BodyBoard of Supervisors
MeetingRegular Meeting
Date📅 February 19, 2013

UnGovr Transcript

iHow this transcript is madeUnGovr transcribes the official recording with automated speech-to-text, separates speakers by voice, and matches voices to the seated roster. Names and attributions are AI estimates and may contain errors.Verify any quote yourself: click anywhere in the transcript and the official video jumps to that exact moment, so you can check any quote against the recording.
  1. PendingQueued for transcription.
  2. AIYou are hereAuto-transcribed and summarized; not yet human-verified.
  3. VerifiedReviewed and corrected by a person.

0:00 – 0:031 turns

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role0:00 · ≈ 9:00 AM

Yeah. ♪ ♪ ¶. Music ¶. ♪ I'd like to call our Board of Supervisors meeting to order. Mr. Clerk, if you could do roll call please?

0:03 – 0:086 turns

CommentRoblar WineryProposed · by introduction3:27 · ≈ 9:03 AM

Ms. Farr, Mr. Adam, Mr Lavagnino, Ms. Wolfe, Mr Carbajal.

Pledge of Allegianceceremonial · click to expand · ≈14s recited, not transcribed
UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role3:33 · ≈ 9:03 AM

Here. If you could all join me in signing the Pledge of Allegiance.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed3:40 · ≈ 9:03 AM

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role4:00 · ≈ 9:04 AM

For

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role4:00 · ≈ 9:04 AM

those of you in the room, we just lowered the heat. If you're a little warm as we are, bear with us. Do we have a motion to approve the minutes of February 5th? Motion's been made and seconded. All those in favor? Aye Passage unanimously. We'll move on to public comment. Mr. Allen, how many speakers do we have? And if you could call them up.

CommentRoblar WineryProposed · by introduction4:30 · ≈ 9:04 AM

Chairman Carbajal, members of the board, we have three requests to speak today. We'll start in Santa Maria with Andy Caldwell. Then we'll come back to Santa Barbara for David Daniel Diaz and Paul Dudier will be our final speaker.

PresenterAndy CaldwellCOLABProposedself-stated4:44 · ≈ 9:04 AM

Chairman Carbajal, members of the board, I'm Andy Caldwell representing COLAB. There are two sectors of our economy right now that are literally begging for permission to grow. Both of them have been in the county a long time, one of them well over 100 years and one of them at least 30-40 years and of course the two industries are oil, onshore oil and wineries.

In the days of declining revenue, flatlined property taxes, relatively high unemployment compared to the rest of the nation. You have to ask yourself each and every time you get together what are you doing to improve the economy? What direction have you given staff? To what degree have you lobbied the state for streamlining regulations? Right now the State of California is considering streamlining CEQA.

Have you weighed in, have you even discussed this as a board and spoke to your lobbyist? CEQA is the job killer. In essence all that it required us to do was identify impacts to the environment and mitigate the same. Most of us have no problem with that but as you know in Santa Barbara County fungus on a rock was considered a resource to be protected. Right now we're shipping a lot of the line up to half of the line out of the county, to be processed, bottled, shipped and sold elsewhere.

And Supervisor Carbajal, your own Blue Ribbon Commission a number of years ago said that onshore oil should be explored and encouraged. And we're not talking about fracking, we're just talking about an industry that has had an exemplary record for 100 years. And I think on every single agenda item, you need to ask yourself what did we do to streamline the permit process? What did we do to enhance investment in our region and job creation in our region. Because right now this county is still out of balance. The state of California is still out of balance. And until decision makers like you make substantive changes nothing is going to change. Thank you.

CommentRoblar WineryProposed · by introduction7:12 · ≈ 9:07 AM

Our next speaker is David Daniel Diaz to be followed by Paul Didier.

CommentDavid Daniel DiazProposed7:17 · ≈ 9:07 AM

Good morning, good morning Santa Barbara County. This little complaint paper was something I forgot to give last week with the subject regarding Chihuahua or Hammonds Meadow and the desecration of the cemetery site so I'll leave this for Michael and in this hand here Apparently what happened late last year on the Vista bus, which is also being funded partially by the Association of Governments.

I was on the bus with another woman who was a legal counselor down in Ventura and the bus was heading down south and it got off at Main Street and how it swirls down like a roller coaster ride. The bus at 65 miles an hour went off the off ramp and in between the off ramp and the freeway up into the embankment there The CHP in this report did conclude the driver was at fault because he did admit only having one hour of sleep. In having communication with Saeed, the gentleman who oversees that Vista bus program and also the owner I guess of Roadrunner Bus, he was very protective and refused to allow Well, he didn't want to take into consideration on eliminating this driver from this particular route or whatever. And so he's still driving and as a result this lawyer whenever she sees this gentleman who almost killed us driving she is usually late for work And that's not cool, that we have this distrust of public going on with the VistaBus.

Maybe you can look into it and see how we can alleviate and rebuild the trust of the customers that do take the VistaBus? Thank you very much.

0:08 – 0:145 turns

CommentRoblar WineryProposed · by introduction8:59 · ≈ 9:08 AM

Our final speaker is Paul Devier.

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role9:05 · ≈ 9:09 AM

I saw him earlier.

CommentNarit GesslerProposedself-stated9:07 · ≈ 9:09 AM

Good morning, Supervisors. I know I am not Paul Didier. My name is Narit Gessler and I do represent United Way of Santa Barbara County. Paul, sorry he is very much under the weather and needed to leave but I'm here today to give you a final update on the charitable giving campaign something that I think we're all very proud of. This year we had over 110 volunteers for this including department representatives our steering committee our chair Kathy Fisher and our co-chair Herman Parker County employees contributed more than 400 hours of time during Day of Caring. This is one of the largest groups to come out to spend time working on projects for our community, so we're really excited about that.

This was the largest turnout that the county has had in several years and was one of the top three largest groups for Day of Caring So again, thank you. I also wanted to point out that over the past five years County employees have donated over 200 hours of their time to our Fun in the Sun program which works with low-income children over the summer and due to that Fun in the Sun did win a national award this year which is something we can all very much be proud of The campaign itself totaled more than $205,000 this year. We had 702 employee participants at 20% participation and the average gift went up this year which is a 3% increase over 2011 so what does that mean for our community? Just a little update on some of the programs we are running.

Our Financial Empowerment Partnership, right now we're filing free taxes with the help of other local community partners. Last year we were able to file over 2,300 families' taxes in our county and that resulted in $4.3 million dollars in refunds so that's just one thing that county employees are helping to support and another including Power Reading. This program is running throughout our entire county right now It comprises of a program called Reading Plus and Lexia. Over 43 schools are now using it, and over 4,500 local children are able to benefit from this program. So with that I just want to say a big thank you to the Board of Supervisors, Chandra Waller, and to all of the volunteers that we've had throughout the year for really making all of this possible for our community.

So thank you very much.

PresenterCEO Waller YouProposed11:31 · ≈ 9:11 AM

Thank you. I believe that's our

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role11:32 · ≈ 9:11 AM

last speaker. We will now move on to our resolutions. If there's a motion to approve A1 through A3? Motion has been made and seconded, all those in favor? Aye. Passes unanimously. We'll move on now to our resolutions and then come back to our administrative calendar. I have the distinct pleasure and honor to present the first one. If we could have Elizabeth Lane come forward from the Santa Barbara Ventura Dental Care Foundation, and co-chair of the Santa Barbara County Oral Health Executive Committee.

We could have Georgine Lowe, coordinator for Santa Barbara County Education Child Development Health Linkages and co-chair of the lot acronyms here OHEC. Sandra Copley, Santa Barbara County Public Health Department. MCAH and CHDP and OHEC member. Whole lot of acronyms. I may not even say them to not confuse the public. Mary Ellen Reese, Santa Barbara Children's Oral Health.

Jerry Waite, Santa Barbara County Public Health Department. And this resolution is proclaiming the month of February 2013 as National Children's Oral Health Awareness Month in Santa Barbara County. Do we have one other person? Yeah, Dr. Nguyen. Dr. Nguyen! I'm sorry. Dr. Nguyen, my name wasn't on here and I wrote it down because I saw you and I totally forgot so welcome Dr.

All these individuals that I have called forward are professionals that work in this field and are making such great contributions in making sure that our children and our adults who have dental needs, that their oral health needs are being addressed. And I know from experience from a meeting that Supervisor Wolf and Kind of about three years ago now. We had identified that this was one of the most significant needs in our community, dental care especially for those who don't have insurance so really appreciate all the great work you do day in and day out to make our communities healthier. Mr.

Allen if you could read the resolution please?

0:14 – 0:173 turns

CommentRoblar WineryProposed · by introduction14:04 · ≈ 9:14 AM

Chairman Carbajal, members of the board. This is a resolution proclaiming February 2013 as National Children's Oral Health Awareness Month. Whereas according to the Children Now policy brief California's children their oral health is among the worst in the nation and whereas Untreated dental problems in children can lead to poor academic performance and behavior problems due to unrelenting pain, as well as issues with chewing and or speaking, lower self-esteem, and expensive intervention. And whereas in fiscal year 2010-'11 39% of Head Start children in Santa Barbara County had untreated dental disease compared to 21% in the United States for the same population.

And whereas the Lompoc and Goleta Isla Vista areas have the highest rate of childhood dental disease in Santa Barbara County. And whereas, in fiscal year 2011-12, 60 dentists and 20 hygienists and registered dental assistants provided volunteer services including dental screening, fluoride varnish applications, and dental treatments to 4,000 children in Santa Barbara County. And whereas, in fiscal year 2011- 12, through six preventative oral health outreach efforts the Public Health Department's WIC program educated approximately 6,000 families The Maternal Child and Adolescent Health Field Nursing Program educated over 1,200 families. And the Child Health and Disability Program educated over 1,000 children.

Now therefore be it hereby ordered and resolved that the Board of Supervisors of Santa Barbara County does hereby observe the month of February 2013 as National Children's Oral Health Awareness Month to facilitate increased awareness education prevention and treatment of childhood oral health diseases throughout the county passed and adopted today by the board.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed15:52 · ≈ 9:15 AM

Board of Supervisors, on behalf of all the volunteers, individuals and organizations of Santa Barbara, the Santa Barbara Dental Society, the Santa Barbara-Ventura County's Dental Care Foundations The Santa Barbara Public Health Department, Santa Barbara County Office of Education and Direct Relief International and Rotarians. All the countless volunteers, dentists, specialists, hygienist, dental assistants, educators, dieticians, nutritionists who work tirelessly to eliminate dental disease, which is a preventable disease and improve the oral health of residents of Santa Barbara. We thank you for this recognition and we thank you for Going above and beyond what we had expected of you, especially you Supervisor Carbajal and you Supervisor Janet Wolf for bringing people together in the same effort to improve the overall health of residents of Santa Barbara.

We promise to continue our effort and thank you for sharing our goal. Appreciate it.

not transcribed≈7s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
not transcribed≈8s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role17:23 · ≈ 9:17 AM

Thank you for all your good work. Next we have the second resolution, A2 and this is one that I'm co-sponsoring with Supervisor Wolf. Supervisor Wolf if you could take the lead on this?

0:17 – 0:224 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed17:43 · ≈ 9:17 AM

Thank you Mr. Carbajal, this is indeed a very special honor for me to present this resolution along with Supervisor Carbajal on the celebration of Alpha Resource Center's 60th year, 60th anniversary. Alpha Resource Center is a jewel In my district. And I've, you know many years ago, maybe not too many was a board member of Alpha and got to see and watch and hear and listen to every wonderful thing that Alpha does for members of our community.

Families, children, adults, and I had a special opportunity to go there recently meet with their advocacy team. And after listening to this amazing group of people, I came away with I was so impressed by their approach to the meeting with me and I think that some of the things we talked about, we will start to implement. One of those has to do with issues related to MTD bus stop and I'm hoping that we can get that worked on very soon.

One of the reasons that Supervisor Carbajal is sponsoring this resolution with me is that when I went and talked to the folks at Alpha, I was very much impressed by the comments that they had to say about Supervisor Carbajal who had also met with them. And in some ways, I'm almost reluctant to say this but Supervisor Carbajal took on kind of a superstar role amongst the advocates and they were so happy that you were there to meet with him.

Just so pleased that you are all here today to meet us, to see where we do our work. And I've encouraged all of you to watch us on TV if you can't make it down here. But this is really a time to celebrate the existence of Alpha's existence for the past 60 years and we wish them continued success. in our community. So what I'd like to do right now is call up the following folks who were part of this advocacy team and there may be others in the audience that I don't name, and if I don't name you please come on up.

Michelle Olinor, Paul Erickson, Scott Clarkson, and Dennis Subica. And if there's others please come forward And Supervisor Carbajal and I will come down, and we will present you with a resolution. And then if someone would like to say a few words that would be terrific. Thank you.

CommentRoblar WineryProposed · by introduction20:35 · ≈ 9:20 AM

Chairman Carbaugh, members of the board. This is item A2. It's a resolution honoring the Alpha Resource Center of Santa Barbara upon its 60th diamond anniversary. Whereas the Alpha Resource Center of Santa Barbara has served children and adults with developmental disabilities and their families in the County of Santa Barbara for 60 years. And whereas Alpha has supported families in raising their children with special needs to reach their full potential.

And whereas Alpha has promoted the inclusion and full participation of individuals with developmental disabilities. And whereas, Alpha has increased the acceptance of the many gifts and talents of individuals with developmental disabilities. And whereas, Alpha is committed to building a community that values the contribution of all people. Now therefore be it resolved that this Board of Supervisors congratulates the Alpha Resource Center of Santa Barbara as it celebrates its diamond anniversary throughout the year and thanks Alpha for its unique work in our community passed and adopted today.

CommentPaul DidierProposed · by introduction21:54 · ≈ 9:21 AM

Thanks. Thank you, Janet Wolfe and thank you, Carla Hall. And thank you to all the supervisors. We appreciate it. Thank you so much.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 4Proposed22:09 · ≈ 9:22 AM

Well, I want to thank you for inviting me here to come and we're going to keep out there as long as we can. And we got a good Board of Directors Kim Olsen and she does a good job of helping us when we need her help. That's all I have to say. Thanks Janet and Celia were really touched by this award. Thank you.

0:22 – 0:286 turns

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role22:44 · ≈ 9:22 AM

Before we go on to the next one, Kim and the advocacy team thank you for allowing me to visit with you all. As Supervisor Wolf said it was a real treat. I really appreciated learning more about the Alpha Center and all that you guys do out there. It's just an extraordinary place and thank you for letting me learn a little bit about it and spend half not half the day but a little bit part of the day with you so thank you All right, and so we're going to move on.

Yes, Supervisor

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed23:17 · ≈ 9:23 AM

Wolk? And you know I mentioned MTD but I forgot to mention our Public Works Department who is also working on that bus pathway too and they're here today so that would have been terrible not to have mentioned you. So thank you both very much

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role23:33 · ≈ 9:23 AM

Thank you, thank you Supervisor Wolf. We'll move on to this next resolution and this resolution Supervisor Farr and I are both co-sponsoring this. She's asked me to go up by myself because she's a little bit under the weather and wants to make sure she doesn't give any germs to anyone so for me it's a real honor to present this and we could have Joyce Ellen Lipman come forward?

And Joyce is the Director of the Area Agency on Aging. Supervisor Farr and I serve on the Aging and Long-Term Care Network, and so for us it's a real honor to present Proclaim 2013 as the Year of Elder Abuse Prevention. And we have a few more folks that came up that I didn't mention but I'm sure Joyce will mention their name in a few. And Supervisor Farr do you have anything else to add?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed24:28 · ≈ 9:24 AM

Thank you Chair Carbajal. Yes, I just want to thank Joyce Allen for the work that she does every day of the year for our aging population and you know I think it's unfortunate but necessary that we do have to recognize elder abuse It's something that is going on all the time, unfortunately. Something that we see may be increasing for a variety of reasons including because of the economic difficulty that so many families are experiencing but also because of the increase of scamming of all types and unfortunately our senior citizens are very often the target of that. So, it's something that we talk about frequently at the Adult and Aging Network that Supervisor Carbajal and I are a part of. And I really think it's important that we do recognize how important it is to keep after the prevention all the time.

And again thank you for the work that all of you do in this area. Supervisor Carbajal?

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role25:27 · ≈ 9:25 AM

Thank you. I included this in our report 821 today from our advocacy trip to Washington, but we got some really good guidance from the folks we met with. In terms of the type of input that they would like to see from us in terms of the Older Americans Act, which is related and they're in the process of reauthorizing it. And they wanted to get some feedback from us as to what form that should look like. So we'll be discussing that later. Mr. Allen if you could read the resolution?

CommentRoblar WineryProposed · by introduction26:02 · ≈ 9:26 AM

Chairman Carbajal, members of the board. This is a resolution proclaiming February Elder Abuse Prevention Month in Santa Barbara County. Whereas elder abuse is termed the crime of the 21st century and the Administration on Aging has declared 2013 the year of elder abuse prevention in an effort to encourage local organizations To protect seniors and raise awareness about elder abuse, neglect and exploitation. And whereas the Elder Abuse Prevention Council of Santa Barbara County was developed over 25 years ago to coordinate local education, training, outreach and awareness of elder abuse and represents a coalition of county departments including social services, public health and the district attorney.

The area agency on aging and other stakeholders. And whereas, the recent developmental and implementation of the Financial Abuse Specialist Team and the Elder Death Review Team are two examples of enhanced coordination and collaboration between service providers that provides valuable information and sharing or resources focusing on seniors. And whereas, the State Welfare Institutions Code describes abuse of an elder as either of the following. Physical abuse, neglect, financial abuse, abandonment, isolation, abduction, self-abuse or other treatments with resulting physical harm or pain or mental suffering. Or the deprivation by the care custodian of goods or services that are necessary to avoid physical harm or mental suffering.

And whereas the County of Santa Barbara Department of Social Services reported 1,699 reports of elder abuse in 2011-12. A 2% increase from the prior fiscal year with less than 5% determined to be unfounded and a long term care ombudsman of Santa Barbara County who investigates elder abuse reports in long term care facilities confirmed 152 cases of elder abuse from July through December 2012.

And now therefore be it hereby ordered and resolved that this Board of Supervisors proclaims February as Elder Abuse Prevention Month in Santa Barbara County, and encourages all residents to participate in elder abuse awareness education and prevention training programs throughout the year. Pass and adopt today.

0:28 – 0:3417 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed28:17 · ≈ 9:28 AM

Good morning and thank you very kindly for the proclamation. In some regards, it is a shame that we need to take time to recognize the incidents of elder abuse in our community and in our nation but it is fact of life. Fortunately here in Santa Barbara County for nearly the last thirty years there's been a great cooperative collaborative effort as we've developed training sessions publications And many other materials to have a widespread community awareness campaign. This year, which has been proclaimed by the Administration on Aging as Year of Elder Abuse Prevention, we're going to step that up even further notch and this proclamation is our first step in that regard.

I'd like to particularly call to your attention a packet of information that we prepared that includes Some of the publications we've developed locally to inform and communicate with our community about the need to address elder abuse. I also want to call to your attention the many county departments that are involved in Our efforts locally, and of course there are other components of our community that are actively involved in probably our main activity which is the Elder and Dependent Adult Abuse Prevention Council. I've been saying that for 30 years so I can roll that.

And this group is made up of non-profit organizations, for profit organizations and county and city governments all working together for the last nearly 30 years to address elder abuse. Finally, I'd like to invite you all to the May 30th. This is our annual training conference that'll be held at Santa Barbara City College. We'll have some excellent speakers looking at some of the issues involved in elder abuse and I'd close by just letting you know that elder abuse is considered the crime of the 21st century and elder abuse is a crime. Thank you.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 7Proposed30:36 · ≈ 9:30 AM

Thank you. Morning Chair Carbajal, members of the board and Supervisor Farr. Thank you for sponsoring this resolution. Elder abuse is one of these scourges on our society. Elders and seniors should not be treated in any disrespectful and abusive manner that we see both financially as well as physically and sexually at times. We have Adult Protective Services in our department. And it has been chronically underfunded over the years, as you know. Hopefully that will change. There's a growing awareness of elder abuse in our society. The people on the front lines are adult protective services workers do a wonderful job coordinating with the community and sensitively intervening in these families. And we have Delphine Onera, our deputy director over social services and the adult program And one of our social workers as well here that I'd like to introduce.

CommentOlga SermenoProposedself-stated31:38 · ≈ 9:31 AM

Good morning, Supervisor Carbajal and members of the board. Thank you. I'm a social worker. My name is Olga Sermeno. I am here to represent my co-workers and to thank you for this and give you some phone numbers so that you can call us whenever you suspect elder or dependent adult abuse because we also investigate dependent adult abuse. Our phone number here in Santa Barbara is 681-4550. In Santa Maria, it's 346-8303. In Norfolk, it's 737-6020 and I just want to say that we are here to help and anybody that suspects any abuse call us and we will do our best to do what we need to do protect our elderly. Thank you

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role32:38 · ≈ 9:32 AM

Thank you. That is it for our resolutions and we will now go to the administrative calendar, and we will be dealing with one item first but just to get on the record my colleagues if we could go down from one side to the other in terms of what items you'd like to pull?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed33:02 · ≈ 9:33 AM

Chair Carbajal I would like to pull A7, A9 and A10.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.7833:07 · ≈ 9:33 AM

And I believe A15 will be discussed anyway, but I'd like to just make sure that that's on our radar screen.

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role33:13 · ≈ 9:33 AM

Supervisor

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.7833:14 · ≈ 9:33 AM

Wolf?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed33:15 · ≈ 9:33 AM

Thank you Mr. Chair. I'd like to pull item A5 and along with supervisor 5 also I wanted to pull item A7, A9, A10.

CommentReid BrewerProposed33:25 · ≈ 9:33 AM

Mr. Allen? Just 15. Thank you.

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role33:30 · ≈ 9:33 AM

A15. Great,

CommentRoblar WineryProposed · by introduction33:32 · ≈ 9:33 AM

how many

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role33:32 · ≈ 9:33 AM

speakers

CommentRoblar WineryProposed · by introduction33:32 · ≈ 9:33 AM

do we have Mr. Allen? Chairman Craubach and members of the board we request to speak from the public on item A15 and we have four speakers on that item and one speaker on item a22

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role33:43 · ≈ 9:33 AM

Great, thank you very much. I think we're going to start out with having our wonderful docents come forward. A22, if you could read that item? Peggy?

CommentRoblar WineryProposed · by introduction34:00 · ≈ 9:34 AM

Are our docents? Members of the board, Item A22.

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role34:08 · ≈ 9:34 AM

Hold on one second. I'm looking out to see if our docents are here. Here we go. Go ahead, Mr. Allen.

0:34 – 0:376 turns

CommentRoblar WineryProposed · by introduction34:20 · ≈ 9:34 AM

Item 822 is sponsored by Supervisor Carvajal. The request is that the board consider recommendations regarding the acceptance of a gift from the Courthouse Docent Council for the restoration of the Santa Barbara Courthouse Lamp.

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role34:33 · ≈ 9:34 AM

Thank you very much Mr. Allen, dear colleagues public today we are the Board of Supervisors is accepting this wonderful gift from our extraordinary volunteers who make it all happen at the Santa Barbara County Courthouse. The docents are a volunteer group and they not only provide education and tours of the public But they help raise money for all the restoration of the courthouse projects that we're involved with.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 8Proposed35:06 · ≈ 9:35 AM

Please. All right, thank you. Salute Carvajal and the board. All of us are here today too. We are extremely happy to provide education to our community and visitors at the courthouse. Our main focus is on education, conservation, and restoration of our beautiful asset of the courthouse in Santa Barbara. I also want to thank our general services. We have Chris here with us today who was instrumental in making it possible for our last project of the restoration of a beautiful lamp that's been hanging or had been hanging on the garden side of the Arch of Triumph facing the Sunken Garden. And without his help, we really would not have been able to get this accomplished. And for the first time in decades it's now operating and you can see the light shining out into the courtyard for the first time in decades.

So thank you Chris and also I'd like to thank the rest of the council Thank you. We will now go back to

not transcribed≈22s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role36:36 · ≈ 9:36 AM

The public?

PresenterCEO Waller YouProposed36:41 · ≈ 9:36 AM

Mr. Allen?

CommentRoblar WineryProposed · by introduction36:42 · ≈ 9:36 AM

Chairman Carbajal and members of the board, our next item is Item A-15. This is from Public Works. The request that the Board consider recommendations regarding a resolution in support of the Orkut Old Town Gateway Transportation Art Project. And we have four speakers. If we could start off with Steve Labarde followed by Eduardo Coronado.

0:37 – 0:4512 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 9Proposed37:19 · ≈ 9:37 AM

Good morning, Chairman Carborel and Supervisors. Thank you for having me here today. First of all with this project in Old Town Orchid I'd like to thank Supervisor Lavinino and Supervisor Peter Adam for all of their help and I'd like to also thank Public Works Brett Stewart and Scott McLaughlin for everything they've done to help with this. I know Scott's a former...he's a Marine. The Commandant has said that there is no such thing This is a privately funded project sponsored by the Old Town American Legion. This project has the support of over 1,000 local veterans. Transportation art is considered a benefit to the people of California and will become property of the state.

This project is located at the entrance into Old Town Orchid and right directly across the street from Long Rap to Vandenberg Air Force Base. The project consists of a 30-foot concrete circle with a star in the center, each point of the star points to one of the columns. There's five columns representing each branch of the United States military with their respective emblems at the top of each column.

On July 11th, our civic group was denied a gateway monument encroachment permit because as you can see this was our original model for the project and because the United States flag is in the center they said that we could not build this project because the United States flag is considered political speech. In late August of 2011, after corresponding with the Director of Caltrans, the project was resubmitted as Transportation Art.

And then in September 2011, Caltrans told me that the project fits the Transportation Art program as long as there is no American flag in the project. I was required to get permission by Caltrans from each branch of the military to use their emblems. So, I went through that whole process. I got all of the approval letters and then in April 2012, I submitted the letters to Caltrans and everybody that sent me the letter specifically said cannot be altered in any manner so these emblems were not to be changed at all.

So then in mid-January of this year, I was ready to order the emblems and I went to Caltrans and I told them I wanted to get the emblems ordered so we could do some fundraising. And Caltrans said hey wait a second, we want to see pictures of these emblems first. So I got ahold of Foundry and I had the Foundry give them pictures of the emblems. For instance, this was the Army one. And the Army emblem has got the symbol is E Pluribus Unum which is the same, I'm sorry, the motto, which is the same motto on the presidential seal, the vice-presidential seal, the seal of United States of America, the U.S. Congress, the US Senate and the Supreme Court. Mr. LaBarbera if you could wrap up please?

So Caltrans told me that I had to remove all of that text everything off of there including the mottos So that's, so let's see. Okay I'll conclude with that and open it for any questions.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.7840:53 · ≈ 9:40 AM

Supervisor Avalito? Thank you Mr. Chair. Steve, I know you've been working on this for quite a while If I saw this on 60 Minutes or 48 Hours or something, I wouldn't believe it. This belongs...I remember John Stossel used to have a show he'd come on and say give me a break. The fact that we can't have the United States flag is a travesty and I think I'd rather see the project continue to try to move forward with the flag cave in on that issue, and I know it's an issue we're going to have to continue to push.

And I know now you're at a standstill with the...

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 9Proposed41:34 · ≈ 9:41 AM

Well currently the flag is right on the outside of the project because I forced another encroachment permit on Caltrans that said the American flag is allowed in the sidewalk in the state right away so this project is located between two sidewalks And so the flag is there right now. They had to let me put the flag up. So, the flag is going to be like five feet off to the side right now but they will not allow it in the center of the project at this time.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.7842:01 · ≈ 9:42 AM

So and you're saying that it's gonna take a change in state law to allow some of these changes that you're requesting right now?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 9Proposed42:08 · ≈ 9:42 AM

Correct. I testified for the California Senate before on this issue up there, and Senator Tony Strickland was introducing a bill at that time. That bill didn't make it through all of the committees but there's another senator up there, Michael Rubio, he said that this should be approved at the local level and he wanted help with legislation to that effect so I've submitted a letter to him to see if I can work with him to get that law passed So that we can recognize veterans in the Caltrans has gateway monument programs and they have a transportation art program throughout the whole state of California. So this project really affects the whole state of California and what we're allowed to do.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.7842:54 · ≈ 9:42 AM

And I know that's why they're a little worried about some of the things that they're talking about but Obviously taking out the United States name on an emblem isn't going to cause a bunch of heartache anywhere. I'm wondering if at SBCAG we should, I'd love to have somebody from Caltrans come and explain this to me so maybe it's something I'd be willing to put on the SBCAG agenda and allow Caltrans a chance to come in and explain their position because I don't really see any defense where this would work. So right now the project is at a standstill because of the fact that they want you to remove

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 9Proposed43:33 · ≈ 9:43 AM

us. Well, I have a letter into the Director of Caltrans right now and I finished the letter by saying I hope we can come to agreement that the United States Military Emblems are the property of the United States of America that the emblems or any part of their elements cannot be altered in any manner.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.7843:49 · ≈ 9:43 AM

OK, well just as part of this and I know we're moving forward to support this with a resolution today, I'd like part of that language to state that have the project in its completed, in it's present...I don't support I don't support the project with taking out the text, or taking out the United States text

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 9Proposed44:11 · ≈ 9:44 AM

off of it. I consider it a violation of federal copyright law anyway. CalPERS has no business removing that.

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role44:19 · ≈ 9:44 AM

Great, I think we got the message on the importance of this project and perhaps the silliness of some of the approaches of our state officials. Mr. Adam?

CommentReid BrewerProposed44:35 · ≈ 9:44 AM

I'm just thinking out loud here, and I don't know if we can do this or not because it might be not noticed for this action. But I wonder if we can send a copy of the resolution with cover letter to Caltrans demanding that they drop this ill-advised requirement that the flag in the text from the logos be removed from the display?

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role45:00 · ≈ 9:45 AM

Mr. Marshall, that's a pretty straightforward request. Is that something we could do?

0:45 – 0:5119 turns

CommentPat AbelProposed · by introduction45:07 · ≈ 9:45 AM

I think within the context of the notification, I think you could include that in part of a moving motion. I would

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role45:13 · ≈ 9:45 AM

second that. Great. Motion's been made and seconded. Further discussion? Not having any, all those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Passes unanimously. We'll be sending out a letter. Thank

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 9Proposed45:25 · ≈ 9:45 AM

you very much. And thank you

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role45:27 · ≈ 9:45 AM

for your good work on

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 9Proposed45:28 · ≈ 9:45 AM

this.

CommentReid BrewerProposed45:28 · ≈ 9:45 AM

Can we copy CSAC and NACO and our legislative lobbyists and maybe all the other counties and the governor? Sure. Our legislative

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role45:41 · ≈ 9:45 AM

delegation as well. We'll do that.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 9Proposed45:44 · ≈ 9:45 AM

Okay,

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role45:45 · ≈ 9:45 AM

thank you very much. Thank you for your good work on that. Thank you Mr. Leward and Mr. Lavagnino I agree with you but...

CommentRoblar WineryProposed · by introduction45:52 · ≈ 9:45 AM

Our next speaker is Eduardo Corrado to be followed by Reid Brewer.

PresenterEdgardo CoronadoProposedself-stated45:58 · ≈ 9:45 AM

Good morning ladies and gentlemen. Thank you for the time and I promise you Mr Chair that I will not go one second over My name is Edgardo Coronado. I am a resident of the beautiful piece of God's land called Orchid, California in an unincorporated area in the County of Santa Barbara. I'm here on behalf of the request of my good friend and brother-in-arms Mr. Steve Labarde and all those veterans who stand strongly in their support obviously which you have unanimously today given us. And we appreciate our time and place when the county and the states throughout the nation are unwilling to say what they actually feel on any one issue.

I stand here not to represent the Department of the Army. I am only an army veteran with 26 years of military connection to it. I here ask you a couple questions as you're going to question the Caltrans, which is an agency subordinate to the great state of California, which the county Senator Barbara and his beautiful seal stands right behind you, which all of you represent. is to ask the State of California and Caltrans to include the Office of the Governor, which he at times is called upon by the Department of Defense, specifically the Department of the Army, to deploy thousands of service members as we have in the last 10 years.

My question to Caltrans would be that Director, under what constitutional law, what congressional decree have you enacted a decision to change the words United States of America? I think that is our country. Last time I checked, the United States Army, for instance First Continental Army under the first president of the United States of America. And I think some people have forgotten because they don't teach it in schools anymore. George Washington and the First Continental Congress enacted this seal then it was a seal award. This is not an emblem. It's not a logo. It is not a sticker. It is sealed representative our nation's unity around the world. Perhaps they have forgotten that in Sacramento And here at the local level, we support wholeheartedly any effort that would say to that flag it is not a political symbol.

For those of us who have personally wrapped that flag around bodies of the fallen and I have done that. It is the most painful and honorable thing anyone can do, men and women alike. So as you stand here today, sit forgive me, and think and ponder these questions I would ask them to say what congressman or what Congress did you have this pass that the rest of the state of California failed to actually know that this give you now the authority to change?

It is not an emblem, it's not a local. It is the seal of the United States Army that have served this country since 1775. Maybe that is what they had to be reminded. I thank you very much for your time and your support of a little place called Orchard, California and all the veterans here and far that have served this nation. And as the seal of the United States Army says to this, this we will defend. Thank you for your time.

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role48:50 · ≈ 9:48 AM

Thank you very much Supervisor Adam.

CommentReid BrewerProposed48:55 · ≈ 9:48 AM

Just with respect to Mr. Coronado's comment there, I want to amend my letter to reflect the word seal instead of the word logo please.

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role49:13 · ≈ 9:49 AM

I don't

CommentReid BrewerProposed49:13 · ≈ 9:49 AM

think we

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role49:13 · ≈ 9:49 AM

need to amend our motion that's I think it's noted we'll address that in the letter

CommentRoblar WineryProposed · by introduction49:20 · ≈ 9:49 AM

Great. Our next speaker is Reid Brewer to be followed by Dennis Hartman who's our final speaker on this.

PresenterReid Brewer I'mVietnam Veterans of America 982Proposedself-stated49:32 · ≈ 9:49 AM

Good morning, my name is Reid Brewer I'm the president of Vietnam Veterans of America 982, we're located in Guadalupe California. We have 350 members in our chapter and every one of our members was anonymous. We voted on this. We're behind this 100%. There's members in our chapter here and other veterans groups. I do not know any other veterans groups or veteran organization that is opposed to this.

This is needed to be done. We should do it. It's a good thing. I hand-delivered this to the State Council, Vietnam Veterans of America in Fresno. They're behind it. It appeared they will bring it up at our next meeting in three months. There's 5,000 members strong in California, Vietnam Veterans of America in California. This is something that needs to be done. The issue of changing the emblem...I just found out it hit me kind of hard right now.

I'm a Marine And changing any emblem or flag is wrong. This is as wrong as wrong it can be. What is right is right and what is wrong is wrong, we need to stand up and do things the right way. This is something that our nation needs to do as a general, this is what we need to do right here, we need to let Caltrans in our state People up there know that this needs to stand as it is, and this is needed for our veterans. This monument here, it's all five service branches, all your veterans. It's needed.

It's on the way to Vandenberg. A lot of veterans pass by it. It a good thing and it should be done. And I'm asking you all to expedite this and push in any way possible to get this across. Thank you.

CommentRoblar WineryProposed · by introduction51:27 · ≈ 9:51 AM

Our final speaker is Mr. Hartman on this item.

0:51 – 0:589 turns

CommentReid BrewerProposed51:36 · ≈ 9:51 AM

Good morning ladies and gentlemen, I hear nothing but good things from you today. I came here to protest what Caltrans is trying to do even in this state controlled by, never mind the fact People think that my tone of voice becomes angry. I can assure you, I'm not angry. I'm incredulous that this would even come up. That this would even happen. That you could knock off the United States. You can't say the United States.

I'll join to my brothers and sisters of all wars and this is not right. I want to thank you for your backup on that. I just can't believe it came up. And in this United States of America and even in this state, the one thing that you might or not you might but somebody might be thinking is You know, they're worried about being PC and they're worried about getting sued.

Well excuse me but if this would ever go to court this is still the United States of America it's controlled hopefully by the United States Constitution therefore anybody that would try to possibly fight this thing would be It would be gone, they would pass it. So have no fear and I don't think you do of course, have no fear of being afraid of getting sued because it ain't gonna happen.

And that wasn't bad for me in a minute and a half so thank you very much appreciate it. Thank you. Supervisor Wolf?

not transcribed≈9s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed53:22 · ≈ 9:53 AM

Thank You Mr. Chair. You know I've been following this for a while and Obviously, I was prepared to approve this. I thought we had made a lot of progress or you had made a lot of progress to get us to this point to approve it. I am incredulous that there is an issue with the seal. I don't understand it. So, I just want to thank all the veterans groups who have worked so hard to get us to this point and I appreciate the sentiment up here to try and get this right. And I also appreciate just having this time to know a little bit more about the fact of its location and I think its very I think it's very meaningful as some of you have said that the folks from Vandenberg will see this.

And to have this in our county is really remarkable. So I just want to thank all of you who have worked so hard. I'm hoping that we can get some positive response, so we can do this right. Thank you Mr.

PresenterCEO Waller YouProposed54:35 · ≈ 9:54 AM

Chair. Supervisor Farr?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed54:37 · ≈ 9:54 AM

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Oh, I'd just like to echo those comments as well and to thank everybody who showed up today and supported this item and who came to the podium to speak as well. I am just astounded at the bureaucratic silliness that's going on here. And, I also thought there was some positive progress going on but clearly what's being asked of this project in order to somehow find it approvable by Caltrans is just ridiculous. So I'm glad that all of you are here and that this Board of Supervisors is absolutely united in supporting you in this effort, and doing whatever we can to carve through all the silliness and get this thing approved. Thank you.

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role55:22 · ≈ 9:55 AM

Thank you. I think we've pretty much outlined our position. It's pretty much unanimous. This is a silly bureaucratic snafu. It ridiculous. And as a veteran, a Marine Corps veteran, Quite frankly, I'm very insulted that the state of California would take such a course of action. So hopefully they get our letter and hopefully they can get a copy of this hearing as well that we could send with the letters so they could change their evil ways as soon as possible.

We'll move on

PresenterCEO Waller YouProposed55:57 · ≈ 9:55 AM

to the next speaker.

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role56:01 · ≈ 9:56 AM

That was our

CommentRoblar WineryProposed · by introduction56:01 · ≈ 9:56 AM

final

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role56:02 · ≈ 9:56 AM

speaker. Great, thank you very much. We're going to take a five-minute break. Thank you everybody who came and spoke from the public. We're going to come back in five minutes to pick up the rest of our administrative calendar. Hello. Music CCoSp4 3.50

0:58 – 1:041 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed58:36 · ≈ 9:58 AM

Music You. Hello. Music Music playing Hi, everyone. Music playing Hi, everyone. Music ♪ Music playing. Music

1:05 – 1:074 turns

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role1:05:26 · ≈ 10:05 AM

Music. Like to reconvene our Board of Supervisors meeting. And we've already approved our resolutions, we've had admin comment from the public and we are now coming back to our board. If we could start with Supervisor Wolf I think you were the first one who identified some items A5, A7, A9 and A10

CommentRoblar WineryProposed · by introduction1:06:20 · ≈ 10:06 AM

Chairman Carbajal, members of the board. Item A-5 is from Alcohol, Drug and Mental Health Services. The request that the Board approve and authorize the Chair to execute an amendment to the contract with Medical Doctor Associates increasing the contract by $375,840 for a total not to exceed amount of $660,000 through June 30th 2013. Would you just like me to read all these into the record?

not transcribed≈9s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role1:06:46 · ≈ 10:06 AM

Sure, I think it'll be good and then we'll come back and take one by one.

CommentRoblar WineryProposed · by introduction1:06:49 · ≈ 10:06 AM

Item A7 is from the Auditor-Controller. The request that the Board receive and file the loss of public property report for the period of January 1, 2011 through June 30, 2012. Item a9 is from the Executive Office and the Auditor-Controller. The request that the Board consider recommendations regarding the North County Jail appropriations. Item 810 is from the Executive Office. The request that the Board approve budget revision requests.

Item 815, we have already had a motion and approved that item. And then finally on item... 821. 821 is from Supervisor Carbajal and that is to receive and follow report of Washington D.C. legislative visits to advocate for Santa Barbara County's 2013 federal legislative platform priorities.

1:07 – 1:129 turns

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role1:07:35 · ≈ 10:07 AM

Great thank you very much Supervisor Wolf, A5 then we'll go to A7, A9 and A10

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed1:07:41 · ≈ 10:07 AM

Thank you, Mr. Chair. This is an issue where we're allocating additional funding for psychiatrists to backfill some of our provider assignments and I've talked to Dr. Wada And Dr. Wada provided me with a lot of information about how the psychiatrists are staffing some of our facilities, so I appreciate that, Dr. Wada. And then during the break, I spoke to Dr. Wade and the reason I pulled this is because it seemed like there was some conflicting language in our board letter where it says that we are going to go ahead I'm going We're going to recruit to fill the positions with permanent staff.

And I went online, I could not find any job openings for psychiatrists so it seemed to be conflicting. So and you know I'm just really concerned in general about the number of psychiatrists that we have available for our population and I know this is going to be looked at through the larger report But anyway, I think the issue that I raised Dr. Wada can now address the concern.

not transcribed≈11s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
not transcribed≈7s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
CommentWada And DrProposed1:09:10 · ≈ 10:09 AM

Chair Carbajal, Supervisor Wolf you are correct so this amount with MDA associates does cover approximately two locum tenens physicians for the full course of one year. Right now, there are no active recruitments for psychiatrists. We do have two locum tenens physicians working for us within the department and right now we are still in the process of analyzing those for sustainability and we are waiting for the consultant reports to come forward so at times in the past we've used them to backfill during recruitment sometimes it's difficult to identify Thank you, Mr. Chair.

not transcribed≈17s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role1:10:09 · ≈ 10:10 AM

A7, A9 and A10 Supervisor Wolk? Okay.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed1:10:12 · ≈ 10:10 AM

And I also think Supervisor Farr wanted to discuss those as well so I'll go ahead and we may have the same issues. My issue on A7 was on the attachment, the Lompoc Housing and Community Development Corporation. The outstanding unknown amount of $50,000 which continues to concern me but my question Is, you know where are we? Where is Mr. Geis? Oh there you are.

I'd like to have some idea of where we are on the forensic audit for this.

CommentDavid Daniel DiazProposed · by introduction1:10:59 · ≈ 10:10 AM

Chairman Carbajal, Supervisor Wolff, I'll let Heather Fletcher our Internal Audit Manager address this issue and maybe if we hear from Supervisor Farr is that a similar issue?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed1:11:14 · ≈ 10:11 AM

Mr. Chair, yes. In newspaper parlance when I saw this I thought it was kind of like burying the lead because of all of the publicity and concern about Lompoc housing And we knew that this forensic audit was going on. I guess I was surprised to see it in this report. I mean, I think it's appropriate that it's in this report but I guess I would have thought that we would have also heard about it in a regular report as far as an update.

for the progress on looking at Lompoc housing and community development. It's also not clear to me whether this was one $50,000 amount or whether it's a total of $50 thousand dollars of various amounts so um and you know and the dates are not listed either. Thank You Mr. Chair.

CommentJoe HollandProposed1:12:10 · ≈ 10:12 AM

Heather?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 10Proposed1:12:12 · ≈ 10:12 AM

Chair Carbajal, Supervisor Farr, the $50,000 is related to one amount which was a loan that was given to LHCDC by our county. I believe it was in 2008 and this information is being disclosed to you and it was also reported in the warrant that was issued on LH CDC.

1:12 – 1:1922 turns

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role1:12:38 · ≈ 10:12 AM

If I may ask, what kind of funds were those that were used as a loan? Do we know? Was it...

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 10Proposed1:12:44 · ≈ 10:12 AM

Chair Carbajal they were home funds.

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role1:12:46 · ≈ 10:12 AM

Okay. Thank you. Supervisor

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed1:12:50 · ≈ 10:12 AM

Farr. Thank You Mr. Chair so I guess if a warrant was served then that's part of the district attorney's process now and is there any timeline on that and what what's the progress?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 10Proposed1:13:04 · ≈ 10:13 AM

Chair Carbajal, Supervisor Farr. There's only so much I can disclose in public session since it is an ongoing investigation but we did receive documents from the District Attorney's Office at the end of January of this year. So we have started going through the documents and information to see what we currently have and may need to reconstruct the financial records to determine the path of the funds.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed1:13:30 · ≈ 10:13 AM

Thank

PresenterCEO Waller YouProposed1:13:31 · ≈ 10:13 AM

you. Supervisor Wolf?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed1:13:33 · ≈ 10:13 AM

So just to tie this up then, is all of that then incorporated into the final audit report that we're waiting for and if so when will we have that?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 10Proposed1:13:44 · ≈ 10:13 AM

The forensic

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed1:13:45 · ≈ 10:13 AM

audit.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 10Proposed1:13:45 · ≈ 10:13 AM

Chair Carbajal, Supervisor Wolf, we anticipate that it will be a significant amount of time to prepare a report due to the number of properties and transactions occurring through the entity and since we received the documentation at the end of January I would anticipate that it may take us a year hopefully not that long to finalize the report

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed1:14:10 · ≈ 10:14 AM

Mr. Chair, this might be something that we bring into closed session because I think it would be good for us to discuss this whole matter given that it's a year.

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role1:14:23 · ≈ 10:14 AM

Good suggestion. Mr. Marshall if you could do that? If, find the appropriate nexus to do so.

CommentPat AbelProposed · by introduction1:14:31 · ≈ 10:14 AM

We will work with the auditor controller's office and identify a basis that would qualify for closed session item if possible. Thank you.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed1:14:40 · ≈ 10:14 AM

Thank you very much. Supervisor Carbajal with your permission can we go to A10 before doing A9? Sure,

PresenterCEO Waller YouProposed1:14:48 · ≈ 10:14 AM

A10. We've already read them into the record. So both you and Supervisor Farr have the same...

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed1:14:55 · ≈ 10:14 AM

So the issue that I had with this budget revision request was the last one, allocating $75,000 to HCD for a monitoring contract. And the funding for this was coming out of our contingency. One of the issues that I have is really a policy matter of using our contingency funds for something that we haven't as a board discussed and And furthermore, in looking at the budget revision request it appears that if we pay the $75,000 for this year that there's an ongoing potential for a $40,000 contract with these folks.

You know, it may be something that's necessary for this department. I think we need to just in general get a handle on HCD. I know you've talked about a Tiger team going in there. I don't know if this is part of it but the bottom line is that we as a board haven't discussed And the utilization of contingency fees is something that I know I take really seriously.

You know when you look at our approved changes, I believe all of these have been discussed by the board. So that was my question again. I don't know if Supervisor Farr has a different issue on this item.

not transcribed≈8s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
PresenterCEO Waller YouProposed1:16:19 · ≈ 10:16 AM

Supervisor Farr?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed1:16:20 · ≈ 10:16 AM

Thank you Mr. Chair. No actually my concerns are virtually identical. Questioning the need for this service. I realize that the department has a lot of work to do in this area and just doesn't have the internal staff to do this work, so I'm not opposed to spending the money for this purpose. I just question the process because again generally any money that's going to be taken out of contingency would come to us, you know it'd be discussed the need for it and then the appropriation in that way. And it wouldn't just um... The budget revision wouldn't come first.

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role1:16:57 · ≈ 10:16 AM

Well what's the pleasure of Supervisor Wolf? Supervisor Farrer?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed1:17:01 · ≈ 10:17 AM

Well I'd like to hear from CEO Waller about the rationale for doing this and then we'll see.

CommentCEO WallerProposed1:17:12 · ≈ 10:17 AM

Chair Supervisors, yes. As you had noted the HCD division has had significant issues over the last several years actually many years and recently has been involved in a HUD and an OIG audit where staff is spending a great deal of their effort and initiative preparing responses to those audits. One of the things that the Tiger Team identified as an issue was the fact that with staff being utilized so intensely for the audits, we weren't completing our actual in-field I think that certainly it's something that.

is unexpected and that's what our contingency dollars are for. I do share your concern when we use contingency dollars because as I know you're boards aware, I very very seldom come to you with a request and a recommendation for those funds but in this particular case I think it's imperative for us to have a contract and get in compliance with the requirement for infield visits. And then on an ongoing basis I think we want to look at what our ongoing needs are both from our staffing perspective and our monitoring levels, and determine whether or not we need additional resources for ongoing. Or in fact, we can use staff as they're freed up from the audit. But I did want to make sure that we had put some dollars in there so that you would recognize there may be a desire for an ongoing firm to do this auditing on our behalf.

not transcribed≈19s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen

1:19 – 1:2412 turns

PresenterCEO Waller YouProposed1:19:04 · ≈ 10:19 AM

You know,

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role1:19:10 · ≈ 10:19 AM

I certainly think it's important to do what is before us with HCD. I think what's of great concern is that I think our board hasn't been apprised of the various challenges that that department has been having, that we're all aware of in a clearly articulated fashion. A memorandum of some type of board item and I don't want to speak for Supervisor Wolf and Supervisor Farr but I didn't yank this item because I am aware of the need to make sure that we have the appropriate staffing address all some of the challenges that we're dealing with in that department, but I think to not really have a clear understanding or being apprised of that and then seeing this can request from contingency does get your attention. So I just wanted to stipulate that for what it's worth

CommentCEO WallerProposed1:20:14 · ≈ 10:20 AM

Chair just in response to that, I think it's certainly welcome and we will prepare a memo to the board not only on this particular issue but any issue that we're aware of in that department and provide that to your board.

PresenterCEO Waller YouProposed1:20:31 · ≈ 10:20 AM

Supervisor Forham.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed1:20:33 · ≈ 10:20 AM

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Again I just feel like we've got the cart before the horse. I mean I think that we should have had if only a short D agenda item outlining the current situation, outlining the time pressure, outlining the need therefore this is a path we think is appropriate and then therefore this is the cost and here's where we want to pull the money from.

So, you know I guess I'll go ahead and support this now but because you know I do see the need for it. But I think that in the interest of full disclosure and transparency I mean this information is not just for us it's for the public there are a lot of people that are following this issue. A lot of the nonprofits that are involved that want to know how the county is going to handle it so So I think asking for the money before we've had the presentation is not the right way to go. And if I vote for it today, doesn't mean I'm going to vote for it in the future. Wouldn't want to see this happen this way again.

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role1:21:41 · ≈ 10:21 AM

Supervisor Wolf?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed1:21:44 · ≈ 10:21 AM

Thank you Mr. Chair. You know CEO Waller You know when I looked at the budget revision request, it's $75,000 for this year. And it says here it represents one-year fee for record set up documentation review and onsite physical inspections. And it seems to me, and here we are now having this discussion with you and I agree that it should have been on a D agenda. But it seems to me that we're paying an outside firm to do what we have said as a board before That HCD needs to get their house in order and have people go out there and do the inspections. And it was always my understanding that that was happening because we knew that those inspections were important. And so now what we're doing is we're pulling that function out We're giving it to a private firm that's going to cost us $75,000 just so they can set up whatever they have to do in their computer system and then charge us $40,000 every subsequent year.

I'm not sure it doesn't make more sense to hire someone in that department to be responsible who understands and is aware and everything is already set up within the system. You know, I was going to go ahead And I still may. This is your recommendation to us, but there's two things. One is the process and one is the actual elements of this item that are really concerning to me. So I'm not sure if I want to pull this to vote on it separately, but it's a big issue for me. Thank

PresenterCEO Waller YouProposed1:23:29 · ≈ 10:23 AM

you. And we're going to go to Mr. Adam next then Supervisor Farr. But I would just add that

not transcribed≈11s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role1:23:37 · ≈ 10:23 AM

CEO Waller, I keep hearing rumors and not having had any report on the status of things that we're in the peril of losing significant CDBG money. And again, I'm oblivious to the status of things. I'm very concerned, obviously. Mr. Adam, the CEO of Pharr...CEO

PresenterCEO Waller YouProposed1:24:08 · ≈ 10:24 AM

of Pharr?

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role1:24:08 · ≈ 10:24 AM

I've

PresenterCEO Waller YouProposed1:24:09 · ≈ 10:24 AM

been here a month and I haven't got a promotion yet.

1:24 – 1:3425 turns

CommentReid BrewerProposed1:24:20 · ≈ 10:24 AM

I'm just saying that 40,000 doesn't get you one employee. So maybe what we do is we go the other way and we privatize the whole darn thing. Is that feasible?

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role1:24:39 · ≈ 10:24 AM

Good suggestion Mr. Adam. Do you want a response to that from CEO

CommentReid BrewerProposed1:24:47 · ≈ 10:24 AM

Waller? If one is available, if that's a reasonable request at this time. Maybe we've got to bring it back.

CommentCEO WallerProposed1:24:52 · ≈ 10:24 AM

Chair, Supervisors I think there has been a couple of really good comments that have come forward in response to your specific comment certainly I think that's something that we could look at long term whether this should be privatized or not. In response to what Supervisor Wolf had said as far as hiring and utilizing an existing employee My response to that would be I'd really like to get our folks through this audit that we're doing that's really, really intense and then see if we have existing resources to be able to do this. I think that for the very short time to try to hire somebody for this specific purpose and perhaps not need a full-time individual in the future, this was my attempt to sort of get us through a transition year so that we could actually see what our staffing levels should be.

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role1:25:45 · ≈ 10:25 AM

Supervisor Farr.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed1:25:47 · ≈ 10:25 AM

Thank you Mr. Chair, I mean I think all of these questions point out the need for a D agenda item that gives us an update on the department and I think that even And this gets to the whole staffing structure organization workload what the needs are who's best to do it and and perhaps even points to the bigger issue of You know the fact that the board Emerge this department with parks a couple of years ago, which I supported at the time But maybe it's it's time to take a look at that and see because we want our departments to function well And if it's not functioning well Then perhaps we should have an analysis of that as well When we're when we're talking about all of this and then we can better make these decisions and understand when they come up like this

PresenterCEO Waller YouProposed1:26:39 · ≈ 10:26 AM

Supervisor fire or supervisor wolf

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed1:26:42 · ≈ 10:26 AM

Thank you Mr. Chair, so CEO Waller thank you for your response I'm going to just go ahead and vote on this as part of the consent. I think our points have been heard and ready to move on.

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role1:26:54 · ≈ 10:26 AM

So from here we're gonna move forward and vote on this but Supervisor Farr you would like this come back as a d-item despite us moving forward with this administrative item?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed1:27:03 · ≈ 10:27 AM

I would yes and I agree absolutely

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role1:27:07 · ≈ 10:27 AM

great We have item A-9 as well. Supervisor Wolf and...

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed1:27:13 · ≈ 10:27 AM

Actually, Mr. Chair do you want to go ahead and take a motion on A-10 then? All of it?

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role1:27:18 · ≈ 10:27 AM

Alright we'll take a motion on that. There was uh is there a motion?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed1:27:21 · ≈ 10:27 AM

I'll make it that motion.

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role1:27:22 · ≈ 10:27 AM

Motion's been made. Seconded. All those in favor? Aye. Passes unanimously We'll move on to A-9, both Supervisor Wolf and Supervisor Farr.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed1:27:32 · ≈ 10:27 AM

I'll let Supervisor Farr start on this one because I think this is going to be a little bit longer.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed1:27:42 · ≈ 10:27 AM

Thank you Mr. Chair. I guess that I was quite surprised to see this on the A agenda. The North County Jail Project is clearly the biggest, most complicated, most expensive project that this board is dealing with and I realize there are so many great county staff working as a team to go through all of these issues, to make sure that we've got everything done exactly right. That we're meeting our deadlines, our timelines and I understand how complicated and difficult that is. At the same time, I don't think that it's an A agenda item. I think that because we are moving millions of dollars here, that it's important for the board to go ahead and be led through what staff has done Since we talked about this last, and I realized that these budget revisions are to implement the actions that the board took for those agreements.

At the same time there are some questions here and I think that the board should have had an opportunity to have a regular presentation on all of it and ask them. So that's just kind of my overarching concern. You know, there's some confusion on my part as to the fact that the numbers of the budget revisions that are here. One of them actually seems to have been repeated in A-10 but not all of them. I don't know if that was done deliberately or accidentally. I would've thought that the revisions in A-9 would be sufficient.

The revision in A 10 for the jail, the 0002720 For 973,867. Matches the number on our recommended actions number 3 but if you go into the interior the number is actually different than that so I don't know if that was just a typo or not. I'd like to know what this leaves us in the strategic reserve after we move this money. And you know, anyway, I have a number of other questions so I don't know if there's enough support on the board that we want to go ahead and trail this and take some more time with it. I realize that there are some deadlines here so perhaps this decision has to be made today. I don'y know that either.

not transcribed≈11s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role1:30:16 · ≈ 10:30 AM

CEO Waller, I know you have a good response because that's what you gave us in our agenda review. But if there is no timeline rather than getting into a full discussion here can we bring this item back?

CommentCEO WallerProposed1:30:29 · ≈ 10:30 AM

Chair of Supervisors, I think we could bring it back. What we're trying to do is your board actually approved these appropriations when you approved the agreements with the state being signed. What our auditor controller has done is put these in separate little pots so that we can better track These in conformance with the agreements. I know certainly they are Here and able to talk to the detail of how these are but really what it is It's putting into separate little pots dollars that your board has already approved as part of the agreement, okay?

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role1:31:02 · ≈ 10:31 AM

Mr.. Geist supervisor war so that at least we could capture the essence of all the concerns that have been expressed

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed1:31:09 · ≈ 10:31 AM

Thank you, Mr. Chair. So I understand that this is basically following up on our previous discussion. One question and a comment. One is this $50,000 that the Sheriff's going to use Prop 172 and I just don't recall that was something we had talked about. That seems to me a little bit an add-on from our previous discussion. And then my comment is that now our general operations account is zero, the $3 million and I know I'm going to sound like a broken record but we have got to have some board discussion about how we're going to be dealing with those ongoing costs. We were always depending on that general operations account To be building it up every year and now we've pulled out the three million. So someone that we need to have, I believe and I think this board has agreed that we need to have a discussion On how we're going to fund the jail.

And I don't know if, I'm sure the sheriff is listening, CEO Waller. I just, I am actually going to make a formal request that we have an item on our agenda that will address the funding issues for the jail before we continue to move this train down this track. We have got to get a handle on that. Thank you Mr Chair.

CommentCEO WallerProposed1:32:41 · ≈ 10:32 AM

Mr. Chairman, there was just one other item that had been brought up that I failed to address. I've looked at the budget revision that you had just approved and the zero in is a duplicate so we will only use one of those if your board chooses to approve the board letter that we're talking about now. So that one should have been removed from the previous approval.

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role1:33:04 · ≈ 10:33 AM

Thank you. Supervisor Farr?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed1:33:06 · ≈ 10:33 AM

Mr. Chair, CEO Waller so but that amount the 973 doesn't match up with trying to find the page. Page 5 of 6 where it's listed as 923 867 rather than 973 867 and if I've in my head added that column right it does come to 923 So really that should be amended to say 923, wherever it is.

GuestGreg LevinControllerProposedself-stated1:33:41 · ≈ 10:33 AM

Honorable Supervisor Farr, Chair Kobach, my name's Greg Levin from the Auditor-Controller's Office and I'm the Division Chief of Advanced Accounting. The $50,000 is additive The amount of the intended budget revision is $973,000. And the reason for that is there were some costs that were ineligible related to costs that occurred prior to the conditional award and then other costs that are not contemplated in the current state budget. And so we identified the need to provide an additional $50,000. We discussed that with the Sheriff's business manager who agreed to transfer from ostensibly whatever funds dedicated for the Sheriff Department to add an additional $50k to the project

1:34 – 1:4220 turns

PresenterCEO Waller YouProposed1:34:31 · ≈ 10:34 AM

Supervisor Farr

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role1:34:32 · ≈ 10:34 AM

and Supervisor

PresenterCEO Waller YouProposed1:34:32 · ≈ 10:34 AM

Wolfe, are we ready to move forward with this or do you want to... You've identified

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role1:34:40 · ≈ 10:34 AM

a need for us to bring an item back to the board that seems separate than the item. We made it but separate from the item that's before us.

PresenterCEO Waller YouProposed1:34:50 · ≈ 10:34 AM

Supervisor Farr then Supervisor Lavinino?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed1:34:53 · ≈ 10:34 AM

Okay, thank you. So as Supervisor Wolf stated we had that $3 million in the jail operations account which has now been moved over to help make the match for the capital account. But according to our budget resolution, we're going to be putting in another $3 million into the jail operations account this budget cycle. That's in addition to the ongoing 900,000 that the Sheriff Annual General Fund Budget beginning transition cost amount.

That's an addition to that. Correct? Mr. Levin?

GuestGreg LevinControllerProposedself-stated1:35:37 · ≈ 10:35 AM

I apologize Supervisor Feller, I'm not sure I understand the question.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed1:35:41 · ≈ 10:35 AM

Okay if you look on page three of six under funding sources Under other county costs, Sheriff Annual General Fund Budget beginning FY 13-14 transition cost $900,000. So that's going to be an ongoing general fund expense in addition to the amounts that we've obligated for the operations and maintenance jail account.

GuestGreg LevinControllerProposedself-stated1:36:10 · ≈ 10:36 AM

If I understand the supervisor's question, the $900,000 for the purposes of capital construction is a one-time transfer. Currently right now we anticipate the total project for the budget is $96.1 million. I believe as a separate issue and to be responsive to Supervisor Wolf's comments that The funding for the ongoing operations of the jail is being analyzed separately and I can't speak to it, but I do believe there is a recurring component in the Sheriff's budget to build up fund balance towards that goal. And so the $900,000 which is this year's allocation we're using to fund the capital construction project, I anticipate in the future there will be other contributions from the Sheriff's budget to build up a reserve towards ongoing operations.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed1:37:03 · ≈ 10:37 AM

OK, I guess I'm just trying to figure out where the $900,000 is coming from. Is that being carved out of whatever the Sheriff's Department allocation is already? Or is that on top of a separate allocation that the board will be making for this

GuestGreg LevinControllerProposedself-stated1:37:17 · ≈ 10:37 AM

effort? My understanding is that's intended to come from the Sheriff's existing allocation. Supervisor Laganina.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.781:37:29 · ≈ 10:37 AM

Thank you Mr. Chair. I think Supervisor Wolf, what I hope what you're looking for is...I think we've had the discussion many times about how we're going to fund the jail and what the plan is. But I think what you're looking for and what I'd be very interested in seeing is yes it's gonna cost us $17 million a year and yes we have a plan on how to get there But what are we going to do, what programs are going to suffer instead? Or what additional revenue are we gonna go after?

I hope this is the meeting that we're going to look at, that's part of this. Because I mean, I hope we just don't go over the same mathematical plan that I've seen already five times in two years that I agree with. But I mean, I hope that's just not what we're looking to do again. If the hearing is going to be about what other sources of revenue do we need to go after to supplement so that we aren't short $17 million a year or What are the priority changes we need to make, obviously, to fund this jail? Then I'm all for another hearing on regurgitating the same information again. And I just don't see what good it is to go over that same math problem we keep going over and over and over again.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed1:38:59 · ≈ 10:38 AM

And Supervisor Lavin, you know what, I agree And that's, I get the math problem. I want to know where we're going to come up with that amount of money from the general fund and now Mr. Levin is saying there is some more work being done On it, maybe what the sheriff is going to be putting in. I just think we need a more robust discussion on that.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.781:39:26 · ≈ 10:39 AM

So that's not just coming from the sheriff? I think that that's a discussion that either we need as a workshop or something where we say okay look at this. This is a big problem we've got coming down the road. It's not that far away and we need to strategize you know where we can trim other programs or where we bring in additional revenue. Those are basically our two, the only two ways to skin this cat so I think we definitely need to have that discussion.

CommentReid BrewerProposed1:39:53 · ≈ 10:39 AM

Supervisor Adam? I just want to cite the fact that there's at least three items on our agenda today that sort of they're revenue items really And we've got everybody so wound up in a knot that they can't go do the things that they want to do, that's going to create the revenue that's gonna pay for all this stuff. And so when we have that workshop, I think it's a really good idea to have a workshop.

But we're going to have to get real about creating revenue and not continually winding everybody up who wants to do something around the axle until they just give up and they don't do anything. And then we don't have any revenue. So that's all I wanted to say about that.

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role1:40:39 · ≈ 10:40 AM

Thank you, Supervisor.

CommentReid BrewerProposed1:40:41 · ≈ 10:40 AM

Supervisor Farmer?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed1:40:42 · ≈ 10:40 AM

Thank you, Mr. Chair. totally as best as possible understand what we're doing so that there's no surprises during budget this year and the next year, as far as what we have committed to right now to the jail and the needs of the jail even before it's constructed. So that's what I'm trying to sort out. That's one. So

not transcribed≈10s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role1:41:07 · ≈ 10:41 AM

Supervisor Farr, I have two more lights. Are we feeling comfortable moving this item forward and having that discussion? Supervisor Wolf in terms of the operations and the funding of the operations of the jail come back to us later or Or are we, I'm trying to get a sense from you all, or are we wanting to continue this item and bring it back? If you could touch on that, that would be great. Supervisor Wolf?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed1:41:37 · ≈ 10:41 AM

Thank you Mr. Chair. Well, I am okay moving forward. on this item, just given what we have before us. I think this is the mechanics of what we've already discussed before. And then you know my other concerns. But I do think Supervisor Farr brings up a really good question about the general fund budget, the $900,000. And I too just need some clarity because I always understood and you can see it up above that the Sheriff was going to be $600,000. So now it is another 900,000 and are you saying or suggesting that he has to pull his general fund budget to pay for this so whatever money he would normally get, assuming let's just say he has a status quo allocation that the sheriff has to take $900,000 out of that and put it toward this item.

not transcribed≈10s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen

1:42 – 1:4817 turns

CommentDavid Daniel DiazProposed · by introduction1:42:56 · ≈ 10:42 AM

Chairman Carver Hall and Supervisor Wolf. In the overall 96,100 budget there is some match and overmatch within outside of the grant agreement that has been contemplated that they will need in the long run to fully run the county jail. And that match and overmatch is funded by those future Prop 172 dollars This action today is really just setting the stage for the grant appropriations. And then we want to come back and follow up on how that match and overmatch works.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed1:43:35 · ≈ 10:43 AM

Okay, I understand that. I'm just trying to figure out what the Sheriff is going to have to do with his budget 13-14? Is he taking that $900,000 out of his allocation

CommentCEO WallerProposed1:43:48 · ≈ 10:43 AM

Chairman and Supervisors, the transition costs are actually costs that are related to early staffing and things like fixtures and furniture and items like that. I wouldn't actually anticipate that there will be many of those expenditures in 13-14. I think it's more likely that there will be 14-15 and 15-16 but we did want to identify this for you just as we identified this when we did the grant agreements About a month ago. This is identical to what was before you at that time and certainly if the sheriff has additional comments They'd like to make I see that they have a representative here. Mr. Jenkins, do you have additional information? You'd like to share

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed1:44:33 · ≈ 10:44 AM

While Mr. Jenkins is coming up, I'm just going to try and clarify my question. Is the Sheriff planning to get an additional $900,000 in this budget year 13-14? Or is he taking it out of what he would normally receive as part of his general fund budget for this line item?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 11Proposed1:44:58 · ≈ 10:44 AM

This $900,000 is a portion of the whole $17 million. And then 900,000 that portion would begin possibly in 13-14 as CEO Waller said possibly in 14-15. Some of that is existing staff that would be transferred full time over to the project and so then some of that 17 million has moved up from the beginning date of fiscal year 17-18 and as fiscal year 17- 18 the actual opening of the facility ramps up some of those costs are pushed off even later than that As we got closer to the plan, we had to then logistically figure out when some of these staff were actually going to be put in place. So it's coming out of our previous plan of the $17 million, but some of its being moved forward of the 17-18 fiscal year date. Some of its being moved past

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role1:45:54 · ≈ 10:45 AM

that. Mr. Jenkins, let me simplify that question. That $900,000 is coming from the Sheriff's existing current budget? Not an increase of $900,000 to his general fund budget allocation.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 11Proposed1:46:08 · ≈ 10:46 AM

I think that's correct in the way you're saying it.

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role1:46:09 · ≈ 10:46 AM

Yeah. It's not predicated on new money. It's existing money allocation. That's where it's coming from. I

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 11Proposed1:46:16 · ≈ 10:46 AM

believe that's correct.

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role1:46:17 · ≈ 10:46 AM

Tom?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 12Proposed1:46:22 · ≈ 10:46 AM

Supervisor Carbajal, Supervisor Wolf. So the first question of the 13-14 budget did not pull out any 172 monies for these transition costs. These transition costs will be coming further down the road and they're It's a big estimate at this point how much training will be done, how many people will need to be staffed at the new jail and so forth. So they're very I'll say soft numbers but for 13-14 there was no their allocation was their base allocation from the prior year we added in new 172 money that's projected so we've not pulled that out for their operating budget for 13 14 I think that was your original question

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed1:47:04 · ≈ 10:47 AM

So then I guess it begs the question, what cuts and this will come up during budget then. What's going to happen to the Sheriff's Department if he has got to allocate $900,000 toward this line item? His budget will be significantly reduced. And I would just like to know, and again that will happen during budget. Anyway thank

PresenterCEO Waller YouProposed1:47:28 · ≈ 10:47 AM

you. Supervisor Adam

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role1:47:30 · ≈ 10:47 AM

and then what I think I'm going to do is unless there's a reason to move forward today we're just gonna bring this item back. Mr. Adam

PresenterCEO Waller YouProposed1:47:39 · ≈ 10:47 AM

then Mr. Geis? I

CommentReid BrewerProposed1:47:40 · ≈ 10:47 AM

just have two comments one of them is why isn't the sheriff here to answer some questions?

CommentCEO WallerProposed1:47:48 · ≈ 10:47 AM

I will answer on the Sheriff's behalf. As the Sheriff did not see any new information here and we were really just allocating into specific buckets what your board had already seen and approved, he did not attend today. He did send his representative Mr. Jenkins so he nor I anticipated that we would be getting into ongoing operational questions. We assumed that we were just going to be putting into separate buckets what your board had

1:48 – 1:537 turns

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role1:48:20 · ≈ 10:48 AM

Ms. Waller, what I'm hearing from my colleagues is it's not, while I think items have been raised about bringing back the strategy for the future funding of the jail, what I'm hearing from my colleagues is that Even when we approved, now it's being reflected different amounts coming from different pots and that seems to be where the questions are predicated from.

Mr. Adam and then Supervisor Farr?

CommentReid BrewerProposed1:48:50 · ≈ 10:48 AM

Yeah well I think that this project is so significant and so large that I think that We're legitimately gonna have questions about this even when it seems like it's a no-brainer and it should just go through as an agenda item like all the other similar type items but there's just a lot of zeros on the end of this so I think the sheriff would be well advised to attend in the future with his whole cadre because if they need to answer questions to move the ball down the field, excuse me, they just have to answer those questions.

The other issue that I have is to remind you or everybody, there's a lag time on revenues. We can go approve a project today and that doesn't mean tomorrow we're going to start getting revenues from it. So as we go through the rest of the budget items today and on into the future, we have to remember that we're not going to snap our fingers and approve a project and get money from it. Those things are years out before they start to yield

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role1:49:55 · ≈ 10:49 AM

Thank you, Supervisor, Auditor Geist and Supervisor Farr. And then we're going to decide on continuing this item. This is a good discussion and a good reminder to staff and us. Future items like this will not be on the administrative agenda. I don't care how straightforward they seem. If it's a complicated matter, we're going to bring them as a D item.

CommentCEO WallerProposed1:50:17 · ≈ 10:50 AM

Supervisor, if I could just before Mr. Geis answers, as far as the time criticalness it is time critical that we move forward. As your board will recall, we have a requirement in our state agreements to have conceptual drawings completed next year and portion of these funds are being set up in a fund that will enable us to have our project expert, our architect and engineer, our construction manager And our own staff begin charging. So at least that portion of it is time

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role1:50:48 · ≈ 10:50 AM

clearly for us. CEO Waller, I'm going to trail this item and we're going to come back at the end of the day and we're going to have a pretty much broader discussion on it because that seems to be the concerns and posture of my colleagues so we'll bring this item back at the end of the day. Okay?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed1:51:07 · ≈ 10:51 AM

And Mr. Chair, just another question that we can respond to later. We may have discussed it but I don't remember it but it says here $802,000 that we've already spent was going to come back and then be put into a jail project contingency fund And so I'm not sure, I don't remember if that was a policy decision that we made or if that was something that the staff made. But you know, that was general fund money that was already expended in one way or another and so it would be nice to have a discussion about why it's not coming back to help, you know, backfill a little bit in the strategic reserve or some other place rather than, you know...the need for that other pot of money.

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role1:51:57 · ≈ 10:51 AM

Thank you Supervisor Farr. That will be included in the discussion we bring back and I apologize to everybody for how this item has gone, not apologetic for the issues that have been raised they're all legitimate issues just I think it's in the future we will have it as a departmental item. We will now come back to Mr. Lavinino and Mr. Adam item 815 actually okay great Well with the exception of A-9 which we're going to trail to the end of the day is there a motion to approve the administrative calendar? So moved.

Motion's been made and seconded, all those in favor? Aye. Passes unanimously. We will now take a 10 minute break The.

1:53 – 2:051 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed1:53:59 · ≈ 10:53 AM

¶. ¶. ♪ ¶. Yeah. ¶. ¶. ¶. You. ¶. . . ♪ ♪ ♪ you ♪ ♪ ¶. Hi. ¶.

2:06 – 2:102 turns

CommentLee RosenbergProposed2:06:30 · ≈ 11:06 AM

Yeah. Did you actually plan... ¶.

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role2:08:26 · ≈ 11:08 AM

¶¶ I would like to reconvene our board meeting and we are now going to go to the departmental agenda. We have item number one, and I believe Supervisor Wolf Who has sat on the Juvenile Justice Coordinating Council would like to introduce this item. Supervisor Wolf? Thank you, thank

2:10 – 2:268 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed2:10:01 · ≈ 11:10 AM

you Mr. Chair. So this item is to receive a presentation on juvenile justice trends in the county. And as you said, I sit on the Juvenile Justice Coordinating Council. And over the years we have been seeing a lot of statistical information and I had suggested to the commission or to the committee that it might be time to bring this information to the board.

Our probation staff is incredible. do a fantastic job. They are high class, highly professional folks and I think what we're going to see is some positive trends but I also think that we're gonna hear from our staff that we can't just sit back and feel like the job is done. There are still some issues that need to be addressed and I think that that also is important to hear and understand And I'm glad Dr. Watt is here because we know that it's not just probation, it's public health and mental health at work with these kids.

And so this is kind of a coming together and I feel very informative and good report. So Bev Taylor?

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role2:11:26 · ≈ 11:11 AM

Bevan, before you go I just also want to recognize that we have Supervisor Wolf and I alternate as co-chairs with the Mayor of Santa Barbara for the South Coast Youth Gang Task Force. And I see Mr. Saul Serrano. Who is the director of that program and is here very intently interested in all the good data we're going to hear. So thank you because I know it's a team collaborative effort that why maybe we have the statistics, the good news we're gonna hear about today and it's collaboration with all the partners with probation and everyone else and I want to recognize Mr. Serrano as well.

Ms. Taylor?

CommentBeverly TaylorProposedself-stated2:12:11 · ≈ 11:12 AM

Chair Carbajal and Supervisors, yes my name is Beverly Taylor, Chief Probation Officer. And today you'll have a presentation that's kind of a collaborative presentation that probation manager Wendy Stanley took the lead on but as you indicated we have Michael Kraft here from Alcohol Drug and Mental Health Services as well as Saul Serrano from CAC South Coast Task Force on Youth Gangs Coordinator who was also apart of the work group As Supervisor Wolf said, 10 months ago at the JJCC Juvenile Justice Coordinating Council a presentation was made about the trends and the declining trends for juvenile justice. And it's her recommendation we're here today to provide a presentation I'd like to introduce Wendy Stanley with her is Steve DeLera, Deputy Chief Probation Officer Also Michael Kraft and Saul are here to answer any questions that you may have Thank You

CommentWendy StanleyProposed · by introduction2:13:09 · ≈ 11:13 AM

Chairman Carbajal, members of the board. I want to thank you for this opportunity to make this presentation to you today regarding the recent trends within juvenile justice system in Santa Barbara County and discuss the multitude of programs services and grants that have contributed to the successes we've been realizing. I'd like to preface the presentation with the caveat that we are in no way announcing a victory on the war on crime And while these trends are promising, there is not one specific cause that we can point to that will show a direct effect on the numbers.

Instead we believe that it's the combined collective effort of all of the available services and how they are interrelated that has led to the positive outcomes that we are seeing. To start, almost every indicator of juvenile criminal activity in Santa Barbara County has been declining over the past four to five years. This is also a trend that we've seen across the state.

Juvenile referrals which are arrest reports and citations received by the probation department from county law enforcement agencies have decreased 44% over the past five years. While referrals specifically for felonies continually increase through fiscal year 10-11, we did see a significant drop in the last fiscal year. The total number of juveniles we've been supervising on probation have dropped 30% over the past four years for a real number of 365 youths.

Lastly, admissions to Juvenile Hall have also decreased over the past five years by 41%. And as I will show you in a few moments that is a trend that has been identified across the state as well. Had it not been for these declining numbers, the department would not have been able to sustain services during previous year's budget reductions. In reference to referrals received from law enforcement, this chart demonstrates the total referrals received which is the top line in black.

It also indicates specific levels of referrals. The second line, the blue line representing felonies and misdemeanors. The third pink line representing probation violations and the fourth purple line representing infractions and status offenses such as curfew violations. Each of the three categories on their own have decreased with the greatest change noted in felony and misdemeanor referrals.

As they continue to be the majority of the referrals we receive, they have greatly contributed to the overall decrease of 44% when all the categories are combined. State data indicates a 27% decrease in law enforcement referrals to probation agencies from 2009 to 2011, which represents almost 48,000 fewer referrals. When we reviewed the declining referral numbers based on gender, we noted that both male and female referrals have declined steadily.

Since 2006, when both genders saw their highest number of referrals, the trend for each is a continual decrease. However, the percentage of females to males has remained fairly consistent hovering in the mid-20% range. 2012 saw a 10 year high of 28% of referrals being for females. Specific to referrals for felonies, you'll notice that in addition to referrals decreasing overall in fiscal year 11-12, they decreased in each of our three geographical areas as well. Santa Maria, Lompoc and Santa Barbara.

The Santa Maria office continues to receive the highest number of felony referrals but the actual number has sharply decreased even in the last few years and was at a 10 year low in fiscal year 11 12. Also the differences noted in fiscal year 9-10 have been closed dramatically just two years later. State data also indicates a drop of 26% for juvenile felony arrests between 2009 and 2011, some 15,000 less.

Over the last four years, the average number of supervised juvenile probation cases has also declined. This time by 25%. In response, the Probation Department has allocated services and employed demand staffing to adjust to the shrinking population affecting a 30% decrease in our Juvenile Field Services Division over this time period. With that being said, it's important to note that over the same time period the percentage of high risk offenders being supervised has increased from 50% to 85% of our cases.

The Probation Department continues to use our evidence-based Santa Barbara Asset and Risk Assessment which was created in conjunction with Dr. Shane Jimerson and later with Dr. Jill Sharkey and her team from UCSB. We've also added a shorter screening tool during our intake process, which has allowed for the diverting of those appropriate offenders away from the juvenile justice system. Thus allowing us to serve those at greatest risk to themselves and to our communities.

Given the decreased number of referrals, it's expected that the admissions to Juvenile Hall have also decreased. In fact, Juvenile Hall admissions have declined 41% since fiscal year 6-7 which was the highest in the last 10 years. While the initial drop noticed in fiscal year 8-9 was initially contributed to the conversion of the Santa Barbara Juvenile Hall to a receiving or booking station with limited operational hours, we can now see that it was the beginning of the trends being demonstrated across the juvenile justice system.

Due to the lower average daily population in our institutions, the probation department has been utilizing demand staffing between the different facilities Those being Los Perros Boys Camp and Los Perros Boys Academy, the Santa Maria Juvenile Hall and the Santa Barbara Receiving and Transportation Center. In addition, the expansion of the alternative report and resource centers has been possible due to the shifting of staff from inside the facilities to these community-based options.

Similar to the earlier statistic regarding gender breakdowns for referrals, we've also noted that juvenile hall bookings for males and females have been declining at fairly even rates with female bookings accounting for somewhere between 22% and 30%, depending on the year. As with referrals, 2012 saw a 10-year high of 30.4% of bookings being for females. The decline in average daily population in Juvenile Hall is not unique to Santa Barbara County. You'll notice that the phenomenon is occurring throughout the state. Since 2006, the average daily population decreased 27% by 2011 and is at an 8-year low.

As previously mentioned, there is not a direct link between any single factor to the decrease in the juvenile delinquency statistics. When we polled our partner agencies and community-based organizations, a host of anecdotal ideas were suggested. Our law enforcement partners suggested it was caused by a decrease in officers on the street and therefore lack of enforcement.

However with the exception of the Sheriff's Department Local law enforcement agencies have either maintained or increased their workforce over the last three to four years. Also, crime clearance rates which are the rates at which reported crime is resolved by an arrest have not been impacted during this time period. The absence of the

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role2:21:29 · ≈ 11:21 AM

I'm sorry, could you? You just said one thing that caught my attention. Yes. Up there one of the cause and effect issues law enforcement say that it could be lack of law enforcement decreases but yet I heard you say that which I think is accurate that there's been an increase in in the law enforcement workforce

CommentWendy StanleyProposed · by introduction2:21:55 · ≈ 11:21 AM

Supervisor Carbajal, that is true. Anecdotally the law enforcement partners have expressed that they have a lack of enforcement due to less officers on the streets. Their workforce has remained the same I cannot speak to how they've deployed that workforce But their numbers have remained the same.

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role2:22:14 · ≈ 11:22 AM

So that I don't forget, I think CEO Waller, without objection from our board, this is such a good report that you're giving us that it would be great for us to get a similar report from our Sheriff's Department as well that outlines the staffing over the years. Staffing would've been great also to see what How the staffing pattern mirrored what we've been able to do here. I think that would have been really helpful and if we could get that in the future it would be great, but it would be really great if we could get a similar report from the Sheriff's Department because then it allows us to really get a glimpse as to our budgetary approach to how we address all the issues and needs of the department as well.

Please continue.

CommentWendy StanleyProposed · by introduction2:23:01 · ≈ 11:23 AM

Thank you The absence of the truancy program resulted in less referrals to probation. The changes in laws such as medical marijuana laws were also mentioned as possible factors in our reductions. Population figures have shown a decrease in the target population of 13 to 17 year olds, though at a lower rate than that seen in the juvenile justice reductions. On the positive side potential explanations have included the increased emphasis on evidence-based programs and strategies by the department and community-based organizations.

The emphasis to provide directed services to the high risk population, an increase in both the number of probation and law enforcement school based officers, and the foundations laid by previous grant initiatives such as challenge one and two, the first five initiative, and the collaborations began in the multi agency integrated system of care known as MISC have also been cited.

The lasting impression should be that there is not just one reason for the declines being experienced. There are a cornucopia of services available to youth in the communities of Santa Barbara County. The list you see here is a sampling of those programs utilized by the Probation Department. Our department also uses evidence-based programming such as Moral Recognition Therapy, MRT, in the institutions, motivational interviewing throughout the department and we are exploring several possible gang intervention programs to be run through our alternative report and resource centers.

Despite the progress noted over the last several years, we should not rest on our laurels. While we are currently experiencing a decrease in the number of youth referred and supervised by the Probation Department, the issues they face are more significant than even five years ago. Nationwide, approximately 50-60% of youth in juvenile justice systems have a mental health disorder compared to 15-25% of youth in the general population.

In Santa Maria Juvenile Hall, 45-50% of youth have a mental health disorder most being a serious disorder or multiple conditions. And while the average daily population in Juvenile Hall has steadily decreased, the number of youth being seen by the psychiatrist has remained consistent. At the same time there are fewer services available for mentally ill youth locally about a 35% reduction in alcohol drug mental health services children's clinic staff. The result is an increase in youth entering the system with serious mental health issues.

And as previously mentioned, while we've been successful at diverting first time and low risk offenders to appropriate interventions. The result has been that 85% of those that remain are the highest risk and highest need of our communities. We continue to strive to improve the lives and futures of the youth in our county, and as a result, the communities they serve.

Thank you.

2:26 – 2:3310 turns

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role2:26:20 · ≈ 11:26 AM

You mentioned one thing, I'm just wondering if you could elaborate a little bit. Did you say 35%, there's been a 35% reduction in our alcohol drug and mental health services for children? And I'm just wondering what does that mean in the past five years, this year? If you could elaborate on that, that would be helpful. I see Dr. Wada back there but it catches our attention because We obviously would want to understand that more in light of the fact that juveniles tend to have a higher incidence of psychological or emotional challenges.

CommentWendy StanleyProposed · by introduction2:26:56 · ≈ 11:26 AM

Supervisor Carbajal, I'm going to defer to Michael Kraft from Alcohol, Drug and Mental Health to answer your question.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 13Proposed2:27:02 · ≈ 11:27 AM

Hi it's a pleasure to speak with you and my role is that I am the Regional Manager over at Lompoc for ADMHS and also that includes the Juvenile Justice Mental Health Services Unit And that number is our estimate from the peak of MISC, and that includes also reductions in community services. So it's really not just the ADMHS services directly through the clinic but it's all of our CBO partners as well as the other community services that are not as robust as they once were.

PresenterCEO Waller YouProposed2:27:30 · ≈ 11:27 AM

Supervisor Wolf?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed2:27:33 · ≈ 11:27 AM

Thank you Mr. Chair, I'm glad you picked up on that and well first of all I want to, I don't know if you're done with your presentation but anyway. I am thank you. It was excellent and I think part of what I think has been pointed out and I alluded to it earlier in the agenda was The number of psychiatrists that we have available in our community, particularly for children.

And the fact that what the kids that were seen in juvenile hall I think what you said, more serious or multiple mental health issues. And so while we're seeing something very positive, I think we have to also look at what we can do to prevent and also how do we service those kids that are in juvenile hall? And just one other issue that I just wanted to state, that I found so interesting from seeing this. Many of you may remember when we had the budget hearings about closing the Santa Barbara Juvenile Hall and I was very concerned about that and at the time Chief Taylor Really tried to reassure me that that was the right thing to do and I begrudgingly went along with it. And now you know as you see, and that's why I think these this type of presentation is good because you can You can see you know how some of those decisions down the road How they have?

Impacted the system. I I now say that that was you know probably a good decision But anyway, I do think that um That the mental health issue is really important and I also just want to say that everyone coming together in this community has worked so hard to work on this issue. And I think, I just want to thank everyone who together has worked in a collaborative way to get to see some positive results even though we continue to have challenges. Thank you.

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role2:29:40 · ≈ 11:29 AM

I didn't see who was next. Supervisor Frey and Supervisor Lavanino?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed2:29:45 · ≈ 11:29 AM

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Well thank you for this wonderful report. It's just so heartwarming to see those numbers going down. And on this list of groups and organizations, I would like to offer some others that I think really provide a wonderful And that's organizations like the Ivy Teen Center, that does the YMCA provides that program. A lot of other programming, Boys and Girls Club, Girls Inc., there's just so many that are not necessarily related to drug and alcohol issues but provide positive mentorship opportunities for sports and other activities. But also I think that we have to look at our county as a whole and be proud because all of us up here have raised children in this county, I believe. And I don't think you can go any place in Santa Barbara County without finding a very strong network of community members, of parents, of school districts that are all working together to give our youth the most, the broadest array and types of opportunities possible to keep them on a positive track so that they don't end up even needing these kinds of services.

So I think that's something we should be very proud of and for every parent who has volunteered their time as a coach and spent time with somebody else's child who had to work, I think that we should be very grateful. And I think this is the result of that also. Thank you.

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role2:31:26 · ≈ 11:31 AM

Supervisor

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.782:31:27 · ≈ 11:31 AM

Lavinino? Thank you Mr. Chair. These numbers are great. Totally caught me off guard because living in Santa Maria and you read the newspaper, I would have never imagined that these numbers were dropping like they are. And when we look at what are the reasons? I think you splashed a lot up there. I'm not sure anybody knows what the reason is because a lot of the programs and projects we had talked about were in effect back in 09-10 when it was the highest it's ever been so You know, I'm not going to look a gift horse in the mouth. I'd like to see the numbers are going down so I'm happy with that. The one thing that I wish would have been in here even though the outstanding presentation was as Supervisor Carbajal said not just the staffing numbers as they relate with caseloads dropping 30% but it sounds like the individual you're dealing with now is A lot more higher risk, maybe more violent.

More issues. Are we seeing a switch in your or change in your staffing? You know either getting more qualified individuals you know what I'm trying to say it's not just your average person you're dealing with anymore. You've getting somebody that's probably a lot more gang affiliated or how are we changing up our staff to kind of mirror what we're seeing come in the door?

CommentWendy StanleyProposed · by introduction2:32:52 · ≈ 11:32 AM

Supervisor Carbajal, Supervisor Lavagnino. One of our strategies in dealing with the youth that we now supervise is to have some directed services right at the schools. We are seeing them in their element. We have officers on the high school campuses every single day and doing interventions with them there and that is a change from where we were five years ago.

2:33 – 2:389 turns

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.782:33:20 · ≈ 11:33 AM

As far as staffing levels go, I mean I guess we'll see that at budget time but are they reflective also of these changes and I'm sure you just don't want to all of a sudden let's start reducing staff when these numbers could go right back up again. But are we seeing a...I'm sure that's being looked at as well I guess. Beverly?

CommentBeverly TaylorProposedself-stated2:33:41 · ≈ 11:33 AM

Chair Carpahal, Supervisor Lavagnino. Our numbers have gone steady so with the decline in our resources staffing and we did lose approximately 30% of our juvenile staffing as Wendy indicated the numbers then going down with criminal referrals helped us to balance that Officer to minor ratio, we feel right now is at a good spot. We have it one to 30 is where we are with our juvenile officer to offender ratio and one thing we've also implemented in this last year is motivational interviewing for all of our staff in our field services and in our institutions which does help staff to recognize when the client is ready for change and also to identify What their needs are, we have the risk assessments that allow us to do that as well. And our partners in our juvenile hall, we have mental health staff that are there seven days a week reviewing, monitoring and collaborating with us.

We have team meetings that we work with the more high-end offenders so that we're looking at what their treatment needs are. So we are recognizing the collaborative efforts that are needed to solve these problems.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.782:35:02 · ≈ 11:35 AM

I just noticed too that these numbers all started dropping as soon as you took over.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 13Proposed2:35:13 · ≈ 11:35 AM

Yes, I just wanted to contribute also the conceptual change that we've made which is that in our partnership between ADMHS and probation one of the roles that ADMHS staff have taken on is increased training of probation staff. So our thought is that as we have more serious needs in our offender population especially mental health needs that we have to better equip our probation friends for dealing with the youth both to de-escalate but also to function as a sort of treatment extender so that there's consistency between the approach probation takes, even a disciplinary approach and the approach that we're taking in treatment. And so we become certified so that we can participate in their annual trainings and their staff will receive credit for the trainings that they do with us.

We're also sharing with them some of our treatment models like trauma-focused CBT and then the moral reclination therapy that Wendy mentioned earlier.

PresenterCEO Waller YouProposed2:36:07 · ≈ 11:36 AM

Great, well this is great news thank you all very much we do have a few public speakers but the one thing I will say

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role2:36:12 · ≈ 11:36 AM

is that keep in mind We stopped everything for MISC in 2008 or before, doing all that MISS stuff. So despite not having those services since 2008, these are great statistics to reflect on. And I would even caution us on even referencing anything with MISSC in light of the costly endeavor that cost us. But also, we've had MHSA funding that would mitigate that. So I would encourage you to look at the statistic being thrown around about 35% loss in service when we might have mitigated it in different ways. And plus, it was 2008 that we stopped implementing those types of billing and services.

We have a few public speakers? Did you want to say something?

CommentRoblar WineryProposed · by introduction2:37:07 · ≈ 11:37 AM

We have one request to speak, Mr. Caldwell in Santa Maria. Mr. Caldwell?

PresenterJoe ArmendarizSanta Barbara County Taxpayers AssociationProposedself-stated2:37:15 · ≈ 11:37 AM

Andy had to go and make a speech although he did ask me to point out that it was your fault because the admin calendar went too long. Is this on?

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role2:37:27 · ≈ 11:37 AM

How do you know it wasn't a strategy Mr. Armendariz? You let Mr. Caldwell know there was a strategy to that madness. Thank you. Not having any more public speakers again, thank you so much I think this it's always nice when we get news about The health of our community and by all accounts, it doesn't shy away from the continued challenges we have. But I think it underscores the collaborative success that we've had everybody working together to try to make this environment a little better for our children.

And so your success is our success. So we're all very happy to hear the great news that you've given us. Is there a motion to accept this wonderful report? So moved. Motion's been made and seconded. Not having further discussion, all those in favor? Aye. Passes unanimously. We will now go on to the Vincent Appeal. It's been requested that we deal with the Vincent Appeal first and then we'll come back to Sheriff Brown and the jail item. So just bear with us this should be a short item but we have some good news it sounds So, Mr. Allen if you could read the item.

not transcribed≈8s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen

2:38 – 2:4615 turns

CommentRoblar WineryProposed · by introduction2:38:50 · ≈ 11:38 AM

Chairman Carbajal members of the board this is item number two from planning and development it's a hearing to consider recommendations regarding the field pointress appeal of the Vincent Winery development plan project that's in the third district

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role2:39:03 · ≈ 11:39 AM

Thank You mr. Allen miss black

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 14Proposed2:39:11 · ≈ 11:39 AM

Mr. Chair, members of the board, Mr. Anthony is just pulling up the presentation and he will be giving a very brief staff presentation.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed2:39:19 · ≈ 11:39 AM

Mr. Chair?

PresenterCEO Waller YouProposed2:39:20 · ≈ 11:39 AM

Supervisor

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role2:39:21 · ≈ 11:39 AM

Farr?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed2:39:21 · ≈ 11:39 AM

Do we need to do ex parte?

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role2:39:24 · ≈ 11:39 AM

I believe we do. So why don't we start?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed2:39:29 · ≈ 11:39 AM

Okay. I had a telephone conversation with Mary Beth Kerr, with Bob Field and I tried to connect with Mr. Vincent and do a site visit but unfortunately our schedules didn't mesh so I did have a phone conversation with Susan Petrovich but I am familiar with the area and the site. Thank you Mr. Chair.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.782:39:49 · ≈ 11:39 AM

Thank you. Mr. Lavinino? Yes, I had a five minute conversation with Susan Petrovich Supervisor Wolf?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed2:39:57 · ≈ 11:39 AM

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I met with Mr. Bob Field and I also met with Ms. Susan Petrovich.

CommentReid BrewerProposed2:40:04 · ≈ 11:40 AM

Thank you Mr. Adam. I just had a chat with Bob Field out in the ante room here and I think my staff had conversation with Mrs. Petrovich.

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role2:40:16 · ≈ 11:40 AM

Thank you and I had a meeting with Miss Mary Beth Kerr, I had conversations with Ms. Susan Petrovich and a meeting with Bob Field. Great back to Mr.

CommentJoe HollandProposed2:40:35 · ≈ 11:40 AM

Anthony? Mr. Chair, members of the board, thank you. This project was approved by the Planning Commission on a 3-2 vote and subsequently went through the county's facilitation process after being appealed. Both the appellants and the applicant agreed to go into facilitation, and in about a three hour effort they came out with an agreement. So we're happy to bring before you an approved agreement for this project In so doing, I'd like to just take four slides to orient you to the proposed winery and then four slides to summarize the outcome of the agreement. And then I will conclude my presentation.

It is in the San Yanez Valley, and we wanted to begin by showing you that it is in the brown area. And the brown area represents the inner rural area of the valley with a lot of Agricultural One zoning in the vicinity. This project is Zone Agricultural One. Its land use designation also reflects Ag One. It is 24.4 acres, you can also see the rural area that is depicted in white and also existing developed neighborhood communities which are depicted in blue.

For a more precise location, here we are with Roblar Avenue. You probably recognize Roblar Winery over here on this side of 154 and this particular site right here is the Roblar site. It currently has a single family residence, it has an agriculture employee dwelling, has accessory structures, and it will have 14 acres of vineyards. Here's just a closer up photo of the site as it exists now.

And just to summarize, in going through a few hearings with the Planning Commission there was a lot of public concern about this project particularly with the initial number of special events proposed And the applicant had responded to those concerns by doing away with the proposed special events and let me quickly state that special events are defined in our ordinance as 80 and more people. But what the applicant did come forward with, and ultimately ended up with was some organized gatherings and that's a term we gave to gatherings of people that are less than a special event, that is less than 80.

So you show that we are here now, we have a total and we're down to four organized gatherings. And we have a tasting room that has been reduced the actual size of the tasting room just update this figure right here is 1,107 square feet. The appellant's goals and facilitation were to define members of the public versus members of the trade, and this is something that should probably carry forward with long-range planning staff as they consider the new winery ordinance. They wanted to control the simultaneous occurrence of other public visitation during organized gatherings. And so you would probably have seen as you reviewed the conditions that tours Public wine tasting, etc. may not occur at the same time that an organized gathering is taking place They wanted to clarify conditions so everyone has a clear understanding as to what is allowed They defined terms such as organized gatherings, tours, members of the trade and members of the public.

They put a limitation on annual sales to be an annual average at 7000 cases over a five year period. The applicant clarified that a recently approved game room by single family residents is not to be used for winery related activities. Clarified that normal wine tasting hours, tours and purchases should not occur during organized gatherings. We touched upon that.

Clarifies where wine tasting members of the public may occur. Restricts winery tours to a maximum of 12 people at any one time with exception for educational tours. The educational tours are defined as a maximum of 75 attendees and they are restricted to six times a year. There is temporary signage required at entrances during organized gatherings stated that the premises are closed to the public and it restricts location of the parking.

So we've gone through this rather briefly. And because the parties have come to a settlement, but we are prepared to go into any details of the project should your board so desire. That ends our presentation.

not transcribed≈16s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role2:45:39 · ≈ 11:45 AM

Thank you very much. I'm trying to find my outline of my hearing, but in light of the modification, I'm looking at staff to guide me through having the appellant and the applicants come up.

2:46 – 2:577 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 14Proposed2:46:04 · ≈ 11:46 AM

Mr. Chair, I'd recommend that you call on the appellate first and then the applicant.

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role2:46:09 · ≈ 11:46 AM

Thank you. If we could have the appellant come up, please? We're going to

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 15Proposed2:46:16 · ≈ 11:46 AM

have five minutes allocated. I might be able to do that. I was told I had ten. Let's see how fast I can go.

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role2:46:30 · ≈ 11:46 AM

And again, we have a settlement that we're presenting. So we're truncating this hearing?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 15Proposed2:46:34 · ≈ 11:46 AM

Yes. I'll be as quick as I can. Since you do have the option to not accept the settlement, I want to encourage you and have you understand what we're asking you to accept. I can go quick on this because Mr. Anthony said much of this immediate settlement was achieved. I think Ms. Petrovich could testify that it took more than three and a half hours to get there, but that was the length of the first meeting.

P&D has supported the agreement. It's in your package and really credit goes to everybody. The Vincents who are here today deserve credit for coming to this agreement. Ms. Petrovich, Ana Citrin, and Marcia Tillo on our side. And D&D and County Council staffs helped with the whole thing. So it's a great process to give people a chance to sit down and work it out, and it worked.

requesting that you follow staff's recommendation. As Mr. Anthony said, it was approved on a 3-2 vote. All of the issues raised had to do with impacts on the neighborhood including the issues raised by planning commissioners and the problem that we had was that the project description and the conditions that were originally approved with the project didn't match what the Planning Commission had approved. So we appealed on behalf of the neighborhood to finish this unfinished business of no discussion of the conditions, and you don't need to take my word for that. This is Chairman Cooney at a December meeting speaking about Vincent. I'll save time just to highlight it. There were certain issues that we just didn't take up Included among those were references to the winery ordinance, to tours, to private tasting and so forth.

So I hope these issues are taken up and discussed in advance of the board, you meant the mediation or before the board. So we've always looked at this as finishing unfinished business. We didn't appeal any of what the Planning Commission had granted, we just tried to clarify conditions. Very quickly the overall general problem here is the intent statement from the winery ordinance.

The intent is to promote the orderly development of wineries within the county And ensure their compatibility with surrounding land uses. And that last issue is where all the friction has occurred over between neighbors, surrounding property owners and the ordinance. The compatibility with surrounding land uses. Here's a map of all the Ag One zoning in the county called the gray.

The dark gray this is descending as valley is Ag One There are only three major clusters. If you look at the lower right, there's a cluster in Carp. This is not wine country. Mr. Lavagnino, you've got a cluster in the Tepiscay Canyon which I think is one of the loveliest places in the county. Not particularly wine country either. Outside it, below it certainly is.

And Ag 1 is almost exclusively 5 to 20 acre parcels. And this is where the friction arises. If you review the history here, there are little or no complaints coming out of the Lompoc Valley where there is no Ag-1. There's no complaints coming out of the Los Alamos Valley. Again, there's no Ag 1. There are no complaints coming out of Santa Maria. It's not that we are odd people, it's that we live in Ag-I.

So here's the zoom in similar to the map that Mr. Anthony showed you, on the floor of the Santa Ynez Valley are 60% of all of the Ag One parcels in Santa Barbara County and almost 100% of the Ag One parcels in so-called wine country. 1500 parcels, the estimate is 30 percent have second units. This is a couple thousand residential and residentially developed parcels. The actual agriculture while this zone is called Ag One The actual agriculture being conducted in this area is about 3% of the land surface.

All of the Ag-1 in the Santa Ynez Valley represents six tenths of one percent of the land surface of Santa Barbara County. So, the problem is not that it's a few people who don't like agriculture or don't like wineries. The problem is wine tasting and special events first ingredient. Second ingredient is where there is relatively high residential development like this And the third ingredient is bad roads, which everybody except Caltrans and the Public Works Department thinks includes Route 154.

The PC had approved five hours a day of public wine tasting Four events and a maximum visitors on site simultaneously of 75, but the conditions were written in such a way that with undefined terms that are part of our life here. That really wine tasting could have occurred 24 hours a day. The number of event-like activities could have been unlimited and there could have been essentially unlimited, limited by the size of the property visitors on site simultaneously. And the ambiguity of the language made monitoring and enforcement of anything virtually impossible so that's what we set out to do Here are the undefined terms in the winery ordinance, the LUDC glossary and in the conditions that were drafted. It's basically every term that has anything to do with the wine business they are undefined we've had people argue that there's a significant distinction between the general public and the public that members of the public who join a wine club or no longer the public Events, private gatherings, organized gatherings all undefined.

What's a tour? So that's what we set out to solve. Echoing what Mr. Anthony said the goal was to modify the project description and conditions. That's what before you agreed upon Make it clear and unambiguous, and I think this is an important one. Our goal was to control the public visitation to this site while not restricting the normal trade activity of the wine business. We went every step we could have taken to help the applicant run the wine business.

So in conclusion, this is a good agreement. It's in everybody's interest. It clarifies things for the Vintner. And it's good for the county because the county makes no money referee in the fights between the neighbors and the vendors So we recommend that you accept staffs proposal.

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role2:53:21 · ≈ 11:53 AM

Thank you The applicant will have six and a half minutes just as mr. Phil did but before that Mr. Adam Okay, mr. Adams gonna hold off To be fair six and a half minutes miss Petrovich I

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 16Proposed2:53:39 · ≈ 11:53 AM

Thank you Mr. Chair, members of the board I don't need six and a half minutes. I dropped my notebook just so you could see and you all already know but so the others in the audience can see just how big a staff report there was for today's hearing had we not come to this great result. I am here on behalf of the Vincents. I'm not going to say that I agree with most of what Mr. Field just said.

I don't. I don't think that the wine ordinance is as ambiguous as Mr. Field would have you believe, but that's not what is before you. This is a modest winery, 7000 cases annual production. It fully complies with the Winery Ordinance. It became a Tier 3 solely because Mr. Vincent wanted a larger tasting room than was permitted under a Tier 2. To showcase what are very expensive premium wines. The buyers of Vincent Wines will not be your average wine taster because of the price of the wines.

The application for this project was filed in late 2009, it was deemed complete July of 2010. So this saga has played out over three years. We've had two mitigated negative declarations and multiple planning commission hearings with the first one being two years ago. During that time, Mr. Vincent has eliminated the eight special events of up to 150 people that he proposed. He's eliminated the private tasting room that was intended for entertaining his club members and for people in the trade.

That's been eliminated altogether. The Planning Commission approved the project with the three small gatherings, a maximum of 75 guests per year and a harvest festival which incidentally is already completely exempt from regulation under the winery ordinance. Any events that are associated with industry wide things like the festival, However, we agreed to a limitation on the number of people. So you now have a current project of three small gatherings plus this one harvest festival. So we've strictly limited the number of guests none of which is provided for in the winery ordinance. So this truly is the result of a compromise and because it's a compromise it's I have to ask you not to make any changes from what we've come up with.

It was both parties gave and both parties took, and there had to be that balancing so we can't make further changes. I do want to thank Mr. And Mrs. Vincent for being so willing to listen to the appellant's concerns and to agree to a compromise after so many concessions already had been made before we came to the table. I want to thank Mr. Field and Mr. Poitras for working in a constructive fashion to reach a compromise. It wasn't an easy process, it was quite a contentious process.

I hope that the interested parties involved in the winery ordinance can have the same kind of dialogue though because even though we To this day do not agree on some basic principles. Everyone involved are residents of the valley, their neighbors and any common ground that we can reach is a victory in my opinion so I would ask that the board Do what the staff has asked. Deny the appeal. Adopt the findings and conditions of approval as revised by mutual agreement between the applicant and the appellants so that Vincent's can build their winery.

Thank you, do you have any questions?

2:57 – 3:0214 turns

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role2:57:28 · ≈ 11:57 AM

Thank you Ms. Petrucci. Supervisor Adam? Why

CommentReid BrewerProposed2:57:32 · ≈ 11:57 AM

is it that there can be no changes?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 16Proposed2:57:34 · ≈ 11:57 AM

Because what we did in order to reach the settlement was to go through the conditions and We didn't agree on any modifications that we could agree to. Where we couldn't agree, one party or the other gave and so each side was giving and each side was compromising. And if you pull one string here it's gonna unravel the other strings because it's woven together into one balanced settlement that both parties can agree to.

So I'm not telling you that it's ideal. I'm sure Mr. Field would say it's not ideal, but it is a compromise and it's a settlement. And my client is satisfied because it will allow him to build the winery that he wants to build.

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role2:58:25 · ≈ 11:58 AM

Thank you Ms.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 16Proposed2:58:25 · ≈ 11:58 AM

Petrovic.

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role2:58:28 · ≈ 11:58 AM

Clearly we're always happy when our constituents work out amongst themselves these type of circumstances. Supervisor Adams?

CommentReid BrewerProposed2:58:42 · ≈ 11:58 AM

I'm not happy with it because, you know, it has ramifications for everybody else. You know this is a case where people that live on ag property, ag zone property are thinking that they're in the neighborhood and that's not the case at all. AgZone property is AgZone property and there's supposed to be ag going on in AgZone property, and it should be. And it's in all of our best interests to make it as productive as possible. In fact some place in this document It says that the point behind whatever it was citing at the time was to maximize productivity of the ag lands and making them into de facto residential neighborhoods does not promote that goal.

So, it's my opinion that we should take this Thank you, Mr. Chair.

not transcribed≈7s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
not transcribed≈24s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.783:00:05 · ≈ 12:00 PM

Any time we get into these situations it really bothers me because I hear a lot of what Mr. Adam is saying and it rings true for me that sometimes, I mean these folks have had this thing complete for three years and it basically is what more can we pick off As we continue to go through the process, eventually you get to the point where the guy says look I just want to open the doors. I'll do whatever it takes and some people have made a living or their business of filing these appeals and going through this process.

The purpose That I saw in Mr. Fields' presentation that he highlighted was to ensure the compatibility with surrounding land uses wineries. What he didn't highlight was a sentence before that, it says the intent is to promote the orderly development of wineries within the county and I don't think we did that in this case and I think we fell the Vincent's way short.

However, I'm going to respect their wishes that this is something that they agreed to. I'm not going to say a gun to their head, but they've been forced into some certain mitigations that they have agreed to do. Now whether that helps...I know it's not going to help folks down the road, but this is their business and so I'm gonna go ahead and support staff recommendation, but I'd also like to hear from the public too as well.

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role3:01:36 · ≈ 12:01 PM

Supervisor Adam then we're gonna go to the public?

CommentReid BrewerProposed3:01:39 · ≈ 12:01 PM

Well, I think I had a motion on the floor. Maybe I didn't make it properly but to vote on the...

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role3:01:46 · ≈ 12:01 PM

Well Mr. Adam before we

CommentReid BrewerProposed3:01:47 · ≈ 12:01 PM

do

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role3:01:48 · ≈ 12:01 PM

any motions we like to go to the public and let them give us and then we can get into the motions. Alright. But if you did have a motion you got a second that would constitute a motion but you need a second. But let me, well we'll discuss it further in a few. Why don't we go to the public? Mr. Allen?

CommentRoblar WineryProposed · by introduction3:02:07 · ≈ 12:02 PM

I'm going to assume Mr. Caldwell is not back yet so we're going to go ahead and start with Mary Beth to be followed by Lee Rosenberg.

3:02 – 3:085 turns

CommentMary Beth KerrProposedself-stated3:02:29 · ≈ 12:02 PM

Good afternoon.

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role3:02:31 · ≈ 12:02 PM

Chair

CommentMary Beth KerrProposedself-stated3:02:36 · ≈ 12:02 PM

Carbajal, Supervisors Farr, Lavagnino, Wolf and Adam. My name is Mary Beth Kerr. My family and I live on N Farm at Our five acres at 2384 North Rufufio Road, which is next door to the Vincent Vineyard. I am here today because I care about keeping myself and others safe. I remain deeply concerned about there being a winery with a tasting room and other guest-serving activities at this site because of its proximity to a deadly intersection. The intersection of State Highway 154, Robart Avenue, and North Rufufio Road is two car lengths from the entrance to the Vincent Vineyard In February 2000, there have been at least 27 accidents at the intersection. One of them fatal clearly indicates the dangerousness of this intersection.

I believe two of the five planning commissioners were correct for when they could not make the required finding to approve this project. I hope that in the future, through thoughtful revision to our current winery ordinance we can set a limit that will not allow future guest-serving wineries at or near dangerous roads or intersections. To this end, I will continue to participate in the Winery Ordinance Revision process.

I believe we need to make protecting the lives and property of our county's residents and the guests we invite here a priority. I hope that the Board of Supervisors will support our efforts to have Caltrans install a four-way stop at the intersection. Finally, I will share that my family and I want you to know that we believe the additional significant environmental impacts primarily noise generated by the winery and guest serving activities 365 days a year significantly limit our enjoyment of our homes, which are 600 feet from the winery site.

These impacts and the fact that our property's value will drop deeply saddens our family. Thank you for this opportunity to share my concerns with your board.

CommentLee RosenbergProposed3:04:38 · ≈ 12:04 PM

Thank you Chair Carbajal, Supervisors and welcome to your freshman year to Peter Adam. It's a little difficult for me to go from some prepared notes that I have because Mr. Fields threw in the kitchen sink and I'm still trying to scrub it. In any event I favor this way, and hope that the supervisors will grant permission to the applicant. I find it, as two supervisors said, difficult to swallow the lengthy discourse that was presented relative to the compatibility of neighborhood and agriculture.

It is as written, very clear that ag is ag. Residential is residential and if you live adjacent to an ag property or you live on ag land, you're going to be struck by the five principal components of complaint which are noise, traffic, parking Lights and dust, that's just a fact of life. So when I hear that people have concerns about this, I suspect that their real estate agents or their representatives should've told them that this risk does exist when they enter those properties.

This has taken so long. I followed it, and I feel somewhat aged having followed it as long as I have and having attended so many Commission meetings. And I just mention a couple of things. The absurdity of the demand for a traffic study based upon the premise that all wires in the area would have events at the same time, on the same date. And the traffic study produced a kind of what are you talking about result? The likelihood of that is zero and none.

In addition, Mr. Vincent has paid for two through five I believe it was five traffic studies, all of which produced positive results. No significant impacts and it strikes me that is only an example of the difficult and destructive process through which this entire process has gone. The winding ordinance is the winery ordinance. It will be examined and studied at length between that and the special events ordinance, which has an overlap with it.

Close to $500,000 of county money will have been spent, and I believe unnecessarily. Thank you Mr Rosenberg. Thank you.

not transcribed≈16s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
not transcribed≈9s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
not transcribed≈12s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
CommentRoblar WineryProposed · by introduction3:07:59 · ≈ 12:07 PM

Lynette Lemire to be followed by David Fox

3:08 – 3:2326 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 17Proposed3:08:07 · ≈ 12:08 PM

Okay, hello. I wonder how much of the quality of life Bob Fields is defending exists because of the wine industry? Mr. Chair and the board, thank you for your time. I am a small local business owner and I'm deeply worried about the way our winery industry is being treated. It seems to me small business, local businesses under attack in this situation is an excellent example. I'm very concerned about a lack of county support for a key industry on our fragile economy. I want to voice support for the Vincent Project and appeal to you to move forward on this extensively and sufficiently studied business.

This business, like any small business could go anywhere. The Vincent project is a beautiful intelligent and elegant plan that we should as a healthy county be supportive and proud to have here. I am as a constituent. Thank you.

CommentRoblar WineryProposed · by introduction3:09:04 · ≈ 12:09 PM

David Fox, to be followed by John Portris.

CommentDavid FoxProposedself-stated3:09:21 · ≈ 12:09 PM

My name is David Fox and I'm actually, I don't know about the proper term neighbor but I live about a mile from Mr. Vincent up Refugio Road. I feel Mr. Vincent's been a good neighbor. I've followed this process for about three years. I see him shaking his head up and down in agreement every Request that the adversary side is made. I think that Mr. Adams made a good point, his feet were held to the fire to get this thing to go.

I agree if he feels this is the outcome he wants and he's going to accept it, I'm in agreement with him. I think a lot of the things Mr. Fields brought up have to do with the revision of the winery ordinance and I don't think those comments were out of place. Thank you.

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role3:10:13 · ≈ 12:10 PM

Thank you.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 18Proposed3:10:15 · ≈ 12:10 PM

John Poitras? Mr. Chair, fellow Supervisors, excuse my cold. I love agriculture. I love driving by these open fields and the growing things. I love driving by horse farms. That's why I live here. That's why I live in San Dinez, I should say. So I am totally in support of agriculture. Wine tasting, selling glasses of wine, bottles of wine, having parties for profit is not agriculture.

It simply is not. You might also be surprised if you read and maybe Mr. Anthony can direct you to the source Wineries are not defined as agriculture in Santa Barbara County. We're sympathetic to wineries, we just don't want parties in our neighborhoods. It's quite simple and so the rights to farm that Mr. Rosenberg was referring to is there is a right to farm ordinance in Santa Barbara County and farms are protected from complaints about noise and dust and that sort of thing. So I think we have a very balanced agreement I think we have a very balanced approach toward this and we're just following the definitions in Santa Barbara County Code. Thank you.

not transcribed≈7s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role3:11:25 · ≈ 12:11 PM

Thank you very much. Supervisor Farr?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed3:11:28 · ≈ 12:11 PM

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just for Supervisor Adams' benefit generally it's a protocol of the board that on a land use issue that the supervisor or the district might get the opportunity to speak first and to offer a motion so that's why I've kind of jumped out here. But first of all, I just want to thank everybody that came here today to speak. Certainly both parties, Ms. Petrovich, Mr. Field and Mr. Poitras. I know that this has been a long process and staff, thank you for all your assistance in County Council for the facilitation.

Generally, we don't have this good of an outcome in my opinion. Generally it is these issues come to the board on appeal and then the board needs to try to sort out the point of balance and compromise so thank you for helping us do our job today. Clearly there has been a rising level of concern about wineries and unfortunately the Vincent Project was right at the beginning of that.

And in many ways is an example of many of the issues that both sides are concerned about, both the Vintners and the neighbors. And I think that it is important to remember, and I appreciate Supervisor Adam bringing it up. That ag-zoned property has a particular goal, a particular mission. And that is for...to support agricultural production. I think where we start to run into difficulty is what type and how many of supportive activities that are not specifically to do with the growing or the production of agricultural product are we going to allow to support that particular property. And so that's where the rub has come in. I think, in this case it has been good that what is before us has looked at a lot of the different terms that have not been defined carefully and tried to define them more closely and I hope that all sides as the winery ordinance discussion goes forward will take a look at that.

Clearly there are still residual concerns, particularly to do with traffic. But at least for this particular project that has to do with 154 and the intersections on 154. And certainly I will be trying to once again reopen discussions with Caltrans about the stretch of 154 from the intersection of 246 to Calkins and Los Olivos but that's kind of outside the scope of what we can do here So, you know I think that this agreement is a good agreement. I'm prepared to honor it. I think that it both honors the Vincent's request. They have a wonderful almost 25 acre property there planted in grapes on site that they're going to be using It does give them the tasting room, a certain level of visitor serving to support that.

With that more carefully defined which is what the appellants were after and I think it really behooves us to go ahead and honor this. And considering that both Mr. Field and Ms. Petrovich have I think not agreed on anything up until this point, all the more behooves us to try to pay attention and honor this agreement. So Mr. Chair after we've heard from the rest of the board I'm prepared to go ahead and move staff's four recommendations. Thank you.

not transcribed≈8s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role3:15:24 · ≈ 12:15 PM

Thank you Supervisor Farr. We're going to go back to rebuttal as my outline says so the appellant could have five minutes and then the

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 15Proposed3:15:35 · ≈ 12:15 PM

applicant will have five minutes. I don't feel a need to rebut anything although I will second Mr. Poitras' comment that the neighborhood, the Agwin neighborhoods, I'll speak for East of Route 154 we understand agriculture and we live with it and we all support it Over 300 people have signed petitions saying we support agriculture and wineries. The only resistance is to the wine tasting and events in inappropriate places, and those are not agriculture.

So it's not that we're trying to keep agriculture out of an agricultural zone. These are non-agricultural activities that we think only belong in appropriate places. But really other than that I have no comments to add.

CommentReid BrewerProposed3:16:18 · ≈ 12:16 PM

Thank you. Supervisor Adams? I just want to talk for a second about the appropriateness of certain events that are usually associated with wineries. And there's a reason that nobody wants to come out to my broccoli field and have a wedding, because wineries are beautiful and my broccoli field is not. So, you know and some people may think that that's something that's nice to drive by but it's a business. And so is the winery. The winery is a business and one of the things that it can do to create an economic value in itself is to have events and have people connected. You know there's so much talk today about people being connected to the food that they're eating.

People want to go out and touch a vine People want to pour a glass of wine that was created on that property from the vine that they're now touching and there's just something special about that. And so wineries are something that is just completely different than broccoli or cattle, you know nobody's going to go to a barbecue we're gonna look at the cow that we just killed.

There is something about wineries that has to be appreciated in that way. And allowed, and that's part of what makes them economically viable. If you don't allow the tasting and you don't allow the production of the wine on the facility that grew it, it just loses all the appeal. And so I think we really have to be careful if we want an economically viable wine industry in this county, and there are huge contributors to our revenue stream I think we have to be very careful about setting precedents where we allow applicants to be beaten half-to-death until they agree to something that is a virtual crippling of their economic viability.

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role3:18:28 · ≈ 12:18 PM

Thank you, Mr. Hannon. We're going to go to the rebuttal by the applicant. Don't cut your broccoli field short! I may want to come renew my vows with my wife on your broccoli fields.

CommentReid BrewerProposed3:18:37 · ≈ 12:18 PM

We will certainly accommodate you. Thank you, Inspector

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 16Proposed3:18:42 · ≈ 12:18 PM

Rich. Well this is the reason why Mr. Field and Mr. Porteous and I will probably never agree on anything. I agree with what Supervisor Adam just said but more important than that, I don't know where it's written that agriculture is open fields Agriculture allows all of us the beauty, the natural beauty that we enjoy when we look at their agricultural land. But agriculture is not all open fields and more important, agriculturists have to make a living. They make a living off the land, very expensive land that they could probably sell for some other purpose but They choose to hang in there year after year, generation after generation and work that land working night and day. You want to talk about 24 hours a day 365 days a year? That's what they do.

And in order to make a living off of vineyard, you have to sell your wine. And in this county, except for the big producers that we all know about, Barringer and Kendall Jackson and others like them, virtually all of our wine industry are small vintners. And those people have to market their product directly to the consumer, thus the tasting rooms, thus the weddings. Thus, any other events that they can bring people into their terroir, yes. Show them their vineyards, show them their winery, show them how they make their wine and why they think they make it the best because no two vintners agree on that either. They're farmers after all but they know how to make That wine and to sell it, and they need to be able to do so.

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role3:20:29 · ≈ 12:20 PM

Ms. Petrovich, my time Mr. Allen. I'll remind my colleagues and I'll remind you and everyone else this is about the Vincent Appeal. It's related to wineries but if we could focus on the facts of that it would really be helpful.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 16Proposed3:20:41 · ≈ 12:20 PM

There's

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role3:20:41 · ≈ 12:20 PM

going to be an opportunity for us to focus on the winery issue in general and I think we'll have plenty of time to do that.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 16Proposed3:20:49 · ≈ 12:20 PM

I understand, but they got lots more time than I did. OK, I just want to ask all of you to please vote for this settlement. It has cost Mr. Vincent a fortune to get to this point and he really just wants to spend what he's got left in the kitty building the winery and opening the doors. Thank you. Any questions? Thank

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role3:21:10 · ≈ 12:21 PM

you, Ms. Petrucci.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.783:21:10 · ≈ 12:21 PM

Supervisor Lavallino? Well, in hearing that does Supervisor Farr want to make a motion?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed3:21:18 · ≈ 12:21 PM

Yes, I'm prepared to move staff's four recommended actions and approve the facilitation.

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role3:21:24 · ≈ 12:21 PM

Motion has been made. Is there a second? Yeah. Second. Motion has been made and

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.783:21:30 · ≈ 12:21 PM

seconded. Discussion? Mr. Lavinino? I'm just going to say you know only because the Vincents are asking for this that I'm moving forward it's just so difficult to see people have to go through this To create revenue for us so that we can have a North County Jail down the road, these types of things. I mean, a completed project that we've taken them through the system for the last three years is very disturbing for me but I am going to support their wishes.

CommentReid BrewerProposed3:22:00 · ≈ 12:22 PM

Discussion Supervisor Adam? Yeah, I think what they've been put through is absolutely obscene with the multiple traffic studies and all the other stuff that they've been put through. And God, I want to vote no on it if there's four yes votes. I just want to vote no on it just for fun but... I'll have to support it if there's not enough

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role3:22:32 · ≈ 12:22 PM

For discussion? Not having any. Why don't we do a roll call on this, Mr. Allen?

CommentRoblar WineryProposed · by introduction3:22:37 · ≈ 12:22 PM

Ms. Ford? Mr. Adam? Mr Lavagnino? Ms. Wolfe? Aye. Mr. Carbajal? Aye. Passes 4-1.

not transcribed≈8s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role3:22:53 · ≈ 12:22 PM

Thank you very much. We are now going to hear, go back to item A9. The sheriff is here and I think our staff are ready to answer some of the questions that came up earlier. Probably anticipate this being a 15 minute hearing and then going into closed session. Thank You Sheriff for coming

3:23 – 3:4011 turns

PresenterCEO Waller YouProposed3:23:21 · ≈ 12:23 PM

Okay, we're gonna take a three minute break. Let's take a ten minute break while everybody gets ready. Three minute break ♪ ♪ ♪ Hi.

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role3:26:18 · ≈ 12:26 PM

¶. I'd like to reconvene our board meeting. Item number two, if you could re-read it Mr. Allen just so the public knows what we're discussing.

CommentRoblar WineryProposed · by introduction3:28:19 · ≈ 12:28 PM

Chairman Carvalho and members of the Board this is item A9 from the County Executive Office in the Auditor Controller and the request that the Board consider recommendations regarding the North County Jail Appropriations.

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role3:28:30 · ≈ 12:28 PM

Thank You. Sheriff Brown? Yes sir. Mr. Geis, earlier we had some questions if somebody could maybe summarize what those questions were or if my colleagues would like to do that whatever our pleasure is. Mr.. Guys

CommentDavid Daniel DiazProposed · by introduction3:28:48 · ≈ 12:28 PM

is saying tag tag me. I'll do it in Carvajal Maybe prior to us summarizing what those questions are if you'd let me do a three-minute presentation About what this agenda item is Hopefully we could better set the parameters of what we're asking you to approve today

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role3:29:07 · ≈ 12:29 PM

Thank You

CommentDavid Daniel DiazProposed · by introduction3:29:07 · ≈ 12:29 PM

that would be great All right This is the financing for the jail, and we're guided by probably five different documents. One is the Board of the State and Community Corrections budget. What they're looking for and all they're looking for is to say you need to account for this grant. Both by these line items and across the top by whether it's state, cash match or in-kind match. What we're doing on the first budget revision is just doing and documenting the cash match and the in-kind match that we're putting that into a separate fund for the county to account for that transaction in its totality. We want to do that way up front.

The next document that we have to deal with Project delivery and payment agreement. And what we want to show you, this is a three-page planning document that really gets down to the second page and this is attached as part of your document but this is kind of the flow of the funds and how they're going to get budgeted. What we budgeted on the second budget revision is this one million and two That documents these acquisition study part of the cost, and what we're bringing back to the general fund is that 602 for the site because we prepaid that money. And the 200,000 for CEQA because we've already made that expenditure. So on the way back, we're documenting that we pre-funded those costs and they're part of the in kind match.

The next budget revision we're doing, Greg if you move that down a tiny bit is for the 923-867. That's what the project team needs is to have money appropriated in the current year to continue with A&E design contract management all those things. So our budget for this year is the 923. Now let me make a good point any money left over that we didn't spend out of those Like needs assessments or real estate due diligence in the final budget for this year will make an adjustment and you'll roll over that balance. Same with the 923 if there's money left at the end of the year we'll make a final budget adjustment rolled over that balance. In next year's budget we are going to budget this $3,088,000 which hits your next major milestone of more A&E design doing the construction documents and really getting the working drawings.

Getting this to the point of construction And that's going to be, we're going to then do this for 13-14, this for 14-15 and that basically accounts for the budget of the grant. That's our current plan. Now this 14- 15 will change as we really know those construction costs. And here is a really important point you guys need to understand when we get to construction Whatever's happened here in the past can be reallocated amongst these categories when we go to build. That's the PDCA's process, they're going to come back when it's ready for construction, they're going to redo this plan and it's important to know we want to talk about this transition planning that $200,000, that's a little complicated in this transaction, we'll talk about it for a minute.

Now besides this document you have to comply with three other things. The County Budget Act Which we're doing today. The county's financial statements, because littered in this document says you shall comply with generally accepted accounting principles and that means our financial statements have to be prepared in accordance with GAAP on these periodic costs are going to last six to seven years.

And then the final thing we're going to have to do is someday, we have to have a closeout audit. But that's the six to seven years from here and the reason we're starting off trying to start off on the right foot is where we don't want to end up let's use FEMA as an example. We do all this disaster accounting. We're here to help pay will give you these costs. The auditors come in three years later and said technically you didn't comply with these planning documents We're going to disallow all those costs. And we don't want to get to the end of this project and said, due to a technicality you're not eligible for these reimbursements. So that's the path we're taking you down on the current documentation for the grant. Now what gets a little complicated out of this that we haven't done today is there are some overmatched budget that's in the original budget of the $96 million and some ineligible costs Budgeting that we're using prop 172 that we haven't addressed yet And there are going to be some other line items that we're gonna come back with a future budget revision To accommodate that so in that context the first thing you're doing is transferring the match the first budget revision and Transferring the 802 back to document costs.

We're setting up the first $1,000,002. We're setting up the 923-867 and then the last thing that gets a little bit complicated is this contingency account we set backup in the general fund And the confusion there gets to be if you look at that transition planning, the state says so far we've approved 200,000. But the Sheriff's Department and their overall planning says well we think that transition planning is going to be more like a million.

And that is the 800,000 funding source that we've set aside back in that contingency fund to say when we get to this construction. The state might have the ability to fund more of that transition planning or we go to the original plan by the general fund that they'll Transition that pay for that transition cost out of that contingency. There's an additional $50,000 that we approved earlier in the year that we are moving from the capital fund over to this new Capital Projects Fund because there will be some ineligible costs that aren't part of this planning document that we will incur going forward And we need to be able to account for those ineligible costs, for like consultants travel. We need to have a pot to pay that out of and that's what we're trying to document this early year and then we'll address those ineligibles and those other overmatches in a future budget revision when we get a chance to prepare it.

Let's see if I'm forgetting anything. That is basically the planning document of why we are doing this technical budget revision at this point in time. That paints the picture of what we're trying to do and the documents that we're using to try and get compliance with this grant. Last thing I'll say is there's very strict definitions of what you can put, not on this document but the BCACS document within this agreement that says you can only spend the money in that line item on X.

Otherwise, you have to go back through the process and get that money reallocated between line items. So we're trying to set up a pretty complex accounting system to be able to say hey, we're running out of money. We need to do either a county budget revision or state budget revision or BCCS budget revision to move this project forward. And what we don't want to get is the end of this project and say we're going to disallow costs because you failed to do something. And so that's where

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role3:36:46 · ≈ 12:36 PM

we're going. Thank you, Mr. Grace. This obviously for me gives me a lot more confidence that you're on it. Supervisor Farr?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed3:36:54 · ≈ 12:36 PM

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I guess for me it might be easiest if I just kind of went through each of the recommended actions and asked the questions that I had. So I think the first one, it's clear about the $600,000 where that is the Sheriff's portion of the Prop 172. The $3 million that we have put in over the last couple of years to the new jail operations committed fund balance, that's going to be swept. That balance is gonna go to zero until this next budget cycle when according to the budget principles, the board would be putting in another $3 million into that and that's for operations. Is that correct?

Then we have the $5,289,000 figure from the strategic reserve and perhaps the CEO could get us what our balance will be in the strategic reserve after that comes out. And then the 50,000 and we have various capital outlay accounts but I'm assuming that 50,000 is from a sheriff's department capital outlay account. I see Mr. Martin. It's

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 19Proposed3:38:07 · ≈ 12:38 PM

actually yes short answer.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed3:38:12 · ≈ 12:38 PM

Okay so I understand that. Then the next one is where we're pulling this $802,000 which is money that's already been spent for reimbursable but that's coming back. And rather than coming back into wherever it came from originally, let's say maybe it was the general fund. It's going to go into another new account that's being created called the Jail Contingency Account.

Is that? Correct. I'm clear on that. OK. And then this other $200,000 of services and supplies is also going in there to get us over the million dollar mark for the jail contingency. And then, Mr. Geis, you said something about you called that like a construction transition cost. But that then seems to be different than the question we got onto later which was the line item on I lost it now.

Is it page three, or is it? Can't find it. Oh yeah, page three where it says other county costs, sheriff annual general fund budget beginning FY 13-14 transition costs and that's separate so that's not the jail contingency transition. This is staffing transition or some other kind of transition.

not transcribed≈6s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen

3:40 – 3:5012 turns

CommentDavid Daniel DiazProposed · by introduction3:40:04 · ≈ 12:40 PM

Chairman Carball, Supervisor Farr. This document is not the document that's you know saying what we're spending the money on this is the source of funds that balances to the 96-1 and even though some of those transition costs In its total, we'll have to be paid out of one of these financing sources and most likely the 900 or the 488. It's a little confusing because 200,000 of those transition costs are actually reimbursable above the line in the grant and 800,000 of the transition costs Currently have to be funded outside the grant. Now that could change when we get to construction and the 800,000 were setting aside as a contingency? It's not for construction it's really for the project. And that money could come back and fund that gap in transition planning after it was approved by the PDCA when you get to that construction time.

Eventually they have to approve the total cost of that transition. They're only doing the minimum cost at the moment.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed3:41:21 · ≈ 12:41 PM

OK, again I guess I'm kind of hung up on the transition costs. And so maybe the Sheriff can concur with that or not because my understanding was that the $900,000 was going to be something that you wanted to start setting aside this coming budget year for the next four years or so for other kinds of transition for staffing even though you don't necessarily need it right now. It's kind of like building a separate pot of money That's one question. The second question is where is that money coming from? Is the $900,000 coming out of your general fund amount that you would get through the regular budget process or is it in addition to and if so where is that money supposed to be pulled from?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 19Proposed3:42:09 · ≈ 12:42 PM

Okay Chair and Supervisor Farr let me before I answer your question let me just give you a kind of an overview of the process and how it's gotten to the point where it is today. What we need to all think about in this project is that initially, this was a project that was certainly championed by the Sheriff's Office and we certainly led the charge in terms of getting the grant and getting this together.

Once that grant was landed, once that funding was here We have transitioned this project into a project that is no longer exclusively the sheriff's. This is a team effort that involves all the different entities that we have from general services and from the auditor controllers office overseen by the CEO's office and we work together as a team to put this financial plan together and we meet regularly and this has all been part and parcel of where we're going with this so Think of it that way in terms of this is a truly a team effort by all of your county staff at this point.

As far as the transition, the transition plan is and I forgive me if I'm being too basic on this but I know that Supervisor Adam was not here when we presented this to the board originally The transition plan is essentially, if you can think of it, it's basically one-time costs that we have to incur in order to hire a sufficient number of staff and get them on board with our agency and trained.

By the time that the doors are ready to open in the new jail. We can't, in other words just say the new jail is going to open its doors in the spring of 2018 and we hire everybody in the spring of 2018. It's about a one year process for us to hire those people and there's a process even before that that we have to look at getting a limited number of staff on board To assist with accounting and to assist with the human resources, the actual selection of those people before they're hired. And then some additional staff in our training unit to train this influx of people who's going to come in. And once those people are trained then that body of people plus the additional people, the positions that were We're going to hire for the Human Resources Department and the accountant are all going to be pushed over and transferred as it were, to the new jail facility.

They will all be part and parcel of the staffing of that new jail. So they're, the ongoing cost, the estimate of 17 million to operate the jail includes the cost of those people from the spring of 2018 forward. What is not included in the operational costs are the transition costs of hiring those people and then hiring the additional custody staff up to about a year before they're actually going to be deployed over there. So think of that money, that transition money it's not ongoing in addition to its part of the 17 million. It's part of that actual transition process as far as The actual accounting of that funding and what budget it's in or how it's partitioned off, I'm going to defer to the financial staff to let you know and explain that a little bit more.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 20Proposed3:45:28 · ≈ 12:45 PM

Mr. Chair and Supervisor Farr, I think the Sheriff did a really good job explaining concisely what we see will occur in the next five years as we're building up the core to be able to operate the facility. Understand that the money to be spent out of the 900,000, really we're not going to be starting to spend a whole lot of that probably until late 2014 when we hire fiscal support to help with the back office operation. Then we're going to hire two Custody deputies to be able to work in HR, as the Sheriff talked about. So we can ramp up our staff to be able to hire all the people that we have to bring in. We're going to have to hire two more custody deputies who do training because we just can't bring in a whole influx of new employees without having to bolster up our training.

office temporarily as we're training all these new staff. And then once we have all those folks hired, our new custody staff hired funded through the JL Ops Fund that we've described to you previously when the doors open, everybody shifts over to the new facility and sheriffs Operations here in the south are basically unchanged. There's no growth of staff down here, there's no reduction in staff. It transitions smoothly over to the new facility and the $900,000 was a budget number that we set up to fund that.

When we did the study back in October, that number calculated out to about $650,000. But I didn't want to say it's going to be 650 because its number is going to fluctuate because we're estimating salary costs five years in advance every year. In fact, it's coming up right now. We'll be redoing our analysis on those staffing costs and bringing that to you through a board item to say hey, we're now a year ahead and we now have a better idea of what those costs are going to be, what the staffing loans are going to be. So I hope that helps.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed3:47:15 · ≈ 12:47 PM

Well, yes and no. So let me just ask again specifically and this was the discussion we had this morning where is the $900,000 coming from? Whose pot of money is that coming from?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 20Proposed3:47:30 · ≈ 12:47 PM

Mr. Chair, Supervisor Farr, it's my understanding that the funding for that will be from the JLOPS fund when the money is needed and is going to start small and work its way larger?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed3:47:41 · ≈ 12:47 PM

Okay. So then the $900,000 is coming say from the $3 million that we're anticipating having to put into that JLOPS fund for the next fiscal year? So we are going to be putting in $3 million to start, to reestablish that operations pot of money. Because what is in there now is going to be swept for the construction so it's going to zero but we already had this plan of how we were going to have an increasing amount that was going to have to be put into that account every year during budget. So my understanding for this coming budget year we were Part of that jail operations fund money, or is it another 900,000 in addition to that?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 20Proposed3:48:28 · ≈ 12:48 PM

Mr. Chair, Supervisor Farr, I think the answer is yes and no. And I don't mean to be, I'm not being facetious really. We have to, I look at this in a multi-year environment. The Jail Ops Fund is something that's been growing over time with your board action that eventually you will be fully funding the operation of the jail. This $900,000 will be drawing from that several fiscal years down the road.

We're not going to be drawing from that in fiscal 13-14. We'll be drawing a little bit out of it in 14-15, a little bit more in 15-16 and so on until such time when we open the facility all those staffing costs are going to be covered through the transition costs and The fact that we've fully funded that operational account, it'll be operated when we want to open the jail. I hope that's helpful.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed3:49:15 · ≈ 12:49 PM

Well if you're drawing from the jail operations account then that tells me that this is not different money, that this is the same money?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 19Proposed3:49:23 · ≈ 12:49 PM

It's correct. That is correct. The reality is this money...I mean you can think of it as the county needs to come up with X number of match dollars and the way those dollars are broken down they're coming from several different sources It's coming from one source, but that doesn't mean that we don't need all of those sources to come together to make this plan happen.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed3:49:43 · ≈ 12:49 PM

Okay and then to tie it back to something that Mr. Geis said the jail contingency fund that this million dollar budget transfer is about from those two sources is for the construction of the jail however if it's not used it can be slid over for the operations later? I'm talking about our recommended action number two, to create this million dollar pot of money for the contingency.

CommentDavid Daniel DiazProposed · by introduction3:50:22 · ≈ 12:50 PM

I believe I need to look at the action and I believe it's only for $800,000, the net amount. It might grow something up on that chart.

3:50 – 4:0422 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed3:50:37 · ≈ 12:50 PM

So I mean, because I'm assuming because that $802,000 was money that we put out for pre-construction costs. That's been reimbursed, that's now been freed up to now go into this new contingency account and I'm assuming that was a contingency to do with the construction of the jail not the operations of the jail? And that what the sheriff and Mr. Martin were just talking about has to do with the account that we're building up for the future operations of the jail.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 19Proposed3:51:18 · ≈ 12:51 PM

If I might just jump in there, Chair. Part of the transition cost... All of those transition costs that we're talking about are not necessarily for the staff that we're training to bring into the new jail. We also have a planning function that has to occur and we have to have our staff involved in the planning and development of this in conjunction with our project expert, our architect, and our construction management firm and so forth. So I believe that what you're seeing is a portion of the transition costs that are related to the planning and the construction of the facility. And they will still involve staff that have to be paid, but it's not the full picture of the transition. The transition also includes this other $800,000 that we were talking about for staff.

Chairman Carter Hall, Supervisor Farr,

CommentDavid Daniel DiazProposed · by introduction3:52:07 · ≈ 12:52 PM

if we look back at this document, this 602 and which is the site acquisition and the CEQA costs. Those are the monies that have already been paid, and we're reimbursing the general fund. The rest of the $200,000 there...

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed3:52:21 · ≈ 12:52 PM

Excuse me Mr., I'm sorry Mr. Chair, Mr. Geist when you talk about reimbursing the general fund what this is doing though it's not really coming back to the general fund. It's being carved back out into a jail contingency fund.

CommentDavid Daniel DiazProposed · by introduction3:52:35 · ≈ 12:52 PM

I'm putting it into a jail contingency fund because in the bigger planning, eventually that money is targeted for transition costs. But as part of this documentation process we want to bring back this amount to say hey, we made that in-kind match in previous years and then the rest of the $200,000 is not coming back. It's being budgeted In the new jail capital fund so we can make expenditures against that $200,000. Okay

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed3:53:07 · ≈ 12:53 PM

and that's fine again I'm just trying to figure out the difference between the expenses to do with the construction and the cost to do with the ramping up for the operations. That's all thank you Mr. Chair.

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role3:53:21 · ≈ 12:53 PM

Supervisor Wolffort did he want to say something?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed3:53:31 · ≈ 12:53 PM

My question was the $50,000, the capital. You answered that and thank you for that. The other piece is this 900,000 and frankly we got some answers earlier today now we're getting different answers and it just goes to my earlier point A bigger discussion. Now I can do arithmetic, but if we put $3 million in and yet we're going to keep pulling money out for the transition, my understanding was is we're building up that $3 million pot.

And interestingly we had the $3 million before and then we took it out for this, for the match. Okay so now we're going to put in another 3 million but what it sounds to me is if like I said we're going to be pulling some of it out for transition costs. We need to know that and we don't have you know we're just finding that out now and so we just need that bigger picture of how this is all working. It's much more complicated than we're going to keep putting money into this fund. It's much more complicated than that, and so we need to get a better handle on it.

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role3:54:54 · ≈ 12:54 PM

Before you go, if it's OK, Sheriff Brown, you might be able to answer multiple questions at once. Mr. Adam? Well maybe

CommentReid BrewerProposed3:55:03 · ≈ 12:55 PM

I can help here a little bit. I don't know. Maybe I'm confused too, but is this not just cash flow management Are you not just taking money that you've saved for purposes and then using them for other purposes, like your drafting and your training and whatnot? And then we'll take and replace that money when you get the grant from the state.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 19Proposed3:55:28 · ≈ 12:55 PM

Yes and no, Supervisor Adam. I think what- This would have sufficed. Where we're going with this is that we need X amount of dollars that have to be matched to make this jail a reality and to get it built. Part of that match includes transition, part of that includes some of what we've already spent and will get reimbursed and so forth. We are talking about taking transition costs out of the jail operations account We took $3 million, or we're proposing to take $3 million out of that account to use as the upfront money so that you don't have to pull the trigger and make the decision on where the match money is coming from for sure right now. That option is open to you. It can either come from general fund reserves, from strategic reserve Or you may choose to finance it.

You may choose to try to find some new funding stream down the road. We've tried to keep those options open for you. Regardless of what happens, we're going to need the full amount that we have indicated to you before as the county's match money and the money that's in the operations account if we use it from there initially like we're using the three million It is going to need to be recharged. You're gonna have to take that money from whatever source you ultimately take the match from and recharge that fund to get that operational fund built up to the point where we can open the doors and use a combination of the steadily increasing amount that's been put away as well as the steadily increasing amount that has, it'll be a steadily decreasing amount at that point as far as what's been saved.

So it's where the two come and cross over together but the money that you know think of it instead of focusing on this account or that account try to look at the big overall view that we need to come up with this roughly ten million dollars nine point some million dollars and that that money is required for us to make this project work And we just want to be able to have you, have your options kept open for as long as possible to make that decision on where that money comes from. And remember and I don't wanna confuse the issue even further but I wanna remind you of this if that money comes from the general fund reserves then we will not need as much money in the operational account because the $17 million that we have estimated as the operational cost includes the debt service for the match money that has to come from the county if it was financed.

If you don't finance it, you will save that money and in essence probably not have to recharge that 3 million in that account. Thank you,

CommentCEO WallerProposed3:58:15 · ≈ 12:58 PM

Chairman. I was going to just answer very quickly. You're exactly correct. The $3 million is cash flow. Your board may recall the discussion that we had that came from your Debt Advisory Commission that said we should keep your options open and at some time immediately before the jail construction your board will be asked to determine whether you want to issue bonds Whether you want to use the strategic reserve or whether you want to use those operational dollars.

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role3:58:44 · ≈ 12:58 PM

Supervisor, before Supervisor Wolf goes, the only question I have that will bring clarity...I think I'm getting it all but just for my own education we had done a projection of the operation fund that we had started building. Does this withdrawal of that fund, is it in keeping with that projection? Or is it off? Did we start withdrawing it soon? Help us understand how it fits into the projection that you gave us, CEO Waller.

CommentCEO WallerProposed3:59:24 · ≈ 12:59 PM

Thank you Mr. Chairman. Initially the projection did not include removing $3 million at this point in the process. It did include debt service payments for up to $10 million. So what we proposed to you and you determined was the appropriate thing was to use this $3 million as cash flow, and then you would make the decision, as I said prior to construction on whether you wanted to replenish or whether you wanted to use a different source.

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role3:59:55 · ≈ 12:59 PM

Because I think that's what's getting us a little confused. And again, if that would have been explained early on it would have saved us all a lot of angst just from what you just said.

CommentCEO WallerProposed4:00:08 · ≈ 1:00 PM

And Chairman, I think what would be helpful is we will provide the Board with the information that the Debt Advisory Committee did and show the different scenarios so I think that will make it clearer.

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role4:00:18 · ≈ 1:00 PM

Great thank you. Supervisor Wolf?

not transcribed≈9s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed4:00:22 · ≈ 1:00 PM

Thank you, Mr. Chair. So I'm prepared to vote on this and move forward. But in the whole scheme of things that we're doing this allocation, are we authorizing then moving forward and getting contracts for design and all of that? Where are we as far as that goes?

CommentCEO WallerProposed4:00:50 · ≈ 1:00 PM

Mr. Chairman, Supervisor, what we're doing right now is we are going through the request for proposal and the review of submittals and the interviews and we would be bringing separate contracts back to your board in the future for consideration likely in April.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed4:01:06 · ≈ 1:01 PM

So what I would suggest is that we revisit the issue of the $3 million fund, the growing fund before we let any contracts so that we are all assured of our plan moving forward. I will be hard pressed to actually vote on a contract and actually spend more money on this until we have the full big picture, and we really do need to have that. But like I said, I'm fine moving forward. This is what we talked about before but you have to understand that this is a lot of...you guys have all been meeting And so for us looking at it, you know it's different documents and sometimes not everything matches. So we will have a lot of questions and concerns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 19Proposed4:02:03 · ≈ 1:02 PM

from others. And Chair and Supervisor if I might add too, you know it's important to recognize that This process is and is going to continue to be a fluid process. You know, we are bringing on board a project expert, a jail project expert and bringing on board an architectural firm and we're gonna be looking at design implications that may have an impact on operational costs for example. We you know hopefully I we don't anticipate that it will be more than the 17 million there's a chance and I'm not sure that it's going to be a huge chance but there's a chance that we might be able through. The proper design and some other techniques and some other suggestions coming from our project expert in from our construction people I mean our architectural people that we might be able to actually and may actually modify the estimate on what the operational costs are going to be.

The operational cost of $17 million are the best estimate that we can come up with at this point given the number of inmates, the number of staff and so forth but the design of the facility and some of the procedures that we use in the facility may impact those operational costs and we may come back with you. So I just want you to understand that this is a fluid process

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role4:03:15 · ≈ 1:03 PM

Thank you. In addition to what Supervisor Wolf said earlier in terms of our plan to address the continued funding of the operations, just have a fuller discussion on that is what Supervisor Wolf said earlier today. I would really appreciate also hearing from CO Waller now if not now later but soon When we're going to get information about the local higher issues, when is that coming to the board? The 11th hour or are we gonna see it sooner rather than later.

All those issues are important and they keep being raised and I don't even know when they're gonna come back. I'm assuming council is looking into all these issues because that's the direction we gave. It might be good to get a schematic COR of some of these issues in terms of a matrix of when we hope to address some of these issues before this board.

4:04 – 4:148 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed4:04:15 · ≈ 1:04 PM

Supervisor Carbajal, thank you for mentioning that. That is also of concern to me too so we just need to as we're getting closer we need these issues addressed if there's no further questions I'll be ready to make a motion.

PresenterCEO Waller YouProposed4:04:33 · ≈ 1:04 PM

Motion has been made? Well wait. Do we have any public speakers?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed4:04:38 · ≈ 1:04 PM

I'll make a motion that we approve the item as presented along with a request that staff return to the board Sometime in March with information specifically relating to general the general operations account

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role4:04:57 · ≈ 1:04 PM

Okay Second. Not having further discussion, all those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Abstentions? Passes. Thank you very much for coming back and Mr. Geis and addressing these issues. Appreciate it. We are now going to take what an hour, an hour-and-a-half break for closed session?

CommentPat AbelProposed · by introduction4:05:18 · ≈ 1:05 PM

I think an hour and a half

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role4:05:20 · ≈ 1:05 PM

of board time. It's one o'clock so we'll be back by 230. Great. You want to read the agenda for closed session, Mr. Marshall?

CommentPat AbelProposed · by introduction4:05:29 · ≈ 1:05 PM

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. On your agenda today, you have a conference with legal counsel. Anticipated litigation included in the anticipated litigation is property tax administration cost recovery following the California Supreme Court's decision in City of Alhambra v. County of Los Angeles. There's one other potential anticipated litigation case You also have conference with real property negotiators.

Negotiators for the county include Mr. Parker, Ms. Ball, Ron Quarantino and Mark Paul negotiating with the Housing Authority of the County of Santa Barbara. You also have conference with legal counsel existing litigation, Ernest Del Rio at Albee County of Santa Barbara. Conference with labor negotiators and you have public employee performance evaluation child support director A public health director and county executive officer. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role4:06:21 · ≈ 1:06 PM

Thank you five minutes will be in the boardroom in the board conference room. Music playing Hi. ♪ Hi. ♪ ¶. Music StSq2 2.60 Music playing Music. ♪ You. you

4:15 – 5:231 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed4:15:34 · ≈ 1:15 PM

Music Hello. Hello. Hi. ♪ Hi. You. ♪♪ Hi. ♪ Music playing. Yeah. Hi, everyone. Hi. ♪ Yeah. You. ¶. ¶. Music ¶. ♪ ¶. ♪ Yeah. Hi. ♪ ♪ Yeah. Hi. . . ♪ ¶. CCoSp4 3.50 (-1.00?) Music. ♪ Music. ♪ ♪ ¶. ¶¶ ¶. ♪ ¶. ¶. ♪ ¶. Hi. ♪ Hi. ♪ ¶. ¶. ¶. Music ♪ Music playing ¶. ♪ ¶. ♪ Music ♪ StSq3 3.30 (-0.70)" ¶. 3Lz 6.49 x (-0.50?) Music ♪ Music. ♪ Music ¶. ♪ ¶. ¶.

¶. ♪ Music. . . ¶. ¶. ♪ ♪ ¶. Hi, everyone. ¶. ♪ ♪ ♪ ¶. Hi, everyone. ¶. ¶. ¶¶ ¶. ♪ ¶¶ Hi, everyone. ¶. ¶. ¶. ¶. ♪ ♪ ¶. Hi. ¶. ¶. ♪ ♪

5:24 – 6:022 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 4Proposed5:24:23 · ≈ 2:24 PM

♪

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed5:25:09 · ≈ 2:25 PM

Hi. ♪ ♪ ¶. ♪ ♪ Hi. ♪ ¶. ¶. ♪ Hi, everyone. Hi, everyone. . . ¶. ¶. ¶. ¶. Music playing Hi, everyone. Hello. ♪ ♪ Music playing Hi, everyone. Hi, everyone. ♪ Hi, everyone. Hi, everyone. ¶¶ ¶. Hi, everyone. Hi, everyone. ¶. The Hi. The Hi, everyone. Good morning. ♪ Hi, everyone. Hi, everyone. Hi, everyone. ♪ Hi, everyone. Music playing. Hi. ♪ Music Music ♪ ¶.

♪ ♪ Hi. Hi. ♪ Hello. ♪ ¶. ¶. StSq2 2.60 ¶. Hi. Yeah. ¶. ¶. . . ¶. ¶.

6:03 – 6:054 turns

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role6:03:33 · ≈ 3:03 PM

Music Music So she got offered. I'd like to reconvene our meeting. Mr. Marshall, if you could report our

CommentPat AbelProposed · by introduction6:04:58 · ≈ 3:04 PM

closed

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role6:04:59 · ≈ 3:04 PM

session?

CommentPat AbelProposed · by introduction6:04:59 · ≈ 3:04 PM

Thank you. Excuse me. Thank You Mr. Chair your board met in closed session it heard each of the noticed items except the public employee performance evaluation that matter will be continued one item to report and that's in conference with legal counsel anticipated litigation In the matter of the property tax administration recovery following the California Supreme Court decision, City of Alamgurby County of Los Angeles based on that case your board directed county council to enter into settlement agreements for a three-year statute of limitations and at interest rates of the pooled rate and execute appropriate tolling agreements to allow for the execution of this agreement.

The vote was unanimous. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

6:05 – 6:1110 turns

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role6:05:50 · ≈ 3:05 PM

Thank you very much, Mr Marshall. We will now proceed to our departmental agenda item number three. Mr. Clerk, can you read the item please?

CommentRoblar WineryProposed · by introduction6:05:58 · ≈ 3:05 PM

Chairman Carball and members of the board, Item 3 is from Planning and Development's hearing to approve and authorize the chair to execute a letter to the California Department of Conservation Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources determining need for additional review based on environmental and other concerns for the proposed Barnum Ranch oil field expansion in third district.

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role6:06:17 · ≈ 3:06 PM

Thank you, Mr. Allen. I've been told that I'm speaking too close to this microphone and I need to speak from far away so hopefully people can still hear me.

CommentJoe HollandProposed6:06:30 · ≈ 3:06 PM

Mr. Chair, members of the board, I'm here before you today with a notification from the California Department of Conservation Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources of their receipt of a proposal from an oil producer to expand the boundary of the Barham This notification comes in response to a memorandum of understanding that the county entered into with the Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources in 1993 to notify the county of such expansions. This particular expansion is the first expansion That has occurred since the county entered into that Memorandum of Understanding.

Just to orient us, and I'm sorry that this map is not clear but it's the best I could do with what I had to work with. But the Barnham Ranch Field is just a little bit to the southeasterly direction of Los Alamos. It is in District 3 This is the current boundary, state designated boundary of the field. And the rough extension that's being proposed is what you see in the red and I'll show you a little bit more detail. Of course you have these maps in clear format in your board packet.

Here again is in the green and again I'm sorry that the colors aren't better but in the green we're looking at the current designation of the oil field And the proposed expansion of this field would be in the southeasterly direction, in a fairly steep terrain area that does not have a whole lot of land uses there because of the terrain aside from grazing. The operator of this field has used a drill site within the existing field to use directional reach drilling And to drill into the offshore portion, or I should say the off-field portion.

To be able to demonstrate there are commercial quantities of oil to be produced and as requested that boundary expansion be done. So it is in consideration by the Division of Oil Gas Geothermal Resources. According to the Memorandum of Understanding, which was part of your packet, the county has the ability within 30 days to respond and request additional information or request a joint workshop etc.

Since this has been our first one and since we have not had a whole lot of opportunity, it's been less than 30 days since we received the notice, we've recommended that perhaps A joint workshop in Los Alamos might be fruitful just to inform the process and to make sure that there's public transparency and public access to the process before the division goes forward with its expansion, its consideration. I'm ready to get into details about the Memorandum of Understanding or this particular field if you'd like but I'll end my presentation here for now.

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role6:09:38 · ≈ 3:09 PM

Thank you Mr. Anthony, this is in the third district and Supervisor Farr.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed6:09:46 · ≈ 3:09 PM

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just wanted to clarify. I'm looking at the attachment B that is behind the Department of Conservation letter that talks about the reported protection figures by well as well as those in total for the last couple of years. So clearly there's been some, I guess good production going on for almost a decade now since the initial production started in August of 2003 with the first well.

And so is there any kind of normal length of time that DOGGR gives the county notifications as far as how many years of production have to be shown before they can ask for this?

CommentJoe HollandProposed6:10:42 · ≈ 3:10 PM

Mr. Chair and Supervisor Farr, I believe that the demonstration is commercial quantities but let me point out that Ms. Pat Abel, District 3 Deputy of the Division of Oil & Gas is here and I think probably in a better position to answer any of those questions, that type of question.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed6:10:59 · ≈ 3:10 PM

OK. And in asking for some more time, how much time do you think that the county would need in order to do our due diligence here and perhaps have that community meeting?

CommentJoe HollandProposed6:11:15 · ≈ 3:11 PM

I would anticipate we would move forward quickly and probably in the month of March have scheduled and conducted a workshop.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed6:11:23 · ≈ 3:11 PM

OK so we would be looking at maybe another 30 to 60 days

6:11 – 6:2224 turns

CommentJoe HollandProposed6:11:34 · ≈ 3:11 PM

Yes, in our conversation here staff we're not asking for an extension. We're simply asking that a joint workshop be conducted so it would help inform the division's process moving forward in their consideration

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed6:11:54 · ≈ 3:11 PM

Okay but So just again, tell me specifically what are we asking for? Just to write the letter which says...

CommentJoe HollandProposed6:12:09 · ≈ 3:12 PM

Mr. Chair and Supervisor Farr, yes we're asking and suggesting in our recommended draft letter that the board request DOGGR to conduct a joint workshop in Los Alamos to receive public input. This will help provide public access to the process To understand if there are any public concerns, there may not be any and to allow them to move forward and take into those considerations of the

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed6:12:34 · ≈ 3:12 PM

community. Thank you Mr. Anthony. Thank You Mr. Chair I would at some point like to hear from Ms. Abel since she made a point of being here but I don't know if we have any other public speakers.

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role6:12:45 · ≈ 3:12 PM

Is that Ms. Abel right there? Sure, why don't we hear from Ms. Abel and then let's go to the one member of the public that submitted a speaker slip and then we'll come back to Ms. Abel and finish out the item.

CommentRoblar WineryProposed · by introduction6:13:00 · ≈ 3:13 PM

Let's go to Santa Maria. We had Mr. Caldwell and also Mr. Armendariz and we should check and see if anybody is there. Mr. Armandariz?

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role6:13:13 · ≈ 3:13 PM

We can't hear you. There we go. Hello? Members

PresenterJoe ArmendarizSanta Barbara County Taxpayers AssociationProposedself-stated6:13:27 · ≈ 3:13 PM

of the Board, I'm Joe Armendariz representing Santa Barbara County Taxpayers Association. My friend Mr. Caldwell is doing his radio show but as I said earlier he did ask me to give it to you guys for agenda management as he called it. Look, I certainly understand and appreciate the necessity of having a transparent government. And having one that is accountable and one that empowers the body politic to participate in the formation of policy and process.

Having said that, I really do have to take issue with what's being proposed here by your staff. At the risk of sounding or using an overdone cliche, you know, we believe that this is a solution in search of a problem. Whether it's the terrain itself, or whether it's the mechanics that are being proposed by the producer here. And even frankly according to your very own staff report and the good work by Doug Anthony in the Energy Division There's no that there's no they're there. There is, there is no impacts here. Indeed even according to Dogger themselves this is an administrative item one that does not require or necessitate anything substantial Include frankly the need for public workshops and opening up these multi-jurisdictional, multi-agency cooperative memos of understanding.

Albeit I understand that the 1993 memo is dictating the potential for this but I really do think that whether it's the issue and by the way I just want to take this opportunity to extend my appreciation to both Supervisors Lavinino And Adam for their vote on the item 2. I thought that it was an exactly the right position and frankly, especially in light of the revenue situation that you all five find yourselves in today.

The two items from now, you'll get a bigger, I think clearer picture of where we are with respect to the revenue of the county and how we're going to achieve equilibrium in our budget. As Supervisor Adam has been saying ad nauseum lately, you've got to go after the revenue. The economic vitality component of the county's vision and mission frankly with all due respect to all five of you who I think very highly of is missing. And to me this is an opportunity to empower a producer and an operator to monetize and extract a mineral that could then be translated into millions of dollars or perhaps hundreds of thousands, whatever the case may be, of new general fund revenue for you to deliver the programs and services that your constituents deserve.

So I appreciate the opportunity to speak on this item.

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role6:16:33 · ≈ 3:16 PM

Thank you Mr. Armendariz and Mr. Armendariz is our only speaker today? Yes. Great, we'll bring the item back to the

CommentLee RosenbergProposed6:16:41 · ≈ 3:16 PM

board.

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role6:16:43 · ≈ 3:16 PM

Supervisor Adam, then Supervisor Fahey will hear from Pat Abel. Will you come up Ms. Abel please? Welcome. Thank you for coming.

CommentPat AbelProposed6:17:03 · ≈ 3:17 PM

Thank you. I just want to give a little bit of a history on the field boundary, as he said it is administrative. Our district covers five counties, Santa Cruz, Santa Clara, Monterey and almost all of San Luis Obispo and Santa Barbara County. In no other county do we have an MOU such as this. When we go and find A resource, and an operator is exploiting that resource. The field boundary is to delineate that area similar to your boundaries as supervisors. It's to tell people here's where the production is.

To tell them a location doesn't tell them how a person votes or if it's good production or bad production. It simply to say there's a geologic formation that has trapped a resource In this instance, the operator actually didn't bring the proposal to us. It was something where we identified that the operator was producing resource that was outside of our administrative field boundary. For statistical purposes, we lump production into the field boundary and when it's located outside of that drawn penciled line then we have to consider it as any field. It doesn't give the public any information It doesn't let operators in the area be able to do a better statistical analysis because it's essentially lumped outside.

The division recognized that six months continuous production, and it was an economic volume such that we wanted to extend the field boundary. And that's why we worked with the operator to do so. Because of time constraints and work constraints, we didn't get to it right away. I wanted to ensure that if I came before the board because of the MOU that I had sufficient basis for making a decision.

In doing so, the area that I've asked for will only really allow potentially four new wells. So it's not an exorbitant amount of drilling The trend of the geology and so forth, and the production appears that it will support this. And maybe at a later date would have to come back and ask for additional property to be added or acreage. In this case we're only adding about one section. So does

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role6:19:26 · ≈ 3:19 PM

that answer your question? Supervisor Adam then Supervisor Farr.

CommentReid BrewerProposed6:19:30 · ≈ 3:19 PM

So all you're doing today is trying to change a line on a map.

CommentPat AbelProposed6:19:34 · ≈ 3:19 PM

That's correct.

CommentReid BrewerProposed6:19:35 · ≈ 3:19 PM

Yeah, well I think that this is just a prime example of obstruction and delay and you know it all sounds good to do these things for full public airing and everything but that's all going to happen when they go to drill a well. That doesn't need to happen right now we could just concur with this thing and let the line move on the map and then when they come back to drill a well then of course we're gonna talk about it again

CommentPat AbelProposed6:20:04 · ≈ 3:20 PM

And let me just say that the Division of Oil and Gas does not answer any notices to drill without the CEQA process being undertaken. Santa Barbara County is recognized as the lead agency, we're only a responsible agency and therefore we don't answer or deal with any notices to drill new wells without the CEQAs process being undertaken by the county. It doesn't matter whether the well is going to be drilled outside or inside the field boundary. That process needs to be done and Doug and I have worked very well, they have a form that's very clear and we also post that on our website with the scanned well information.

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role6:20:45 · ≈ 3:20 PM

Supervisor Farr, Wolf, and Lavinino in order that they came up?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed6:20:51 · ≈ 3:20 PM

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you so much for being here. I really appreciate you making the trip. It appears that the area outside the existing field is being tapped from underground, from extended reach drilling underground. Is that correct? That's correct.

CommentPat AbelProposed6:21:09 · ≈ 3:21 PM

They're drilling from essentially what we call a drilling island, where they've made the location and they're actually drilling outside of the field

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed6:21:17 · ≈ 3:21 PM

boundary. So when you're talking about potentially up to four new wells, you're assuming that they would decide then to not just continue to tap them the way that they have but that they might want to go above ground and do a different kind of a well? A straight down well?

CommentPat AbelProposed6:21:36 · ≈ 3:21 PM

It's kind of like a young couple that buys a two bedroom house and then eventually has five children. You need to expand, and so they've kind of run out of room at this location and will need to expand to a new location.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed6:21:49 · ≈ 3:21 PM

Okay, so that's what you're talking about as far as needing to expand into the new boundary? Right,

CommentPat AbelProposed6:21:55 · ≈ 3:21 PM

they essentially ran out of room on their drilling island or And therefore, they would need additional space. And they would like to move outside and understandably directionally drill. It would be heading the trend is to the south, actually southwest or I'm sorry southeast. You can see from that the bottom hole locations that the trend. Thank you. Thank you Mr. Chair.

6:22 – 6:2912 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed6:22:25 · ≈ 3:22 PM

Thank you and thank you for being here Was it up to the operator to notify? Dogger they had no obligation to do that.

CommentPat AbelProposed6:22:36 · ≈ 3:22 PM

No, in fact I I don't know if any of you have ever worked with Jim Campion from our Sacramento office but he used to call up and say, isn't this supposed to be in the field? This production's being misallocated, misreported. So at that time I said yes, I understood that we had production that was outside of the field boundary but we wanted to establish It wasn't just one well. For instance, we had a well in the White Hills Vineyard area where they drilled a well Barbara investment it produced some oil but it ended up petering out. It didn't continue and therefore we didn't allocate that boundary as a field boundary. We wanted to be able in this case to substantiate that we were going to have sustainable production there and that the resource was viable for production before we went Extended the field boundary.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed6:23:30 · ≈ 3:23 PM

So I'm not sure how your process works internally if someone wants to extend their boundary they just do it and then? No,

CommentPat AbelProposed6:23:40 · ≈ 3:23 PM

it's actually not up to the operator It's as we see there's a resource in that production Then we look at our administrative field boundaries and determine if we need to expand those That line on the map is just merely to delineate where the resource is

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed6:23:55 · ≈ 3:23 PM

Okay, so I apologize. So then it was your agency that realized that there was opportunities outside of the boundary and you notified the operator of that?

CommentPat AbelProposed6:24:10 · ≈ 3:24 PM

They through their production through drilling delineated the resource. We identified that it was enough to substantiate moving the field boundary

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed6:24:21 · ≈ 3:24 PM

So they did let you know. I mean, they were the ones who initiated it. They said they found the resource and then they let you know.

CommentPat AbelProposed6:24:27 · ≈ 3:24 PM

Through reported production for their individual wells, that's correct. But they don't actually come to us and they don' petition to expand the field boundary. It's something that we do internally. Thank you.

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role6:24:42 · ≈ 3:24 PM

Supervisor Lavinino?

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.786:24:44 · ≈ 3:24 PM

Thank you Mr. Chair. One thing I noticed in this, you know we were talking about that it might take 20 staff hours to put together a presentation to take out on the road and this sort of thing. You know I think it's important for us to remember the one thing I don't like doing is when you go into a meeting with the public is to present false expectations We up here or our staff is not going to be able to go out. I'm afraid that what we'll do is we'll go out and have a public hearing in Los Alamos, and you're gonna have folks that are gonna think that they can either stop the drilling or maybe we shouldn't expand this, and we really don't have any control over that. So I almost think this is something—and I know Supervisor Farr's great in getting information to her constituents—this is almost something that should be handled at At a supervisorial level where you either have a town hall and you're talking to your folks or there's something that goes out in your newsletter.

But we can't control anything, any decision making process. We have no power on this. This is totally DOGGR's responsibility. So I just think it would be first off, they're gonna raise false expectations among the public and two, we're gonna spend money So we don't really control. And I just as soon have us have Supervisor Farr. Don't want to put any more work on you, but this is something I think that needs to be handled in an individual office and not take staff out and spend a bunch of time and money and energy on something we really can't make a difference on.

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role6:26:27 · ≈ 3:26 PM

Let me just say that I think sometimes lack of information The fact that we're having this hearing, hopefully as many people as possible are viewing it or watching it today. But I think that sometimes you have misinformation where people fear what maybe they shouldn't be fearing so I for one think Impact the ability of the company to continue doing what they're doing, which it sounds like it doesn't either.

I would say that Supervisor Farr's desire along with staff to have an informational meeting couldn't hurt. It's not going to delay anyone. It just gonna clarify to the public What's going on and what's not? And I think that might be useful. But then again, it's not my district. I would yield to Supervisor Farr. I think Supervisor Lavinino outlines a pretty good strategy but I would yield to Supervisor Farr since it is her district and her constituents that are going to be clamoring for the information.

Supervisor Farr?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed6:27:36 · ≈ 3:27 PM

Thank you Mr. Chair. You know, I appreciate your comments because that's why I asked what I did at the beginning that this production has been going on for quite some time and that's fine and it doesn't impede that in any way, it doesn't slow it down in any way. Ultimately, what we want is for the boundaries to be drawn so that it streamlines the process for them if and when they get to the point where they want to do some other wells in this new territory. In the meantime, they're not impeded in the existing operations that they're doing and 7 or 8 wells going on right now with it. So I think the streamlining for them and the future is very important, but also I think that we had a land use appeal today and we have them pretty often here come to the board And I think if we've learned anything is that sometimes if you take a little bit of time up front and you educate the public and let them know what's going on, you can save yourself a lot of time in trouble.

In particular the applicant, a lot of money and time down the road. So I also think that particularly for the community of Los Alamos, which was quite traumatized, that whole area about the fracking incident some years back. That of a lot of the communities there, I think they're one we might need to be particularly sensitive to And want to be very clear and transparent about any information. And so I appreciate Supervisor Lavagnino, I certainly would be involved in any kind of a community meeting but it is the kind of thing where you know it's good to have staff there to help explain what's going on and the fact that they've already been producing this is what it is we're gonna change the line on the map Supervisor Adam.

not transcribed≈11s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen

6:29 – 6:4126 turns

CommentReid BrewerProposed6:29:49 · ≈ 3:29 PM

Well, it's not the delay on the drilling of the wells that they're already drilling. It's the delay on the drilling of the wells that they could be drilling so you're not going to have as I understand it If they're not in a designated oil field, then they have a whole different set of hoops to go drill an oil well that's even though it's right next to the line. So if these guys administratively, Dogger I should say, administratively moves the line on the map Then they can come in with a permit to application to drill a well and then that can just get started processing instead of Making the delay happen while we all talk about it And then there's just the component of the hysteria that comes on because I mean, you know The the fracking Was was greatly exaggerated.

I think are the effects or potential effects of fracking was greatly exaggerated and There hasn't been any deleterious effects that I'm aware of to the to the water supply there in in Los Alamos area and everybody seems to be going along just fine so You know, we get everybody spun up in these processes and it's not even our jurisdiction. Ultimately DOGGR is going to do what they want to do anyway so you know we can get everybody all spun up and create a lot of A lot of heat, but I doubt it'll shed much light. And I think we should just concur with the line being moved on the map and let them move on and start processing some permits to drill.

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role6:31:42 · ≈ 3:31 PM

Supervisor Lavinino?

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.786:31:44 · ≈ 3:31 PM

Mr. Chair, I guess I need either Mr. Anthony here... Question is, is it holding up anything? Is there a difference between if you're, let's say you're planning on drilling something inside the state designated boundary and outside the state designated boundary. There is a cause and effect there correct?

not transcribed≈9s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
CommentJoe HollandProposed6:32:08 · ≈ 3:32 PM

Chair Carbajal and Supervisor Labanino. Yes, if we take two months to conduct or a month to conduct this workshop and hear from the public if there's anything to hear that potentially could be a delay I'm not aware of the operators plans about moving forward so I'm not absolutely sure there is a delay but theoretically yes

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.786:32:29 · ≈ 3:32 PM

But how does that, I mean how does that even jive with our MOU that we signed with DOGGR that says we'll get it done within 30 days and they notify us on January 25th and then we come up a month later and say we need 30 or 60 or 120 days or whatever. I mean is that even enforceable? Can't they just move the line after 30 days?

CommentJoe HollandProposed6:32:49 · ≈ 3:32 PM

Chair Carbajal and Supervisor Lavaniello. Yes, I mean we could theoretically execute the letter sent to them and they could decide not to conduct that workshop and move forward and do the designation.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.786:33:01 · ≈ 3:33 PM

Or they can do the designation and then do a workshop to kind of clarify what they've done or what's going to happen. I think this is where we get into a problem once we start saying we're gonna hold a workshop which I can understand you have people that are concerned I go to a workshop. I feel like I invested in it, and I have something I'm going to get out of it, and I'm going to do something. I'm gonna get active with it.

And if it's already a done deal, it's like, I think you're giving people false hope. But that's Supervisor Farr's constituents, and know you handle things differently than I would. So, I mean, I can't, I'm okay with the workshop but I just think that our MOU says 30 days. I just don't see how we get around that.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed6:33:53 · ≈ 3:33 PM

Thank you Mr. Chair. Mr. Anthony, we don't have any applications pending for this area right now from this operator do we?

CommentJoe HollandProposed6:34:02 · ≈ 3:34 PM

Chair Carbajal and Supervisor Farr, we do not.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed6:34:05 · ≈ 3:34 PM

Okay, so you know what this does is give them a more streamlined permitting process if and when in the future they want to come in and drill up to four more wells as Ms. Abel said this area might be able to handle. Is that correct?

CommentJoe HollandProposed6:34:23 · ≈ 3:34 PM

Supervisor Farr it does provide the opportunity for them to qualify for a land use permit instead of an oil drilling and production plan provided they meet the criteria in ordinance.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed6:34:33 · ≈ 3:34 PM

Okay, so I guess you know if the operator was really chomping at the bit and they had an application in process and we were slowing them down then I think that some of the arguments that had been raised would probably give more credence to. But it sounds like we're kind of in a lull period right here and I don't know that it hurts Be as transparent as possible with the closest community And so that's why I don't see that this is that big of a deal doesn't harm the existing production doesn't harm an application that it is pending because there is none and It gives some clarity to the community and supervisor Lavin, you know, uh, you know, I don' I don't think that the workshop would be one that would be, you know, are you for it or against it?

It's more do you have some concerns. It's already there. It is already going on. This is a notification to you. So it's kind of a different animal than we might see if somebody was gonna come in and want to draw a whole new field and a whole new pristine area.

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role6:35:40 · ≈ 3:35 PM

Supervisor Adelman?

CommentReid BrewerProposed6:35:42 · ≈ 3:35 PM

Well, number one I'm against spending 20 hours of staff time to do this because like I said DOGGRs can do what they're going to do anyway and hopefully they just go move the line. You know, it's not about the applications that are pending. It's about the applications... They're obviously not... If this thing is pending to get the line moved on the map and it removes it from...

What did you say?

CommentJoe HollandProposed6:36:16 · ≈ 3:36 PM

Chair Carver-Hall and Supervisor Adam, if it's outside of the state designated field it's an oil drilling production plan that requires Planning Commission approval. If it's within a state designated field there is an opportunity if it meets certain criteria to be a land use permit that's the Director's decision.

CommentReid BrewerProposed6:36:31 · ≈ 3:36 PM

Okay, so what you're likely looking at is these companies are going to wait until this line gets moved on the map and it becomes exponentially easier for them to go through the process with you guys right?

CommentJoe HollandProposed6:36:44 · ≈ 3:36 PM

That is

CommentReid BrewerProposed6:36:45 · ≈ 3:36 PM

correct. Okay, so we'll have revenue streaming into this county sooner if we don't fool around with this and hopefully DOGGR just does the right thing for us But I think it's just ill-advised to go off on these meetings. I also agree with Supervisor Labanino that it creates maybe unreasonable expectations.

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role6:37:12 · ≈ 3:37 PM

Supervisor Wolf and Supervisor Farr?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed6:37:15 · ≈ 3:37 PM

Thank you, Mr. Chair. You know for me it's pretty clear cut we have the MOU in place. It was written With the understanding that having public input was important. And I mean everything is pretty well spelled out in the procedures and I'm not even sure, I mean I'm glad Supervisor Farr wants to move in this direction but the way it's set out it sounds like we'll go ahead and have this workshop or whatever you want to call it.

I don't think it's a bad thing to do. And you know, I would also like to address the issue of income to the county. Has anyone figured out what we would get in income for the county? Because when we had this discussion before with...I think what we understood was that we were getting property taxes The increased property taxes and I think Mr. Armendariz said hundreds of thousands or millions, and it would be good I think to Have some idea what?

What revenue that the county would see from this because I don't think it's as much as everyone seems to profess we're not getting you know you look at the The chart in here about the billions of gallons that are coming from this other field, and we're not getting anything from that. I would just be interested, maybe just as a memorandum to let us know. And maybe you can ask Joe Holland to help you with that. What would be the difference, the financial benefit to the county? But regarding the issue at hand, I think Supervisor Farley, I'm in concurrence. I think we should move forward as we have this agreement in place and we should move forward with it.

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role6:39:19 · ≈ 3:39 PM

Supervisor Farley and Adam, I started Working January 1993. The majority then was Willie Chamberlain, Tim Staffel and Mike Stoker. And I only say that because you would think that it was a different majority who went into this NYU. That was the majority in place when we adopted. This doesn't make any right or wrong. I'm just putting up more to let you know that it's...I don't think the intent was to slow anything down I think that what I'm hearing from Supervisor Farr and staff is it's just in light of this agreement, it's just really providing an informational meeting.

I think we are hearing today that it's not going to make a difference one way or the other. But if it's on principle, for principle we could talk about all day long. If there was an application, I think then it would make sense that we could be slowing something down but I just don't see it that way. I tell you my constituents, if there was an MOU like this and my constituents wanted information I would be doing everything possible to make sure they got that information. So, that's why I'm also supportive of Supervisor Farr's desire to do this.

Supervisor Feld and Supervisor Adam and Supervisor

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.786:40:39 · ≈ 3:40 PM

Lavanieux. Can I jump in just real quick on that? I just want to say isn't the MOU state that we have to do this within 30 days? I mean, we keep talking about this MOU.

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role6:40:47 · ≈ 3:40 PM

Notice.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.786:40:48 · ≈ 3:40 PM

It just says it has to be noticed within 30 days. We have to respond in 30 days.

CommentJoe HollandProposed6:40:56 · ≈ 3:40 PM

Okay. It does say that we need to respond in 30 days.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed6:41:01 · ≈ 3:41 PM

Mr. Chair, I'll go ahead and move staff's recommended actions.

6:41 – 6:5320 turns

CommentReid BrewerProposed6:41:08 · ≈ 3:41 PM

Further discussion? Well, I'm just going to say that again it's not about the permit that may be pending today. It's the permit that somebody is waiting for this line to get moved so they can go out there and already drill in there It's not like it's going to hurt anything. They're already there. They're just going to move over a few hundred feet and do another one.

And we have a $17 million deficit now, and every little bit helps. Don't tell me it's just a little bit. That property tax is what we live on. That's our oxygen. So I assume that when the property gets changed in character, we're going to have an appraisal on the value and they're going to start paying property tax on the oil that's residing underneath that.

Supervisor Lavaniello and

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role6:42:05 · ≈ 3:42 PM

Supervisor Wolf?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed6:42:06 · ≈ 3:42 PM

Okay.

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role6:42:07 · ≈ 3:42 PM

Supervisor Wolf?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed6:42:09 · ≈ 3:42 PM

I'm done too.

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role6:42:11 · ≈ 3:42 PM

If we could just, all those in favor? Aye. Opposed? No. Abstentions? 3-2 All right we will now

move on to item number four if you could read the item Mr. Clark

CommentRoblar WineryProposed · by introduction6:42:29 · ≈ 3:42 PM

Chair Carbajal, members of the board. Item four is some community services and planning and development. It's inherent to consider recommendations regarding options to allocate fees collected from the Miramar project to mitigate the loss of low-cost visitors serving overnight accommodations in the coastal zone. Staff?

PresenterCEO Waller YouProposed6:42:48 · ≈ 3:42 PM

Ms. Black.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 14Proposed6:42:49 · ≈ 3:42 PM

Yes, Mr. Chair, members of the board. The purpose of this agenda item is to consider options for allocating the $1,395,000 fee Collected from the developer of the Miramar project and for the board to provide staff with direction as to its use. Just to provide a brief background, the Miramar project was approved by your board on March 15, 2011. A condition of that approval, Condition 81, required the applicant to pay a mitigation fee to the county.

The intent of Condition 81 is for the county to use funds to establish new lower-cost visitor serving accommodations such as cabins, tent and yurt sites and or bicycle campsites at the county's Halama Beach Park located in the coastal zone of Santa Barbara County. The use of the funds are not limited to the Halama location, but could be used to establish lower-cost visitor serving accommodations elsewhere in the coastal zone. The funds were paid by the applicant on April 3rd 2012 and they must be expended within 10 years.

Staff has identified several approaches for use of the mitigation dollars. These include funding a project which meets the intent of the condition to be located on county-owned lands, holding the funds for allocation at a future date or funding a project which meets the intent of the condition to be located on lands owned by another public agency such as the City of Santa Barbara or the State of California.

Staff recommends that the funds be allocated for use at Halama Beach Park. There are few overnight accommodations in the North County and few opportunities to expand low-cost accommodations in the South County beach parks. Approximately five to seven new cabin yurt sites could be developed within the existing Halama facility along with associated restroom, shower and access improvements.

Therefore staff recommends that your board determine to fund a project meeting the intent of the condition language to be located on county-owned lands and ask that staff return with project options for the board's consideration and determine the action is not a project pursuant to CEQA. That concludes Staff's presentation and there are a number of staff here available if the board has any questions.

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role6:45:11 · ≈ 3:45 PM

Do we have any public speakers, Mr. Allen?

CommentRoblar WineryProposed · by introduction6:45:14 · ≈ 3:45 PM

We have one request to speak from Mr. Armendariz and Senator Moriarty.

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role6:45:17 · ≈ 3:45 PM

Why don't we go to Mr. Armandariz and then we'll bring him back to the board.

PresenterJoe ArmendarizSanta Barbara County Taxpayers AssociationProposedself-stated6:45:28 · ≈ 3:45 PM

Thank you Supervisor Carbajal, members of the board. Once again I'm Joe Armendariz representing Santa Barbara County Taxpayers Association. You know, look I appreciate and I think Supervisor Carbajal you know that the Taxpayers Association has been in support of what you're doing out there in your district. And we believe at the end of the day that anything you can do to incentivize the formation of hotels and these type of projects will on a net basis benefit the county taxpayers, benefit the county in terms of revenue and that type of thing but I just have to say You know, this to me seems like one of the most cynical abuses of power I've seen in a long time.

The premise would seem to need to be rejected here. A, how is it that the construction of the Miramar by definition means that the loss of 5-7 low cost visitor serving opportunities goes away and therefore 1.3 million dollars of fees are I can't imagine that it's going to make any meaningful difference whatsoever. But again, I think it really speaks to the fact that from an economic model we misunderstand consistently that fees and taxes and regulations are what are driving up the cost of business. Driving up the cost of living and by definition making it less possible for people to either have Affordable visitor opportunities, affordable housing.

More jobs whether we're talking about raising minimum wages which is the cost of labor. So please be mindful of the fact that even well intended decisions Such as this tend to become part of the problem in terms of government making the private sector more expensive and creating barriers to opportunity, which is hopefully what we all want. Is an opportunity society for our residents and constituents and taxpayers? Thank you.

not transcribed≈22s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role6:48:01 · ≈ 3:48 PM

Thank you Mr. Armendariz. Back to our board. You know I'll start off. I think the recommendation by staff is a good one to consider Halama. I do think though that there's really no other place in the coastal zone, in the unincorporated area that would even come close to competing with Another viable option. The only option that I've thought of, and I've had a conversation with Mr. Kelly who owns the new hostel which was part of mitigation, I believe is part of the Fess Parker second project. And that went pretty much into foreclosure or almost into foreclosure and Mr. Kelly Was able to salvage that and still build it within the intent of what the mitigation was supposed to be.

I'm just wondering if that might lend itself to another opportunity to build upon that low cost visitor serving model and expand that as a possibility as well. I don't know if it would even be feasible, what concept might be available? But I have spoken to him and he is interested in exploring possibilities. And I think it would be good to consider both of these efforts.

Anyways, that's something that I like to just put forth. Mr.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.786:49:47 · ≈ 3:49 PM

Lavinino? Thank you, Mr. Chair. Are these cabins proposed at Halama? Would they be for rental? Okay so they'd be generating revenue coming into the county. How are we doing on our rental cabins like at Kachuma or other places?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 21Proposed6:50:03 · ≈ 3:50 PM

Supervisor Laminino, Chair and members of the board. We are doing in my opinion very well at Halama. We run at about 85% capacity up at Halama. We do see a big dive in the winter months at Kachuma. And then those numbers come back up in early spring, summer and then fall. But we're doing, we are doing well at Halama Rock.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.786:50:29 · ≈ 3:50 PM

I mean I don't know your project at all Supervisor Carbajal because it wasn't spelled out at all but I mean I would much rather and to Mr. Armendariz I totally agree with you but this was a this is one of those things it was Mr. Caruso signed off on and the money's there so you know I'm gonna put it in where I think is the most intelligent place to put it And for my money, I don't know your project and I don't know if it's a revenue creator or not. But I think placing five to seven cabins of the llama sounds like a great idea to me. I mean, I have people all the time from Santa Maria that want to go out there and camp and do those types of things.

Access that we have in the North County to a north county beach. So without surf and You know Guadalupe Beach is closed quite a bit so I think it's a great I want to go with staff recommendation unless we heard more about I was

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role6:51:28 · ≈ 3:51 PM

just proposing that we have a conversation and see if it's worth pursuing any concepts With that particular individual, you know if we do have a downtime in the winter. Would it be possible to look at some conceptual possibilities that would lend themselves to expanding upon that low-cost visitor project? So that, and obviously I don't know the answer to the possibility of also revenue sharing with TOT. It's in the city so I don't know what that would look like. I'm just requesting that we allow for a conversation to take place.

And again, I'm inclined to also be very supportive Our county investment in Halama, but I think I would be remiss if I didn't really ask us to at least explore some possibility and innovative concept with that particular development an individual. Mr. Adam?

not transcribed≈10s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
CommentReid BrewerProposed6:52:48 · ≈ 3:52 PM

Thank you. I just had to say first of all when I read this thing, you know, I didn't know anything about this and I read this thing it felt like I had to take a shower afterwards. You know this thing is Mr. Armendariz really described it accurately. It's quite extortive and abusive I think. However, that being said Caruso agreed to the condition and I think I'd like to make a motion at this time to just adopt this thing as it's presented.

6:53 – 6:5914 turns

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.786:53:30 · ≈ 3:53 PM

Can I make a comment? Thank you, Mr. Chair. Supervisor Lavanino. Mr. Parker have we ever taken a look at Point Sal and I know it's a...I don't know how much property we have out there. I know it's state, I believe it's the State Park. Have we ever taken a look at putting some maybe campsites out there on the bluff or cabins in that area or has that even been discussed at all?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 21Proposed6:53:59 · ≈ 3:53 PM

Chair Carbor-Hall, Supervisor Lavinino and Board. We haven't looked at it in particular for putting cabins or yurts or other camping sites out there, no. Okay. We have evaluated in terms of land and what we own out there. We've recently in fact done that but in terms of evaluating specifically for camping, we have not done that yet. Okay,

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role6:54:18 · ≈ 3:54 PM

Supervisor Wolf then Supervisor Adam then Supervisor Farr.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed6:54:23 · ≈ 3:54 PM

Thank you, Mr. Chair. So I think I've counted four times today when I've heard the word extortion and you know, I think that these are agreements that have been made and this particular one came from the Coastal Commission in working with Mr. Caruso I appreciate what Mr. Carbajal said about the other option, but I also feel that the Halama Beach opportunity is kind of calling out for us and I think also having the opportunity to upgrade the restrooms and the showers and access improvements is huge And the way I look at this is that we're going to be renovating a much needed area at Halama.

And I think this is a great opportunity for us and for the Parks Department. We don't have a budget, do you have any idea about The allocation of funds. If there is money that's left over, is there an opportunity to look at other options such as the one that Supervisor Carbajal mentioned?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 21Proposed6:55:40 · ≈ 3:55 PM

Chair Carbajal, Supervisor Wolf, members of the board, it's something we can look at as we go through the process. We think that we'll be spending a majority of it at this site if this project moves forward but we can look at that as we move forward,

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed6:55:51 · ≈ 3:55 PM

yeah. How much does each yurt

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 21Proposed6:55:53 · ≈ 3:55 PM

cost? Members of the Board, the yurts run approximately 60 to 65 thousand but when you tie in restroom facilities, showers, access roads, site work and solve costs we're very close to the 1.4.

not transcribed≈9s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed6:56:15 · ≈ 3:56 PM

Okay, so access. It definitely needs it out there. Another question I have is that there was an issue with the reservation system out at Halama? Mr. Geis is here. Is that all taken care of?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 21Proposed6:56:31 · ≈ 3:56 PM

Supervisor Wolf, Chair Carber-Hall and members of the board. We have been working on the implementation of our reservation system and we have installed that system at Kachuma. It is up and it is running and we are looking forward to going live at Halama in March.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed6:56:51 · ≈ 3:56 PM

So you don't think there's going to be much money left over? Supervisor

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role6:57:00 · ≈ 3:57 PM

Wolf, this was just a conceptual discussion and certainly I don't have any particulars. had an opportunity to move this sub-concept forward. All I was asking was for a conversation, but the rest of them can support the Halama investment. I just think that aside from this extraordinary opportunity in Halama, again, this is a hostel that's on the border of the first and second district.

When you think of low-cost visitor serving, you can think of yurts and cabins. And it's a great opportunity for families and individuals. But also people want to come visit the coast. And they shouldn't just be relegated to isolated beach area. This is an urban... When you think of Santa Barbara County, you think of Santa Barbara. And I just thought it would be worth exploring some possibility but...

not transcribed≈9s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed6:58:02 · ≈ 3:58 PM

Having a low cost opportunity in... Not everybody. In Santa Barbara, we don't have a lot of low cost opportunities in Santa Barbara. What were you going to say Ms. Black?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 14Proposed6:58:15 · ≈ 3:58 PM

Mr. Chair, I did not have an opportunity to talk to Mr. Kelly However, I did they have the opportunity to walk by the hostel it's constructed So my concern is I'm not sure you could squeeze any additional Bed spaces in that area and I don't think you can use this money for operations so I don't know if if it's a practical Solution but we could certainly Have that conversation with mr. Kelly

CommentCEO WallerProposed6:58:42 · ≈ 3:58 PM

C.O.R.? Chairman, I was just going to indicate that our proposal today and if your board adopts it Halama would mean that we would do a little bit more refinement on our costs and our plans and come back to your board so perhaps there may be some additional funds that you would wish to consider in the future again you're not really giving us permission today to go forward all we'll be doing is coming back to you with some additional costs and a plan

6:59 – 7:0314 turns

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role6:59:15 · ≈ 3:59 PM

Supervisor Adam and then Supervisor Farr.

CommentReid BrewerProposed6:59:18 · ≈ 3:59 PM

Let me just make you feel a little bit better about the investment in Hwama. Hwama was 88% occupied in December, and it was 94.4 in the last six months so it really gets a lot of use and it's really full and they can use some extra facilities. And on the other side Point Sal It has no water, no power and access issues. And you know it's really, it would be extremely tough.

Yeah well you can go there and do that right now. So I think that would be an extremely tough and expensive proposition to put those things up there at Point Sal. Don't you think?

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role7:00:02 · ≈ 4:00 PM

Ms. Black and then Supervisor Farr. You were going to say something.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 14Proposed7:00:05 · ≈ 4:00 PM

Mr. Chair, I was just going to direct the board back to the recommendation. The recommendation actually isn't for the board to decide today finally that the money would be spent at Halam. It was really do you want the staff to pursue spending the money on county-owned land? And it looks likely that Halam would be the most appropriate choice and then we would come back with additional details for your boards consideration.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed7:00:34 · ≈ 4:00 PM

But we could give you direction today to move forward with Halama just to take care of that one step for you.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 14Proposed7:00:42 · ≈ 4:00 PM

Mr. Chairman and Supervisors, I think it would be better to keep it a bit more general because we've not analyzed the specific details of a project at Halama so that's why we framed the recommendation the way we did.

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role7:00:57 · ≈ 4:00 PM

That's right, we forgot about that environmental review. Supervisor Farr?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed7:01:01 · ≈ 4:01 PM

Thank you Mr. Chair. You know I've appreciated the discussion and first of all I think it's important to remember that this wasn't a condition that came through the County Planning Commission, this was through discussions with the California Coastal Commission so you know I think that while it's not normally the way perhaps our process would have worked, I'm certainly happy to have the money And be able to use it for, you know, new low cost visitor serving accommodations.

Obviously, Halama's in my district and I'd be very partial to that as the use for it. I guess Supervisor Carbajal, you know, my concern is that the language specifically says Establish new lower cost visitor serving accommodations. So you know what Ms Black says, if it's already constructed and there isn't room to add to it then it would appear that it would be difficult to use this money in the way that the condition language is written.

for the hostel. And if the hostel hadn't been built, then perhaps that might have been an option to explore. I also appreciate the comments about Point Sal. I thought about Point Sal, I thought about Guadalupe Dunes. We are looking at ways that we can improve access there for the public in both those areas in the future But we're just not there yet, and so there's no opportunity right now to be able to use the money. I think the way it needs to be used now in those areas. So Halam is the one that I keep coming back to as well. And of course in order to be able to use the money to increase the county's revenue generating ability as it has would be, I think really good.

So I'm in favor of staff's recommendation and while I think it's tempting to go ahead and try to put Halama in there, I think it's probably best to take staff's recommendation the way it is.

CommentReid BrewerProposed7:03:01 · ≈ 4:03 PM

Well, I'll second it having already made the motion myself.

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role7:03:05 · ≈ 4:03 PM

Motion has been made and seconded to give direction to focus our resources on a Halama project

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed7:03:15 · ≈ 4:03 PM

No, I'm sorry Mr. Chair just

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role7:03:17 · ≈ 4:03 PM

this recommendation on

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed7:03:20 · ≈ 4:03 PM

county owned land.

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role7:03:21 · ≈ 4:03 PM

Sounds good for discussion not having any all those in favor aye opposed abstentions it passes unanimously. I didn't have a chance to work on it further or else I might have brought something more concrete but in light of the circumstances That's true. We will move on now to the next item, if you could read the item Mr. Clark?

7:03 – 7:1012 turns

CommentRoblar WineryProposed · by introduction7:03:48 · ≈ 4:03 PM

Item number five is from the County Executive Office and the Auditor-Controller. It's a hearing to receive and file per the provisions of Government Code section 29126.2 fiscal year 2012-13 financial status report as of December 31st showing the status of appropriations in financing for all departmental budgets adopted by the board

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 12Proposed7:04:10 · ≈ 4:04 PM

Thank

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role7:04:11 · ≈ 4:04 PM

you. Mr. Alvarez?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 12Proposed7:04:13 · ≈ 4:04 PM

Good afternoon, Chair Carbajal and members of the board. Today's presentation is the county's second quarter financial review and it's a joint presentation of the CEO and auditor controllers offices. The purpose of this presentation is to highlight positive and negative operating results versus the county's budget. Our criteria is variances of $300,000 for general fund departments and $500,000 variances for these special revenue and other funds.

We'll also clarify timing versus non-timing variances and potential impacts on fund balances. The presentation consists of seven elements. We start with an overview of the county's performance in the general and special revenue funds, then we use the signal chart as a visual representation of funds' performance either positive or negative against budget. Next we'll review general fund issues and variances by department and category of expense.

This is followed by a look at the general revenues. We'll then review special revenue and other funds. Based on the items discussed, an adjusted projected financial summary will be reviewed. And this considers timing differences and unbudgeted revenues. Finally we'll conclude with a summary of key issues. The first quarter financial status report overview. The board letter included two financial summaries attachment A Attachment A was the general funds and attachment B was special revenue and other funds.

The general fund is the chief operating fund of the county. Special revenue and other funds are typically used when revenues are provided for specific purposes, for example gasoline tax used for road maintenance or specific funding for food stamp programs. The general fund departments are projected to be positive $80,000. This is attachment These funds performed on target against budget. However, County Council is projecting negative year-end results of $1.1 million partially offset by the Ag Commissioner with projected favorable variance of $538,000. These departments will be discussed in more detail when we look at the departmental variances.

General revenues within the general fund are effectively on target, including positive $1.4 million variance in received but not budgeted one-time RDA dissolution proceeds. This is partially offset by lower property tax related revenues from the final 1112 property tax roll which originally was thought to be 1.5 million negative and is now looking like 1.1 million negative.

Special revenue and other funds Excluding timing differences, all major special revenue funds are on target with the exception of public health. Public health as described in the last quarter's report was impacted by fewer Medi-Cal services and increasing mix of clients without insurance. We again will use the signal chart to give a quick visual of the performance of the various funds against budget.

There are a total of 68 funds followed. The general fund departments are in the top left section. As a reminder, green indicates that it's tracking to budget. Yellow indicates it's a significant variance either positive or negative. Red indicates that it's expected to end the year in a materially negative position. 63 funds are showing green results. Three are positive yellow, one is negative yellow, one is red. So 66 of the 68 funds followed are showing positive results or 97% of those funds followed.

As we look at variances within the general fund, we're going to look at them two ways. We'll look at them first by department and then we're gonna look at them by category of expense or revenue item. This first one is by department. Overall, the general fund is on budget and showing a positive $80,000 variance. As we previously mentioned, county council is showing a negative $1.1 million variance. And it's comprised of reduced overhead rate which is applied to services primarily provided to risk management.

Average recent historic overhead rates for county council were about 45% per year with a true up after the year is completed. For fiscal 10-11, the targeted overhead rate was 64%, which was much higher than usual. As it turned out with cost reductions and so forth there was a much lower rate. So what we're seeing in 12-13 is that the rate dropped to 6.6% as a result of this true up.

And the impact of this to their billing to primarily risk management was a loss of revenue of about $680,000. In 13-14, this overhead rate we're anticipating will come back to about 12. Excuse

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role7:09:08 · ≈ 4:09 PM

me Mr.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 12Proposed7:09:08 · ≈ 4:09 PM

Alvarez,

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role7:09:08 · ≈ 4:09 PM

Supervisor

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 12Proposed7:09:09 · ≈ 4:09 PM

Wolff?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed7:09:09 · ≈ 4:09 PM

I think I hit my switch too quickly. Why don't you finish your sentence because you might be answered. I'm sorry Supervisor Carball.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 12Proposed7:09:16 · ≈ 4:09 PM

That's okay. So what we saw in 12-13 is the net rate was reduced to 6.6 from an average of about 40. As we look forward, we're projecting that 13-14 will come in at about 21% overhead. So increasing over the current year but not to what the average had been and as we project out to 14-15 our current estimate is it'll come back to about a 40% rate.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed7:09:39 · ≈ 4:09 PM

Okay so I do have a question then Mr. Alvarez. Did you say the difference in the support to risk management was $600,000?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 12Proposed7:09:48 · ≈ 4:09 PM

So as a result of the rate change, so when they bill out their services all their direct charges are recovered and then on top of that they apply an overhead rate. So you can imagine an overhead rate of 60% or even 45%, the average would be much more significant than 6% on all the time that is spent on the general liability and the workers comp claims.

7:10 – 7:1622 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed7:10:14 · ≈ 4:10 PM

I'm sorry, did not get what you just

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 12Proposed7:10:15 · ≈ 4:10 PM

said.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed7:10:17 · ≈ 4:10 PM

Can you restate that?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 12Proposed7:10:18 · ≈ 4:10 PM

Yes, so County Council provides services to departments when they bill special revenue or other funds they bill their time and they're reimbursed for those costs And so in this case, they direct bill these services. So if they're billing to risk management, they'll charge all their time and on top of that, they'll apply an overhead rate for management supervision, administrative support and so forth. And so that rate has historically been about 45%.

So as a result of this change, they lost out on about 680,000 of the recoupment of admin overhead costs Okay, so they billed their direct costs which were significant but they did not obtain...they obtained hardly any overhead or reimbursement because of the payback of the 10-11 year. In addition to that, I'll throw in one more and you tell me if you want me to go back. In addition to that, their actual billing for direct services was also lower than normal and the impact of that was about $350,000. So the risk management funds will get less of a bill this year from county council

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed7:11:26 · ≈ 4:11 PM

That just seems really significant to me. Just the 300,000. Why is that? I mean maybe it's a good thing we just don't have as many cases?

CommentPat AbelProposed · by introduction7:11:37 · ≈ 4:11 PM

That's part of it. I think part of it has been a continuing effort to handle our cases more efficiently but there's also been a drain from resources From our Risk Management Litigation Unit into General Fund litigation, which is not reimbursable. So it's been a combination of factors. We have had more pressure to redirect resources to keep other general fund operations going and that's necessarily decreased our billable hours to risk management.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed7:12:09 · ≈ 4:12 PM

Is that at all related to our move of risk management into the CEO's office? No, not at all. Or it has nothing to do with that? No not at

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 12Proposed7:12:18 · ≈ 4:12 PM

all. Okay. Supervisor Wolf through the board, through the chair excuse me there was a change when we switched to Corvell so as we have the claims administration done by Corvell they're now providing the county council service or rather the attorney services for the new claims I would have thought that we would have

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed7:12:39 · ≈ 4:12 PM

incorporated that into the budget. Mr.

PresenterCEO Waller YouProposed7:12:48 · ≈ 4:12 PM

Alvarez, we can hear you down here.

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role7:12:52 · ≈ 4:12 PM

Just wanted to let you know. If somebody could turn off that microphone up there, that would be great. Please proceed, Mr. Alvarez? Can I interrupt for just a second, Mr. Chair?

CommentReid BrewerProposed7:13:05 · ≈ 4:13 PM

Sure. Was there an event or something that required the reduction of the rate of the overhead billing? The rate is

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 12Proposed7:13:15 · ≈ 4:13 PM

estimated at the beginning of the year and so an estimated rate is used. There were reductions in overhead costs during that period and then a true up is done after the year is closed. So you had less overhead. You had a higher than normal rate that was used in that year. And the combination of the two resulted in this catch up or true up of the rate change.

CommentReid BrewerProposed7:13:43 · ≈ 4:13 PM

OK, so it went from 45% billing for overhead down to 6%. Is that what I understand?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 12Proposed7:13:52 · ≈ 4:13 PM

It went from an average of about 45%, and then in 10-11, it increased to 65%. And then it came back down. That rate was too high, and it actually was lower than the 40. And so when the true up occurred, it went down significantly in the following year to 6.6%. That just

CommentReid BrewerProposed7:14:10 · ≈ 4:14 PM

seems like a wild variance.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 12Proposed7:14:13 · ≈ 4:14 PM

It is and that is the process that the county has been following. I think just prior to that 10-11 there was more, I think County Council did more direct billing and I think that may have impacted this somewhat as well but this is the process it's gone through and the true up of the rates Normally I look back about 12 years. Mr.

PresenterCEO Waller YouProposed7:14:37 · ≈ 4:14 PM

Alvarez, I'm going to ask Mr.

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role7:14:39 · ≈ 4:14 PM

Marshall if he wants to answer that? I did notice his eyes kind of perking up and I'm not sure that he agrees with that so...

CommentPat AbelProposed · by introduction7:14:48 · ≈ 4:14 PM

The answering the question that Supervisor Wolf had yes we had already accounted for the reduction in work with workers' compensation, and that was factored into our budget. We dropped over the last two-and-a-half years we had incrementally reduced FTEs now to essentially 1.3 or 1.4 FTEs that work on workers' comp and workers' comp related issues. And I'm sorry if you saw something in my face, the overhead calculation is somewhat mysterious But as I understand, it's all tied in with the cost allocation.

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role7:15:28 · ≈ 4:15 PM

It's part of a cost allocation

CommentPat AbelProposed · by introduction7:15:29 · ≈ 4:15 PM

formula. That's my understanding and we had estimated 40%. We thought we were being conservative, but the actual number that we calculated after the beginning of the fiscal year came in at about 6.5, 6.7, which accounts for not that significant amount of reduction in time or effort, but in the amount that we get reimbursed for that time. But on top of that deficit there was a reduction of time spent billing for the first half of the year, spent billing for risk management liability services And that's accounted for A, because the cases were down and because we also had to squeeze resources to handle more general fund litigation. Some of which started as risk management litigation which was billable then as we got the federal civil rights actions removed then it did not become billable but the work continued.

7:16 – 7:2111 turns

CommentCEO WallerProposed7:16:29 · ≈ 4:16 PM

Wow, this can really get complicated. I think that the important piece to understand is this is really just accounting. The cost that county council expended didn't change it was a matter of that it was overestimated when time came to true it up we discovered that which resulted in then the following year being really really low and then future years will balance out at that 45% or around there

CommentReid BrewerProposed7:16:55 · ≈ 4:16 PM

Well, I would just think that somebody would want to cut it in half maybe and not go. I mean even if the calculation led you to the conclusion that you should move it down to 6.6%, when you're in the 40-60 plus range, I would think somebody would say well let's not do that. Let's just go to 20% this year and see how it works out or something. That's just me.

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role7:17:22 · ≈ 4:17 PM

Please proceed Mr. Alvarez?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 12Proposed7:17:26 · ≈ 4:17 PM

Okay, so we had discussed the County Council as being one of the departments that has significant variance. The next one that's partially offsetting this negative variance is the Agriculture Commissioner. They had a positive variance of $538,000 and that was comprised of the device and scanner increased revenues of about $400,000, and federal revenues of about $180,000 for pest detection contract.

General revenues, so when we talk about revenues for the county, general revenues are a department within the county and they capture things like TOT, property taxes and so forth. And then in addition to that within the general fund departments will have departmental revenue as well. So we'll be talking about general revenues and then also talking about departmental revenues separately. So general revenues were seeing that those had a positive variance of $177,000 And this includes items that have either been received or budgeted to this point in time.

And so the couple things that we want to talk about here is that property taxes are negative $1.1 million, as we previously mentioned. The 11-12 tax roll was overestimated which resulted in a higher than is coming true budget for this year. We originally thought that was going to be about 1.5 million negative to the 12-13 year. It's now looking like that's coming in at about 1.1 million negative, so it's picked up a little bit. We're also seeing that property transfer taxes are also coming in positive at about 400,000.

Other items to mention are the RDA distribution proceeds. These would be the one-time funds, we have received the housing funds that were not budgeted of 1.4 million so those are included in attachment A and also TOT as mentioned last quarter as well is coming in lower than projected and TOT and sales tax were both impacted by a couple things. One, the growth rate is not as high as we had been seeing in the prior year And then also with the change in the Goleta Neutrality Agreement, based on those two elements the projections were a little bit high.

So overall the ending amount at this point through the second quarter is favorable $177,000 for general revenues and that's for the department. Supervisor Wolf.

not transcribed≈11s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed7:19:48 · ≈ 4:19 PM

Thank you, Mr. Chair. But Mr. Alvarez when the budget was put together we knew that that Goleta revenue neutrality would go into effect so that should have already been taken into account. So was it just that we estimated more of the remaining amount? That we just estimated to more TOT than we actually got?

CommentDavid Daniel DiazProposed · by introduction7:20:13 · ≈ 4:20 PM

Chairman Carball, Supervisor Wolf I'd like to answer that. When we reset the base around January last year, we with auditor's office just didn't take enough off the base. The TOT I think off the top of my head was about 7.5 million last year The Glida piece was about a million and a half, and we should have reduced our base to six million. Instead I think we only reduced it to 6.6 million, and then we put a growth factor on top of that. So we just did not when we were doing... We were in the throes of really getting a lot of TOT and kind of had new staff in that area, and we just didn't get the base right.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed7:20:53 · ≈ 4:20 PM

Okay so you did take it into account

CommentDavid Daniel DiazProposed · by introduction7:20:56 · ≈ 4:20 PM

but just... Not the million and half.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed7:20:59 · ≈ 4:20 PM

Okay thank you. Supervisor Adam.

CommentReid BrewerProposed7:21:02 · ≈ 4:21 PM

I just had a question on this Agricultural Commissioner office being $537,000 high so they're making money on this Inspection of the scanners.

CommentCEO WallerProposed7:21:20 · ≈ 4:21 PM

Supervisor, Chair, as you will recall that program was actually made a part of last year's budget but because the fees weren't actually enacted at that time we didn't begin hiring staff until after the fees were approved so what you're saying is a one-time Please proceed. OK, on to the next slide, the general fund by category. General revenues such as property tax and TOT are department, as we discussed within the general fund and have been discussed.

not transcribed≈14s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen

7:22 – 7:346 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 12Proposed7:22:06 · ≈ 4:22 PM

All other departmental revenue within the general fund, for instance the Sheriff in Probations Prop 172, County Council's charges for services and so forth are departmental revenues. And those are trending negative $1.8 million dollars. We've already discussed the million dollar component of that being within county council, the balance of 800 thousand is largely due to AB 109 revenues. So in 11-12, we had included some one time elements as well as the ongoing amounts of AB 109 and as we look at 12-13 those were impacting the projected amounts and so the amount of budget that we've got in this year's a little bit high on the AB 10 9 however there are fund balances remaining in that and we're aligning expenditures in line with the available resources there

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role7:22:56 · ≈ 4:22 PM

Mr. Alvarez before you continue, I can't recall but somebody brought to my attention and it made me go back and dig a little bit. But if CO Waller and Mr. Geist could bring us back some more information when we did the property tax reallocation recently for fire. I know that some of the public safety departments asked us to then back out the 172 and divvy it up amongst them, that initially was going to fire but if I recall correctly when 172 was modified the last time around As similar to what we did this time, the general fund backfilled the rest of those public safety departments back then.

What I'm trying to say is that now, that money that was being realized in light of the 172 that is not going to become available because of the property methodology reconfiguration. That money should be going back to the general fund. I'll discuss this with you guys offline but it just...I just realized Those departments were made whole back when that 172 money was given to the fire departments.

So from the general fund, so now that It's, they got double dipping into that, the resources from the general fund. Anyways it just dawned on me you guys may want to look at that because if we look historically there might be some general fund money coming back to us.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 12Proposed7:24:41 · ≈ 4:24 PM

Chair Carbajal as you may recall when we came with our budget principles and our policies of the allocation what we're doing now with increased in revenues such as 172 Those are being used to fund increases in salary and benefit costs and so forth by the department prior to giving additional general fund contributions. So we're now taking that into account, and so that is happening. And there were a lot of pluses and minuses within all the different revenue sources but AB 172 Revenue is running ahead of target this year by about $1 million and is projected to increase in 13-14 and 14-15.

Next, we'll talk about general fund expenditures by category. These are showing favorable $3.7 million and they reflect continued cost control efforts primarily in hiring and filling vacancies which resulted in 2.9 million dollars in savings from salaries and benefits and services supplies was also favorable by about 690 thousand dollars The county's discretionary general revenues are key to meeting the budget and this slide was added, it's new from last time, to update the board and the public on general revenue performance against budget.

This schedule is a projection through the end of the year and includes estimates for unanticipated, unbudgeted items as well as what our current projections are. So unlike attachment A and attachment B that are really based on items that have been either received or budgeted at this point, this would include our current estimates of things that perhaps aren't budgeted at this time. So what we're seeing with property taxes is that they're running behind schedule. We've grouped them into this top line, they're showing the negative $556,000 and I'll just remind you again that the original projection was because of the 11-12 tax roll that we would be negative a million and a half on this line. We made up some ground as I said it's running at about 1.1 negative but we also have the favorable property transfer tax reducing that Next we have the RDA one-time dissolution proceeds.

We're projecting at $4.1 million. This has the housing and the other elements from the RDAs. $1.4 million has been received thus far this year for the housing element, and the 1.4 is included in Attachment A but the balance is not so this would indicate the additional amount that we are seeing there. Ongoing RDA tax distribution. So an ongoing amount was unknown when we did the budget last year, and we budgeted about a million-and-a-half dollars or $1.6 million. And we're now projecting these to be $4.2 million. So that's giving us a favorable variance here of about $2.6 million.

Next, the fire transfer. I've included this line in other reports I'll be presenting if we look at anything historically. We want to break this piece out separately so that we can see what is the true trend of our property tax revenues and it doesn't get muddied with the fire transfer. Sales tax and TOT were impacted by the colluded neutrality as we discussed.

And this brings our total discretionary revenues within the general fund to a positive projection of 5.7 million against the budget. Next we'll look at variances within special revenue and other funds. This slide displays those significant variances which were on attachment B, and are showing a positive variance of 3.2 million dollars. As we discussed, the one negative variance within these special revenue funds is public health. They're currently projecting negative results of $727,000.

This variance is due to a negative $865,000 from a decline in Medi-Cal patient visits and we discussed this at our Q1 report as well and was partially offset by $319,000 from receipt of Medi-Cal EMR incentive revenues. The next is the Rhodes Fund, showing a positive $500,000 variance. $528,000. $455,000 of which is the result of salary and benefit savings and $100,000 in motor pool savings.

Next we have Alcohol Drug and Mental Health Services. All funds within ADMHS are projecting positive year end results. We're over

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed7:29:22 · ≈ 4:29 PM

here laughing because we're so happy to hear for the first time that ADMHS, all the funds are not in trouble. I mean it's very exciting and I know that you know what we still have other issues that were dealing with but I just wanted to put a damper on the happiness over here. Supervisor Adam, you'll find in this job that you take your moments of joy where you can. There

not transcribed≈17s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 12Proposed7:30:08 · ≈ 4:30 PM

will always be bad news sooner or later. Okay, so we share the enthusiasm but because of all the moving parts we are off very cautious as we look at our optimism here. So one more time for the record. All funds in ADMHS are projecting positive year-end results. Fund 44 had the largest variance and this is the mental health services and they're projecting a 1.1 million favorable variance due to increased state realignment of 1.4 million Increased Medi-Cal of 462,000 and these are partially offset by projected increase in inpatient costs of about 700,000. And they've seen a big spike in the last couple months in these costs and sometimes they can be seasonal and sometimes they can be ongoing so we need to continue to watch these inpatient costs.

We're awaiting the consultant's report and implementation of approved recommendations We recommend that any year-end fund balance be set aside for potential MediCal cost settlements due to the long delay in audits and closures of these years. As we continue on with the special revenue and other funds, we have the risk funds, workers' compensation and general liability funds 1911 and 1912. These are on attachment B. They display negative projected variances of $541,000 and $605,000 respectively. However these are timing differences in the receipt of revenues and are expected to correct themselves by the end of the year.

This slide shows the general fund and special revenue other funds adjusted for timing variances that we've discussed in unbudgeted revenues. The starting point is attachment A and B, which reflected positive results for attachment A or general fund of $80,000 and the special revenue and other funds of 3.2 million for a total of close to 3.3 million of combined favorable variance.

We then adjust for the RDA ongoing and one-time revenues, so that's going to add 2.6 million of ongoing RDA revenues and 2.7 million of one-time revenues. And then what we're proposing is that we set aside the RDA one-time revenues for the potential property tax administration fee liability and any potential 1314 budget restoration. A budget revision will follow when the RDA revenues are recognized. But as a reminder, the property tax administration fee was mentioned in the fiscal outlook report and this is where 47 cities in LA County brought a lawsuit against Los Angeles County regarding the calculation of these fees and the legal issue of these counties is really the flip and swap that was occurring. Can they assess these fees on that? And the issue is still not fully resolved, and it's uncertain if the assessment would be retroactive or not.

The potential annual negative amount to us in these fees is about $500,000. The one time amount of our exposure for the fiscal years 06-07 through 11-12, so the closed years is about $3.1 million. So what we're saying is if we've got this $4 million coming in from one time funds, we're suggesting to set aside 3.1 million that would leave about 1.1 million for budget restoration for 13-14 or 14-15 if need be.

Next we're going to add back the amounts for workers' compensation and general liability as these were just timing differences. So that's the adjustment of $541,000 and $605,000. And so with those adjustments what we are currently projecting is that the general fund would be positive 5.4 million if we set aside the 4.1 million for the property tax administration fee potential liability. That would leave us positive 1.3 million in the general fund.

And the special revenue funds as adjusted would be positive 4.3 million and that would leave a combined favorable variance of 5.6 million for all funds, not included the $4 million reserve for property tax administration fees.

CommentCEO WallerProposed7:34:15 · ≈ 4:34 PM

And may I be your wet blanket this time. Certainly, we are very pleased and Tom will summarize in just a moment but I want to encourage our board to recognize we're really only halfway through the year as we make these projections and we will do everything possible and appropriate to continue to make these projections reality but they are just that at this point, projections.

7:34 – 7:3812 turns

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role7:34:45 · ≈ 4:34 PM

So, thank you. Supervisor

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed7:34:47 · ≈ 4:34 PM

Wolf? Just as an observation I think it's interesting that you're putting in the proposed reserve for the PTAF as part of this slide when and I understand that we should in the back of our minds understand that we're going to need to pay that and to probably use this one time allocation for RDA but in my mind there's a lot of things that we could put in here. We just had the jail discussion And we know we're going to have to spend $3 million for the jail.

So it just seems that, you know, we're talking about where we are right now and I don't really understand why that would be in there. It's kind of like selective expenditures when we know we have others. Just an observation.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 12Proposed7:35:40 · ≈ 4:35 PM

Supervisor Wolf through the Board, through the Chair. Excuse me we're trying to it's a thought at this point we're trying to get out in front of you early so we're not surprising you down the road is this money as we record the budget revision to recognize this revenue we do have a potential liability here and where possible rather than having it going into the strategic reserve at the end of the year better to set that aside as possibly necessary and that was our thought process on this.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed7:36:05 · ≈ 4:36 PM

And thank you I appreciate that Mr. Alvarez

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 12Proposed7:36:09 · ≈ 4:36 PM

Okay in summary then, actual activity is tracking ahead of budget. General fund should end up 5.3 million positive before proposed reserve for property tax administration fee of 4.1 netting a positive 1.3 million. The signal chart is reflecting 66 of 68 funds are favorable. General revenue was over budgeted with the final tax roll of last year, but that was offset by the unbudgeted RDA related dissolution and ongoing revenues.

Departments are continuing to generate salary and benefit savings. And we continue to monitor the health funds. We are in fact with mental health as we talked about, we do look at a monthly dashboard chart with them now as well. So we're trying to keep our eye on that ball and hopefully will continue progress in that area. And this concludes our presentation and we're happy to address any questions at this time.

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role7:37:05 · ≈ 4:37 PM

Thank you, Mr. Alvarez. Back to the board. There's no public speakers on this item? Supervisor Farr?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed7:37:11 · ≈ 4:37 PM

Mr. Chair, great work, great job and again I certainly realize that these are just projections but I'm very appreciative of all of the staffs' work and all of the county departments working very hard month-to-month to stay within the budget that they have so I'm very optimistic. And like I said, really Supervisor Adam you have no idea for all the bad news we've had about mental health to have this right now is it's really, really nice to see. So we'll keep our fingers crossed that stays on track as well. Thank you. Thank you.

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role7:37:48 · ≈ 4:37 PM

We'll attribute that to, I better not

CommentReid BrewerProposed7:37:52 · ≈ 4:37 PM

say. I was going to say, well, I guess it's not that bad. Is that better?

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role7:38:01 · ≈ 4:38 PM

That is

CommentReid BrewerProposed7:38:01 · ≈ 4:38 PM

better.

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role7:38:03 · ≈ 4:38 PM

Final discussion, is there a motion to accept the report? Motion has been made and seconded. Not having further discussion all those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Abstentions? Passes unanimously I believe this concludes our day today Thank you all very much and we'll see you on March 5th Have a good evening everyone ¶.

7:39 – 7:391 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed7:39:07 · ≈ 4:39 PM

♪ ¶.