BOARD OF SUPERVISORS

¶ Meeting of the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors, and we're glad that you're with us. Mr. Allen, we need to have a roll call.

Mr Lavinino? Here. Mr Carbajal? Here. Ms Wolfe? Here Ms Farr? Here Mrs Gray?

Thank you. Council, we have report from closed session sir?

Yes ma'am. Your board met in closed session this morning and did not conclude your business and will reconvene during a designated lunch hour period to consider the remainder of the items however your board has determined Continue to a future board meeting discussion of public employee performance evaluation. And it is anticipated that the remainder of the items will be completed in closed session and a subsequent report will follow.

Thank you, counsel. We need the approval of the minutes of May 10th 2011. Is there a second? Motion by Carbajal, seconded by Lavinino. All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Thank you. We're moving now to the administrative agenda and on the administrative agenda we will be discussing A13 and 15 from the public and A10 and 11 from Supervisor Wolff. So let's commence with A10.

Madam Chair, members of the board, item A10 is from the county executive office and requests that the board approve the budget revision request

Supervisor? Thank you, Madam Chair. This allocation of approximately $450,000 is the first installment as I understand Mr. Marshall from our Greco settlement and I believe that these could be considered one-time funds, but that what we are doing is that we are reimbursing costs for positions for our P&D department and to the petroleum fund. And then we are also putting some of this money into the litigation designation of the general fund.

So my question to our CEO is At this point in our budget deliberations and budget process, why we don't put all of this money into say our strategic reserve designation. And as we move through the budget process allocate this money Perhaps as it's recommended here and or other places, because I noticed that fire department which also played a part in the BRCA investigation is not receiving funding. So for me this is really a policy decision on this allocation of money and we haven't really had that discussion.

Chairwoman, Supervisor. Certainly it's completely the board's discretion how they want to utilize these funds and I'll ask Mr. Stilwell to explain the actual proposal today. I did want to make comment as to the fire department. I would anticipate at some point in the future bringing forward a request from the fire department. The chief right now is actually working with his staff to determine what the extent of his litigation costs were So with that, I'd like to have Mr. Stilwell explain it and then certainly if you have questions we're here to respond to them. Thank

You. Dr. Stilwell?

Madam Chair and Supervisor Wolff so you are correct these are payments coming from a settlement related to Greco and this is the first of A number of scheduled payments and so this first one here We are recommending cost reimbursement to the Planning and Development Department for this first payment It's a 2 areas in planning development for their costs incurred for their code enforcement violations and then also their costs incurred for the petroleum code violations.

And our recommendation is to reimburse their cost because on the petroleum side of particular it would have resulted in large increases in fees because that's a fee-based, fee recovery based system and so this allows the fees to be stable have that grant the money provide that stability And we're recommending to put in the litigation designation and you're right it is a policy decision of the board that's our recommendation for 2 reasons one it's.

We're recommending that additional funding go in here, but what we're primarily focusing on is trying to get some board direction on where these funds should go beyond cost reimbursement which we bring forward to the board. Just as the payments come in, we want to be able to post them in the appropriate place and we're recommending litigation designation.

Okay. Thank you for that Dr. Stilwell. One thing you brought up and that was actually another question was The Petroleum Fund that there was mentioned that we might instead of charging the oil industry additional money to pay back that fund. We're using this money to do that I actually don't Not that I you know would kind of stick up for the oil industry, but honestly, I don't understand Do we have a policy that says that if you have a? One bad actor who has caused us to file this lawsuit that all of the other industries have to pay back the fund for that.

I can let Dr. Russell explain, but from the budgetary point of view it's a cost recoupment fund and so to the extent that it had large costs on these few Greco-related cases that required significant amount expenditures from the fund in order for that fund to reimburse To have the ongoing revenue to meet those cost demands, it would have resulted in a large increase in the user fees for the remaining users of the petroleum fund that they regulate. And this was seen as a way to provide rate stability, cost stability to those others who weren't part of or didn't violate the Petroleum Code.

Okay. Thank you, Dr. Stilwell and just one final follow-up. CEO Waller, what did you ... Just clarify what you said about the fire department because you said something about them and litigation and I wasn't clear.

Correct. As you may recall, the fire department also expended resources during the litigation of Greco. There were some violations of theirs and the chiefs putting together information to determine what the costs were to them and at a subsequent time we would bring forward a budget recommendation that would basically make the fire department whole as well. And that money would come from?

We would see it coming from one of two places, either future payments from GRECA as I know your board is aware those are on a payment schedule. I believe the next one's due in about three or four months or we could look to this sort of litigation holding account and transfer from there. Thank you very much. Supervisor Carr?

I think my question was answered. I guess I was just a little concerned that when the fire department brought their reimbursement costs forward That it wouldn't seem appropriate to take it out of the litigation designation for that, even though that was where this residual money went. So there isn't going to be any issue with that then.

Certainly that's always your board's discretion to exchange funds between those. And as I said, I'm not sure on the timing on when FIRE will actually be prepared to bring theirs forward. There may actually be another deposit prior to that but certainly you could transfer from the litigation account at that time if you chose to. Okay and then going forward

with the future payments that are going to be made would those then go into the litigation fund or would those decisions be made at that time?

Chairwoman, Supervisor, I think that we'd like to have your thoughts in that regard. What we're proposing is they go into that litigation fund since they were litigation related but certainly we're looking for where you would want to put them. Strategic Reserve would be an appropriate location as well. Thank

you. Supervisor Wolff, you also had questions about A11?

Yes this has to do with the... We'll go

ahead and read that.

I'm actually still on 810.

Oh,

okay. I apologize. That's all right. This was the budget revision on the vehicle operations from General Services and I had an opportunity to speak or email back-and-forth with Mr. Nesbitt about this. And through those emails, I understand that these vehicles have already been purchased. I think it was $500,000. Well actually this amount is over and above what was budgeted.

And I asked Mr. Nesbitt what was the fund balance in this program? And Mr. Nesbitt is here and you can confirm that there's $14 million dollars in this vehicle fund which was Rather striking to me that we have 14 million dollars sitting in this fund Mr. Nesbitt if you could just explain that in the past what our Well, I'll just say it We have a policy in place that we replace vehicles every six years but in the past during some tough budget times there had been a change in that policy to look at reviewing and purchasing vehicles on a seven-year cycle And I would suggest, and I know this will probably come up during budget discussion that we consider that again. I also think it might be worthwhile to look at this fund because this is money that is for a one-time expense And as we're looking to add money into our capital designation, it might be an opportunity for us to put money from this fund and I don't know if we can legally do it.

Move it from this fund into capital designation so that we're not using general fund moneys. So that's just a long winded way of my Making a statement about the budget, but also making a statement about the fact that we have spent over budget on the vehicle piece and I understand why we did that. And Mr. Nesmith, I think it's important for folks to understand why we did do it especially as it relates to the Sheriff's Department so if you could just talk about that because I think it was a wise decision.

And Mr. Nismith while you're doing that I'm hearing six years but what if the car only had 20,000 miles on it? So add that to your explanation.

Sure, Madam Chair. Supervisor Wolf. Yes our policy for light duty vehicles we did change two years ago and we moved to a cycle of seven years or 120,000 miles. And so we look at both factors when decisions are made to replace the vehicle. The majority of the vehicles that we acquired this year, the light duty vehicles not the patrol cars Had around 130,000 miles on it so they all met the criteria for replacement and money was put aside those vehicles were depreciated.

We even on top of a depreciation included inflation factor because we know that over seven years the price of the replacement cars probably going to be more than when We originally bought it, so that's true. In the case of the patrol cars a special decision was made here to stock up on patrol cars this year. The classic Crown Victoria patrol car Ford Motor Company is no longer going to be producing that car and so a strategy was put together between General Services and the Sheriff to stock up on Crown Victoria patrol cars now.

20 additional patrol cars were purchased to a tune of around $500,000 and that will avoid the need to buy new patrol cars for 2012 and 2013 so we agree it was a smart decision. It will save money in the long term. We will have to convert to whatever the replacement patrol car is and a decision will be made about that in the future But we have those cars in stock and that will avoid expenditures in the future.

The policy was also changed on patrol cars two years ago, and the life that we use for those cars is 150,000 miles. And that usually occurs within 2 1⁄2 to 3 years actually because those run 24-7. One other point I'd like to make on the health of the fund. If this budget revision is approved today, the fund will still have between 14 and 15 million dollars in it which does sound like a lot of money.

In this fund we depreciate each vehicle individually and then as some of the vehicles come up for renewal each year we make those purchases. Historically if you look back eight to ten years Our average purchase is around two million dollars a year. So with this budget revision, it's not an unusual expenditure this year since we're depreciating every seven years That's approximately what you need in the fund, $15 million if you're spending $2 million every year because every vehicle is at some point in the depreciation schedule between just bought and seven years. The average life is halfway in the depreciation schedule so the funds going to always have that amount of money so that the money is there to make purchases each year.

But every year the departments are adding to that fund?

That's correct.

That's interesting. Thank you, Supervisor. Supervisor Lovanino?

Yes, thank you Madam Chair. Are those like specialty law enforcement vehicles or are they purchased locally?

Madam Chair, Supervisor Lovanino, I'm not sure if they're purchased locally. I might get the head nod though.

It seems to me they're local.

And then there's special buildups that we do once we receive them that are quite extensive and so having even though this year we made a decision to overstock for the future years, we always have some patrol cars in stock. We don't treat them just like the light duty sedans. They take time to build up more accidents occur. We always have to have patrol cars ready to go.

Boy no crown Victoria's that's going to change every detective series on

TV.

Supervisor Wolf what else anything

not nothing else on 10 now we can go to 11.

Madam Chair members the board item A11 is from the county executive office it's receive and file a report regarding the structure and strategic actions for the proposed community services department.

Supervisor?

Thank you. When we, as you recall when we discussed this item I had some...I had a lot of concerns about it and I did vote to move it forward in anticipation of getting this more detailed report and I appreciate the report but it has become even clearer to me after receiving this report And after the last meeting that I don't believe that the combined the combination of the parks department and with HCD.

Is a is an appropriate move- I was under the impression from our last meeting that- that this combination had happened before in San Diego and it had not actually happened it was a recommendation Wasn't embraced and that was part of my concern is why combine parks with HCD. I'm also concerned that when we got our budget book this recommendation Was not included in the budget book so what it did is it gave me an opportunity to look at the budget of the Parks Department and To see the number of employees in our parks department And the number of frontline folks who are in our parks department, and what I see from this new community services department Is a reduction of our front line folks in our parks department? And that is very concerning to me So what it appears to be happening is that we have, by doing this has put together a really another bureaucracy where we're taking some of our frontline people from parks and putting a lot of our money and resources into a more Into a more kind of management centric department, and so I just I can't support it Oh the other the other thing is is that?

It was my understanding that we had to act on this immediately So that we could move forward and get someone in this position Right away. It looks like we've made some changes by appointing an interim deputy parks director I don't think we are in any rush. I think we could take our time and hire a parks director. Also, I think that the total cost savings that's listed here, you know when we look at cost savings, you need to see both sides of a ledger, the costs and the expenses. And unfortunately, we don't have the expense I know that there's going to be expense in hiring a new person. We're gonna have to go out and recruit for this position, and of course the service level is going to be decreased. And so for that reason Madam Chair, I cannot support this move so when we get to the approval Agenda let's pull I'd like to pull item a 11 so I can vote on it separately

and do we want to just do that right now is there a motion to approve a 11 or do we. Is there a second? All in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed?

Madam Chair, I will vote for the motion. But I just want to say that you know, I share some of Supervisor Wolf's concerns but I do...I am willing to go ahead and try this and then closely monitor it over the next year or two and see how it works out. But, I will support the motion now.

Thank you Supervisor Wolf because that was all extremely well thought out and helpful so we need to follow carefully.

And it's all vote no?

Okay, so it's four yes and one no. And now we're going to go to 812. Mr. Allen you wanted to talk about that?

Madam Chair, members of the board, item 812 is from the County Executive Office to request that the Board appoint one member of the Board as an alternate representative to the California Association of Counties. This is necessary because the CSAC legislative conference is coming up in a couple weeks on June 1st and 2nd and I believe that both the chair Supervisor Gray and our alternate, Supervisor Wolf are unavailable. And so we're looking for a volunteer.

Madam Chair, I'd like to nominate to be the interim CSAC rep for this particular upcoming CSAC conference that it be Mr. Labagnino. I myself am not going as well. I'm going to teleconference

at one of the meetings.

You've

got to represent us all because I don't

think... I'll second that.

All in favor? Aye. Opposed? For all three days? You're it. Maybe just one

day, I don't

know. Should we give them two or three days? You're the bell cow. Okay is that what you needed Mr. Allen? Now we need to go to... What was it? 13... 813. Madam Chair

and members of the board item 813 is from general services. The request is that the board approve and authorize the chair to execute an amendment in restated management and lease agreement between the County of Santa Barbara and the Santa Barbara Bowl Foundation Which incorporates the first six amendments into a single document, extends the term to 45 years. That's a ticket surcharge that generates annual revenue for the Santa Barbara County Arts Commission and incorporates other miscellaneous amendments. And our first speaker is our General Services Director Mr. Nesbitt.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I just needed to make two minor clarifications to the board letter that's before you. An alternative board letter was handed out and you should have that in front of you and it was done so in the over strike underlined format so you can see the two changes. I would just like to verbalize them on the record. The two changes are that the vote on this item actually requires a four-fifths vote. This type of lease is a four-fifths vote not a majority And then the second change is on page 4.

And on page 4, there's a paragraph middle of the page compliance with CEQA and the statement says a mitigated negative declaration was prepared for that and we're striking the three words initial agreement The mitigated negative deck was actually only prepared for the master plan. The agreement was executed probably 12 months to 18 months before the master plan was prepared, and then a mitigated negative deck was prepared on the master plan. So we just wanted to make sure the record was clear on that.

Thank you. Did everybody get this? Okay, Supervisor Wolf.

Thank you. Mr. Nesbitt, as I was going through the contract, everything where parks was mentioned was stricken and general services is now going to be handling it and that's reflected in our board letter. Can you explain how that happened, why it happened, the benefits of it happening Sure thank you

Madam Chair Supervisor Wolf the negotiations for this new restated lease were carried out over probably the last three to three and a half years. And initially when the negotiations started, the focus was on at that time the county had just installed a cell site on the property and we were potentially looking at a couple more cell sites. And General Services was working on the agreements for those cell sites on the bowl property additionally There was some question or there had been in the past that at some point if the foundation was successful, they had at least made it known that in the future they were interested in maybe having the property transferred to them similar to how the Libero property was transferred. And so my department was also involved in those conversations early on.

So as the negotiations progressed and it became what's before you today Where there are a lot of modifications, we made all these amendments. And like I said this negotiation occurred over three years. I became personally involved in the negotiations working with an assistant CEO at the time and so as they progressed and I became more involved a decision was made simply administratively that maybe it was better to have general services be the point of contact than parks. I also think parks at the time I was potentially in transition. I don't remember for sure, but a decision was made administratively that this might be a better fit.

Okay. Mr. Nesbitt, thank you for all your work on this. Appreciate it. Thank you,

Mr. Allen.

Our next speaker is Jenny Bresch here in Santa Barbara to be followed by our final speaker Andy Caldwell in Santa Maria.

Good morning Chair Gray, members of the Board. As Executive Director of the Santa Barbara County Arts Commission I would like to speak in support of the proposed BOWL lease agreement and specifically the BOWl Foundation's commitment as part of that agreement to provide funding support to the arts commission to help with arts education outreach efforts. Funds raised through a 25 cent ticket surcharge will provide much needed funds for the arts commission to provide arts education outreach opportunities and programs to a number of very underserved communities in the North County, especially Guadalupe and Cuyama. Staff intends to maximize the impact of the funds generated from this agreement by leveraging them to attract private funding support and to increase community engagement for arts education and outreach activities.

I've witnessed firsthand the many successes of the Boal Foundation's education outreach in Santa Barbara. Programs such as the Junior Mariachi Band, Notes for Notes that provides free music box studios for the Boys and Girls Club on the east and west side, and Sonando's Santa Barbara classes at the Presidio have provided students with art education opportunities and engaged new audiences in a way that has not been done before they were able to do this. This new funding source would provide resources to the Arts Commission to develop arts outreach in the North County. And just to give you an example, one of our 5th District Arts Commissioners has found more than 100 musical instruments locked in a closet in Koyama at one of the local schools.

This new source of funding would allow the Arts Commission to mine existing cultural resources and programs, and eliminate barriers such as transportation costs to provide music instruction and other programs such as this to Quiama youth. And it would provide funding for artist fees. So we think that this is a win-win for the arts in Santa Barbara County. Thank you.

Thank you. What kind of instruments did they find? Like drums and flutes and... That's amazing. Next.

Our final speaker is Mr. Caldwell in Santa Maria.

Mr. Caldwell, good morning.

Madam Chair and members of the board I'm Andy Caldwell representing CoLab. As you know in years past I've been extremely critical of the board entering into long term leases for in essence free rent and I've actually complained about this one in the past but I learned a lot about it from one of the board members of the Boal Foundation, and I found out literally how many tens of millions of dollars they've pumped into this project. And I understand that when they are out there gathering the money for things like that, it behooves the county and the public to have long-term agreements And in fact, we may want to look at similar foundations. I know my Rotary Club raises money for Waller Park and makes you wonder whether or not maybe you should divest county parks of some properties and allow private foundations to raise them if they're successful.

I did have a little bit of a concern about the money being dedicated to the Arts Commission because in essence, This is a long-term agreement. If you go in your budget book, they already have a budget of nearly $700,000 a year right now and plus they have reserves so they have over a million bucks available to them for this year and I don't know...I was just thinking there might be some better uses of this.

I'm not saying that you should undo the agreement but if you could maybe Give the county some flexibility that you're not signing in the Arts Commission for the length of the contract. I think that would be better for the county as a whole, especially since it's over such a long period of time. Thank you.

Thanks Mr. Caldwell. Any other speakers? Mr. Allen? That was

our final speaker on item A13. I'm sure members the board item 815 some general services requests that were considered recommendations regarding intent to apply for qualified energy conservation bonds. For a photo photovoltaic solar project at the Cuyahoga campus and approved the CEQA notice this is in the second district and I believe that Mr. Nesbitt would like to comment on this as well then we have one speaker from the public Megan Burney.

Thank you Madam Chair, I also have a clarification on this board letter

Well, you're the program today Mr. Nesmith.

On page three of the letter very top of the page there's a sentence that says board approval of this recommendation only authorizes a QSEB application and not project approval and actually the application does require project approval so the project in mind is described in the board letter it's a one megawatt solar project on the Chi Real campus. This application is due May 20th, the body that reviews it is the California Debt Limit Allocation Committee, CEDLAC and their own regulations, I'm quoting from their regulations say an inducement resolution adopted by the governing body of the applicant Approving the project or program to be bond financed. That said, I think there's The issue is one of semantics because the resolution that we're asking you to adopt today section 2 of that Resolution states this declaration does not bind the county to make any expenditure incur any indebtedness or proceed with the project So I think so those two Statements seem to conflict, but they don't.

The statement that's in the resolution is true. You're not being bound to make an expenditure. You're not bound to proceed with the project. We could be awarded the QSEBs and then find out that we did not want to proceed. So I guess the best way to look at it is their definition of approval is conceptual approval But not final approval and you do have the ability to decide later that the project does not proceed. Thank you, Mr. Ness. That's the point we wanted to make.

Madam Chair, members of the Board, our first speaker is Megan Birney.

Before we go there I wanted to make sure with Council that what Mr. Ness Smith said was clear and we don't have to re-notice or talk about it any other way? No,

I think it's fine. The change is really just a matter of full disclosure. But I think I agree that, or I do agree that if in the final analysis your board desires not to proceed with this matter if we're awarded the bonds then I think we still have that opt-out provision.

Okay so you're fine with what

we're

allowed?

Yeah I don't think this is a material change. I think it's a point of clarification and legal technicality.

Okay Mr. Allen who was going to speak now?

Megan Burney and then we have a late request from Jeff Bard here in Senate.

Supervisor Bard do you want

Well, actually I just had a couple questions. I realize this isn't Supervisor Wolf's district and certainly overall I would be supportive of this kind of project but I'm a little confused now. I mean first of all does do the bonds cover the entire cost of the project?

Madam Chair, Supervisor Farr. Yes we are submitting an application for approximately six million dollars which is more than we believe the project's going to cost. We put in a contingency just to be sure so we're applying for six million dollars and it's our intention that That covers the entire cost of the project.

Okay, so there's no fiscal impact in that way? And then as far as who mines this solar panel, so to speak, is that going to be somebody from your staff? As far as any ongoing maintenance or cleaning of them?

Madam Chair and Supervisor Farr, those questions will still be evaluated. This project was presented to the Debt Advisory Committee and there were several options regarding public-private partnerships, who owns the facilities for how long, who maintains them. And we're still going to look at those options The DAC at that point in time reviewed the options, chose not to get too much into details because the overarching recommendation was this may be a good project but we really should apply for the QCEVs because that financing tool is so superior to conventional financing. Let's do that step first and then we'll come back and evaluate the project on its merits and look at those kind of decisions.

Okay, thank you. And I guess then that answers my last question which was there would be some sort of a CEQA document with this if you're putting something on the hillside?

Madam

Chair and Supervisor Barr, that's

correct. A negative declaration has already been prepared for the project.

Okay, thank you And I just, Ms. Black is here and hasn't this issue gone to the Planning Commission? I know, I was pretty certain that it has gone and thank you for acknowledging it is in the second district and it has been discussed. It was actually brought up during the GVPAC And many community members have been involved. There's been notices to the residents and maybe Ms. Black could explain where we are as far as the planning piece goes.

Madam Chair and Supervisor Wolf, The project went to the Planning Commission twice in the past several months first for a briefing by General Services and secondly for a government code consistency determination there's no planning permits per se to be

Thank you. I think you get to speak now. Thank you for your patience.

Not a problem, good morning Chair Gray. Supervisors my name is Megan Burney. I am the Renewable Energy Specialist with the Community Environmental Council. And I'm simply here today to encourage you to move forward with this project. This project is a good project, and along with the Laguna Sanitary District one megawatt project would add a significant amount of renewable energy to the county's electricity portfolio. The staff has been very thankful, WANU has been very responsive in wanting to thank them for their work on this project. Also just wanted to point out that in addition to some obvious environmental benefits there are also a lot of economic benefits This will help stabilize your cost of electricity and actually help lessen your operating costs over time.

So we're very supportive of the Q-Sub grants moving forward, and if the Q-Sub grants are not granted, we would also encourage you to move forward with other financing options that the DAC has looked into, and we are more than happy to work with the DAC and staff on those options as well. Thank you. Thank you. Any other speakers? Mr. Allen?

Our final speaker is Mr. Bard.

Madam Chair and members of the board, my name is Geoffrey Bard. I founded the Upland Research Science Action in 1999 to protect sea turtles and have continued that work And most recently when the California Fish and Game Commission came here, I spoke in favor of excluding imported turtles. In many other areas, I've worked with U.S. Fish and Game regarding bald eagle dolphin protection taking on the US Navy which is an organization I love but I need to protest when they harm dolphins. And I won't bore you by citing a resume. I am at Wildlife Protection. I'm It does not come anywhere close to the kind of really international asset that is being put on the block in San Luis Obispo County. I'm referring, of course, to the Carrizo Plain National Monument which is slated for this huge industrial solar project, the kind of thing you'd expect to see on a poster with Chairman Mao on the front.

And there are multiple projects and the whole entire San Joaquin ecosystem is jeopardized by solar and the preferred alternative is rooftop solar and infill solar. It's my understanding of the current project that this is basically infill solar. I believe it's within the urban reserve line. That's exactly The kind of energy development that we need to see and not to belabor the point, but the other industrial solar is endangering San Joaquin kit fox giant kangaroo rat and the antelope squirrel. And not to mention our precious resource of the pronghorn antelope. So thank you for biting the bullet. It's not easy to approve a bond issue in today's, I won't say economic climate, I'll say in today's rhetorical climate. But I think that this is the kind of bond issue that will save money for taxpayers and protect the environment at the same time.

So thank you very much for this project and for taking my comments.

Thank you. Mr. Allen?

Madam Chair, members of the board. Mr. Barber is our final speaker on the administrative agenda I had one cleanup item we did post an addendum on Friday which number 1 advised the public that a resolution should be presented at 130 today and secondly Item 826 which is a budget revision from social services the department has requested that item be withdrawn from the agenda today and so any motion on the administrative agenda if you could include that action as well that would be appropriate Thank

You

Chair, Mr. Bowler I

was waiting for this to be approved and do it in an unorthodox fashion but madam chair I wanted to with your concurrence of course Asked Mr. Bowler, Mr. Faulkner and Mr. Doray to come up for a quick minute They've been here representing the Santa Barbara Bowl Foundation and Today we actually have passed the historic Improvement to the lease of the Santa Barbara Bowl one that recognizes the millions and millions of dollars that they have privately raised to upgrade this public private partnership that we have facility and also the resources that they will put forth for the Arts Commission to Fill some of the artistic and cultural needs throughout the entire county. And I wanted them to come up... Well,

talk about volunteers. Those guys fill the

bill. Absolutely. So I wanted them to come up and maybe with your concurrence Madam Chair, maybe just make a comment. Mr. Ray, Chairman of the Board, Mr. Rick Bowler who's the General Manager, and Mr. Faulkner who is not only on the board but plays counsel in many other roles

Madam Chair, salute members of the board. We appreciate all your support and definitely the acknowledgement. Thank you salute.

What you folks have done has just been wonderful because I've watched that bowl for years and years and it's like it's just unbelievable and it is wonderful and thank you and we all owe you tremendously. Thank you so much. Paul, did you want to say something? I haven't heard from you for a while. Good to see you again. It's

been awhile. Thank you very much. I just want to say that the bowl is really one of the gems of our community and it's only going to get better and better and it took all of us coming together to make it happen the way it has so thank you very much. You've been at it for how long, Paul? I've been on the board now about 11 years and have served as chair for about nine. So it's been a while.

Yeah, and he's related to Benjamin Fox. And so you know that his grandfather was working on it too. It's a heck of a job. Thank you all very, very much. That was an excellent job, Supervisor. We now have board member reports. That sort of was part of yours so why don't you just finish up with your board member report stuff?

Let me grab a quick minute if that's okay.

All right. So we'll go to Mr. Lavinino. Are you ready for board member reports? All right let's have it.

Thank you Madam Chair. Let's see this week I Had a chance to attend the Police Officers Memorial Program in Santa Maria. The Santa Maria Police Officers Association and the Santa Maria PD do an outstanding job every year. This year, unfortunately we are honoring the 11 officers statewide who lost their lives protecting our community and they did an outstanding job there to do that.

I held my open house for our new office. Been in there four or five months now and we had a great turnout. We had about 60 or 70 people. I got a little carried away with buying snacks at Costco and not county funds, just so we remind everybody. So if anybody would like to stop by my office for cookies or Chex Mix, we have plenty to go around. Had a chance to speak to the Santa Maria Valley Contractors Association last week and just the feedback I got from them was, you know, I know we all went to the economic forecast but to actually sit down and talk to the people whose lives are impacted severely through this economic downturn it's tough to hear the stories. But they wanted me to pass along that they're still out there and they're waiting for the economy to turn around I had a chance to go out and participate in a fundraiser for the Santa Maria Packers, which is another organization close to Supervisor Grazehart.

They're semi-pro baseball team that's basically funded by private donations. And we have a former major league baseball player that lives in your district, Brent Smith, has just kind of taken this team under his wing and is now the coach and chief fundraiser so he had a great thing out at his house. Enjoyed my time there. And tonight I'm actually heading out of the district and going to be a guest of Supervisor Carbajal's at the Cut Flower Commission dinner. I'm looking forward to that and getting home sometime around midnight, hopefully.