposal. Conversely, speakers representing the Environmental Defense Center (EDC) and the Carpinteria Valley Association supported pursuing a third option or accepting the modifications. They argued that rejecting the LUDC would result in all coastal development permits becoming appealable, leading to increased costs and legal uncertainty. They emphasized that the current process was a compromise and that further negotiation (Option 3) offered a path to resolve remaining issues, such as animal keeping, stairway standards, and agricultural definitions, while maintaining the benefits of the LUDC.
• Board Discussion:
• Supervisor Farr provided an analysis of the November 18 Coastal Commission hearing, noting that the Commission relied heavily on staff and displayed limited understanding of production agriculture needs. She reported that the Commission offered two motions: to deny the county’s requests or to accept the modifications. Supervisor Farr stated she had contacted Peter Douglas, the Executive Director of the Coastal Commission, who indicated willingness to engage in further discussion. She identified two core issues for negotiation: the definition of "development" as it applies to agriculture and the method for protecting coastal resources.
• Supervisor Carbajal agreed with Supervisor Farr’s assessment, acknowledging the frustration of the process but recognizing the value of the EDC’s advocacy for coastal resources. He expressed reluctance to proceed with a full resubmittal without first determining if the Coastal Commission had a substantive desire to resolve outstanding differences, such as animal keeping, dwelling standards, and stairway non-conformity.
• Supervisor Wolf expressed concern about the potential for all permits to become appealable if the LUDC is rejected, citing advice from County Counsel and the Coastal Commission. He favored Option 3 to mitigate this risk.
• Supervisor Lavagnino questioned the efficacy of further negotiation, citing a Coastal Commissioner’s statement that additional delays would not result in further compromises. He suggested rejecting the modifications and withdrawing the application to resume work under Article 2.
• Staff Clarification: County staff clarified that the Board has until May 17 to accept or reject the current certification. Any substantial changes to the acceptance would likely be treated as a resubmittal by the Coastal Commission. Staff confirmed that the Board does not need to formally reject the current certification to pursue a new amendment; instead, they could seek a continuance to engage with the Coastal Commission Executive Director to determine if a resolution is possible. Staff noted that if the Board does not act within six months, the current amendment expires.
• Motion and Decision:
• Motion: Supervisor Farr moved to continue the item for two weeks to allow staff to consult with Peter Douglas regarding the core agricultural and resource protection issues. Supervisor Carbajal seconded the motion.
• Discussion: The Board discussed the timeline, with Supervisor Carbajal suggesting two to three weeks to allow for substantive dialogue. Supervisor Farr maintained that two weeks was sufficient to determine if further negotiation was viable. Staff recommended a one-month extension to February 15 to allow for a thorough written response, but Supervisor Farr insisted on a shorter timeframe to avoid unnecessary delay.
• Decision: The Board agreed to continue the item for two weeks, with staff tasked to contact the Coastal Commission Executive Director to assess the feasibility of resolving the outstanding issues. If no substantive movement is made, the Board will reconvene to decide on rejection or further action.
• Vote Outcome: The motion to continue the item for two weeks for staff consultation with the Coastal Commission Executive Director passed.

Agenda Item: Final Vote on Pending Motion

• The committee clarified that the upcoming vote would be a final "up or down" decision, indicating that no further extended testimony or scheduling for additional hours would occur. A motion was on the floor, and a second had been recorded. The committee proceeded to a roll-call vote. The motion passed.