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
Resolutions A1 through A6
- The Board approved resolutions recognizing employees of the month and honoring retiring staff from County Counsel and the Sheriff’s Department.
- Lifeguards were recognized for their aquatic rescues and medical interventions since 2008.
- Dr. Charity Thoman was commended for receiving the 2013 Gerald E. Bruce Community Service Award.
Resolution A7: 35th Anniversary of Proposition 13
- Public commenters supported the resolution, emphasizing its role in keeping property taxes low.
- Board members discussed the equitable application of Proposition 13 and its impact on business certainty.
- The resolution was adopted following the discussion.
Item A-20: Medi-Cal Expansion
- A commenter questioned the impact of the shift to a state-based system on the Public Health Department's indigent services.
- The item was approved unanimously.
Item A-22: Resolution of Support for AB 154
- Public commenters debated the bill, with supporters citing access barriers and opponents urging caution regarding advanced practice clinicians.
- Board members discussed a UC San Francisco study on safety and the bill's focus on rural healthcare access.
- The resolution passed 3-2.
Item A-33: Agreement with BIT California LLC for CalWORKs Printing and Mailing Services
- Staff explained that the $18,200 general fund contribution is a required match to draw down state and federal funds.
- The item passed 4-1.
Item A-36: Amendment No. 2 with Community Action Commission for Enhanced Family Reunification Support Services
- The Board discussed the $45,000 general fund contribution required to access state realignment funds for child welfare services.
- Debate centered on the balance between deferred maintenance priorities and child welfare funding.
- The item passed 4-1.
No decision 0–0
Item A-37: Resolution of Support for Increased Funding for Local Coastal Planning
- A public commenter opposed the resolution, arguing the Coastal Commission should only have appeal authority in jurisdictions without local plans.
- The Board approved the resolution 3-2.
Item A-40: ADMHS Published Charges
- Staff clarified that the published charges are rates based on expected costs to establish an upper limit for Medi-Cal reimbursement.
- The item passed unanimously.
Item A-42: Speed Limits on Various Roads
- The Board agreed to remove four specific San Inez Valley locations from the item to address them separately.
- A hearing was set for June 18 to consider recommendations for the remaining locations.
Items A-7 and A-20
- The Board approved Items A-7 and A-20 unanimously.
Item A-18: Contract with Outside Counsel for State Water Project Issues
- The Board unanimously voted to withdraw the item from the agenda.
Item A-24: Santa Barbara Museum of Art Lease Amendment
- The item was initially trailed to allow staff to prepare a comparison matrix of current versus proposed access levels.
- Staff presented the comparison, noting increased admission fees but retained free admission for specific groups.
- The Board proceeded to the next item, indicating approval.
Item 1: Orca Community Plan Keysight 22 Wetlands Delineation Removal Amendment
- Staff recommended striking the wetlands delineation from the plan to comply with a court order and EIR revisions.
- The item passed unanimously.
Item 2: Ordinance Amendments for Cottage Food Operations and In-Home Retail Sales
- The Board debated the 300-foot separation requirement and hours of operation for cottage food operations.
- The Board amended the ordinance to remove the 300-foot setback and adjust hours to 9:00 AM to 6:00 PM.
- The motion passed 3-2.
Agenda Item 3: Community Services – FY 2012-13 Annual Action Plan Substantial Amendment (HOME Funds)
- Staff recommended committing approximately $914,000 in HOME funds to three housing projects to avoid loss of funds.
- The projects include new construction in Isla Vista and Carpinteria, and a tenant-based rental assistance program.
- The motion passed unanimously.
Agenda Item 4: Planning and Development – Appeal of TTT Winery (Case No. 13-APL-9)
- Staff recommended denial, citing incompatibility with the rural character and the primary use of the parcel.
- The appellant argued the denial lacked substantial evidence and threatened judicial remedies.
- The Board voted to deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission’s decision.
Agenda Item: Deferred Maintenance Assessment
- The Board discussed methodologies for assessing deferred maintenance across General Services, Parks, and Public Works.
- The Board adopted Option C, combining consultant and internal staff efforts to develop assessments.
- The motion passed unanimously.
Agenda Item 6: Department of Social Services Position Request
- The Department requested 77 new positions to address a 54% caseload growth and meet state mandates.
- The positions are fully funded by realignment and state/federal funds with no general fund impact.
- The motion passed unanimously.
Agenda Item 7: Alcohol, Drug, and Mental Health Services (ADMHS) Organizational Structure
- Staff presented a proposed transitional structure including a Clinical Operations Deputy, Compliance Officer, and COO.
- The proposal includes using $300,000 in Tobacco Settlement Account funds to bridge the funding gap for new roles.
- No motion was recorded in the transcript segment.
Agenda Item: Report on Proposed 13-14 Budget and Implementation Structure
- The Clerk presented recommendations to implement the previously presented organizational structure.
- A public speaker objected to the diversion of tobacco settlement money for mental health purposes.
- The item passed unanimously.
Closed Session
- The Board entered closed session to discuss existing litigation, anticipated litigation, and public employee appointment.
- The County Executive Officer reported that the Board unanimously approved a $100,000 settlement in the Lori Blaha v. County of Santa Barbara case.
Full summary
Meeting Opening and Roll Call
- The Board of Supervisors convened for the June 4 meeting. Roll call was taken, and all members were present. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited.
Approval of Minutes
- A motion was made and seconded to approve the minutes of May 21. The motion passed unanimously.
Public Comment
- Maria Long (Director, Freedom Warming Centers): Presented a report on winter season activities, noting that 4,184 shelter beds were provided countywide. She listed activated sites and noted that CASA Esperanza and the Rescue Mission were at capacity. She highlighted a plan by CASA Esperanza to implement a zero-substance-abuse policy, which she estimated would result in an additional 60 people on the streets nightly.
- Los Prados Boys Camp: Supervisor Wolfe introduced staff and youth from Los Prados Boys Camp and Academy. Lee Bethel detailed the evacuation procedures initiated on May 27, stating that 64 youth and 13 staff were evacuated to Santa Maria Juvenile Hall. He noted that the camp conducts an average of 16 emergency drills per month. Supervisor Farr commented on the county’s readiness and the team effort involving law enforcement, fire, and county staff.
Administrative Agenda – Item Pulls and Holds
- The Clerk requested to pull items 22, 33, 36, 37, and 40. Supervisor Farr requested to pull item 42. Supervisor Wolfe requested to hold item A7 for later discussion.
Resolutions A1 through A6
- A motion was made and seconded to approve resolutions A1 through A6. The motion passed unanimously.
- Resolution A1: Recognized Diane Carter as the Santa Barbara County Employee of the Month for June 2013.
- Resolution A2: Honored Teresa C. Eggmeyer upon her retirement from the Office of County Counsel after 23 years of service.
- Resolution A3: Honored Michael R. Ledbetter upon his retirement from the Office of County Counsel after 30 years of service.
- Resolution A4: Honored Randall Kempf upon his retirement from the Sheriff’s Department after 25 years of service in information technology.
- Resolution A5: Recognized Santa Barbara County lifeguards for their services, noting 98 aquatic rescues and 481 medical interventions since 2008.
- Resolution A6: Commended Dr. Charity Thoman for receiving the 2013 Gerald E. Bruce Community Service Award.
Resolution A7: 35th Anniversary of Proposition 13
- Public Comment: Joe Armendariz (Santa Barbara County Taxpayers Association) spoke in support of the resolution, emphasizing the importance of Proposition 13 in keeping property taxes low.
- Board Discussion: Supervisor Wolfe expressed concern regarding a statement in the resolution about Proposition 167 and noted that similar split-role proposals are under consideration in the state legislature. Supervisor Carbajal stated he would vote in favor but did not imply endorsement of the split-role issue. Supervisor Lavagnino stated he would endorse the resolution. Supervisor Farr stated that while Proposition 13 has served a purpose, it has been applied inequitably and needs review. Supervisor Adam noted that Proposition 13 has provided certainty for businesses and homeowners. Jan Evans (Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association) spoke in support of the resolution.
- Outcome: The resolution was adopted.
Item A-20: Medi-Cal Expansion
- Public Comment: Andy Caldwell commented on the shift from a county-based to a state-based Medi-Cal system. He noted that the Public Health Department currently serves 30,000–32,000 indigent individuals annually, but up to 26,000 may no longer be considered indigent due to new coverage. He questioned the impact on the Public Health Clinic Service Delivery System.
- Outcome: The item was approved unanimously (see Item A-7 and A-20 below).
Item A-22: Resolution of Support for AB 154
- Public Comment: Andy Caldwell spoke against the bill, urging the Board not to support AB 154, which would allow nurse practitioners, certified nurse-midwives, and physician assistants to perform early abortions. Jane Gray (Santa Barbara Women’s Political Committee), Vicki Allen (League of Women Voters of Santa Barbara), Richard Solomon (Planned Parenthood Action Fund), Cheryl Rawlings (Planned Parenthood), and Beth Pittin-August (Santa Barbara Pro-Choice Coalition) spoke in support of the bill, citing barriers to access and the need for timely medical services.
- Board Discussion: Supervisor Wolk supported the bill, citing a UC San Francisco study indicating that trained advanced practice clinicians perform the procedure as safely as physicians. Supervisor Carbajal noted the bill’s focus on increasing access to healthcare in rural areas, specifically mentioning the Cuyama Valley.
- Motion: A motion was made and seconded to approve the resolution.
- Vote: Passed 3-2.
Item A-33: Agreement with BIT California LLC for CalWORKs Printing and Mailing Services
- Discussion: Supervisor Adam questioned the $18,200 general fund contribution. Daniel Nielsen of the Department of Social Services explained that this amount is a required match to draw down state and federal funds. Supervisor Adam expressed frustration with the matching requirement but accepted the explanation that no other funding source was available.
- Motion: A motion was made and seconded to approve the item.
- Vote: Passed 4-1.
Item A-36: Amendment No. 2 with Community Action Commission for Enhanced Family Reunification Support Services
- Discussion: Supervisor Adam questioned the $45,000 general fund contribution, noting it allows the county to access $105,000 in state realignment funds. Daniel Nielsen explained that the county must maintain its share of costs for these services. Supervisor Adam argued that the county must prioritize deferred maintenance. Supervisor Wolk countered that the board has consistently allocated funds for capital improvement and maintenance, and that child welfare services are a top priority. Supervisor Lavagnino acknowledged the inadequacy of current deferred maintenance funding but supported the item, noting the funds were originally state money realigned to the county.
- Motion: A motion was made and seconded to approve the item.
- Vote: Passed 4-1.
No decision 0–0
Item A-37: Resolution of Support for Increased Funding for Local Coastal Planning
- Public Comment: Andy Caldwell (COLAB) opposed the resolution, arguing that the Coastal Commission should only have appeal authority in jurisdictions without an approved local coastal plan.
- Board Discussion: Supervisor Adam expressed a preference for more maintenance and less planning, noting the county’s local plan has been approved.
- Motion: A motion was made and seconded to approve the resolution.
- Vote: Passed 3-2.
Item A-40: ADMHS Published Charges
- Discussion: Supervisor Adam asked if the published charges were fully funded by state money. Staff clarified that these are rates based on expected costs to establish an upper limit for Medi-Cal reimbursement. Supervisor Adam asked if the state dictates the rates; staff explained the charges are based on the recommended budget for the next fiscal year divided by projected units of service.
- Motion: A motion was made and seconded to approve the item.
- Vote: Passed unanimously.
Item A-42: Speed Limits on Various Roads
- Discussion: Supervisor Farr requested that four specific locations in the San Inez Valley be removed from this item because they involve raising speed limits. She requested to work with Public Works on these specific locations separately before setting a hearing. The remaining locations in the item involve maintaining existing speed limits.
- Motion: A motion was made and seconded to set a hearing for June 18th to consider the recommendations, excluding the four specified locations.
- Vote: Passed unanimously.
Items A-7 and A-20
- Motion: A motion was made and seconded to approve Items A-7 and A-20.
- Vote: Passed unanimously.
Item A-18: Contract with Outside Counsel for State Water Project Issues
- Discussion: A request was made to withdraw this item from the agenda. The maker and seconder of the original motion accepted the amendment to withdraw the item.
- Motion: Motion to withdraw Item A-18.
- Vote: Passed unanimously.
Item A-24: Santa Barbara Museum of Art Lease Amendment
- Initial Discussion: Public speaker Andy Caldwell (COLAB) raised concerns about the proposed lease amendment, specifically the reduction of free admission days. Supervisor Gallagher disagreed, stating that the proposal represents a significant enhancement in free access for families and children. Supervisor Lavagnino requested clarification on the specific enhancements. Supervisor Gallagher moved to trail the item to allow staff and the museum to create a matrix illustrating the current versus proposed access levels.
- Decision: The item was trailed to after the lunch break to allow for the preparation of the requested comparison matrix.
- Reconsideration: Staff presented a comparison of the 1989 lease terms versus the proposed 2013 terms. Key changes included increased admission fees for adults, children, and seniors, and the retention of free admission on the first Sunday of the month, plus free admission for active military personnel and children under six.
- Motion: A motion was made and seconded to approve the item.
- Vote: The board proceeded to the next item, indicating approval.
Item 1: Orca Community Plan Keysight 22 Wetlands Delineation Removal Amendment
- Discussion: Supervisor Adam recused himself from this item as an owner of the property. Staff presented the item as a follow-up to a December hearing, noting that revisions to the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and the Community Plan comply with a court order. Staff recommended making the required findings, including CEQA findings, and adopting the resolution to strike the wetlands delineation from the plan.
- Motion: A motion was made and seconded to approve the item.
- Vote: Passed unanimously.
Item 2: Ordinance Amendments for Cottage Food Operations and In-Home Retail Sales
- Discussion: Staff presented ordinance amendments to implement state law AB 1616, allowing cottage food operations and clarifying regulations for in-home retail sales. The proposal includes development standards such as one operation per dwelling, one per lot, a 300-foot separation requirement between operations, parking restrictions, and hours of operation.
- Supervisor Farr asked about the definition of "dwelling" and "lot," particularly regarding multifamily housing. Staff confirmed that due to the separation requirement, only one operation would be allowed per multifamily development.
- Supervisor Farr questioned the basis for the 300-foot separation distance. Staff noted it is derived from state code standards for special care facilities to prevent undue concentration.
- Supervisor Lavagnino raised concerns about enforcement, noting that the county would likely only act on complaints regarding parking or hours.
- Supervisor Wolk supported the 300-foot separation requirement, citing neighborhood compatibility and traffic concerns.
- Supervisor Adam asked if the process is ministerial. Staff confirmed it is ministerial except within the Coastal Zone appeals jurisdiction.
- Supervisor Adam moved to approve the item but proposed removing the 300-foot separation requirement.
- Supervisor Farr seconded the motion but proposed an amendment to remove the 300-foot requirement for the first 18–24 months, with a review period to assess utilization and potential issues before reinstating the distance requirement.
- Supervisor Gallagher raised legal concerns about potential equal protection issues if the distance requirement were removed initially and then reinstated.
- Staff clarified that the "one operation per legal lot" requirement would remain.
- A board member opposed the motion to remove the 300-foot setback restriction, arguing that the Planning Commission’s previous approval was based on that specific restriction.
- Another board member argued that the number of operators was small enough that the removal of the setback would not significantly impact parking.
- A board member requested that if the 300-foot restriction was removed, the board consider restricting sales hours to avoid peak traffic times.
- A board member suggested referring the item back to the Planning Commission to revisit the totality of the package, which was declined by the Chair.
- Motion/Amendment: A motion was made to amend the ordinance by removing the 300-foot setback restriction and adjusting the hours of operation to 9:00 AM to 6:00 PM.
- Vote: The motion passed 3-2.
Agenda Item 3: Community Services – FY 2012-13 Annual Action Plan Substantial Amendment (HOME Funds)
- Staff Report: Staff presented a proposed amendment to the FY 2012-13 Annual Action Plan for federal HOME funds. The county expects to receive approximately $914,000 in HOME funds, which must be committed to projects by July 31 to avoid loss of funds. Staff recommended the board approve the amendment to commit funds to three projects:
- 1. Pescadero Lofts (Isla Vista): New construction of 33 studio and one-bedroom units targeted to the homeless. Recommended award: $1,712,234. 2. Casas de las Flores (Carpinteria): New construction of 43 rental units for low-income families. Recommended award: $1,279,957. 3. Tenant-Based Rental Assistance (TBRA): A rent subsidy program administered by the County Housing Authority. Recommended award: $700,000.
- Public Comment: One speaker expressed support for the funding, noting the long development timeline for the Carpinteria project and the importance of securing funding before the July 1 tax credit application deadline.
- Board Questions: A board member asked about the outreach for TBRA and ADA accessibility requirements. Staff confirmed that TBRA qualifications are the same as Section 8 and that federal requirements mandate a certain percentage of accessible units.
- Motion: A motion was made to approve the item.
- Vote: The motion passed unanimously.
Closed Session
- Action: The board entered closed session for one and a half hours to discuss three items: existing litigation (Lori Blaha v. County of Santa Barbara Workers' Comp Appeals Board), anticipated litigation, and public employee appointment.
- Report from Closed Session: The County Executive Officer reported that the board unanimously approved a $100,000 settlement in the matter of Lori Blaha v. County of Santa Barbara Workers' Comp Appeals Board (Case No. ADJ1602326) for full settlement of all future medical exams and waiver of future workers' compensation claims. No other reports were made.
Agenda Item 4: Planning and Development – Appeal of TTT Winery (Case No. 13-APL-9)
- Ex Parte Disclosures: Several board members disclosed communications with the applicant, his attorney, or neighbors, including site visits and phone calls.
- Staff Presentation: Staff recommended denial of the appeal, affirming the Planning Commission’s denial of the TTT Tier 3 Winery Development Plan. Key points included:
- Project: A 4,000-case winery on a 5-acre parcel in the Ag-1-5 zone, including a 1,208 sq. ft. tasting room and 10 organized gatherings of up to 79 people.
- Findings for Denial:
- 1. Site inadequate for the intensity of development (tasting room and gatherings). 2. Project would be detrimental to neighborhood welfare due to noise and lighting. 3. Inconsistent with the Land Use and Development Code and Comprehensive Plan because the tasting room/gatherings are not subordinate to the agricultural use. 4. Incompatible with the rural/scenic character of the area.
- CEQA: Staff recommended the denial be exempt from CEQA under Section 15270.
- Appellant Presentation: The appellant argued that the staff’s denial was based on conclusory statements rather than substantial evidence. Key arguments included:
- The draft Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) prepared by the same staff concluded impacts were less than significant.
- The tasting room is subordinate to the winery (20% of square footage, 25% of sales, 5x fewer man-hours than production).
- Traffic studies showed less than significant impacts.
- The project fits within the existing rural/agricultural context.
- The appellant threatened judicial remedies if the appeal was denied.
- Public Comment:
- One speaker (representing Colab) supported the project, arguing that agricultural zones should allow for vertically integrated agricultural businesses (like wineries) and that the county should not change rules after applicants have invested significant time and money.
- Anna Citrin (Attorney for residents) supported staff’s recommendation to deny the project. Argued that a Tier 3 winery with events is inappropriate for an Ag 1-5 parcel in a rural area and would set a precedent affecting 725 similar parcels.
- Donald Gallagher (Resident/Neighbor) presented petitions from approximately 2,000–2,500 immediate neighbors. Argued the project is incompatible with the densely populated rural residential neighborhood, citing concerns over safety, traffic, noise, and lighting.
- Marilyn Harder (Resident/Neighbor) expressed opposition based on noise from construction and nearby winery events, traffic safety concerns regarding blind intersections and lack of shoulders, and the volume of wine production relative to the 2-acre grape crop.
- Rogers Harder (Resident/Neighbor) agreed with staff’s recommendation. Cited specific instances of noise disturbance from a neighboring winery (Bridlewood) that required sheriff intervention.
- Steve Ford (Representing Bridlewood) clarified that Bridlewood is currently processing a development plan. Emphasized that wineries operate under specific project descriptions and administrative records, and that violations of these parameters are subject to enforcement processes.
- Appellant Rebuttal:
- Scott Shell (Associated Transportation Engineers) addressed traffic concerns by noting the TTT traffic study analyzed worst-case scenarios and found acceptable levels of service at the Roblar/154 intersection.
- Steve Martin (Applicant Representative) stated that no contiguous property owners opposed the project. Clarified that no Tier 3 winery has previously been approved on a 5-acre parcel, and the project’s Tier 3 status is due solely to the tasting room size.
- Unidentified Speaker (Applicant Counsel) rebutted the claim that public comment letters constituted substantial evidence, characterizing them as argument and speculation. Asserted that the draft MND remains valid evidence in the record.
- Staff Presentation:
- Unidentified Speaker (Staff) confirmed this is the county’s first winery application on a parcel under 10 acres. Noted that while the zoning ordinance does not specify a minimum parcel size, staff identified concerns in 2010. After receiving 24 comment letters raising legitimate issues regarding impacts and policy, staff determined the project was incompatible with the neighborhood and inconsistent with the Land Use Development Code and Comprehensive Plan.
- Board Discussion:
- Supervisor Adam questioned the basis for denial given the favorable draft MND and the applicant’s $750,000 investment over three years. Asked for specific evidence beyond neighbor objections.
- Anna Citrin (Staff/Attorney response) clarified that zoning does not guarantee discretionary permit approval. Stated that staff does not commit to recommendations before the close of public review.
- Supervisor Adam continued questioning regarding the "reasonable expectation" of property owners based on zoning and the potential legal defensibility of the denial given the prior favorable MND.
- Unidentified Speaker (County Counsel) stated that staff and P&D have reviewed the process and believe it is defensible, noting that courts grant broad discretion to the Board in discretionary permit decisions.
- Supervisor Farr argued that the primary issue is the reversal of primary and secondary uses. On a 5-acre parcel with only 2 acres of grapes, the commercial/retail aspect (tasting room/events) becomes the primary use, while agriculture becomes secondary, which is incompatible with Ag-1 zoning intent. Moved to adopt staff’s recommendation to deny.
- Supervisor Lavagnino expressed reservations about the 5-acre size but noted it is allowed under guidelines. Acknowledged the emotional nature of public comment but emphasized the need for a defensible administrative record.
- Supervisor Adam argued that agriculture must be allowed to evolve and add value to property. Suggested that if the county wants to protect rural residential areas, it should change the zoning designation rather than denying permitted uses.
- Supervisor Wolf emphasized the importance of process integrity and the right of residents to assurance that new developments undergo intense review. Supported the stance of Supervisor Farr.
- Chair Carbajal clarified the distinction between ministerial and discretionary permits. Stated that the law requires the Board to let evidence dictate the outcome of discretionary processes, and it is illegal to prejudge the outcome. Expressed confidence in the tightness of the administrative record for potential litigation. Supported the motion to deny based on parcel size and neighborhood compatibility.
- Motion and Vote:
- Motion: Supervisor Farr moved to adopt staff’s recommendation to deny the appeal.
- Second: The motion was seconded.
- Vote Outcome: The motion passed. The Board voted to deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission’s decision.
Agenda Item: Deferred Maintenance Assessment
- Discussion: Discussion continued regarding the methodology for assessing deferred maintenance across General Services, Parks, and Public Works. Staff and board members debated the balance between using outside consultants for a comprehensive initial assessment and building internal capacity to maintain the data long-term. Several board members noted that Public Works already utilizes a dual-consultant system for road inspections, costing approximately $60,000 annually, and suggested this model could serve as a precedent. Other members raised concerns about the lack of a systematic approach to spending the $2 million annually allocated to the deferred maintenance account, noting that funds often remain unspent. The CEO stated that the department lacks sufficient internal staff to conduct the detailed assessment independently but proposed a combined approach: using consultants for the initial snapshot and developing internal expertise to maintain the list and prioritize projects. The CEO also suggested using unspent deferred maintenance funds to finance the assessment.
- Motion: A motion was made to adopt Option C, which involves a combination of consultant and internal staff to develop assessments for Community Services Department (CSD) and General Services, with Public Works included in the final asset management plan. The motion specified that staff would return to the board with refined costs via Requests for Interest and Qualifications before final approval.
- Vote: The motion passed unanimously.
Agenda Item 6: Department of Social Services Position Request
- Discussion: The Department of Social Services presented a request to add 77 positions. The Director reported that the department serves over 100,000 individuals and has experienced a 54% caseload growth since fiscal year 2006-2007, with significant increases in CalFresh (121%) and MediCal (57%). The department currently has 17 corrective action plans due to high caseloads and staffing constraints, resulting in missed performance targets in child welfare, in-home supportive services, MediCal renewals, and CalFresh eligibility determinations. The Director stated that the 77 new positions are frontline workers, supervisors, or support staff, not management, and are necessary to meet state mandates and reduce audit exceptions. The positions are fully funded by realignment and state/federal funds, with no general fund impact. The Director requested approval of the positions and direction to include them in the fiscal year 2013 annual amendment resolution and the 2013-2014 budget.
- Motion: A motion was made to accept the recommended actions in their entirety.
- Vote: The motion passed unanimously.
Agenda Item 7: Alcohol, Drug, and Mental Health Services (ADMHS) Organizational Structure
- Discussion: The County Executive Office presented the proposed transitional organizational structure and fiscal impacts for the Alcohol, Drug, and Mental Health Services department. The presentation outlined the current structural issues, including the lack of an independent compliance function, the part-time status of the medical director, and the vacant assistant director position, through which over 60% of departmental reports currently flow. The proposed structure includes the creation of a Clinical Operations Deputy, an independent Compliance Officer reporting directly to the Director, and a full-time Chief Operating Officer (COO) to oversee human resources and financial functions and implement the recommendations. The COO position is budgeted as a full-time extra help for a transitional period of six months to one year.
- Fiscal Impacts: Fiscal impacts were detailed, including the use of existing budgeted positions and salary savings to offset new costs. The department requested $670,000 for unbudgeted positions (Clinical Operations Deputy, Compliance Officer, COO, and interim director time) and an additional $200,000 for clinical services contractors to maintain client services while staff are reallocated to system change efforts. To bridge the funding gap, staff proposed using $300,000 of one-time Tobacco Settlement Account (TSAC) funds via a budget revision on June 18. Board members clarified that the funding for the transitional roles is budgeted for a full year to allow flexibility, with a progress report expected within six months. The discussion concluded with appreciation for the inclusion of the clinical services bridge funding. No motion was recorded in this transcript segment.
Agenda Item: Report on Proposed 13-14 Budget and Implementation Structure
- Discussion and Public Comment: The Clerk of the Board presented recommendations for the Board of Supervisors to receive the report and direct staff to implement the previously presented structure. The Clerk stated that the purpose of the meeting was to provide an overview of needs for the proposed 13-14 budget in light of the recent report and to indicate how staff plans to fill those needs.
- One public speaker, representing the Alliance to Teach Everywhere about Community Health, objected to the diversion of tobacco settlement money for mental health purposes. The speaker argued that California has a poor record regarding the misuse of tobacco settlement funds, noting that less than 2% is currently directed toward tobacco prevention. The speaker cited potential cost savings from tobacco cessation programs compared to the uncertain efficacy and potential liability risks associated with certain mental health interventions. The speaker also suggested merging the Department of Mental Health with the Department of Public Health as an alternative. Additionally, the speaker commended the infectious disease control provisions in the Tri-West report and recommended generalizing those infection control policies.
- Motion and Vote: A motion was made and seconded to approve the item. The Board voted on the motion. The item passed unanimously.
Adjournment
- Following the vote, the meeting was adjourned.