Meeting Summary
This summary was AI-generated to save you time. It may miss or misstate details, so verify against the official recording and the transcript.
At a glance
Lompoc Animal Shelter Remodel
- The item was pulled from the agenda at the request of a Supervisor.
- The administrative calendar was subsequently approved with this item excluded.
Embarcadero Enhancement Phase 2
- A speaker advocated for retaining safe parking and converting the 976 Embarcadero building into a community center.
- The speaker opposed prohibiting oversized vehicle parking, citing existing laws and resident hardship.
- The item remained on the agenda for later consideration.
Santa Barbara Jail Electronic Security Replacement Project
- County Counsel requested the addition of Recommendation E to the item.
- The recommendation cites specific Public Contract Code sections to justify waiving additional bid requirements.
- The Board accepted the addition of Recommendation E to the item.
Prohibiting Parking of Oversized Vehicles
- One scheduled speaker did not appear during the public comment period.
- The item remained on the agenda for later consideration.
Orc Community Plan 2012 Amendments
- A request was made to continue the item to June 4, 2013.
- One Supervisor recused himself from the item.
- The motion to continue the item passed unanimously.
Heritage II Apartments Multifamily Housing Revenue Bonds
- The Treasurer explained this is a TEFRA hearing required for private activity bonds, with no financial liability for the County.
- One Supervisor expressed concern about voting on the item despite the lack of liability.
- Another Supervisor provided context that the project is a second phase of existing senior housing.
- The motion to adopt the resolution approving the bond issuance passed with one vote opposed.
Long-Range Property Management Plan for Successor Agency to Former RDA
- Staff presented options for disposing of three Isla Vista properties, including retention, sale, or redevelopment.
- Nine speakers generally advocated for retaining the properties for community use, citing a lack of local services.
- The Auditor-Controller noted low current returns and maintenance risks, while staff highlighted potential long-term revenue from retention.
- The Board directed staff to study the pros and cons of retaining the properties for government use or future redevelopment.
Fiscal Year 2012-13 Budget and Financial Status Report (Third Quarter)
- The Budget Director reported a $5.5 million favorable variance in the General Fund and overall favorable tracking for 66 of 68 funds.
- Significant favorable variances were driven by RDA dissolution proceeds and Prop 172 revenues.
- The Mental Health department showed a negative variance due to a pending state settlement receivable.
- A taxpayer representative criticized the report's characterization, while other members noted the improved fiscal position compared to prior years.
- The motion to receive and file the report passed unanimously.
Lompoc Veterans Memorial Building and Civic Center
- Staff presented a revised uniform policy for managing the building, including updated event rules and insurance requirements.
- A veteran proposed additions regarding facility burden and access restrictions, which raised constitutional concerns.
- The Chair of the Veterans Services Advisory Committee requested the item be referred to the committee for input.
- The motion to adopt the recommended actions as written passed unanimously.
Northern Branch Jail Project – Consultant and Contractor Agreements
- Staff presented actions to re-execute state agreements and award contracts for architect, construction manager, and project expert services.
- A representative requested a cost analysis for solar energy integration, which staff confirmed would be provided.
- Supervisors raised concerns regarding contract language, local labor utilization, and the use of a water well.
- The Board adopted the items with conditions requiring a cost-benefit analysis for the Contractor on Payroll and specific contract amendments.
Contractor on Payroll / Staff Report
- Members discussed the inclusion of a "contractor on payroll" component for the $96 million project.
- One member requested clarification on whether the cost-benefit analysis should be excluded from current approval.
- Staff confirmed the position includes a 30-day termination provision by the county.
- The motion to proceed with the item, including the contractor on payroll component, passed unanimously.
Closed Session
- The County Council reported that all noticed closed session items were completed.
- The Board unanimously authorized a settlement of $218,312.46 in the matter of Donald Carroll v. County of Santa Barbara Workers Comp Appeals Board.
Full summary
Minutes Approval
- Action: Motion to approve the minutes of May 7th.
- Outcome: Passed unanimously.
Public Comment (General)
- Discussion: No public speakers requested to speak during the general public comment period.
Administrative Agenda
- Item A13 (Lompoc Animal Shelter Remodel):
- Action: The item was pulled from the agenda at the request of a Supervisor.
- Item A20 (Embarcadero Enhancement Phase 2):
- Public Comment: One speaker spoke in favor of retaining safe parking, maintaining the clinic at 976 Embarcadero, and converting the building at 976 Embarcadero into a community/warming center. The speaker opposed prohibiting oversized vehicle parking, citing existing laws and hardship to residents.
- Action: The item remained on the agenda for later consideration.
- Item A22 (Santa Barbara Jail Electronic Security Replacement Project):
- Discussion: County Counsel requested the addition of Recommendation E to the item. The recommendation cites California Public Contract Code Sections 20134 and 22050, finding that the security needs of the jail justify a waiver of additional bid requirements for the contract amendment and that competitive solicitation would cause impermissible delays.
- Action: The Board accepted the addition of Recommendation E to the item.
- Item A25 (Prohibiting Parking of Oversized Vehicles):
- Public Comment: One scheduled speaker did not appear.
- Action: The item remained on the agenda for later consideration.
- Administrative Calendar Approval:
- Action: Motion to approve the administrative calendar, including the pulled item A13 and the modified item A22.
- Outcome: Passed unanimously.
Departmental Agenda
- Item 1 (Orc Community Plan 2012 Amendments):
- Discussion: A request was made to continue the item to June 4, 2013. One Supervisor recused himself from this item.
- Action: Motion to continue the item to June 4, 2013.
- Outcome: Passed unanimously.
- Item 2 (Heritage II Apartments Multifamily Housing Revenue Bonds):
- Discussion: The Treasurer/Tax Collector explained that this is a TEFRA hearing required by the Internal Revenue Code to allow private activity bonds access to municipal markets. The County is not a party to the issuance and has no financial liability, though it is a member of the Joint Powers Authority (CSCDA). One Supervisor expressed concern about the encumbrance of voting on the item despite lack of liability. Another Supervisor provided context that the project is a second phase of existing senior housing in Vandenberg Village.
- Action: Motion to adopt the resolution approving the issuance of the bonds.
- Outcome: Passed (One vote opposed).
- Item 3 (Long-Range Property Management Plan for Successor Agency to Former RDA / Isla Vista Properties):
- Discussion: Staff presented the background of the RDA dissolution (AB 126 and AB 1484) and the four options for property disposition: retention for governmental use, retention for future development, sale, or use to fulfill enforceable obligations. Staff detailed three properties in Isla Vista: a parking lot, a church property, and a medical clinic property. One Supervisor recused himself from the discussion and vote regarding the medical clinic property due to his spouse’s prior employment with the tenant; the presentation was bifurcated to allow him to participate in discussions regarding the other two properties.
- Public Comment: Nine speakers addressed the Board. Speakers generally advocated for the retention of the properties (specifically the clinic and church buildings) for community use, citing a lack of available meeting space, social services, and health care facilities in Isla Vista. Speakers noted that the properties have historically served as hubs for community organizations, student groups, and health clinics. Some speakers requested that the Board consider the community's need for these spaces over potential financial gain from sale.
- Further Discussion: One Supervisor spoke in support of retaining the RDA properties in Isla Vista for government use or future redevelopment, noting the community’s high density, transit dependence, and lack of other available service locations. She highlighted that the neighborhood clinic serves over 1,000 people monthly and that selling the properties would yield only approximately $1 million to the County General Fund, whereas retaining them offers potential for long-term revenue and continued service provision. She referenced the Quiama community resource center as a model for using non-profit partnerships to offset costs.
- The Auditor-Controller provided financial context, noting that while the properties have value, they currently generate low returns relative to their assessed value (e.g., the parking lot generates $1,400/month on a $2.3 million property). He emphasized the risks of ownership, including liability for slip-and-fall incidents, and the deferred maintenance needs of the aging buildings. He stated that the properties are not currently economically viable for park use due to the loss of RDA funding but acknowledged the demand for community services.
- One Supervisor expressed support for the motion, noting the difficulty of solving parking and homelessness issues without the RDA funds. He suggested that any redevelopment should include conditions for providing new clinic facilities. He also noted that the County has been using RDA funds to improve the area and that the dissolution of the RDA shifts the focus back to services.
- One Supervisor questioned the status of the Isla Vista Master Plan, noting it was written under zoning codes not certified by the Coastal Commission. Staff explained that the Master Plan is currently being moved forward through the hearing process with the Article 2 zoning code. The Supervisor also asked about the financial implications of selling versus retaining the properties, specifically regarding the share of proceeds or revenue going to the General Fund. Staff clarified that if the County retains the properties, it maintains full control over use and revenue, whereas sale proceeds are distributed among taxing entities.
- One Supervisor asked if the study was a budgeted item; staff confirmed it was. Another Supervisor stated her support for the motion, emphasizing the responsibility of the government to provide necessary services such as medical, mental health, and social services to the Isla Vista population.
- Action: Motion to direct staff to study the pros and cons of retaining the properties for government purpose or for future redevelopment, or both.
- Outcome: Passed (One member abstained/recused).
- Item 4 (Fiscal Year 2012-13 Budget and Financial Status Report (Third Quarter)):
- Presentation: The Budget Director presented the third-quarter financial status report. Key points included:
- General Fund: Projected a $5.5 million favorable variance. This is driven by a $5.4 million favorable result in the General Revenue Department and a $1.2 million negative result in County Council (due to overhead rate changes).
- Special Revenue Funds: Projected a $7.5 million favorable variance (excluding the General Fund).
- Overall: 66 of 68 funds are tracking favorably.
- Revenue Details: General revenues are projected at $211 million, compared to an adjusted budget of $206 million. Significant favorable variances include RDA dissolution proceeds ($2.8 million one-time, $2.7 million ongoing) and Prop 172 revenues ($1.5 million). Property taxes showed a slight negative variance of $192,000, better than the previously projected $1.5 million deficit.
- Expenditures: Operating expenditures show a $4.5 million favorable variance, primarily due to salary and benefit savings.
- Mental Health: The department is projected to be $2.2 million negative due to a $4.8 million settlement with the state, of which $3.5 million is still receivable. Staff noted difficulties in collecting this amount and potential accounting implications if not received within 180 days of year-end.
- Social Services: Showed a $2.3 million favorable variance, largely due to unanticipated realignment fund growth. This allowed the County to withhold approximately $2 million in planned General Fund contributions for the fourth quarter.
- Other Funds: Favorable variances were noted in the Roads Fund, Sheriff’s Capital Projects (timing difference), Fire District, and Water Agency.
- Discussion: One Supervisor questioned why variances are calculated against the adjusted budget rather than the adopted budget. Staff explained that the adjusted budget reflects actions already taken by the Board, so the variance highlights new, unanticipated changes.
- One Supervisor asked about the status of the $3.5 million receivable from the state for mental health. County Counsel stated that administrative efforts to collect the balance have been exhausted, and the County is now demanding payment, with potential legal action if not resolved. Another Supervisor expressed concern about the mental health department’s financial position, noting that less than 50% of recorded revenue has been collected and highlighting ongoing liabilities.
- One Supervisor asked if the negative variances in property tax, sales tax, and TOT represent decreases from the prior year. Staff clarified that these areas are generally growing, but estimates were adjusted due to final tax roll changes and the exclusion of Goleta from the base.
- Public Comment: A representative of the Santa Barbara County Taxpayers Association spoke, expressing disappointment with the "positive" characterization of the report. He argued that positive variances in social services often indicate unmet needs or lack of hiring, and criticized the County for lacking an economic vision to create jobs and revenue.
- One Supervisor disagreed with the speaker, stating that the report is positive compared to past years and thanking staff for their budget management. She noted that the favorable results are largely due to RDA funds and that the County is in a better position than in previous years.
- One Supervisor commented that while the variance report is positive, the County’s overall balance sheet position, including deferred maintenance and pensions, remains a concern.
- One Supervisor agreed, noting that the third-quarter snapshot is positive but does not indicate overall fiscal soundness.
- Action: Motion to receive and file the report.
- Outcome: Passed unanimously.
- Item 5 (Lompoc Veterans Memorial Building and Civic Center):
- Presentation: General Services staff presented the item, which involves considering recommendations regarding the uniform policy for management of the Lompoc Veterans Memorial Building and Civic Center. The presentation included:
- Acknowledgment of veterans present and the work done by veteran groups and county staff on repairs.
- A request to partially rescind Resolution No. 79-101, terminate existing leases and agreements, and adopt a new resolution revising the uniform policy for management.
- Clarification that the building is used by two categories of groups: Veterans Associations (dedicated areas per Military Veterans Code) and Veterans Related Groups (assigned areas, not dedicated).
- Rules for adding or deleting groups, requiring written approval from the General Services Department.
- Photos of the building were shown.
- Discussion: Staff presented the results of negotiations between veterans organizations and General Services staff regarding the use of the Lompoc Veterans Building. Key changes to the agreement include:
- Events: Five free annual events per veterans association (previously one public dance per month).
- Insurance: Requirement for insurance certificates for events (previously none).
- Reservations: Managed by General Services (previously by the district office).
- Reporting: Annual reports updating leadership and Caltrans events (new requirement).
- Hours of Operation: Proposed Sunday–Thursday, 8:00 a.m. to 10:30 p.m., and Friday–Saturday, 8:00 a.m. to 11:30 p.m. (previously 6:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m.).
- Services: Professional janitorial and security services for events (previously handled by the county, police, sheriff, or private guards).
- Vendor Status: Veterans organizations acting as vendors for private events must have insurance and proper licensing.
- Sponsorship: No veteran sponsorship of private events for the general public (previously required).
- Enforcement: Failure to follow rules may result in suspension or termination of building use (previously no such provision).
- One Supervisor asked questions regarding who opens the building (answered: card reader for county staff, keys for veterans) and kitchen maintenance responsibility (answered: General Services is responsible for appliance maintenance; rental agreements include facility checks). Another Supervisor expressed support for the administrative updates.
- Public Comment: A veteran proposed two additions: stating that serving veterans is a full-time occupation and that a veterans museum would overburden the facility; and mandating that the operations manager exclude individuals with demonstrated pernicious intent based on credible evidence. One Supervisor and County Counsel noted potential constitutional issues regarding access restrictions. The Chair of the County Veterans Services Advisory Committee stated that the committee was not consulted and requested the item be referred to the committee for input. One Supervisor noted that a committee member was involved in the meetings. The Chair acknowledged the point about involving the advisory committee in the future but noted the current item had been addressed with local groups.
- Action: Motion to adopt the recommended actions as written.
- Outcome: Passed unanimously.
- Item 6 (Northern Branch Jail Project – Consultant and Contractor Agreements):
- Discussion: Staff presented seven actions related to the Northern Branch Jail Project in the Third District:
- 1. Re-execution of State Agreements: Re-approving the State Project Delivery and Construction Agreement (PDCA) and the Board of State and Community Corrections Construction Agreement (BSCCCA) with an effective date of February 11, 2013, to match the state’s execution date. 2. Consultant Contracts: Awarding agreements for:
- Architect/Engineer (AE): Rosser International (with local subcontractors).
- Construction Manager (CM): Kitchell.
- Project Expert (PE): Liebert & Associates.
- 3. Contractor on Payroll (COP): Hiring a temporary administrative coordinator to manage project logistics, scheduling, and communication among agencies and consultants. 4. CEQA Determination: Determining that no further CEQA review is required as the project scope has not changed since the 2011 addendum to the 2008 EIR.
- Public Comment: A representative of the Community Environmental Council/Environmental Defense Center requested that the contract require an examination of solar energy (photovoltaic and thermal) and a cost analysis comparing operational costs with and without renewables. Staff confirmed they intend to build a green facility and will provide a cost analysis.
- One Supervisor asked about the overlap between the Project Expert and the Architect/Engineer. The CEO explained the PE provides specialized detention facility expertise to advise county staff, while the AE handles design. The Supervisor also questioned the COP role, asking why it was not a standard consultant or temporary employee. The CEO and HR explained that the COP structure was chosen for cost-effectiveness and temporary nature, avoiding the long-term benefits and pension obligations of a permanent hire or the overhead of a consultant.
- One Supervisor raised concerns about:
- Contract Language: Requesting that the "owner representative" be identified as the General Services Director or designee rather than a specific individual.
- Energy Efficiency: Noting that current language regarding energy efficiency and local labor was weak ("try to achieve" vs. "shall").
- Water Source: Questioning why the plan uses a water well instead of city water. Staff explained a life-cycle cost analysis indicated a well was the least cost option, but a test well study will be conducted to confirm viability.
- Local Labor: Requesting stronger language requiring local labor utilization. County Counsel pointed to a clause in the Construction Manager contract requiring a written plan to maximize local vendors and labor. The Supervisor suggested changing "may present" to "shall present" regarding the plan to the Board.
- One Supervisor expressed concern about the COP benefits (vacation/retirement) and requested a cost-benefit analysis comparing the COP to other hiring methods. She also emphasized safety as the primary goal of the jail, noting that energy efficiency should not compromise reliability (e.g., electrical fences).
- One Supervisor echoed concerns about COP benefits and local labor incentives, noting that prevailing wage requirements apply to construction. He emphasized the need to stay within the $96 million budget.
- One Supervisor supported local labor and energy efficiency, noting that long-term savings justify upfront costs. She questioned the COP status again, asking why the individual could not remain a temporary employee. The CEO explained that the hours required exceeded typical temporary limits, triggering pension/benefit requirements if hired as a regular temporary, making COP the preferred HR-recommended structure.
- The Chair noted that General Services support staff positions (finance, etc.) are currently being recruited to help monitor these contracts.
- Action: Motion to adopt items 1 through 7, with the following conditions:
- 1. Item 4 (Contractor on Payroll) is contingent upon a cost-benefit analysis from the CEO demonstrating that the COP is more cost-effective than hiring an employee. 2. Amendment to the Project Expert Professional Services Agreement (Section 4.01A) to identify the owner’s representative as the General Services Director or designee. 3. Change in the Construction Manager contract language from "may present" to "shall present" the local labor plan to the Board of Supervisors.
- Outcome: Passed.
- Item 7 (Contractor on Payroll / Staff Report):
- Discussion: Members discussed the presentation regarding a $96 million project and the inclusion of a "contractor on payroll" component. One member requested clarification on whether the cost-benefit analysis for the contractor on payroll should be excluded from the current approval and brought back separately. Another member expressed confidence that the CEO had completed the cost-benefit analysis but requested to see the document. A member asked if the board could pull back the item if a future report indicated inconsistencies. Staff confirmed that the contractor on payroll position includes a 30-day termination provision by the county for any reason. One member commented that the contractor on payroll provided security and continuity for project monitoring, while acknowledging the concerns raised by others.
- Action: Motion to proceed with the item, including the contractor on payroll component.
- Outcome: Passed unanimously.
Closed Session Report
- Report: The County Council reported out from closed session. It was stated that all noticed closed session items were completed.
- Decision: The board unanimously authorized a settlement in the amount of $218,312.46 in the matter of Donald Carroll v. County of Santa Barbara Workers Comp Appeals Board. This settlement covers all medical, permanent disability, and other related claims associated with the workers' compensation claim filed by Mr. Carroll.