Meeting Summary
This summary was AI-generated to save you time. It may miss or misstate details, so verify against the official recording and the transcript.
At a glance
Chief Probation Officer Salary and Leadership Program Amendment
- The Board approved a specific salary of $157,434 for the Chief Probation Officer while rejecting the broader amendment to the leadership program resolution.
- Discussion focused on the long-term fiscal impact of salary increases on pension liabilities and the authority granted to the CEO for promotional raises.
- County Counsel clarified that the Chief Probation Officer is a county employee subject to standard employment rules despite judicial appointment.
- The motion to approve the salary passed after a revised motion removed references to general promotional authority.
Health Clinic Expansion
- The Board approved the expansion of health clinic hours and the lowering of age eligibility to 16.
- Funding for the expansion will come from one-time savings in the medical insurance budget and excess funds in the health clinic account.
- Staff explained that lower-than-expected insurance increases and reduced startup capacity created the available funds for this initiative.
Appointment to the Retirement Board
- The Board selected an applicant for the Retirement Board after reviewing presentations from four candidates regarding their financial and pension management experience.
- County Counsel outlined eligibility requirements, noting that one applicant was ineligible due to concurrent service on other county boards.
- Public commenters raised concerns about potential conflicts of interest and the integrity of the application process for certain candidates.
- The motion to approve the nomination passed following deliberations on the candidates' expertise and adherence to procedural deadlines.
Memorandum of Understanding with SEIU 620
- The Board approved a Memorandum of Understanding with SEIU Local 620 for Deputy Public Defenders, effective from January 2012 to June 2013.
- Key provisions include no general wage increases, a freeze on merit increases, and the elimination of the employer-paid retirement offset.
- The agreement introduces a new retirement tier and is projected to save approximately $77,000 in the current fiscal year.
- The motion to approve the MOU passed with acknowledgment of the union's cooperation in reaching a fiscally sustainable agreement.
Report on the Dissolution of Redevelopment Agencies
- The Board received a report on the dissolution of seven redevelopment agencies effective February 1, 2012, following the upholding of ABX 126.
- Staff detailed the redistribution of approximately $36 million in gross tax increment over up to 30 years to pay off enforceable obligations.
- The County Auditor-Controller is required to perform agreed-upon procedures engagements and oversee the calculation of pass-through agreements.
- The Board must appoint seven-member oversight boards for each successor agency by May 1, prioritizing individuals with strong fiscal acumen.
Isla Vista RDA Dissolution and Successor Agency Actions
- The Board adopted an Amended and Extended Enforceable Obligation Payment Schedule to allow the county to pay obligations until its own schedule is approved.
- The Board approved the transfer of non-housing assets to the county and budget revisions to fund the amended payment schedule.
- Staff distinguished between housing assets, which transfer directly to the county, and non-housing assets, which must be liquidated into a trust fund.
- Public speakers expressed concerns regarding the management of funds and the potential impact on community infrastructure and services.
Bagdasarian Appeal
- The Board approved an appeal for a Land Use Permit in Montecito, accepting a modified project plan that includes habitat restoration and removal of invasive species.
- The plan retains two bridges for pedestrian access, which were approved by the Flood Control District after a hydrology review.
- The applicant agreed to voluntarily cover approximately $32,000 in staff costs associated with the review process.
- The motion to approve the appeal and the modified project passed, finding the plan consistent with comprehensive plan and ESH policies.
Closed Session
- The Board entered a closed session to discuss anticipated litigation.
- Upon returning, the Chair reported that no reportable action was taken during the closed session.
Full summary
Meeting Start and Roll Call
- The regular meeting of the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors was called to order on January 24, 2012. A roll call was taken, confirming all members were present. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited.
Approval of Minutes
- The Board considered the minutes from the January 17, 2012 meeting. A motion to approve the minutes was made and seconded. The motion carried, and the minutes were approved.
Public Comment
- Three speakers addressed the Board: 1. Maria Long, County Coordinator for Freedom Warming Centers, reported that the program had served 944 individuals over 16 nights since activation. She noted that with the closure of Bridge House in Lompoc, operations are currently at New Life Christian Church with overflow at Good Sam. She announced that Mark’s House would reopen under new management as an emergency shelter for homeless families with a capacity of 19 beds. 2. Anthony Kias, co-author of proposed Child Abuse Law Reform legislation, requested that the Board reconsider provisions regarding penalties for failure to report child abuse, noting that many non-reporters were unaware of the abuse until after investigations began. 3. Dr. Robert Johns addressed the Mayor of Montecito regarding a potential conflict of interest in the Bagdasarian case. He requested the recusal of the Mayor from the Bagdasarian issue and the reconstitution of the Montecito Planning Commission. The Chair cautioned the speaker for repetitive comments.
Administrative Agenda Item A1: Chief Probation Officer Salary and Leadership Program Amendment
- The Board considered a request from the County Executive Office and Human Resources to approve an amendment to the salary plan for unrepresented executive and management employees and to approve the salary for the Chief Probation Officer.
- Discussion:
- Supervisor Wolfe supported the salary for Chief Taylor but opposed the amendment to the leadership program resolution, citing concerns about past increases and the authority granted to the CEO for promotions up to 25%.
- County Counsel explained that the current resolution did not address promotional raises beyond 25% and that the amendment was necessary to allow the Board discretion to grant such raises.
- Supervisor Carbajal stated that if the resolution amendment failed, the Board would have to take a different approach to the salary.
- Supervisor Lavagnino raised concerns about the long-term fiscal impact on pension costs, noting that a significant salary increase shortly before retirement could result in a substantial pension liability. He requested that future fiscal analyses include long-term pension impacts.
- Supervisor Gray expressed concern about the logic of expressing concern over pension costs while simultaneously approving a salary increase that exacerbates those costs.
- Public commenters included Dr. Robert Johns (who raised issues regarding discrimination and union negotiations, which the Chair directed to be limited to the item at hand), Bridget Shea (who opposed the increase, citing recent concessions imposed on other workers), and Mr. Caldwell (who discussed the concept of "spiking" pensions and suggested that pension calculations should be based on incremental salary increases over time rather than the final salary).
- County Counsel clarified that the Chief Probation Officer is a county employee subject to county employment rules, despite being appointed by the presiding judge.
- Supervisor Wolfe moved to approve Item 2 (the salary) without the resolution amendment. Supervisor Carbajal suggested amending the motion to simply approve the specific salary amount ($157,434) for the Chief Probation Officer, removing the reference to "promotion." Supervisor Wolfe agreed to amend the motion.
- Supervisor Carbajal stated he would not vote for the measure at that time due to unresolved pension concerns and the lack of a robust staff report addressing the issues raised.
- Supervisor Lavagnino requested that his abstention be recorded as a desire for the item to return for further discussion.
- Motion and Vote:
- A motion was made and seconded to approve the salary of $157,434 for the Chief Probation Officer.
- The motion passed.
Administrative Agenda Item A2: Health Clinic Expansion
- The Board considered Item A2 regarding the expansion of health clinic hours.
- Discussion:
- Supervisor Wolfe asked for clarification on the funding source, noting that the original intent was to use other funding sources.
- Staff explained that savings from the medical insurance budget (due to lower-than-expected increases) and excess funds in the health clinic account (due to lower startup capacity) would be used as one-time funds to expand the clinic’s hours and lower the age eligibility to 16.
- Supervisor Wolfe expressed support for the expansion and the lowering of the age requirement.
- Motion and Vote:
- A motion to approve Item A2 was made and seconded.
- The motion carried (passed).
Departmental Agenda Item 1: Appointment to the Retirement Board
- The Board began the process of appointing a member to the Retirement Board. Four applicants were present.
- Procedural Guidance:
- County Counsel outlined procedural issues regarding applicant eligibility under Government Code Section 31520.
- One applicant serving on the County Assessment Appeals Board and the Finance Corporation was deemed ineligible for appointment while holding those positions.
- The Board has discretion to accept a late application.
- An applicant serving on the County Grand Jury was not deemed ineligible under the statute, as the Grand Jury is part of the court system, though potential conflicts of interest were noted.
- Applicant Presentations and Q&A:
- 1. Robert Guy Cranes: Presented his background in corporate finance and pension management, including roles at Amdahl, CNF Transportation, and Genentech. He discussed his experience managing defined benefit plans and his philosophy on risk assessment and liability-based investing. He confirmed he is a permanent resident of Santa Barbara and willing to serve long-term. 2. Susan Garner: Presented her background in business management, including founding a biotech company and a construction management company. She discussed her self-taught investment experience and her motivation to serve based on a desire to protect the financial security of county employees. She confirmed she is a permanent resident of Santa Barbara. 3. Jonathan Ziegler: Presented his background in finance, including roles at Smith Barney, Merrill Lynch, Sutro, and Salomon Brothers, as well as his recent service on the Santa Barbara County Grand Jury. He discussed his experience with asset management, diversification, and risk assessment. Board members questioned him on his specific role in investment mechanics, the process for monitoring underperforming vendors, and potential conflicts of interest regarding his concurrent Grand Jury service. Mr. Ziegler stated he would sunset from the Grand Jury on June 30 and could recuse himself from pension-related matters if appointed. Legal counsel noted that while the Grand Jury is not a county entity under the relevant government code, the compatibility of the offices was not definitively resolved. 4. Guy Benedetti: A CPA and registered investment advisor, presented a slide deck analyzing the Santa Barbara County Employees' Retirement System (SBERS) financial statements. He discussed concepts including survivorship bias, track record investing, market timing, hidden costs (such as bid-ask spreads and commissions), and investment overlap. He referenced Modern Portfolio Theory and the Fama-French model, suggesting that adding assets like timber and commodities could be analyzed for their impact on the efficient frontier and volatility. He proposed that a consultant be hired to negotiate fees and analyze these factors. Board members questioned him on his asset management volume (approximately $20 million in direct management and involvement with a $3 billion portfolio), his time commitment given his other county board memberships (Assessment Appeals Board and Finance Committee), and his late application. Mr. Benedetti explained the late application resulted from a misunderstanding of the deadline and stated he would resign from his other county boards if selected.
- Public Comment:
- Bruce Corsaw (Local 620) raised concerns about conflicts of interest for Mr. Ziegler (Grand Jury service) and Mr. Benedetti (other county board memberships and late application), urging the Board to uphold the application deadline.
- Rachel Flores (SEIU 721) echoed concerns about the late application and cited Government Code section 31520 regarding qualifications and independence from county government.
- Dr. Robert Jones expressed support for Mr. Ziegler, citing his qualifications and timely application.
- Jeffrey Bard commented on the importance of socially responsible investing, specifically regarding conflict minerals.
- Deliberation:
- Supervisor Carbajal expressed a preference for Mr. Benedetti due to his specific analysis of the fund.
- Supervisor Wolf noted the value of the public interview process and leaned toward the other three applicants due to concerns about the late application and process integrity.
- Supervisor Lavagnino indicated he was torn between Mr. Benedetti and Mr. Ziegler, valuing both their expertise and initiative.
- Supervisor Gray stated a preference for Mr. Ziegler or Mr. Cranes, citing their fresh perspective and expertise.
- The Chair stated a preference for the applicant with the most specific pension fund management experience.
- Motion and Vote:
- A motion was made to approve the nomination of the applicant identified as "Ms. Cranes" (likely a transcription error for one of the named applicants, possibly Ziegler or another, but the text explicitly says "Ms. Cranes" in the motion and vote). The motion was seconded.
- The vote was taken by roll call.
- The motion passed.
- The Chair congratulated the selected applicant and encouraged all applicants to remain available for future opportunities.
Departmental Item 2: Memorandum of Understanding with SEIU 620 (Bargaining Unit 20)
- The Board heard a report from the County Executive Office Human Resources regarding a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) Local 620 for Bargaining Unit 20 (Deputy Public Defenders). The MOU is effective from January 23, 2012, to June 23, 2013.
- Discussion:
- Ms. Waller presented the details of the agreement, noting that the union had ratified the contract. Key provisions included:
- No general wage increases for the term.
- A freeze on merit and step performance increases.
- Elimination of the ability to cash out 80 hours of accrued vacation leave.
- Reduction of administrative leave from 108 to a maximum of 80 hours.
- Elimination of the employer-paid retirement offset of $80 per week.
- Implementation of a new retirement tier with a formula of 2% at age 61, 1/4 half rates, and pension calculated on the final average salary of three years.
- Projected savings of $77,000 in the current fiscal year and approximately $171,000 in fiscal year 2012-13.
- No public comments were received.
- Supervisor Carbajal acknowledged the labor group's cooperation in reaching a fiscally sustainable agreement.
- Motion and Vote:
- A motion was made to approve the MOU. The motion was seconded.
- The vote was taken by roll call.
- The motion passed.
Closed Session
- The Board entered a closed session to discuss anticipated litigation. Upon returning, the Chair reported that no reportable action was taken during the closed session.
Agenda Item 4 (Moved ahead of Item 3): Redevelopment Agency Dissolution
- The Board switched the order of the remaining agenda items to address Item 4 first. The Clerk read the item into the record: A hearing to receive and follow a report concerning operational and policy issues brought about by the dissolution of the seven redevelopment agencies within the County of Santa Barbara. The item is from the Auditor-Controller, County Executive Office, and the Board of Directors of the Redevelopment Agency.
Agenda Item D4: Report on the Dissolution of Redevelopment Agencies (RDAs) in Santa Barbara County
- Discussion: Staff presented a report on the dissolution of seven RDAs within Santa Barbara County, effective February 1, 2012, following the California Supreme Court’s upholding of ABX 126. The presentation detailed the redistribution of approximately $36 million in gross tax increment over a period of up to 30 years as successor agencies pay off enforceable obligations. It was noted that approximately $8 million of this amount is estimated to return to the County General Fund, with the remainder distributed to special independent districts.
- Staff explained the statutory order of priority for fund distribution from the trust funds: pass-through payments to schools, property tax administrative costs, enforceable obligations (bondholders), successor agency costs, and finally, distribution to affected taxing entities.
- Questions were raised regarding the timeline for fund distribution, the specific breakdown of funds for the Buellton RDA, and the role of public safety entities. Staff clarified that while legislative intent mentioned public safety, the statutory flowchart prioritizes return to taxing entities (primarily the county) after statutory obligations are met.
- The role of the County Auditor-Controller was described, including the requirement to perform agreed-upon procedures engagements for each RDA, establish trust funds, and oversee the calculation of pass-through agreements.
- Staff outlined the formation of seven-member oversight boards for each successor agency, noting that appointments must be made by May 1. The Board of Supervisors, along with other entities, will make these appointments. Staff recommended selecting individuals with strong fiscal acumen.
- Motion: To receive and file the report.
- Vote: Motion carried.
Agenda Item D3: Isla Vista RDA Dissolution and Successor Agency Actions
- Discussion: Staff presented recommendations regarding the dissolution of the Isla Vista RDA and the County of Santa Barbara’s role as the successor agency. The presentation covered three primary goals: adopting an Amended and Extended Enforceable Obligation Payment Schedule (EOPS), transferring non-housing assets to the county, and transferring housing assets to the county.
- The EOPS readoption was recommended to update the list of contractors and extend the effective date to June 30, 2012, allowing the county to pay obligations until its own schedule is approved.
- Budget revisions were proposed to transfer assets and liabilities to the county and to fund the amended EOPS. The Auditor-Controller created four new funds mirroring the RDA’s accounting structure.
- Staff distinguished between housing assets (cash, property for resale, and loans to developers for affordable housing, which transfer directly to the county) and non-housing assets (cash and properties for resale, which must be liquidated into a trust fund).
- Questions were raised regarding the disposition of specific non-housing assets, such as the former St. Athanasius Church property and clinic building. Staff explained that the oversight board would determine the disposition of each asset, considering factors such as the source of funds, restrictions, and purpose.
- Public speakers addressed the impact of the RDA’s dissolution on the Isla Vista community. One speaker expressed concern about the management of funds and potential corruption. Another speaker, representing Associated Students of UC Santa Barbara, highlighted the community’s reliance on RDA services for infrastructure and improvements and asked who would fill the void. A third speaker, representing the Isla Vista Community Network, emphasized the diverse population of Isla Vista and the need for continued infrastructure support.
- Motion 1: To adopt the Amended and Extended Enforceable Obligation Payment Schedule (EOPS) and transfer RDA non-housing assets to the county as successor agency (Recommended Actions 1–3).
- Vote: Motion carried.
- Motion 2: To approve budget revisions to transfer RDA housing assets to the county and fund the amended EOPS (Recommended Actions 4–6).
- Vote: Motion carried.
Agenda Item 5: Bagdasarian Appeal
- Discussion: The Board heard an appeal from Ross Bagdasarian Jr. and Janice F. Carman regarding the denial of a Land Use Permit for a property in Montecito. The property is located along Hot Springs Creek and its tributary. A zoning violation was filed in 2009, and the original permit was denied in 2010 for inconsistency with the Montecito Community Plan’s Environmentally Sensitive Habitat (ESH) policies. The Montecito Planning Commission also denied the appeal.
- Staff presented a modified project plan developed through meetings with the applicant. The plan includes habitat restoration in the tributary creek, removal of invasive species, removal of an irrigated lawn and non-native hedges, and restoration of approximately 65% of the area with a closed tree canopy (oaks and sycamores) and 35% as open area with native plants.
- The plan retains two bridges to provide safe pedestrian access to the eastern portion of the property, which was approved by the Flood Control District after a hydrology review determined they would not cause flooding hazards. Retaining walls along the east bank would be removed or lowered.
- Staff recommended approval of the appeal and the modified project, finding it consistent with the comprehensive plan and ESH policies.
- The applicant offered to voluntarily cover approximately $32,000 in staff costs associated with the review process.
- Public speakers included the applicant, who emphasized the long duration of the process and the compromise reached; the applicant’s attorney, who provided context on the team involved and the pre-ESH development of the property; a representative of the Montecito Association, who expressed concern that retaining structures in the creek was inconsistent with riparian corridor policies and set a poor precedent; and another speaker who raised concerns about the process and the role of environmental regulations.
- A board member stated that they had visited the site to gain a firsthand understanding of the issues, noting that the current fixtures were damaging to the area. The member expressed a desire to modify and restore the circumstances and indicated that staff had worked to bring parties together to reach a solution. Another board member stated that the item did not need to be continued.
- Motion: To approve the appeal and the modified project as outlined in the staff report, including the applicant’s agreement to cover staff costs.
- Vote: Motion carried.
Closing Remarks and Adjournment
- Memorial Moment: A board member requested a moment in memory of John Thomas Silva, a 100-year-old resident of Lompoc. The member noted that Silva was born in 1911, moved to Lompoc in 1917, and worked for 60 years in the appliance industry, specifically associated with Maytag.
- Staff Acknowledgment: A board member thanked staff for their work on the item, citing their creativity, flexibility, and firmness in negotiations with the applicant.
- Adjournment: The chair concluded the meeting and announced the next meeting would be held on February 7th in Santa Barbara.