BodyBoard of Supervisors
MeetingRegular Meeting
Date📅 April 15, 2014

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 – 0:021 turns

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.810:07 · ≈ 9:00 AM

♪ ♪ Morning, ladies and gentlemen. I'd like to welcome everybody to the April 15th tax day. Meeting of the Board of Supervisors. Madam Clerk, can I get a roll call please?

0:02 – 0:0915 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed2:09 · ≈ 9:02 AM

Ms. Farr. Here. Mr. Adam. Here. Mr Carbajal. Here Miss Wolfe. Here Mr. Lavinino.

Pledge of Allegianceceremonial · click to expand · ≈24s recited, not transcribed
ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.812:15 · ≈ 9:02 AM

Here Please join me in the Pledge of Allegiance

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.812:40 · ≈ 9:02 AM

All right, thank you very much. We have two different sets of minutes that we need to approve. Can I get a motion to approve the minutes of the April 1st 2014 meeting? Moved and seconded. All those in favor? Aye. None opposed. Passes unanimously. And then I need a motion to approve the minutes of the budget workshops of April 7th, 8th and 9th of 2014. Moved and seconded. All those in favor?

Aye. Great passes unanimously. We'll move to public comment. We have, I believe one request to speak Madam Clerk.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed3:11 · ≈ 9:03 AM

Chair Lavinino and members of the board, we have two requests to speak for public comment. Our first speaker is Adam Walters to be followed by Steve Ronaldo.

PresenterAdam Waltersover medication and the care facilities of elder peoplProposedself-stated3:21 · ≈ 9:03 AM

Morning, you'll have three minutes. Good morning Gordon. My name is Adam Walters. Can you speak into

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.813:26 · ≈ 9:03 AM

the microphone? I'm sorry.

PresenterAdam Waltersover medication and the care facilities of elder peoplProposedself-stated3:27 · ≈ 9:03 AM

Excuse me.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.813:28 · ≈ 9:03 AM

There

PresenterAdam Waltersover medication and the care facilities of elder peoplProposedself-stated3:28 · ≈ 9:03 AM

you go. I'm Adam Walters. I am here concerning my dad again here with the over medication and the care facilities of elder people. It appears the public guardian should be taking a little bit better track of people they can serve. My dad, two years ago he almost died because under the care of the public guardian I don't think whoever was in charge at the time was paying too close of attention what was going on in these care facilities.

The court system fell me while trying to get conservatorship with my dad away from the public guardian slash tax administrator Harry Hagen even reprimanded me when I took my dad to a doctor, and that apparently wasn't okay with him. So now I can't even take him out to lunch or an ice cream until recently they were thinking about it which made no sense to me.

So when I was in court, I had a video transcript proof that my dad desperately wanted out of the abiding care facility on Modoc and wanted me to take over his care. It seems as though my dad has had all of his rights taken away from the public guardian. He's stuck in a little 12 by 12 room all day long. He was allowed no visitors up until recently For years I've tried to get him in a different facility, dealing with different people and the public guardian.

With no response, I was living out of state at the time and I was getting no response. He's been left in the same place for the last six years and he's still there. And you know, I have tried to take care of my dad. And if anything happens to him, such as any injury or wrongful death, I'm going to hold the County of Santa Barbara civilly and criminally responsible. It's already been proven I'm willing to take care of my dad. I've had to deal with some corrupt people out of that office. So that's all I've got to say.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.815:45 · ≈ 9:05 AM

Thank you for being here this morning. Thanks. Supervisor Carbajal?

CommentIsla VistaProposed · by introduction5:50 · ≈ 9:05 AM

Mr. Council. These situations are really dictated by the courts, correct?

CommentSteve RonaldoProposed6:05 · ≈ 9:06 AM

And Supervisor Carpaul, you're correct. We actually provide legal support to the public guardian and the court rules on disputes such as those that you've just heard.

CommentIsla VistaProposed · by introduction6:15 · ≈ 9:06 AM

I just wanted to point that out because I think oftentimes we're, the county's asked to opine or to take certain action on these issues but it's really The separate agency of government, the separate branch which is the courts that dictate conservatorships and what have you in the terms of conservatorships not the Board of Supervisors. So thank you. All

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.816:42 · ≈ 9:06 AM

right. Are we good?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed6:44 · ≈ 9:06 AM

Our next request to speak is from Steve Rinaldo and we had an additional request to speak from Christine Schwartz.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed6:59 · ≈ 9:06 AM

Good morning Supervisors, Chair. Again today I'd like to discuss the hijacking of the... I'm sorry, I just find that hijacking incident to be funny. I believe the people from the mental health that were the advocates for the mental health have an excellent reason for being here and discussing that. This morning's Santa Barbara News Press Has a story about a trend persisting of, trend persists of prisons as mental health housing.

We know time and time again many of the mentally ill don't receive the adequate services they need. Of course that's been a focus point of ours for quite awhile. What I'd like to address today is News Press itself and their handling of some pretty big issues regarding court. Again, every person has a right to a fair trial. I've been in a situation where I was on national TV on the TV show On Patrol.

I didn't get a fair trial. I didn't even get to see the unedited video of that show. Fought it for eight months. Now I see a couple of other people are in situations, for instance the teen that's being blamed for Deltopia. Why are we putting a 17-year old's name in the newspaper before he has even had a chance for jury selection? Why do we continually Not print the fact that two sheriff's deputies have been indicted by the federal grand jury. Why isn't that a regular issue? The trend I'd like to speak about is gangs, how they're reported.

Every news press article is on microfilm. I could go back and just take snapshots of the front pages and you'd notice that every other page is a mug shot. Is establishing a pretrial paradigm of how we should deal with this problem. Again, the mentally health are just affected by this as well. This needs to change and there are ways of changing it. Boycotts, protests, I imagine this stuff will continue if these things persist. Thank you.

0:09 – 0:115 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed9:50 · ≈ 9:09 AM

Our final speaker is Christine Schwartz.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed9:58 · ≈ 9:09 AM

Good morning. I just wanted to say thank you on behalf of New Beginnings Counseling Center and speaking regarding the community services funding We have two programs that will hopefully be funded by The funding this year the safe parking program and our Community Counseling Center And we really rely heavily on the funds that we receive from the county in the city in the state and the federal government And I know that it's a competitive process and difficult decisions have to be made for funding. And I appreciate the time that everyone puts into reading the applications and reviewing the material, and making the difficult decisions. And I just wanted to say thank you.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.8110:39 · ≈ 9:10 AM

Thank you. That closes out our public comment period. And before we go to our administrative agenda are there any changes that need to be made?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed10:52 · ≈ 9:10 AM

Chair Lavinino, members of the board we posted an addendum on Friday which added a fifth item to the departmental agenda. It comes from the county executive office it is to receive and file a presentation on maintenance funding options and scenarios as a continuation of the fiscal year 2014-2016 budget development workshops.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.8111:14 · ≈ 9:11 AM

Okay

Agenda Discussionitems moved / continued / pulled, click to expand
ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.8111:14 · ≈ 9:11 AM

very good with that let's move can I get a motion to move items A1 through A6 our resolutions please? Moved and seconded. All those in favor, aye. Any opposed? They all pass unanimously.

We'll move to item A1, Supervisor Carbajal.

CommentIsla VistaProposed · by introduction11:32 · ≈ 9:11 AM

Thank you Mr. Chair. If I could have the Lady Dons come up, all of them along with Come on up. So we get to introduce you first, then we'll introduce the staff and the principals and all of the other folks but come on up. I would like to invite up John Becchio, Principal. Dave Meester, Assistant Principal. Joe Chenoweth, Athletic Director. Andrew Butcher, Head Coach.

Carlina Gonzalez, Assistant Coach. And Jess Martinez, Assistant Coach. You guys could turn around this way. But you know now you got all bases covered. You know it's a real honor for me representing the First District to open up the paper or hear of all the wonderful accomplishments of the Dons and the Lady Dons, the high school basketball team this year accomplished Quite a bit many titles that we're going to read into the record right now.

So I just want to take this opportunity to congratulate you and to express my appreciation for your being not only great athletes and you guys kick some serious careful Some serious stuff to achieve your accomplishments. But you're also great role models off the court, and I have heard extraordinary things about just how you carry yourselves, how you are great examples to your peers.

And I think today I just wanted to take a moment with my colleagues to recognize you for the great women that you are on the court and off the court. So congratulations, and we're going to read this into the record. And it's going to talk about all the wonderful things you guys have accomplished. Can we read it please?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed13:42 · ≈ 9:13 AM

Chair Labonino and members of the board, this is a resolution of commendation honoring the Santa Barbara High School girls basketball team upon their championship season. Whereas the student-athletes of the Santa Barbara High School girls basketball team have distinguished themselves by striving to establish a positive example in high school athletics, academics, pursuits, citizenship and in life experience And whereas, the girls basketball team through consistent hard work and dedication have completed a highly successful season. And were crowned the 2013-14 CIF SS Division III AA Champions, 2013-14 Division III Southern California Regional Champions, and the CIF Division III State Champion Runner Up. And whereas during the 2013-2014 season, the individual players were honored with selections to All Channel League, All CIF Division III, all Southern California.

And whereas the members of the championship team are Desiree Coleman, Alyssa Cosio, Diana Escobar, Kimberly Gebhardt, Wendy Hernandez, Jada Howard, Valerie James, Xochitl Lopez, Alejandra Mejia, Amber Melgoza, Makalia Miller, Jocelyn Patatin, Lillian Ponce and Sophia Torres. And whereas Andrew Butcher, Carolina Gonzalez and Jess Martinez the SBHS girls basketball staff has guided the team with leadership and inspired them with a philosophy that if you play with heart and joy great things will happen. Now therefore be it order and resolved that this Board of Supervisors commends the players coaches parents and supporters of the 2013-14 Santa Barbara High School girls basketball team For their CIF and regional championships, an outstanding season of accomplishment passed and adopted today.

CommentDesiree Coleman Chair I'dProposedself-stated15:44 · ≈ 9:15 AM

Thank you.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.8115:47 · ≈ 9:15 AM

You want to all introduce yourselves so we can know who each person is?

CommentDesiree Coleman Chair I'dProposedself-stated15:51 · ≈ 9:15 AM

I'm Desiree Coleman

CommentSigrid WrightProposedself-stated15:54 · ≈ 9:15 AM

Elisa Cosio,

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 4Proposed15:56 · ≈ 9:15 AM

Alejandra Mejia, Lil

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed15:58 · ≈ 9:15 AM

Ponce,

CommentSigrid WrightProposedself-stated15:59 · ≈ 9:15 AM

Jada

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed16:00 · ≈ 9:16 AM

Howard, Jocelyn Pittaten, Xochitl Lopez,

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 7Proposed16:06 · ≈ 9:16 AM

Wendy Hernandez, Kimberly Gebhardt,

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 4Proposed16:11 · ≈ 9:16 AM

Amber Malgoza, Mikayla Miller,

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed16:16 · ≈ 9:16 AM

Deanna Escobar,

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 4Proposed16:17 · ≈ 9:16 AM

Valerie Jimenez, Assistant Coach Carleen Gonzalez and thank you guys on behalf of our team for supporting us in just being behind our student-athletes.

CommentHarry HagenProposed · by introduction16:37 · ≈ 9:16 AM

Great. This

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 8Proposed16:40 · ≈ 9:16 AM

is taking a long

GuestJoe ArmendarizeSheriffProposedself-stated16:41 · ≈ 9:16 AM

time, I'm

CommentIsla VistaProposed · by introduction16:42 · ≈ 9:16 AM

Andrew Butcher and thank you Carleen for saying what I couldn't say well. What about the team captain? We want to hear from the team captain too! Well we want to hear from all three then.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 9Proposed16:55 · ≈ 9:16 AM

Thank you for the support. It really means a lot to have

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 10Proposed16:58 · ≈ 9:16 AM

everybody

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 4Proposed17:00 · ≈ 9:17 AM

behind us every step of the way.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.8117:28 · ≈ 9:17 AM

Okay, all right. We're going to move on to actually item three right now because Supervisor Carbajal is going to go take a picture with the team so we're going to go Supervisor Wolfe A3.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 11Proposed17:43 · ≈ 9:17 AM

Thank you, Mr. Chair I'm proud to be sponsoring this resolution which proclaims the month of April as Fair Housing Month in Santa Barbara County And I'd like to call to the podium Andrea Bufano from the Rental Housing Mediation Task Force Emily Allen the Legal Aid Foundation of Santa Barbara County and the Rental Housing Roundtable and Mickey Flax A very well-known and effective housing advocate. This resolution marks the 51st anniversary of the State of California Fair Housing Law, which followed the federal housing laws, which ensure fair housing opportunities regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation...

Did I say race? Basically everyone has the right to fair housing and no one should be discriminated at all. And it's these folks who are in front of us who ensure that the rights of our citizens are maintained, and you advocate so well for our citizens. So I just want to personally thank all of you, and our clerk will go ahead and read the resolution.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed19:03 · ≈ 9:19 AM

Chair Levinino and members of the board, this is a resolution proclaiming April 2014 as Fair Housing Month in Santa Barbara County. Whereas April 2014 marks the 51st anniversary of the state of California's fair housing law and the 46th anniversary of the federal civil rights law providing equal housing opportunities for all citizens. And whereas state and federal housing laws were enacted to protect and to ensure that a fair choice of housing was available to all individuals, regardless of race, color, ancestry, national origin, religion, sex, sexual preference, age, marital status, physical or mental disability. Or any other arbitrary basis of discrimination. And whereas the county of Santa Barbara is committed to ensuring that all of its residents are appraised and knowledgeable of their rights and responsibilities with respect to fair housing laws.

And whereas local nonprofit organizations such as the Legal Aid Foundation of Santa Barbara County The Santa Barbara Rental Housing Mediation Task Force, the Rental Housing Roundtable and the Isla Vista Tenants Union have provided vital services to Santa Barbara County residents regarding fair housing as well as legal assistance and mediations to resolve rental housing Disputes and whereas the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development in addition to nationally recognizing April as Fair Housing Month is also currently promoting fair housing laws through the launch of a national university fair housing education and outreach campaign.

Now, therefore be it order and resolve that this Board of Supervisors recognizes April 2014 as Fair Housing Month in the County of Santa Barbara and urges all members of the community to educate themselves on the rights and responsibilities relating to fair housing in celebration of this observance passed and adopted today.

PresenterAndrea BufanoRental Housing Mediation Task ForceProposedself-stated20:59 · ≈ 9:20 AM

Thank you Chair and Supervisor Wolf and Board of Supervisors for this proclamation. I'm Andrea Bufano with the Rental Housing Mediation Task Force, and I would like to say that our program has

not transcribed≈16s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen

0:21 – 0:264 turns

PresenterAndrea BufanoRental Housing Mediation Task ForceProposedself-stated21:14 · ≈ 9:21 AM

been providing these important services Information, staff consultation since 1999 and serving our residents. Recognizing Fair Housing Month and reviewing what it represents is very important to our community. One of the roles of our program is to help educate and inform tenants and landlords of their rights and responsibilities including those pertaining to fair housing. With increased knowledge, tenants and landlords can together work out their disputes and avoid litigation and maintain housing.

On behalf of the Rental Housing Mediation Task Force program staff, and our 15-member City Council appointed trained volunteer mediators, we thank you for your continued support in this fair housing resolution. I understand Mickey Flax would like to speak next.

not transcribed≈8s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 12Proposed22:11 · ≈ 9:22 AM

Good morning, Board of Supervisors. Thank you very much for this resolution. I'm also here representing or at least a member of the Board of Commissioners of the County of Santa Barbara Housing Authority which under federal law and policy and dedication is committed to fair housing in its units We also sponsor Section 8 housing vouchers, and on my street there's a gentleman who lives in a van.

I have struck up a friendship with him and urged him to seek out the opportunity to move into permanent housing. He's a veteran and he got a veterans voucher and went looking for an apartment. He found one but the owner of the apartment, I think it was at some sort of non-profit foundation but the director of the foundation was very concerned about his marital status which is illegal And he has had a long-term relationship with the gentleman who just died, and he's very upset about that. So he talks about his husband all the time.

When the owner of the unit heard that there was no longer an availability and he was not allowed to move into that apartment. He's not in a position to go to court or to fight that. I think it's our responsibility collectively, to make sure that people both potential tenants and potential landlords understand and potential sellers understand that fair housing is the law of the land, the law of the county, the law of human rights.

Despite a long record in activism, I was only arrested once And that was at a sit-in, at a city council meeting in Ann Arbor, Michigan in 1961 trying to get them to pass a fair housing law. At that time it had to be done city by city, county by county. I'm very happy to realize the progress that has been made but I think we also have to understand that there's still lots to be done and thank you for this resolution and continuing recognition of that fact. Thank you.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.8124:30 · ≈ 9:24 AM

All right, we'll go to A2 with Supervisor Carbajal.

CommentIsla VistaProposed · by introduction24:34 · ≈ 9:24 AM

Thank you Mr. Chair if I could have Sigrid Wright from the Community Environmental Council come forward and okay great. Sigrid come on up. Every year we pass, at least for a number of years since I've been involved with NACo and as your representative to NACO. We try to promote County Government Month. And usually there's a different theme for that year and this year it's resiliency.

And we in county government have done a lot to promote resiliency. We've had many discussions. Promulgating many policies, many efforts to try to achieve that for our county operations and in our community. But this year in commemorating Government County Month I thought I would invite CEC and Sigrid Wright is here representing this organization because we never do anything alone and the CEC Organization Community Environmental Council Our community has been in the forefront and in the avant garde of environmental protection sustainability.

And early on now recycling is so common to many of us. But back in the day was CEC who really started that and in our community. And now we're at 73% of recycling of ours of our waste. I thought that it would be great to celebrate all the partners and agencies that have really helped create this momentum and this culture of sustainability and resiliency. So, um, I really appreciate you being here Sigrid to accept this award commemorating counties but in the area of resiliency because of all the great efforts that CEC does To help us, to push us to be more resilient and sustainable. If you could read the resolution please?

0:26 – 0:302 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed26:55 · ≈ 9:26 AM

Chair Lavinino, members of the board. This is a resolution proclaiming April 2014 as National County Government Month in Santa Barbara County whereas the nation's 3,077 counties provide over 300 million Americans with a number of essential public services that include public safety, public health, social services, mental health services, administering elections, keeping records and community planning And whereas the National Association of Counties, NACo has designated April 2014 as National County Government Month. And whereas Santa Barbara County is working with NACO through its resilient counties initiative and other stakeholders to plan and implement efforts To make our community more resilient in the face of expected climate and economic diversity.

This includes providing additional resources to enhance the security over energy, food, water, transportation and emergency response systems. To enhance their ability to thrive amid change physical, social and economic conditions. And whereas a resilient community is one that remains healthy, vibrant, safe and economically competitive while able to anticipate and adopt to all types of change including climate, economic and social. And whereas on April 26th and 27th, county agencies will participate in the annual Earth Day celebration organized by the Community Environmental Council to highlight some of the best practices that individuals and organizations can implement to make our community more resilient and sustainable. Now, therefore be it order and resolve that this Board of Supervisors proclaims April 2014 as National County Government Month and encourage all residents to participate in planned activities that highlight the importance of this year's theme Ready and Resilient Counties.

Prepare, Respond, Thrive! Passed and adopted today.

CommentSigrid WrightProposedself-stated28:51 · ≈ 9:28 AM

Thank you, Chair and Supervisors. We're really pleased to be here today. I'm Sigrid Wright. I am the Festival Director for the Santa Barbara Earth Day Festival. That event is on salutes showing the poster there is April 26th, Saturday April 26th and Sunday April 27th. I am really happy too to have such a strong partnership with the county on the theme of resiliency we hosted a summit with you last summer and many of those themes are carrying over to the festival this year I'm also really happy to see such a strong representation of the county at Earth Day. You have some of the 200 booths we have there, many of the county departments will be there and many of the supervisors will be taking office hours on Saturday.

Most of you know that Santa Barbara was one of the first communities to host an Earth Day festival in the U.S., but you may not know that we continue that legacy, and the county has really been a strong advocate for that. We host one of the largest and most consistently held festivals or Earth Day festivals in the U. S.. And again with the theme of resiliency and partnering with the county, we're really happy. Thank you for this honor.

0:30 – 0:354 turns

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.8130:09 · ≈ 9:30 AM

All right, we'll move on to A4. Supervisor Wolf?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 11Proposed30:14 · ≈ 9:30 AM

Thank you Mr. Chair. This is a resolution proclaiming April 2014 as DMV Donate Life Month in Santa Barbara County and I'd like to call Scott Burns, Donate Alive Ambassador and Lisa Holzman the Donation Development Coordinator. And before we read the resolution I just like to say a couple of words You know, as I was listening to the word resiliency, Scott comes to mind.

And those 21,000 people in California who are waiting for an organ transplant or and I think that Personal resiliency is to be commended and the hope that a donor or a match will be found for those 21,000 people. And the fact that we're celebrating this event to encourage people when they renew their driver's license to make sure that they are a donor if and when that unfortunate time arises but also knowing that in that act There is that opportunity to save someone else's life. So I am always so honored to present this resolution and I want to thank both of you for being here, and thank you Scott for... You are a hero. And I hope at some point we won't... You can still be an ambassador but we want you to be an ambassador with that new organ.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed31:53 · ≈ 9:31 AM

Chair Lavinino and members of the board, this is a resolution proclaiming April 2014 as DMV Donate Life Month in Santa Barbara County. Whereas organ tissue marrow and blood donation are life giving acts recognized worldwide as expressions of compassion to those in need. And whereas more than 121,000 individuals nationwide and more than 21,000 in California are currently on the National Organ Transplant waiting list. And every 90 minutes, one person dies while waiting due to the shortage of donated organs. The need for donated organs is especially urgent in Hispanic and African American communities. And whereas more than 600,000 units of blood per year are needed to meet the need in California at any given time 6,000 patients are in need of volunteer marrow donors.

And whereas a single individual's donation of heart, lungs, Liver, kidneys, pancreas and small intestine can save up to eight lives. Donation of tissue can save and heal the lives of up to 50 others, and a single blood donation can help three people in need. Millions of lives each year are saved and healed by donors of organs, tissues, marrow and blood. And whereas the spirit of giving and decision to donate are not restricted by age or medical condition, over 10 million Californians have signed up with the state authorized Donate Life California Registry to ensure their wishes to be organ and tissue donors are honored. And whereas, California residents can sign up with a Donate Life California registry when applying for or renewing their driver's license or ID cards at the California Department of Motor Vehicles.

Now therefore, be it order and resolve that this Board of Supervisors proclaims April 2014 as DMV Donate Life Month in Santa Barbara County passed and adopted today.

CommentLisa HolzmanProposedself-stated33:47 · ≈ 9:33 AM

Thank you, Chair, Board of Supervisors, Ms. Wolfe. We're so proud that the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors has pronounced this Donate Life Month. My name is Lisa Holzman. I'm the donation development coordinator for the Santa Barbara County with One Legacy, the organ procurement organization in this area. Santa Barbara County actually had 48 organ donors in the last year saving 48 lives And what we like the community to know is those who are giving, it also comes back to our community. So we're very proud to help the community of Santa Barbara County.

I have actually had a kidney transplant for 23 years so I've had a second whole life. My oldest sister has had a kidney transplant for 22 years, my younger brother for 18 years and my other sister just got a kidney transplant from a friend, a living donor. A kidney transplant is a genetic disorder. It's just one of the disorders or diseases where you might need an organ transplant. You might know someone or I've heard of someone who's in need like Scott.

My whole family, by the generosity of others is still standing today able to give back to our communities and that's what I'm doing with OneLegacy so really appreciate this proclamation. We do hope that you will consider and the audience will consider going DonateLiveCalifornia.org, or at least talk with their families about their wishes if they want to or do not want to be a donor so if that time comes their families won't have to make that difficult decision. Thank you.

not transcribed≈9s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen

0:35 – 0:415 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 13Proposed35:35 · ≈ 9:35 AM

Thank You Lisa To bring it a little personal two years ago I had a kidney operation and at the operation my kidney failed And I said, oh well I need a new kidney. That's when I found out there was a waiting list. I've been on the waiting list now for two years. I'm expected to be on it for another five years. Normally 90% of the people when they have a family member that needs a kidney they put their hand up and go take mine and generally only about 10% of the time does a family member actually work. I did not know when I needed a kidney that there was actually a waiting list There's right now about 180, 190 people in the county of Santa Barbara that are on this list. One of the reasons we're here is so that the general public realizes that this is an issue and get more awareness on it.

Appreciate your proclamation. I thank you for letting us talk. Thank you.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.8136:34 · ≈ 9:36 AM

Thank you very much. All right, we're going to stay with Supervisor Wolf. A5.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 11Proposed36:48 · ≈ 9:36 AM

Thank you, Mr. Chair. This is a resolution honoring the Animal Shelter Assistance Program also known as ASAP upon their 25th anniversary. I'd like to call forward Angela Walters Rockwell. She's the ED and President of ASAP Board and Lee Heller, the Vice President of the board. These two women along with the others from ASAP Do an amazing job every day, every hour taking care of our little critter friends.

And we couldn't do the work that is our county's responsibility without the help of the amazing volunteers that you have at ASAP. And so from the County Board of Supervisors, And to wish you another 25 years because you're doing amazing work and truly helping the county and our little friends. Thank you.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed37:54 · ≈ 9:37 AM

Chair Lavinino, members of the board this is a resolution of commendation honoring the Animal Shelter Assistance Program upon their 25th anniversary. Whereas the animal shelter assistance program also known as ASAP has been providing the highest level of care to the homeless cats and kittens of Southern Santa Barbara County since 1989. With a mission of eliminating the killing of adoptable cats impounded at the Santa Barbara County Animal Shelter by providing daily care, medical rehabilitation and adoptive homes. And whereas the animal shelter assistance program was founded in 1989 by a dedicated core of volunteers Working to save the lives of the cats impounded at the Santa Barbara shelter, said volunteers were able to reduce the euthanasia rate from 90% of adoptable cats to zero adoptable cats within a year.

And whereas the Animal Shelter Assistance Program became the first municipal shelter in the US to stop the killing of adoptable cats for the sole purpose of population control. By the end of 1990, the Animal Shelter Assistance Program's adoption rate leapt from 10% to 100% of adoptable cats. And whereas the Animal Shelter Assistance Program has become a model in Santa Barbara County, it is a model of successful partnership between a municipal animal control agency And a private 501c3 nonprofit engaged in the shared goal of caring for homeless and abandoned animals. Now therefore be it ordered and resolved that this Board of Supervisors commence Animal Shelter Assistance Program upon its 25th anniversary, and thanks the program and its members for their dedication to saving and improving the lives of Santa Barbara County's homeless and abandoned cats passed and adopted today.

PresenterAngela Walters RockwellASAP Board of Directors as well as the executive director and I'm here with LeeProposedself-stated39:42 · ≈ 9:39 AM

Thank you Chairman Lovino, Supervisor Wolf and members of the board. My name is Angela Walters Rockwell and I'm the president of the ASAP Board of Directors as well as the executive director and I'm here with Lee Heller who is the vice president of our Board of Directors. It's very exciting for me to be here today because ASAP actually started in this room with a group of committed citizens that came before the Board of Supervisors And asked for a chance, a chance to save the lives of the cats and kittens that were coming into the Santa Barbara County shelter. Because back in 1989, 90% of those cats never made it out alive.

And the Board of Supervisors in 1989 took a chance on a group of citizens in this community and 25 years later ASAP has grown into an incredibly successful well-respected rescue organization. We achieve what few rescue groups nationally could ever even dream of And last year, over 94% of the cats and kittens entering our shelter not only left alive but went to loving adoptable homes. We are extremely pleased we operate on a shoestring budget with about 160 volunteers volunteering and donating the equivalent of 12 full time employees seven days a week 365 days a year.

And together with Santa Barbara County Animal Services, we are really a model of how a nonprofit can partner with the municipal government and not only make it work but make it work better. So we thank you today. We thank your predecessors for giving us that chance and we really hope that you'll come celebrate with us on May 17th. We're having a huge party at QAD and here's your invitation.

Thank you so much.

0:41 – 0:489 turns

CommentIsla VistaProposed · by introduction41:43 · ≈ 9:41 AM

Angela can I bring my cat? I'm just checking. You

PresenterAngela Walters RockwellASAP Board of Directors as well as the executive director and I'm here with LeeProposedself-stated41:47 · ≈ 9:41 AM

could, but I'm not sure he's going to enjoy the martinis that we'll serve you.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.8141:54 · ≈ 9:41 AM

All right our last resolution will be Supervisor Adam A6

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role41:59 · ≈ 9:41 AM

Okay, we have Steve Grigg and Ian Livitt from Venco. And I just wanted to, by this resolution, appreciate and recognize the value of the service that Finneco does for us as our number one taxpayer. Finneco and all the other taxpayers are the source of 93% of our general fund revenue, and we couldn't provide the services that we do without them. And I wanted to congratulate them and thank them for their service.

Clerk will read.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed42:41 · ≈ 9:42 AM

Chair Lavinino, members of the board. This is a resolution of accommodation honoring Veneco Inc for its many contributions to the county of Santa Barbara. Whereas Veneco Inc is a local company founded in Carpinteria California in 1992 and whereas Veneco employs over 140 residents of Southern California of which 56 live with their families in Santa Barbara County. The average salary of a non-executive Veneca employee is significantly higher than the average in Santa Barbara County and nationwide And Veneco provides high paying opportunities for both skilled and unskilled laborers. And whereas, Veneco paid approximately 4.8 million in property and ad valorem taxes in Santa Barbara County last year. And also paid over 32 million in royalties to the state of California in 2013 which are increasing with each year of production.

And whereas above and beyond their tax contribution, Veneco also donates millions of dollars to a variety of non-profit organizations. The Veneco Community Sponsorship has invested more than $15 million into organizations focused on youth and seniors, environment and education, mental health and homelessness, healthcare and nutrition. And many Veneco employees also volunteer their own personal time for their community and for service programs. And whereas, Veneco is state recognized for the reliability and safety of its operations in 2012 if only six awards available, Veneca received three. One for its operations in Goleta at the Elwood Onshore Facility. Veneco continues to partner with its neighbors and regulatory agencies to improve its policies towards providing safe operations and conditions, and whereas Veneco continues to grow and provide stable jobs and revenue to our communities, county, and state while developing a resource critical to our energy needs.

Now therefore be it order and resolve that this Board of Supervisors recognizes Veneco Inc for its achievements and numerous contributions to our communities County and state passed and adopted today.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 14Proposed44:46 · ≈ 9:44 AM

Chair Labonino, Supervisor Adam, Board of Supervisors on behalf of the 140 employees that Veneco has in our Southern California operations we're very honored to accept this award and appreciate it very much. Within Veneco, I want to say a couple of things. First of all we are very much, we're a local company, we're based in Carpentria. We're very much recognized by all of our state and federal regulators as being a superior operator of our operations here in Santa Barbara County and indeed in all of Southern California. And all of us that work there are very, very proud of that recognition. We're also very, very pleased to be acknowledged that we actually provide economic vitality to the state of California and to the local counties where we work, especially Santa Barbara County.

And that may be through employment, through contract services, through production royalties that we pay to the states, taxes that we pay to the counties, and contributions we make to many, many non-profits. All of us at Veneco are very proud of what we do and Provide that economic vitality to the county, and we all of us really appreciate very much this honor that you guys are giving us today. Thank you very, very much.

CommentIsla VistaProposed · by introduction46:05 · ≈ 9:46 AM

Thank you. Supervisor Carbone? Thank you very much Mr. Chair. I congratulate you on getting this resolution. Mr. Adam kind of forgot that you're in my district, or else I would have actually co-sponsored this resolution. You know, I think everything in that resolution is something we all agree with. You guys do an extraordinary job. You live in a sector that is challenging at times and creates a lot of debate and discussion.

But notwithstanding that valid debate that I think goes on about your industry, no doubt you contribute greatly to our economy. You contribute greatly in your philanthropy to many of the organizations and I just want to recognize you for all the good you do in the community and for the economic contribution to our economy so thank you.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.8147:07 · ≈ 9:47 AM

Also want to add it's probably not a title. That most are clamoring to get is the number one taxpayer in the county, but it fell upon you this year. But I also wanted to just recognize the job that Steve Gregg does for your company and it's always important for us to have a A point of contact that understands the nuances of Santa Barbara County and the industry in which you work. And I just want to thank you for the accessibility and professionalism that he has, and understands where he works and how things need to be done here at a different level, a standard that doesn't apply elsewhere. So just wanted to publicly acknowledge that.

Supervisor-

CommentIsla VistaProposed · by introduction47:53 · ≈ 9:47 AM

I want to ask you one question. Why are you located in Carpinteria? Here's your opportunity to say all the wonderful things about my district.

0:48 – 0:5516 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 15Proposed48:05 · ≈ 9:48 AM

Yeah, the tough questions come to me. Literally that's where the company was formed. It was formed in 1992 with a small office over off of Carpentry Avenue. We spent some time in Santa Barbara and just the availability of the space and kind of where our employees are located it made the most sense to be in Carpentry.

CommentIsla VistaProposed · by introduction48:30 · ≈ 9:48 AM

I want to echo what Supervisor Lavinino said about you, Steve. I think it's great to be able to have ongoing communication when there's issues that arise and have good honest discussions and I appreciate that.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 15Proposed48:44 · ≈ 9:48 AM

Well thank you very much. I feel the same. I appreciate it. Thank you.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.8148:47 · ≈ 9:48 AM

Very good. Thank you very much. All right. With that, are there any speakers from the public on the rest of the agenda?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed49:01 · ≈ 9:49 AM

Chair Lavinino and members of the board we have a request to speak from the public on item A15.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.8149:07 · ≈ 9:49 AM

Okay. And do any of my board members wish to pull any items? Mr.

CommentDesiree Coleman Chair I'dProposedself-stated49:14 · ≈ 9:49 AM

Chair I'd like to pull A12 and A19.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.8149:18 · ≈ 9:49 AM

12 and 19, Supervisor Carbajal? Supervisor Wolf? None. Peter? None. I would like to pull A18. And so let's go to the public first with 15.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed49:31 · ≈ 9:49 AM

Chair Lavagnino and members of the board, item A-15 is from Community Services. It is to consider recommendations regarding revisions to the Kachuma Lake Recreation Area Mandatory Vessel Inspection Program and Boat Launch Protocol in the 3rd District. And our request to speak today is Whitney Wada.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 16Proposed49:52 · ≈ 9:49 AM

Good morning. Good morning I'd like to thank the Board for the opportunity to speak back in 2000, I believe it was the end Seven, when I first heard about the issue with quagga mussels, the Casitas Municipal Water District was looking to close down at Casitas. So I started going to all of the hearings and to find out what the issues were. Back then there was no protocol as far as inspection and it was Santa Barbara County that created the ad hoc committee that came up with a tagging system that all the other lakes have followed hence.

I'm not in opposition of the inspection protocols. I think they're very important, but I have a couple of issues with the 30-day notice or quarantine. If I never fish outside of the county and I take my boat to the harbor, the harbors run by the city. If i've gone to Kachuma and had my boat tagged and then wanted to fish the ocean, the tag is broken. There's no protocol with the city to address, to have my boat retagged And then if I wanted to go the next day to Kachuma, I would be quarantined for 30 days. Not ever leaving the county, not ever being in any of the affected waters.

So I think that 30-day issue is a little bit restrictive. 14 days is tough, especially for the bass fishermen who fish Lake Lopez, Santa Margarita, Casitas. If my boat is tagged at Kachuma, Lopez Lake in Santa Margarita Lakes will accept the tagging system because they've known that we've gone through the proper protocol and our boat is inspected. But currently, the county won't accept a tag from Lake Lopez or Santa Margarita so it's an endless loop that if I wanted to fish another lake That's not infected. I would be quarantined for 30 days, so I think that's a little bit tough in the mid 80s. It wasn't uncommon for Lake Kachuma to have more than 90 boats fish bass tournament.

I don't believe there's an organization that's going to run a tournament consumer this year. I have several friends that are not renewing their yearly pass to Kachuma because the inspection protocols has just become too restrictive that they wanted to fish another lake there. They're just stuck and I would ask the county to maybe reach out To Hannibeth Jackson. And back in 2008, or the end of seven when I went to the public hearings for Lake Casitas when they were shutting it down, I addressed the Department of Fish and Game and suggested that they add a $5 charge to the boaters registration.

A barcode with every CF number, put scanners at every single lake in the state of California. So that if I fished in Lake Skinner, which is an affected area, I would be scanned in that information gets downloaded at the end of the day. And then if I wanted to come to Kachuma that following weekend, they would say they would scan me and they would say you were at Lake Skinner. You're going to welcome to fish Kachuma but you need to be quarantined. You need to be clean and dry. The clean and dry phrase that the mantra that is put out there Was created by the bass tournament anglers. They were the ones that said if our boats are clean and dry, there's no water in our live wells, there's no water in our bilge, there is no water in our engines.

The villagers which are the larval stages of the quaggas would not be viable if you're clean and dry for 14 days.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.8153:19 · ≈ 9:53 AM

Okay. I just wanted to let you know, you're about a half a minute over on

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 16Proposed53:21 · ≈ 9:53 AM

your time. So my one analogy is that if I had communicable tuberculosis, I would be quarantined by the health department. I would not be able to go out in the public. What the state is requiring of the water purveyors in the state is try and find the infected boat. So if we had a scanning system then every boat would be... You would know where they were and the other thing that happened

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.8153:45 · ≈ 9:53 AM

Okay. I'm going to have to cut you

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 16Proposed53:47 · ≈ 9:53 AM

off, unfortunately. One last thing is there was a bill that was passed and now we pay a $16 voter registration fee for money that's going to go to some type of quagga inspection process. And as I

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.8153:59 · ≈ 9:53 AM

said... This issue is very deep and there's a lot of information, and I'm sure Supervisor Farr's staff would be interested to get your information. And I understand what you're talking about but we have a long hearing today and we're going to have to have three minute public comments. All right, thank you for your time, I appreciate it.

CommentDesiree Coleman Chair I'dProposedself-stated54:18 · ≈ 9:54 AM

Thank you Mr. Chair, just in response to the speaker. Clearly this is a very difficult and potentially very dangerous situation for Lake Kachuma. As you know the board instituted protocols some years ago. This is kind of a ramping up of that. I think that we'll be monitoring it. I think the speaker raises some valid concerns. But we also have a letter from Combe that is very happy that we're taking this extra step. And I think it was when we found out over the holidays in December, that Lake Piru and Ventura County had been infected despite everybody's great care really put us on high alert again. So I think it's important to go ahead and institute this. Certainly, the departments will be monitoring it to see how it affects all of it. And unfortunately right now there's not going to be that much water in the lake anyway so we'll have a little bit of time.

Thank you Mr Chair.

0:55 – 1:0316 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed55:24 · ≈ 9:55 AM

Chair Lavagnino, members of the board. Item A-12 is from Auditor Controller. It is to consider recommendations regarding the impoundment of various taxing entities 2013-2014 property tax revenue and I'll just go through the rest of the items to read through. Item A18 is from FIRED, it's to authorize the fire department to accept a donation of approximately $75,000 worth of equipment from the Santa Barbara Firefighters Alliance for the arson dog program. And item A19 is from Planning and Development, it is to consider recommendations regarding Fish and Game Commission grant awards.

CommentDesiree Coleman Chair I'dProposedself-stated55:59 · ≈ 9:55 AM

I don't have a problem with this. I just had a couple of questions because this is a lot of money that is held for an extended period of time before it can be distributed So In talking about some of the other outstanding impounds mobile home parks and the fractional aircraft said that there appeared to be reaching a conclusion But haven't been fully resolved. Do you have an estimate as to when they will be resolved because that's over two million dollars

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 17Proposed56:32 · ≈ 9:56 AM

Chair supervisor far. I don't the on the Mobile homes one of the years was settled and determined in the courts But other years have not been settled yet, and so we're waiting on those years to be settled And I'm unsure of it perhaps council might have a an update on that and on the other large oil company just waiting for the assessment appeals board to go through the process and

CommentDesiree Coleman Chair I'dProposedself-stated56:59 · ≈ 9:56 AM

OK, so in the case of the mobile home parks that ended into the judicial system. But the other still is within our internal process for assessment appeals?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 17Proposed57:08 · ≈ 9:57 AM

I believe that's correct

CommentDesiree Coleman Chair I'dProposedself-stated57:09 · ≈ 9:57 AM

yes. So you know is there any way what I mean what is needed to make the process move forward more quickly? Do you have any, I mean what is it in the nature of our internal administrative process that makes this drag out for three or four years?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 17Proposed57:30 · ≈ 9:57 AM

Unfortunately, I would have to defer to council on that and perhaps the assessor who is going through the appeals process with the applicant.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 9Proposed57:40 · ≈ 9:57 AM

I can give you some more information on that Supervisor Farr. In regard to the mobile home park appeals, we've taken those all the way to the California Supreme Court. The court ruled in the county's favor, but a petition for review was filed which is delaying the Supreme Court. But it will issue its final ruling on April 23rd. That's the absolute deadline. And as soon as that happens, the case will be remanded back down several levels all the way back to the Assessment Appeals Board.

I am expecting a favorable outcome, but I won't know for sure for 2 weeks once that happens we should get this wound up within months. So that's on the mobile home Park

CommentDesiree Coleman Chair I'dProposedself-stated58:31 · ≈ 9:58 AM

okay

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 9Proposed58:32 · ≈ 9:58 AM

in regard to the oil and gas. We resolved through settlement one year, but we have several other years pending as noted here We expect we may have to make one more significant reduction, mostly because oil prices dropped suddenly but it was short-lived. They dropped in 2009 and they have since been coming back up so we may need to make a modest adjustment for 2010 2011 has also been appealed, but there have been suggestions from the oil company that they may be withdrawing because they will probably not be entitled to a significant refund.

But I'm just telling you what we expect will happen. Instead of going through a lengthy hearing process, we're actively working to try to resolve 2010 and 2011 on the oil cases. And I'm hoping it's a complicated analysis with petroleum engineers but we may be able to resolve that before the end of the year. I think it was the fractional aircraft. We won that the tax was valid but we were not allowed to apply it, no county retroactively for four years.

So the refunds that were deserved for the retroactive years are just about complete. There was certain paperwork through the auditor's office that each company had to go through And for the future, I don't anticipate there will be any refunds unless they wanted to challenge the value of a particular jet. But those have really been resolved by the court.

not transcribed≈12s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
CommentDesiree Coleman Chair I'dProposedself-stated1:00:48 · ≈ 10:00 AM

Thank you very much and CEO Miyasato whenever these get resolved and the auditor distributes the proceeds of what's left then that just flows into the county's general revenues? And is accounted for at some point in time?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 17Proposed1:01:04 · ≈ 10:01 AM

Chair and Supervisor Farr, that's correct. After the impounds the money is in the funds set aside and it is a non-spendable. Once it's settled and that money is released then it becomes available for appropriation at that time. Okay thank you. And we'd need another budget revision at that time to be able to

CommentDesiree Coleman Chair I'dProposedself-stated1:01:21 · ≈ 10:01 AM

appropriate it. So we would see it as a budget revision? Absolutely. Thank you Mr. Chair

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.811:01:27 · ≈ 10:01 AM

Thank you. A18, I just wanted to pull this and publicly thank the Santa Barbara Firefighters Alliance. At times we have strict budget concerns and we have a lot of demands on our limited resources. It's nice when we receive a donation and we received a donation. And the amount of $75,000 for an arson dog program. So I just wanted to pull that and let the public know that Santa Barbara Firefighters Alliance had stepped up to the plate so we really appreciate that. So let's go to A19 back to Supervisor Farr.

CommentDesiree Coleman Chair I'dProposedself-stated1:01:59 · ≈ 10:01 AM

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Even though the Fish and Game Commission has been making these grants for some time I think that they were kind of buried in procedure and we didn't actually see them so this is the first time that we've actually seen them and I want to say that I'm supportive of it but I do have a comment. I think that the grants for the most part are going to some really worthy endeavors that probably might have difficulty getting Grant money other places. But the one I just wanted to comment on and you know, I will be talking to my appointee about it is the money for the pheasant hunt because it says that for public education it's supposed to be related to scientific principles of fish and wildlife conservation So I can understand that for those children that are interested, teaching them firearm safety is probably very important.

But it doesn't seem to fit the parameters of this particular grant. But again since this is a new process, I think the rest of them are very good but You know that there's a significant amount of money in the pot here, and I think that I'll be talking with my commissioner as far as why they decide to limit the grants because some of the organizations seem like they could probably use some more money. And I'm just trying to understand why they decide to do it the way that they do it. Thank you Mr. Chair.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.811:03:33 · ≈ 10:03 AM

Okay very good can I get a motion to approve the balance? I

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

1:03 – 1:0811 turns

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role1:03:42 · ≈ 10:03 AM

just wanted to say on that Deborah Takiyama pheasant hunt. I have taken my own kid on that hunt and there's a whole lot more to it than firearm safety. There's there's they talk about biology. They talk about habitat and game conservation And I think that it was it was really a wonderful experience for him and all the kids that were there enjoyed it, and they got to have a positive interaction with They're game wardens and sheriffs and other law enforcement.

And I think it was a, there's a lot more to it than just a pheasant hunt. And they got to hunt over a dog as well which is something most people don't get to do.

CommentDesiree Coleman Chair I'dProposedself-stated1:04:26 · ≈ 10:04 AM

So, I'm sorry, excuse me Supervisor Adams so they're not actually killing pheasants?

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role1:04:29 · ≈ 10:04 AM

Oh, they're killing pheasants. No question about

CommentDesiree Coleman Chair I'dProposedself-stated1:04:32 · ≈ 10:04 AM

it. That's my concern about the grant. Thank

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role1:04:35 · ≈ 10:04 AM

you. There's a lot more to it is my point than killing the pheasants and the pheasants unfortunately for the pheasants were going to die anyway because that's why they were raised so

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.811:04:47 · ≈ 10:04 AM

All right very good can I get a motion to approve the balance of the agenda? Moved and seconded. All those in favor? Aye. None opposed, it passes unanimously. So agenda management wise since item one is going to take a considerable amount of time what we're going to do is item two is probably less than five minutes. We're going to take item two, we're going to take a short break and then come back for item one so let's go to Harry Hagen with item two. Madam Clerk can you please read it in.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed1:05:14 · ≈ 10:05 AM

Chair Lavinino, members of the board. Item number two is from the Treasurer Tax Collector. It is a hearing to consider recommendations regarding California Statewide Communities Development Authority tax exempt financing on behalf of the Heritage II Apartments Project.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 18Proposed1:05:30 · ≈ 10:05 AM

All right, Mr. Hagan? Good morning, Chair Labanino, members of the board. This item before you today is a Tax and Equity Financial Responsibility Act hearing more commonly known as a TEFRA hearing. A TEFRA hearing is needed when a non-profit organization wants to access the municipal markets and that's according to 142D of Internal Revenue Code. 147 F of the IRC code requires a public hearing in the jurisdiction of the project This project is the Heritage to Apartments Project in Vandenberg Village area.

The issuer is CSCDA, or California Statewide Community Development Authority. It's an $8 million proposed financing and Investment Concepts Inc. is the developer of this. This item was previously heard by the Debt Advisory Committee on March 21st And it was approved and recommended for your board's approval at that point. If this item seems a little bit familiar, you heard this item last May. And because the issuer and the developer did not complete their financing within the one-year time frame that's required for a TAFRA hearing they're back in front of you today for approval again.

Katelyn Langtot from CSCDA is here to answer any financing questions. And Russell Khoury from Investment Concepts is here also behind me to answer any questions you may have on the project specific. And Jennifer Christensen, our investment debt officer, is with me also and so between the four of us we should be able to answer any questions you may have.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.811:07:13 · ≈ 10:07 AM

All right thank you very much Mr. Hagen. Any questions from the board?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 19Proposed1:07:18 · ≈ 10:07 AM

All right

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.811:07:19 · ≈ 10:07 AM

can I get a motion to approve? Moved and seconded. All those in favor? Aye, none opposed. Very good. Thank you very much. You made it under your five minute window. All right we're going to take a ten minute break come back at 1015 and we'll take up item number one. The. ♪

1:08 – 1:181 turns

CommentHarry HagenProposed · by introduction1:08:59 · ≈ 10:08 AM

¶. ♪ ♪♪ ¶. ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ I'm ¶. ♪ ¶. ♪ ♪ ♪ ¶. Yeah.

1:19 – 1:222 turns

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.811:19:40 · ≈ 10:19 AM

♪ This could work out perfect so we can get this done right before... Yeah. I was thinking of back and forth. We'll do Santa Maria first. All right, our other board members. If they could make their way to the hearing room? We've got a pretty long agenda item before us so we'd like to get started. All right. Crack that whip. Taskmaster. I know, I'm tough. I said 1015 it's 1022. I'm tough.

You'll be thanking me at lunchtime when we finish. All right, so we will reconvene. We're going to

move on to item one. Madam Clerk can you please read it in?

1:22 – 1:313 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed1:22:12 · ≈ 10:22 AM

Chair Lavinino and members of the board, item number one is from Sheriff and General Services. It is a hearing to consider recommendations regarding the Northern Branch Jail Project 8600 update approval of preliminary staffing plan and operating cost analysis received local vendor and labor outreach plan in the third district.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.811:22:32 · ≈ 10:22 AM

All right, very

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 20Proposed1:22:33 · ≈ 10:22 AM

good. Good morning Sheriff Brown. Good morning Chair Lavinino, members of the board. I'm here this morning with General Services Director Matt Pontes and members of our staff who have all been working very hard to put today's presentation on for you today. This will be an update on the Northern Branch Jail Project, and it will include a look at our staffing plan and other documents that your board needs to approve as part of the AB 900 funding process for the jail.

Also with us today is Randy Rominger who is from Kitchell, our construction management firm, and he'll be available also as will all of us following this presentation for any questions you might have. Before we get into the nuts and bolts of the update, I want to just provide you and the public with a kind of historic overview about the problem that really generated this whole project. Jail overcrowding has been a tremendous problem in our county for more than 30 years. And inadequate jail capacity, in other words Infrastructure of the jail not keeping pace with population growth and criminal justice demands and needs has been an ongoing problem, as I say for decades.

For more than 20 years grand juries each and every year respectively have indicated that there has been a need for a new jail in the northern part of our county. But it's important to note that the jail in the North County will not just be an asset to the North County. The jail in the North County will provide an increase in our entire jail system, in terms of capacity and will be a benefit and a safety enhancement to everyone that lives and works in Santa Barbara County.

Over the years we've had ten different studies on jail overcrowding. Over the years we've had seven different additions and remodels to the main jail campus. And I often say that our main jail is Santa Barbara's version of the Winchester Mystery House. It has been added on to so many different times that it is a conglomeration of different types of facilities, different types of design in terms of the jail infrastructure and it's not an ideal situation by any means at all. And the bottom line is that the infrastructure there, this mixed infrastructure really was not intended for our current average daily population of about 1,000 inmates who are in our custody at any given time. In 1984, the overcrowding situation resulted in a class action lawsuit that ended with a court order that to this day limits the population capacity limit within our main jail.

In 2000, then Sheriff Jim Thomas and the Board of Supervisors worked together to put a ballot measure called U-2000 on the ballot to try to raise money through a sales tax to build the jail. But that ballot measure failed at the polls. In 2006 because of the pressing problem of jail overcrowding. The department had to convert the honor farm, the dormitory style portion of the jail to what is now called the medium security facility and this was a facility that was designed for Petty thieves, repeat drunk drivers, people who were not making child support payments and so forth.

Those types of inmates no longer even come into our jail. They either go straight to probation or some alternative to custody because we need the room for more serious offenders and the medium security offenders who are in that facility are in a facility that was not designed to hold them at all. In 2007, after I was elected sheriff with a promise that I would put together a Blue Ribbon Commission to study this problem and make recommendations to this board and to the public.

I did in fact convene a blue ribbon commission on jail overcrowding That Blue Ribbon Commission issued a report and recommendations. The recommendations included a blended strategy, they said that we needed to construct a new jail to get some additional space but that we also needed to make more use of rehabilitative programming to try to reduce the recidivism rate, the repeat offenses that are committed by people who are released from jail.

In 2008, we aggressively sought a grant from the state of California under a piece of legislation called AB 900. And the first phase of this was a grant that was open to counties to build additional jail facilities. We competed for and we were selected for funding under AB 900, phase one. We received a conditional award of $56.3 million. That award required a 25% cash match. Unfortunately at the time that we received it and shortly thereafter, we began to experience, we were sort of in the depth of the recession. And the county started to experience some significant financial problems and issues. Bottom line is we weren't able to come up with the 25% match, and we didn't have a good plan on how we were going to come up with the operating cost for the new jail once it was built.

So we were unable to meet that need on our own. So that's when the board and myself worked to put Measure S, another ballot measure on the ballot that would have raised money again through a sales tax. To not only build and operate the jail but also to fund programming and to enhance other public safety. Unfortunately, that ballot measure also was defeated at the polls and we were left with the same dilemma and the same problem. It was at that point that I went to Sacramento with Sheriff Curtis Hill from San Benito County and spoke with the then Secretary of the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. And told him that this AB 900 program was not going to really work out, that not only in our counties but in other counties. The counties couldn't afford the match, couldn't afford to build these much needed facilities.

And these facilities were needed to relieve some overcrowding issues at the state level as well. Matt went back to the legislature, there was a lot of behind the scenes work and we ultimately got AB 900 phase two. A grant program that had different criteria and was more beneficial to the counties in terms of the match which is only a 10% match that was required. So in 2012, we made the difficult decision to relinquish the bird in the hand, the grant that we had, in order to apply for an AB 900 phase two award.

And at that point, we raised our request for funding to $80 million, the maximum that we could achieve under the medium sized county's plan. The reason we did that was because the year before in 2011, AB 900 had come into effect. A piece of legislation known as criminal justice realignment. That criminal justice realignment legislation transferred the responsibility for many inmates who were formerly in the charge of the state to now be in the charge of the county either as inmates in our jails or as people who are on supervision after release from jail facilities.

So we needed additional capacity, we needed to tweak our design on the jail. We actually went ahead and applied for the $80 million. And I'm pleased as you're well aware, we were selected for funding under AB 900 phase two, received a conditional award of $80 million requiring a 10% county match. In 2014, we were able to even enhance that by applying under a different piece of legislation SB 1022 for another grant opportunity that would allow us to build an additional wing on this new jail. A wing that we are intended on and after selection will call The STAR complex, the Sheriff's Treatment and Reentry Complex. We ultimately did receive funding conditional award of 38.9 million again with a 10% county match and that will be part of this project eventually although today we're here to just talk to you about the first phase or the AB 900 phase of the project.

But what we're going to be working hard to do is try to bring SB1022 into alignment with our AB900 awards as well. Every opportunity that we have had to present to you on this project has given you, I think some background on the need for it. I'd like to now turn it over to Matt Pontes who will talk to you about today's project update.

1:31 – 1:472 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 8Proposed1:31:31 · ≈ 10:31 AM

Good morning Chairman Lavagnino, members of the Board, CEO Miyasato. Today more than any other day I'm happy to be before your board and presenting on this project. So as you can see in this slide the facility design is ongoing We have the architectural programming completed. We have schematic design completed and approved by the Board of State Community Corrections.

Design development was completed and submitted to the BSEC for review. We've conducted a set of value engineering workshops, entered, and we are now entering the construction documentation phase. Currently we are on schedule and on budget. As the sheriff alluded to SB 1022 project integration is pending. Here's an overview of the major project milestones those in red are completed and present and future denoted in blue.

As you can see, our current major milestone is the submission to the state. And while we have submitted a partial package for review and comment, the staffing operations component is pending your approval of the recommendations today. Future milestones include the State Public Works Board approval, approval of the plans and specifications by your board prior to state approval for the bid. And ultimately, board approval to award contract for the construction to start in late 2015 with completion in 2018.

General Services and the Auditor-Controller have been working closely to preserve the total $96.1 million dollars in the state approved budget. Our team recently updated the five-year forecast for expenditures as well as annual and monthly projections in expenditures for the next two fiscal years, and has refined budgetary line items for the cost categories.

The projected expenditures include all management and administrative costs, actual design fees, current construction estimates and future fixture and equipment estimates that continue to hold to the approved total budget of $96.1 million.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 20Proposed1:33:57 · ≈ 10:33 AM

What you see up here on the screen is the current site plan with the AB 900 phase one portion of the jail outlined in black towards the center of the site that is bounded by Better Avia Road to the east and west, and by Black Road to the north and south. The placement The orientation of the facility in this manner was done so taking into a number of different considerations including current ag fumigant buffers, wildlife corridors that were required by EIR mitigations, future expansion and potential traffic impacts and visibility in entering the facility.

The EIR provided the design team with a roadmap for compliance in fulfilling the criteria and preserving the county's ability to expand the site in the future up to a potential total of 1,500 beds. The dashed lines to the north and the south and east and Represent the future housing units, including the star SB 1022 complex that would be located immediately to the north. And in the next slide you'll see that in a better manner.

The public and service entrances to the complex are from Black Road from here and the fire road circles the perimeter of the complex. The Executive Oversight Committee has reviewed this site plan and has provided its input and its approval on it. That committee is made up of the CEO, county council, the auditor controller, general services, and sheriff's office staff.

This next slide shows you how the star complex would in essence be this new wing that would be placed onto the jail itself The conceptual plan shows that the access to the Star Center would also come in off of the same site. And the star complex will not only house inmates, it will also be the location for our alternative custody program in the North County. So you'll have people who are on release coming in and out and checking in this area here as well. And the advantage of that will be that we'll have custody staff who will be working externally from the facility, but will be immediately available if there's an emergency of any kind in the facility.

This site plan was also presented to the Executive Oversight Committee for their review and their input and their approval. This next slide shows you the overall floor plan of the main jail itself. And if you can look at this orientation and kind of see this sort of a, it's all sort of centered around a large T a spine if you will here with this additional long corridor coming off of it and everything actually comes off of a corridor in one way or another.

All of these facilities here are the facilities that support the inmate holding areas, which are in the back of the facility here. So all of this is to support all of the actual detention portion of the facility. Right here in the center is central control. This is a control area that basically is staffed and equipped to monitor security entrance egress from all areas of the jail facility itself.

And if you look at the main entrance to the jail, the lobby here where visitors would come in. You have the administration area right here. You have the food service area here. You have the area here which is intake and transportation along the side. This is our health services complex We have our female housing units over in this area. Centralized inmate programming is in this area are remote in roommate programming is in this area, our plan eventually is to try to put together some vocational training programs to include a jail farm that will give inmates The ability to get a job, hopefully in the AG sector once they get released from it. But that would all work out of this area and then the main male housing units are in this area of the facility as well.

This is the service yard deliveries in and out of supplies and so forth our central utilities plant right here and maintenance warehouse for all supplies and and that sort of thing and then some vocational classrooms in this area as well Wanted to show you the difference in design and what we currently have and what we are anticipated having in this new facility as I mentioned to you much of our jail is very antiquated in its design.

The old design and as late as the 1970s, this was state-of-the-art it was a linear type jail facility that type of jail that you traditionally think of his bars and hallways long corridors Very limited viewing ability into the cell areas themselves. It requires the custody staff to walk a beat as it were through the complex, and it provides only a limited amount of supervision in essence for the inmates who are in these cells because the staff is limited as to how many times they can actually walk past and see into these viewing areas as well. We also have the open dormitory style facilities, where you have multiple inmates in one common room on bunk beds. This is our male basement area.

This originally was designed as a storage room. It was not even originally designed to hold people but because of the pressing need for jail cells over the years that's what it was turned into. Contrast these 2 looks of these 2 types of design with our next slide here which will show you the newer type design. This is an aerial view of a housing unit, it's a podular design designed in such a way that you have cells along this these 2 walls here There is a mezzanine so you have 2 floors to levels of cells that are there. The deputies custody deputy station is right here in the center of the facility.

All of the day area activities take place out here in full view of that deputy that's in the station so eating and recreation and so forth there And then you also have in each cell, you will have a series of resource rooms. You'll have a multi-purpose room that can take the place of the classroom. It could be an area where inmates could learn how to use computers.

A GED class, it could be for a language class whatever. You also have a court video visitation room and you have a medical exam room as well where medical staff and dental staff can actually come to the pod all of this limiting the amount of inmate movement that has to occur within the facility During the programming phase, we made every effort to maximize operational efficiencies in order to decrease ongoing operations costs in relation to staffing levels which are our most costly expense. But we still obviously wanted to maintain a very safe facility.

Each housing unit has spaces as I said that are designed to provide for health services, personal and professional visitation, programming, counseling and exercise. These design elements create greater efficiencies and greatly reduce the need for inmate escorts throughout the facility, thereby lowering the need for additional staff within the facility. In other words we've worked very hard to limit the movement of inmates which increases safety, the design of which increases safety and reduces staffing needs and costs.

Here's a virtual look at this housing unit as well. I'll let this go and you can actually see here what it looks like. This is from the vantage point of the custody deputy that's at this station, and as you can see he or she will have a very good view, a very good vantage point of what's taking place. Note that the cells have a lot of glazing so there's a lot of ability to see in as to what's going on. And then along the side here you'll have these additional resource rooms as I mentioned.

This demonstrates the level of design and focus on clear sight lines for staff to increase visibility and in turn safety and security within the complex and within the overall facility. Our team toured many different facilities Across the country to ensure that we have incorporated important design features. The most important which I think is as I mentioned the increased use of glazing to provide for a more efficient and safe and secure facility for staff inmates and citizens alike.

This is our health services complex. As you can see here, it is an amalgamation of our outpatient clinic which is right here. Now interestingly enough this as you if you'll remember that you had the long corridor or the spine that came along here we will be in a position to actually if an inmate has to come to the outpatient clinic that inmate will be able to travel to that outpatient clinic by himself or herself monitored and viewed from a control station but not have to be escorted as a result of the design of this facility so that will again cut down on certain man amount of escort.

The outpatient clinic is here outpatient housing if they have to be examined and held there while their In an outpatient status. We have a dental facility that's in the center, the administrative area for the nurses and the visiting doctors and so forth will be right over in here. And then the medical housing unit those who are ill and have to be housed in the housing unit will be housed in this facility here.

A total of 32 beds in this facility split between mental health and medical housing. And I want you to note that although we have 16 beds that are designed to allow us to better manage people who are mentally ill in our facility, this facility, this medical or this health services complex is not designed nor will it take the place of a psychiatric health facility. There's still going to be a need in the community for facilities that are devoted strictly to those who are mentally ill.

This is the design development of the exterior of the facility. Most jails, as you can imagine, they're institutional buildings and they are designed and constructed in such a way that they're almost warehouse-like in their imagery. What we wanted to do was to be able to put a facade or put a look on the facility that would make it blend in with the community, that would not give it the look and feel of that big concrete box as it were.

And towards that end of the schematic design, the team began looking at possible imagery for the building's exterior and providing feedback for further consideration or elimination. The Executive Steering Committee participated in that session and concurred with the direction given to the design team. The architects then refined the key items into narrower selections for review during design development, with the general direction being as indicated on this slide.

The Northern Board of Architectural Review is scheduled to take a look at this design on April 25. As I said, we visited many different jails across the country to identify design features that we wanted to incorporate. We saw some very austere facilities and we saw some fairly opulent looking facilities and we wanted something in between.

1:47 – 1:5717 turns

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.811:47:10 · ≈ 10:47 AM

Supervisor Carball has the questions.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 20Proposed1:47:12 · ≈ 10:47 AM

Sheriff

CommentIsla VistaProposed · by introduction1:47:12 · ≈ 10:47 AM

Brown. Mr. Brown, Sheriff Brown, Mr. Lavinino and I were just commenting on how nice it looks. It kind of resembles the Santa Barbara Airport in a little bit of the mission. If you make it too nice as Mr. Lavinino told me tourists might want to go inside and see what's in there. I don't think that's going to happen but we will. I hate that it looks so nice. That's a nice looking building.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 20Proposed1:47:37 · ≈ 10:47 AM

It looks very nice, it's actually done a great job I think. But what we were shooting for and what we wanted is something that was functional and durable yet something that would make the staff who work in this facility, the inmates who are housed in it, and the visitors alike feel respectful towards the facility.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 11Proposed1:47:57 · ≈ 10:47 AM

Thank you, Mr. Chair since we're on this slide and we're having a little discussion about it I Appreciated having that time last Friday to go over the schematics and in this and I had brought up And I get it that we want it to look nice But and I had made the comment about it looking like the airport as well. I also made the comment about about building a facility that looks nice but is also it meets the needs of our finances and our budget. And to that end, the tower that's there I had asked if it served any purpose other than a visual add-on and it does not serve any purpose so I was you know I'd like I'd like you folks to go back and look at what can be changed on this without, of course, changing the character because that's very nice.

But I think there are certain things that are add-ons that could probably be removed and save the county some money, that being one.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 20Proposed1:49:12 · ≈ 10:49 AM

Supervisor wolf through the chair. We actually did go back after your Request to look at it and see what the cost is the design element of the tower is about a $60,000 construction Cost to the to the facility and although it does not Have any functional Significance as it were it does in our estimation have some significance from the standpoint of Making it very clear to those who are coming into the facility that that is the entrance to the facility, but that is the main building as it were. This is the visitor center and this is the lobby area and where we want people coming in and out. What we don't want is we don't want people going around the fire road and going all around the facility or going to different doors here or on the other side of the facility and so forth.

So we wanted to have something that would orient But we also wanted something that would capture the mission look to the facade that was being proposed for this. As I said, we wanted the building to not have an institutional or a warehouse feel or appearance even though the primary construction of the facility is just that. We think it's important that everyone in the community not feel that the jail is an eyesore and that it sends the right message. And that's why we selected the mission theme for the facility, and it was a theme by the way that was suggested by the Board of Architectural Review.

Sheriff Brown, Supervisor Wolf.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 11Proposed1:50:44 · ≈ 10:50 AM

I just appreciate your thoughts, Sheriff. But $60,000 is $60 thousand and you're going to get to another slide and you're going to show the lobby concept view which I think is quite open. I think it reflects the high ceilings that you'll see there I think it shows the entrance to this facility. I really don't believe that the tower is a necessary component. That's my input to the design, thank you Mr. Chair.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 20Proposed1:51:18 · ≈ 10:51 AM

I can appreciate your input but I will tell you that the design team all felt Unanimously that this was an important feature of the project. As I indicated, the reason that we went with the mission theme is that the missions are by far historically the most iconic architectural features of our central coast and the missions all were pretty similar in their design and construction and they all featured a tower, a bell tower as part of the mission. If you take that tower off of there, I would submit to you it doesn't really have a mission theme or a mission look.

And the reason we went with missions as the theme is because missions were places of respite for weary travelers. But they were also places that facilitated redemption and revitalization for people, and we want this facility to be just that a place where lives will be turned around for the better and not just a place to warehouse people. So again, we respectfully may disagree on the fact that I think it should be a part of it.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 7Proposed1:52:24 · ≈ 10:52 AM

Supervisor Wolf?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 11Proposed1:52:25 · ≈ 10:52 AM

You know Sheriff if we're talking about redemption and all of those things, I would rather see the $60,000 go toward a mental health professional to help someone get the help that they need or other staffing rather than a tower.

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role1:52:45 · ≈ 10:52 AM

Supervisor Adam? Would it be possible that you could put a cell site in the tower? I don't know, it's a good

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.811:52:55 · ≈ 10:52 AM

suggestion. Well the inmates would have their cell phones to be able to use the tower that's right there, right?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 20Proposed1:53:05 · ≈ 10:53 AM

Yeah well we'd have to make sure they're the

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role1:53:06 · ≈ 10:53 AM

right one but- Point being is that would end

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 20Proposed1:53:09 · ≈ 10:53 AM

up making

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role1:53:09 · ≈ 10:53 AM

it into a revenue generator.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 20Proposed1:53:12 · ≈ 10:53 AM

That's a possibility. The other thing I would point out is that again you must you must understand that 90 percent of this project is being paid for by the state so the savings to the county would be $6000 not $60000 without the tower. Anyway the team essentially has designed what we believe is a visually attractive facade to a warehouse type facility. As you can see clearly from this angle, you do have the box construction that's at the back of this and the majority of it is just that and it's just this front façade area if you will that gives it the look The mission feel that is something that's pleasing in design and it will fit well into the area and our county's rich history.

This next slide shows you the lobby area as people come into the entrance which is right here they would walk into the there's the lobby waiting area with chairs are set here the receptionist receptionist is right here We've had this issue come up and concern about people being in areas that are either remote After hours, there will be an exterior waiting area and restroom that they can wait at and be there awaiting their transportation out.

The biggest part of the lobby feature is the video visitation area, which is right over here. And that's where loved ones will come in, friends will come into visit with inmates who are in the facilities. They will do so through video technology, video monitors that will be here and video stations that will be in each of the pods. Again not requiring as we now have a massive transfer of inmates From their housing areas to the visitation area that we currently have in our existing jail.

The lobby concept view is right here, this is a preliminary and conceptual rendering of the lobby entrance. To the left you can see the public waiting area that I just mentioned here, Right here, and the video visitation area that will be glassed off here as well. The central volume is envisioned right here to give a lot of natural light into this area during the daytime with up lighting enhancing the architecture in the evening.

Staff is working with the Arts Commission and exploring opportunities for applying the 1% Fee that is required to the lobby entry Plaza and other public areas of the facility. We hope to use some of that funding for some historical representation of the sheriff's office and for a memorial to fallen peace officers we have had positive feedback from the Arts Commission on this these concepts This next slide shows you some additional images that reflect efforts to keep the massing down on the facility and to focus architectural detailing to the public facade that is in the front of the facility and along the edge, along Better Arabia with the detention areas scaled back obviously in terms of the architectural look.

And then here's another view from street level, if you will. This will be from the parking lot off of Black Road and this would be the view from Better Avia going from west to east. And this facility here as you can see at the back is more of a what you would think of it as a traditional detention facility in this has the sort of rambling village type feel that the mission complexes had as they tied into the central I'll now turn it back over to Matt Pontus.

not transcribed≈16s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen

1:57 – 2:035 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 8Proposed1:57:33 · ≈ 10:57 AM

LEED, or the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design is a rating system for the design construction operation and maintenance of green buildings homes and neighborhoods Although not budgeted to include actual registration process through the U.S. Green Buildings Commission, the Northern Branch Jail Project is nonetheless attaining a LEED certifiable level.

We are ultimately working toward a LEED silver rating for the Northern Branch Jail Project. Points are earned for meeting certain criteria in design categories. This chart depicts a summary of complex, of a complex exercise used to evaluate the lead categories and select aspects of design that would promote a balance of green and value. Elements of the project addressing sustainability first include and foremost energy-efficient building systems designed to reduce water usage, energy consumption and provide measurable performance for long term including the commissioning of systems.

The campus will utilize recycled water for irrigation laundry another allowable uses employ design strategies to effectively use natural lighting automatically reduce lighting levels where practical limit landscaping to drought tolerant native species with minimal irrigation Require recycled content in items including carpeting, other flooring, millwork, furniture and building materials.

Although the project presently includes a solar hot water heating, the budget cannot currently support solar panels. Infrastructure will be in place however to allow addition of these elements at some point and the team has begun identifying locations for future arrays. These are very rough preliminary numbers, constituting merely an estimate to assist in identifying potential solar opportunities for the Northern Branch Jail project.

It is estimated that with a significant 6.25 acre build-out with photovoltaic panels generation could produce up to sufficient energy to offset electrical consumption for the Northern Branch Jail estimated at 2.516 megawatts. The approximate cost for creating the photovoltaic infrastructure is roughly $6 million. Approximately 10 to 12 years would be required to recoup that $6 million, based upon our estimation.

The facility rooftops toward the center are currently designed to include solar water heating systems. The red outline represents potential locations of the photovoltaic panels sufficient enough to support the projected building's energy use.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.812:00:26 · ≈ 11:00 AM

Supervisor Farr?

CommentDesiree Coleman Chair I'dProposedself-stated2:00:28 · ≈ 11:00 AM

Thank you Mr. Chair, before you move on I was trying to hold my comments but I think that this kind of goes back to the some of the questions that Supervisor Wolf raised about the architecture it seems like the board at the very beginning of this project made some very strong statements about wanting this building to be as green as possible and clearly you know you've tried in a number of ways But solar was brought up, both panels and also perhaps some small wind energy.

And so I guess that is all the usable roof space being taken up for hot water solar? Or, you know, because there are other ways to find space besides taking all that great property right along Bed Arabia for panels. I mean, I'm just wondering why you wouldn't put them back in the setbacks where I don't think they would interfere with wildlife migration or why we don't consider covering the parking lot so that you can put the panels on top?

I mean it seems like in so many ways the interior The form has followed the function. But on the exterior, particularly in trying to find better ways to integrate solar and maybe small scale wind to help with the energy, it hasn't happened. So either you or the sheriff if you can respond to that.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 8Proposed2:01:54 · ≈ 11:01 AM

Supervisor Farr through the chair. Some of those things that you've mentioned have been studied and are continuing to be studied from our jail team. The possibility of putting other solar panels on different portions of the property are currently being evaluated. We've talked about having covered parking, solar arrays over a covered parking. We've also talked about as the sheriff expressed earlier, a want for having some kind of vocational farming on the parcel as well.

There's also some pieces of the parcel that we would like to keep open for future development and expansion into the future that make good use of the sight lines designed into this facility. Rooftops is another place in which we have some possibilities, and I'd say we're not finished with exactly where to place them and which types. The board's direction on integrating that kind of technology into the facility and believe that we've designed it to be able to accommodate that. We just haven't finished the designs on exactly how and when we would do that.

CommentDesiree Coleman Chair I'dProposedself-stated2:03:00 · ≈ 11:03 AM

Okay, thank you. Actually this is a question for the sheriff. Sheriff Brown I think during your presentation earlier you said that eventually you think that this site could accommodate 1500 beds did I hear that right? Correct. I mean I see a couple of shaded in areas for possible future housing So 1500 beds is so is the overall plan that eventually if the money can be found that this would be the only jail and the main jail would go away because 1500 beds is a lot.

2:03 – 2:098 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 20Proposed2:03:35 · ≈ 11:03 AM

Supervisor far through the chair. No, the answer is I think we're always going to have a need for some kind of a South County jail facility so it wouldn't take the place of our jail. We'd actually be in kind of the same position where and now if we moved everything up to the north and having had transportation issues and had to move everybody down to court and so forth So it's important that we have 2 facilities.

This is strictly just for future growth the county ends up becoming you know a million in population and we end up at some future time needing to have additional jail space it will be there and it will be designed in such a way that could be added But we don't anticipate adding anything in what I would call the short term other than the star complex that we have mentioned earlier. But as you can see here, this is where the star complex would go which adds 228 beds and it's a larger facility than you would normally have perhaps for that many beds because of the design. We want it to be this rehabilitative type facility which is gonna take up more space and also to have that external component that I mentioned earlier But as you can see here there's a housing potential housing areas that could be added here here and I don't see that expansion at any point

not transcribed≈30s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
CommentDesiree Coleman Chair I'dProposedself-stated2:05:16 · ≈ 11:05 AM

So the other pieces that we're talking about in the design now, the lobby area and all of that because that's not scheduled to change. You were just talking about potentially adding more housing pods. So the idea is is that the general spaces, the administrative spaces, You know all of that is is enough to accommodate up to 1,500 people there at some point in time or would it take a remodel of all that again to expand it

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 20Proposed2:05:51 · ≈ 11:05 AM

everything was designed so that it could be Expanded in the future if it had to be in other words. This is the food service area which we could push out this way This is the administrative area that could be pushed out this way and so forth Laundry could be pushed out this way as well So there was You know everything was designed specifically with the idea in mind that if in the future it was needed to expand we could do that. Unfortunately our current facility wasn't designed that way and that's why part of the problem is that we are completely limited by the footprint of where our existing jail is in South County in terms of actually adding on a housing unit Or doing something along those lines so all of this the transportation housing could move this way.

All of it was designed in a very very clever way frankly so that it can be upgraded in the future if needs to be and some of these might not have to be expanded depending upon how much additional housing space was put in there. In other words, laundry you just might have to add washer machines and dryers. You might have to add certain kitchen equipment that might be accommodated in the existing footprint but if the footprint had to be expanded, the design now is done as such a way that it could be.

CommentDesiree Coleman Chair I'dProposedself-stated2:07:09 · ≈ 11:07 AM

Okay, so now I'm kind of back to the solar again. So I guess I just don't understand because as you say we're only putting in 10% why this wasn't designed from the beginning to better reduce the operating costs for energy and I understand that the hot water but Was there no way to design this so that we could capture more of the energy generation for electricity?

And maybe it's one of those little, you know, couple of those little wind things. It doesn't even have to be big solar panels.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 8Proposed2:07:48 · ≈ 11:07 AM

Supervisor far through the chair. We we do have a lot of square footage on the roof, you know, putting panels on the roof is it's not going to get us where we would like to be in terms of the number of panels to really offset the energy consumption that we're looking to offset so as we said, you know I think that it's going to be a concerted effort to try and find the place that best maximizes the space and invest takes advantage of of the most efficient panels that we can get There are some panels out there now that you can actually place over some types of agricultural crops and allow enough light penetration to grow crops and kind of have a dual use there as well. So our team will continue to look at that and try and find ways to integrate that into the facility.

CommentDesiree Coleman Chair I'dProposedself-stated2:08:36 · ≈ 11:08 AM

OK, well I just have to say I'm with a $90 million capital budget. I'm disappointed that this wasn't designed so that we could offset as much of the electrical energy costs as possible.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.812:08:50 · ≈ 11:08 AM

Supervisor Wolfton and Supervisor Carbajal?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 11Proposed2:08:53 · ≈ 11:08 AM

Thank you, Mr. Chair. You know I just want to echo Supervisor Forrest's comments about the photovoltaic. I mean we've seen...I think it's one megawatt that we get out of the one on Cayo Real. That's definitely cut down our costs for the whole entire campus. So if it doesn't cover the entire 2.4 megawatts, at least move forward with some official plan that gets us something.

If it's not on the rooftop there certainly seems to be other opportunities for that. The other thing I just wanted to follow up, and this goes to our discussions when we were talking about the mental health budget and needs for transitional housing. Is there any legal reason why we couldn't use this property for a step-down transitional housing place?

not transcribed≈7s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen

2:10 – 2:1819 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 8Proposed2:10:00 · ≈ 11:10 AM

Supervisor Wolf through the chair. I would defer to council and as it relates back to the environmental report that we originally completed, to see if it's in line with that environmentally.

CommentSteve RonaldoProposed2:10:12 · ≈ 11:10 AM

Chair and Supervisor Wolf, so the 2008 environmental report studied a very large facility of about 1500 beds. And the second part of the AB 900 project, the 1022 actually has a transition component to it. But if there were space available on the 50 acre parcel apart from habitat requirements, there's nothing that would prevent the county from using it for something like more formal transition housing?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 11Proposed2:10:39 · ≈ 11:10 AM

Okay. Well, thank you for that and it would be good to know exactly how much acreage would be available if down the line and I mean down the line of if that was something that we wanted to look at. Thank you Mr. Chair.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 20Proposed2:10:52 · ≈ 11:10 AM

If I could just jump in there real quick too subject to compliance with the EIR I don't think there'd be anything preventing us from using the property for that type of housing but we couldn't use this funding for that type of housing. Supervisor Carbajal?

CommentIsla VistaProposed · by introduction2:11:09 · ≈ 11:11 AM

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I think Supervisor Farr touched on it. There are small wind turbines that again, I don't know how much energy they produce but at the recent resiliency forum we had there was actually a presentation on these systems. So I'm just wondering if wonder affordable What's the cost-benefit ratio? Does it make sense? It might be worth looking into so I encourage you to look into that and see if it's something that we could incorporate Just again chipping away at that energy that we're producing or using And seeing that there's a better way of Addressing that issue. So

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 8Proposed2:11:53 · ≈ 11:11 AM

Supervisor Carball through the chair We'll be happy to look into that make contact with folks that made that presentation and see what we can learn

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.812:12:06 · ≈ 11:12 AM

Kitchell conducted a. I'm sorry, I didn't know we were going right into this because I do want to make a comment before we get into the local vendor outreach since we're talking about we were kind of talking about the design and that And I just want to get my two cents in as somebody that's gonna be driving by this facility on a regular basis That I appreciate the fact that it's not Looking like an industrial complex and you know we used to think of bed Arabian black as the middle of nowhere. A couple miles away now, we have new development going in just south of Blosser. There's a bunch of new homes being built out there so And I totally agree that we need to look at what the overall cost of the construction is whether the money is coming from the state or whether we're picking up the costs it is still taxpayer dollars but for our portion of it being $6000 You know, I'm sure there's other areas in there I'd rather look at than the exterior.

Personally, I think my constituents are going to be a little bit happier with driving by a facility that doesn't look like the Lompoc Federal Prison. So that's my two cents. Supervisor Adam?

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role2:13:16 · ≈ 11:13 AM

Yeah, and I want to throw my two cents in on top of his. I agree and I would literally drive by this facility on a daily basis if I were doing my real job. And so I think everybody else that's going to drive by it is going to appreciate the way it looks too. And I'm thankful that you've done such a nice job, Sheriff designing it. I think it's really great. And I think eventually you can probably work a lot of the PV or wind or whatever in.

Is there any limitation to using the money that's earmarked for, committed to this facility for power generation facilities? Or is that just, would that be part of the design?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 8Proposed2:14:11 · ≈ 11:14 AM

Supervisor Adam through the chair. I don't think that there's any limitations per se, but we've had a really detailed cost estimate go to the state line by line on where we would allocate the funding for this particular jail as it pertains to the construction estimates and that kind of thing. And it wasn't identified in that document, but there's nothing saying that we can't work on that in future.

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role2:14:31 · ≈ 11:14 AM

Yeah. No, I think it's reasonable to build the thing now and look for other funding for other power generation facilities at a different time. But you know the way it kind of appears to me is that we were supposed to build the jail with this money and then you can figure something else out later for power generation.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.812:14:53 · ≈ 11:14 AM

Supervisor Farr?

CommentDesiree Coleman Chair I'dProposedself-stated2:14:55 · ≈ 11:14 AM

Thank you Mr. Chair, Sheriff and Mr. Pontes before we move on I'm just wondering I had a question if you could go back to this slide the housing unit design Okay, so we saw it from the custody deputies viewpoint but I'm trying to figure out exactly where the custody deputies are. I see that box over it. So is that like what we have in the main jail? It's a glassed-in secure area where they can See both both the levels I understand the design how great it is that you can see everybody Very easily instead of having to walk up and down a hallway, but I'm trying to figure out exactly where they are

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 20Proposed2:15:45 · ≈ 11:15 AM

Supervisor far through the chair In this particular housing unit that we've shown you here, this custody deputy's station would be an open one. This is what is called a direct supervision module where the custody deputy is actually in the facility with the inmates. The facility is being designed in such a way that about 65% of it is what we call direct supervision, where the custody deputy's actually in with the inmates. And about 35% of it would be what we currently have and this called direct supervision. Where you would have indirect supervision rather, where you would have someone who would be external to the facility, have bars or glass or something in between you.

And this is a supervisory concept that is taking more and more hold within the country. And what we're seeing is actually better run facilities that are actually safer when you put the right type of inmates and the right custody staff together in a direct supervision model. The deputy is in a much better position being stationed there in an open area to be able to not only view from his or her vantage point what's happening but also to get up and walk around. And to check in cells and do everything else without having to unlock doors and go in and out and so forth.

And it's a concept that is, we're not proposing to go full direct supervision but we are proposing to have a significant amount of it be in the direct supervision model. Some jail facilities throughout the country, Lubbock Texas for example complete direct supervision they only have one Detention type module for people who don't want to go along with the program, but their whole facility and that includes everybody is in there. The key to this is in our classification unit putting the right People in the facility in the right types of facilities and our Our team and our belief is that we want to go with this blended approach So in this particular one that we chose to show you, the deputy is actually out in an open station. In other ones, the deputies' station would be outside the confines of the actual module itself.

CommentDesiree Coleman Chair I'dProposedself-stated2:18:16 · ≈ 11:18 AM

And that's in this jail, both types?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 20Proposed2:18:18 · ≈ 11:18 AM

Both types within the same

CommentDesiree Coleman Chair I'dProposedself-stated2:18:19 · ≈ 11:18 AM

jail. Depending on the classification of the prisoner? Correct. Okay and I don't want to jump ahead but it seemed like in the staffing study there was just going to be one deputy here not two.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 20Proposed2:18:31 · ≈ 11:18 AM

One deputy here and one deputy in the housing unit itself that's correct.

CommentDesiree Coleman Chair I'dProposedself-stated2:18:37 · ≈ 11:18 AM

So how many people might they be supervising by themselves at one time?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 20Proposed2:18:41 · ≈ 11:18 AM

Depends on the module, but a maximum of 64 and minimum of 32.

2:18 – 2:2310 turns

CommentDesiree Coleman Chair I'dProposedself-stated2:18:52 · ≈ 11:18 AM

Wow. I mean, I just have to tell you, I wouldn't want to be responsible for 64 people for four hours at a church picnic. So maybe when we talk about the staffing later but this is I mean, what did the custody staff say about this?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 20Proposed2:19:16 · ≈ 11:19 AM

Well this is pretty much an industry standard. And this is as I say something that is it's something that And I think that's what the men and women in the custody branch of our facility do. They work in and amongst our inmates all the time, and there's a very limited number of them compared to the total number of people who are in our jail at any given time.

We have 1,000 inmates in our jail, and at any given time is a maximum of maybe 20 people that are working You know it's a very different concept, but I know it's somewhat counterintuitive and I felt kind of the same way when I actually saw to

CommentDesiree Coleman Chair I'dProposedself-stated2:20:03 · ≈ 11:20 AM

me

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 20Proposed2:20:03 · ≈ 11:20 AM

that I can tell you when we visited the Lubbock jail. The design of the facility And the feel of the facility is so much different than in our jail. It is, the stress level is way down and it's through a use of a lot of different things. Design, lighting, layout and this direct supervision model. And as I said they went, in talking to the sheriff there, they went to a direct supervision model from a complete indirect supervision model. They went to a full direct supervision model.

And it was, transition was rough for some people. In this case we're going to have a blending of the two and there'll be opportunities to work on two different types of the design within the facility but we believe that this is what's best for the facility, what's best for safety of everybody that's involved.

CommentDesiree Coleman Chair I'dProposedself-stated2:20:58 · ≈ 11:20 AM

Okay well thank you chair. Thank you Mr. Chair I think that we're going to be talking about staffing more later and at that time I'm gonna ask you how this works in an emergency situation, thank you.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 8Proposed2:21:14 · ≈ 11:21 AM

Kitchell conducted a local vendor and labor outreach study as part of their construction management scope Which looks at the local market, recent projects and makes recommendations on approach to the jail construction to maximize local labor to the extent feasible reasonable allowable under the California public contracts code. Local vendor and labor assessment data gathering efforts commenced with initial outreach conversations with representatives The Santa Maria Valley Contractors Association, the Santa Barbara Contractors Association, Slow County Builders Exchange and the Ventura County Contractors Association. These are vital partners in the local vendor outreach effort. They've been generous with vendor contact information as well as We're going to be looking at how we can make sure that our local vendors.

Offer facilities and resources to assist in our outreach program supervisor

CommentIsla VistaProposed · by introduction2:22:06 · ≈ 11:22 AM

Carbajal thank you Mister, you know Mister punt as I appreciate the slide. I would appreciate it if you could just keep the 2 items separate because there. Local vendor is procurement of goods And I think the other issue we're talking about is local labor. And somehow they tend to get mushed together, and I just want to make sure that we're talking about two separate things here instead of melding this thing together because I just think they're two distinct very different issues. So just want to say that because it's so convoluted that I'm not sure if it makes it clear when Goods and services or the labor pool

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 8Proposed2:22:58 · ≈ 11:22 AM

Supervisor Carvajal through the chair at this point. We're just talking about the outreach plan that Kitchell put together Just related to what's out there and in the local community right now And and we have we have some areas later in the presentation that they were we can draw that distinction I believe

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.812:23:16 · ≈ 11:23 AM

supervisor wolf

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 11Proposed2:23:18 · ≈ 11:23 AM

Well, yes. And I'm glad that you will draw the distinction because in looking at the Kitchell report it is on goods and services and the local labor so they do combine both aspects. When I read the report it was It was a little disconcerting that this was being put together as one document, so I do look forward to making sure that we focus on the local vendor outreach as a separate entity today.

2:24 – 2:358 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 8Proposed2:24:00 · ≈ 11:24 AM

So clearly defined and well understood program metrics are obviously very important and will provide focused attention to optimizing the local participation Characteristic with a detention facility, specialized elements of the project will likely not be candidates for local participation. Even without these specialized elements, a significant portion of this $67 million project is geared towards local participation.

The design elements, product specifications and packaging strategies will help optimize our local participation. The contractor prequalification process offers an excellent opportunity to gain prime contractors a buy-in to the county's local participation interests. Prospective bidders will be required to submit their proposed local participation plans meeting the minimum criteria as a condition of prequal.

Motivating the contractor to adhere to their own plan will generate more successful outcomes. It is recommended that a reasonable administrative burden be placed on the contractors, subcontractors, suppliers, Kitchell and or county personnel to quantify those local participation results. This effort is recommended for two reasons, to communicate the results back to the public and to raise the importance level of local participation.

The measurement process in itself will likely generate increased local participation by bringing the needed attention to this important effort.

CommentIsla VistaProposed · by introduction2:25:28 · ≈ 11:25 AM

Supervisor Carbajal. Thank you I did go ahead Mr. Matt and I looked at the rest of the presentation and I really didn't see the area that I was looking for so I'm gonna go ahead and provide a little bit of feedback here it's gonna be short and sweet so bear with me You know, I appreciate the labor outreach approach that was taken. But for a number of hearings, I think we've been talking about a project labor agreement or PSA or construction stabilization agreement. You could call it different things.

But I think we've all on one occasion or another said that we would like to achieve the strongest local hire provisions possible. And I'm still hoping and in the at some point to be able to maybe provide direction from our board. To institute such a framework. One that I think prevents costly delays to the project from labor unrest, for example, as other PLAs have achieved to help assure that all contractors have access to a steady source of skilled labor for the project.

For me, it's extremely important with this project that we have such an agreement and I will be looking forward to giving direction To pursue that framework and then bring it back within the appropriate time frame that we need to have to be able to move forward with the appropriate bidding and the process to achieve that so Supervisor Carball because in your entire presentation, I mean We've been talking about that local labor and other than the outreach plan. I just haven't seen much of that So I guess I wanted to put that on the record

not transcribed≈8s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 8Proposed2:27:31 · ≈ 11:27 AM

Suarez a couple through the chair Perhaps council can can direct us a little bit better toward Their their guidance on this PLA PSA issue Sure

CommentSteve RonaldoProposed2:27:49 · ≈ 11:27 AM

Chair Lavanino and Supervisor Carbajal. I think Supervisor Carbajals bifurcation is exactly on target. There are local, in quotes, local hire provisions that can exist whether inside the bid documents and contract or inside the big documents, the contract and a project stabilization agreement. So those could exist anywhere. The California Supreme Court has separately upheld the use of project stabilization agreements for purposes like those described by Supervisor Carbajal, that is to avoid project delays from labor unrest or to assure availability of a skilled workforce. So in terms of a project stabilization agreement we had actually done a substantial amount The industry.

We start with a 1999 California Supreme Court case that provides the safe framework for project stabilization agreement in terms of practical terms about using a core workforce or how a hiring hall would actually be employed And if it was the board's direction to pursue a project stabilization agreement, our recommendation would be to start within that Supreme Court tested framework. We've also looked at what other counties have done as well as some cities. The only distinction I'd make there is that anytime we compare ourselves or what we can do, we try not to compare ourselves to charter counties or charter cities which have slightly different rules but Sonoma County, as well as Solano County.

Solano County actually has used a project stabilization agreement in its construction of a detention facility. Sonoma County has more of a very recent January of this year program that they have not yet applied to particular project. But the project stabilization agreement framework is an option for the board. I would just, again, bifurcate and say that the decision to go or not go with a project stabilization agreement would be in addition to whatever local higher provisions such as an outreach program, good faith efforts, or apprenticeship programs that you'd want to direct in the contract itself.

Okay, Mr. Gazzone but

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.812:30:17 · ≈ 11:30 AM

the direction today from what I'm looking at F is to whether to consider to have general services return with a presentation regarding those workforce agreements and so are we going to debate today whether or not to have PLA or some sort of that? I know a lot of public comment is going to be here for that today. But I mean, we're trying to pack in the construction of this. The staffing summary, the financing it up again and the local vendor outreach and the labor outreach all in one hearing. And I'm not sure we're going to do any of it justice if we try to pile all this together.

I'm glad the public's here today, and I'm very interested to hear both sides of this argument so we can kind of frame what general services comes back with. But Supervisor Carbajal? I'm a little worried that this is going to get lost in this hearing today. So, I'm glad you bifurcated it but I think we almost need to do

CommentIsla VistaProposed · by introduction2:31:28 · ≈ 11:31 AM

some more. Thank you Mr. Chair but again I've always said and I've always thought that in my discussions with council and staff The reason we do need to provide some direction I am informed. And I wish it was clear in the options before us, because we may have to take a separate motion or include in the motion an extra item is because there is a limited time I am informed that I'm hoping CEO Miyasato, there is a time frame by which such a PLA has to be negotiated and agreed on for us to be able to meet the timeline.

To move forward with the project as has been outlined in scheduled. And so we're kind of between under the gun to meet that timeline and that's why it's come up that way Mr. Chair.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.812:32:26 · ≈ 11:32 AM

How about if we do this, because this is going to get kind of sidetrack us a little bit. Why don't we go through the rest of the presentation? We'll come back to that direction that we want to do before we go to public comment. Is that okay? All right. Sorry Mr Pontes let's move forward and then we'll bring back the labor aspect of this.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 8Proposed2:32:46 · ≈ 11:32 AM

This slide here on local vendor and labor outreach has been just depicts where we are at in that process of local vendor outreach The single most significant feature of the Northern Branch Jail Facility is the detention cells. The marketplace offers a number of options for this vital component, ranging from site-constructed concrete masonry to manufactured fully equipped modular cells and a variety of choices in between.

Cell construction options were carefully evaluated to determine the most appropriate option for our Northern Branch Jail. In addition to local participation, preliminary evaluation criteria included the cost, quality, schedule, space efficiencies and long-term maintenance. Despite precast and premanufactured cell rating Highest in terms of quality, a sensitivity towards shipping prefabricated units which will be plug and play. Reducing work laborers, electricians, plumbers and other local workforce could participate in on site drove our team towards a selection that leveraged quality against potential for local assembly and local infrastructure build out.

Although masonry cells ranked as lowest cost based solely on materials and labor, increased costs of maintaining quality control level of inspection required and time to construct and high risk of delay placed on the masonry low in the list. The option found to be the best strike for a healthy balance between a finished quality schedule savings and local participation is the metal detention panels assembled onsite.

The system has the thinnest wall thickness enabling the overall building square footage to shrink, produces exacting quality and affords local participation opportunities for steel erectors, welders, grouters and other finish trades. This option may benefit local masonry subcontractors as well since most other detention walls would be constructed using concrete masonry With the scope of the masonry package likely to be within a local masonry firm's capacity to participate.

This cell ranking analysis was really, there was a lot of staff time and consultant time put on this. We toured a lot of facilities across the U.S., reviewed all the pros and cons, and really there was a concerted effort to maximize local labor participation but also have that durability and space savings that we needed. Sheriff?

2:35 – 2:4626 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 20Proposed2:35:32 · ≈ 11:35 AM

When I switch over to the staffing summary and the staffing model, as a result of further review of our staffing model in conjunction with the facility design we realized that we had a need to increase our original estimate of how many custody staff would be needed by four. Those would be four custody deputy staff positions. This review was conducted by our project experts from Liebert & Associates And by members of my staff who worked hand in hand with them.

The staffing summary is before you here, and as you can see a total of 124. Custody personnel or sheriff's personnel and 5 general services personnel as well. We're looking at one custody commander position 3 lieutenants are our mid level managers for sergeants are frontline supervisors 7 custody deputy twos or special duty custody deputies these Intermediate rank between the field supervisor and the other frontline supervisor and the line level deputy and 73 custody deputies in addition to that. We need seven utility workers who will Basically do odd jobs around the facility And 17 administrative staff and 12 other civilian staff as well for a total of 124 Supervisor wolf

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 11Proposed2:37:03 · ≈ 11:37 AM

Thank you, Sheriff Brown. The other civilians are those the food service workers and Khorizan folks? Or are they part of your department?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 20Proposed2:37:13 · ≈ 11:37 AM

They would include food service workers, storekeepers. These are all county employees. These would not be our contract staff through Khorizan or through Aramark.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 11Proposed2:37:25 · ≈ 11:37 AM

And I can't recall... Are we going to get to that area where you're going to talk about the Khorizan staff It's

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 20Proposed2:37:33 · ≈ 11:37 AM

not included in this presentation. At

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 11Proposed2:37:36 · ≈ 11:37 AM

some point sheriff, could you bring that information to

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 20Proposed2:37:38 · ≈ 11:37 AM

us?

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role2:37:42 · ≈ 11:37 AM

Can you tell me why there's a park ranger?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 20Proposed2:37:46 · ≈ 11:37 AM

Park Ranger is a I don't know who came up with the title but it's basically a grounds maintenance person. Park Ranger that's actually out, you know issuing citations and doing things like that. It's actually really more of a grounds maintenance worker.

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role2:38:04 · ≈ 11:38 AM

Okay. Well, you might want to read cast that.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 20Proposed2:38:08 · ≈ 11:38 AM

Thank you. I don't know where that title. Apparently it say I'm informed it's a title of blended title within the county's system park ranger slash grounds is what the actual title is As I indicated, through our analysis we came up with a need for an additional four staff. That's the bad news in terms of additional need for this facility. The good news however is as a result of PEPRA, the public employees Retirement Reform Act, the cost per employee actually was reduced. So we're actually in a position now where the overall cost even including these four additional staff and actually one additional general services staff I believe than what had originally been thought of is actually going to be less than what we had anticipated originally.

The next slide will show you the total staff and how we-

CommentDesiree Coleman Chair I'dProposedself-stated2:39:18 · ≈ 11:39 AM

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Sheriff I know that as a part of our packet and before we received this jail staffing study that was done by an independent consultant. And when we were looking at budget there was an item that was out there to add more custody staff to the existing jail based on the analysis from that staffing study. So clearly we're under it at the main jail according to the study. So this staffing summary, is this in line with that staffing study or not?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 20Proposed2:39:53 · ≈ 11:39 AM

Supervisor Farth through the chair yes it is. This actually incorporates the same analysis and criteria that was incorporated into that study as well. Because of the design of the facility, with this new more modern design it allows us to utilize fewer staff per inmate if you will than in our existing facility that's not designed in such a way that we can maximize those efficiencies.

CommentDesiree Coleman Chair I'dProposedself-stated2:40:21 · ≈ 11:40 AM

Okay, well I'm going to ask you to do me a favor and shift to this slide which before we get into the transition plan because I have different there. Because I think that this gets to the staffing. So back to my original line of questioning about having one custody deputy in each of these pods of various sizes. So you have some relief staff over there on the left for when officers need to have a break or have lunch or whatever.

You had mentioned earlier that the design meant that inmates didn't necessarily need to be escorted different places, although you do show a couple of escorts there. So it would be very helpful to me if you would kind of run through a scenario where in one of these pods, a big fight starts. You've got all these people out in the open area and the custody deputy's sitting out there and whatever happens, something happens. A couple people start fighting and a bunch of them start piling on.

Who gets called from where? And how long does that take?

not transcribed≈13s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 20Proposed2:41:41 · ≈ 11:41 AM

I'm going to actually ask Lieutenant Meter to come up and give you that rundown. He's in a better position, I think, to talk about it from an operational standpoint. And he can explain what would happen and who would come.

CommentDesiree Coleman Chair I'dProposedself-stated2:41:52 · ≈ 11:41 AM

Because I guess I'm so used to the buddy system where you would always have at least two people there. Something happens, you've got one to go intervene and one that can quick call for more help. So I realize this is the new way of doing it but I need more comfort

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 10Proposed2:42:11 · ≈ 11:42 AM

Supervisor Farr through the chair, I appreciate the question not only for staff safety but as well as the inmates that are residing in the facility. The first thing I'd like to point out is the innate nature of a custodial facility for one. Secondly, the first thing that is very helpful absent staff is the nature of the design. The ability to control situation within a specific location through architecture walls doors and such. I'm as far as answering your question about staff responding. It can be a plethora of scenarios to respond to all use one for example, this unit here this is a unit is indirect modality in far as supervision and you today's design right now it's intended to have probably are Most difficult behavioral management type inmates in there, so that's a high probability where we'll have a staff assault or an inmate on inmate assault.

In terms of the situation occurring in here with the deputy, first of all there are two deputies here that can support one another. Someone is in there doing a security check, let's say. And there is an inmate out doing some type of function whether it's a shower or court video or video visitation with family, phone call etc., movement to the yard and that deputy is assaulted. Obviously there's different means of addressing alerting other staff to what's going on. One, the officer has a portable radio. Two we have monitoring going on through closed circuit TV. Immediately in this vicinity, you would have the ability of localized custody deputies. What we have is a sub-control room here for this male housing unit. Immediately you'd have two staff bare minimum with the ability to respond.

Quite honestly probably three in a matter of seconds.

CommentDesiree Coleman Chair I'dProposedself-stated2:43:51 · ≈ 11:43 AM

But they can't, I mean my understanding is that how could those people leave who their supervisor?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 10Proposed2:43:57 · ≈ 11:43 AM

Well this right here is our lowest level. This is a dormitory style so they have the ability to leave. We can always leave a unit just because we're operating under a direct supervision modality The premise is that you do have someone in there 24-7, but that does not preclude someone leaving in the case of an emergency based upon the inmate classification. It's a very multi-layered question, so it's hard to kind of pick a specific scenario because there's quite a few.

CommentDesiree Coleman Chair I'dProposedself-stated2:44:25 · ≈ 11:44 AM

Okay, so in effect if they're considered low-level they can run out and lock the door behind him and go help somebody else.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 10Proposed2:44:31 · ≈ 11:44 AM

Yes, and our staff are trained in their cognizant of the areas that they're at a lot of times we'll have a response to a situation and immediately a supervisor on site will direct people back to their area of responsibility And again it depends on location Severity and also the amount of individuals involved inmate on inmate versus inmate on staff There's a lot of variables to it that we're trying to deal with on the fly at split second I don't know if that helps you it's just really hard to hone in on one specific.

CommentDesiree Coleman Chair I'dProposedself-stated2:44:59 · ≈ 11:44 AM

Okay, so I guess these people that are off on the side of the relief they're going to be floating around in the facility different in different locations

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 10Proposed2:45:09 · ≈ 11:45 AM

correct for example sheriff has pointed out we have 2 custody deputies work in the intake area as long as one of them stays there we have one can Respond from there this deputy during probably eight to five hours in the medical clinic area There's also a custody deputy here who can cover this area and respond So again, it's just a really multi-layered question, but there are a lot of resources available at any given time

CommentDesiree Coleman Chair I'dProposedself-stated2:45:32 · ≈ 11:45 AM

Okay,

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 10Proposed2:45:32 · ≈ 11:45 AM

and that's and that's during during a day shift proper in the evening. The inmates are locked down even in direct supervision modality so Even have more response even though we've lowered staffing by one overall on the facility on evening shifts

CommentDesiree Coleman Chair I'dProposedself-stated2:45:46 · ≈ 11:45 AM

Okay. Well, I mean, I can see how this kind of a design is very helpful to protect the inmates because you can see everything that's going on but now I'm more concerned about protecting our staff so okay thank you.

2:46 – 2:557 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 20Proposed2:46:04 · ≈ 11:46 AM

The other thing if I could just add on there as well What you're seeing here is the AB 900 facility picture up here, that star complex that will be there as well. And during the daytime, there'll be three additional custody deputies who will be there that would be available to respond to an emergency as well that would not be there under our current system. So it's actually a good model in terms of getting people there.

Once you go back to that, let me do this first and we'll back up to the by year analysis. This basically shows you a visual of the staffing level on a typical day shift in the jail. The shift would consist of one custody sergeant, two special duty custody deputies, 19 custody deputies and one utility worker. The night shift would be the same minus one custody deputies, so 18 custody deputies rather than 19.

We're currently also exploring the possible creation of a new job class of employee called Sheriff's Service Technicians. This classification is used in some of the sheriff's offices. It is a non-sworn position and one that could be employed in areas where they do not have direct contact with inmates, for example, in the control rooms where you could have an employee in there who's not sworn who is a less costly employee than a sworn Employee who could provide us with some perhaps additional cost savings and provide a different career track for some types of employees as well. So we're exploring that and maybe coming back to you at a future time to look at that new potential job class going back to slide 27 shows the Proposal of how we intend to staff this facility by fiscal year.

The employee build up to get to that 124 employees would take place over the next four fiscal years. It would start very slowly in fiscal year 2014-15 with one administrative office professional, three. That person would be assigned to these two gentlemen here, retired Commander Jenkins and Lieutenant Meter who are working on the jail project. And is considered critical in terms of the workload of what's coming up in the next year.

In August of 14-15, the following fiscal year, two custody sergeants and two special duty custody deputies would be hired. And they would be spread between one of them working on the project itself, two of them working in our human resources division helping with the hiring, the processing, the background investigation and so forth on our new group of people coming in And one person assigned to our training unit to prepare for and begin training custody deputies as they get hired.

During- Supervisor Farr, sorry about

CommentDesiree Coleman Chair I'dProposedself-stated2:49:02 · ≈ 11:49 AM

that. Thank you Mr. Chair. So Sheriff it looks like that date is wrong. It should be August 1st 2015? Yeah

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 20Proposed2:49:10 · ≈ 11:49 AM

we caught it on the slide but not in your materials so it's correct. It would be August 15th. Okay. Fiscal year 2000 and at the end of that fiscal year. The second half of the fiscal year rather 1516 February in other words of 2016 we would hire the first group of custody deputies that we would begin training and preparing to work in a new facility. They would come in February The next fiscal year would see us hiring two more groups of 15 plus nine administrative office professionals and three utility workers. Again, it's necessary to hire them in advance so that they can be trained and familiar with our procedures and so forth before the facility opens. And then in the last fiscal year, the year that the facility will actually open, we would hire a computer specialist, custody commander position, 2 custody lieutenants, 13 custody deputies And 21 various civilian personnel.

CommentDesiree Coleman Chair I'dProposedself-stated2:50:15 · ≈ 11:50 AM

Mr. Chair, I had a question about this sheriff and I actually gave Mr. Alvarez a heads up that I was going to ask it because I wanted him or the CEO to comment on it but we've been looking at this transition for a long time and the costs involved with that The amount of money that we were going to put into the jail operations fund each year, to get it up to the point where we would have enough to open it.

This is requiring more money sooner and I understand how difficult it is to hire so many people all at one time. But this was not anticipated, I don't think. Some of these people were talking about bringing on board two years ahead of time and I realize you can put them to work doing something but I'm unclear and maybe Mr. Alvarez you want to tell the rest of the board some of the information that you gave me but I just wanna make sure that the money that we're putting into this fund is gonna cover All of this and what that does to the overall cost of of the transition based on You know what we were considering because I mean, I think it's one thing to look at it in the context It's just the jail but we're also trying to look at it in the context of the overall budget and our Our planning you know as we go forward so clearly even just for this coming budget cycle where we're looking at two years It's not clear to me whether this has been anticipated or not.

not transcribed≈9s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 20Proposed2:51:56 · ≈ 11:51 AM

Supervisor Farr, if I could get you to just hold that question for a few more slides we're actually going to address that in the presentation and it would be there's a couple preceding things that might give you a little might be a little bit more informative as to as do I need to do that and then we can get back to but we do intend to answer that question

CommentDesiree Coleman Chair I'dProposedself-stated2:52:14 · ≈ 11:52 AM

okay thank

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 20Proposed2:52:14 · ≈ 11:52 AM

you As far as the hiring of these people by the fiscal year, in addition to just hiring people there will be an extensive number of promotions and transfers within our organization during this time creating some outstanding career opportunities for our existing staff and for some staff who have yet to be hired. You've seen the next slide will pass we've already shown you typical staffing I want to just go to this slide here which shows.

The what's required in terms of actually hiring custody deputies and training them it's going to require 4 cycles as I mentioned to you the first one in 1516 then 1617 16. It should be 17 and then 1718 Typically the recruitment of a custody deputy takes about three months. The actual hiring process, the testing and the background investigation so forth takes another three for a total front end time of about six months.

It takes ten weeks almost three months for the academy. For the custody deputy to complete and then the training through the custody training officer within our facilities takes 5 months so total of about 8 months so it takes from start to finish about 14 months to get a person hired straight in the door to person that's fully functional as a custody deputy. To ensure that we have the proper amount of staffing when the facility is opened, we have to go through these four cycles as I mentioned.

It is a lengthy and an involved process. It includes the open recruiting period, the application review, the physical agility testing, written test, oral interview, background investigation that in and of itself includes a polygraph examination, psychological tests and interview, and medical exams. Our standards are very high and historically we only hire about 2 to 3% of those who originally apply for a custody deputy position with our agency.

Once hired, the custody deputy recruits have to complete that 10 week academy and a five month training program within the jail. And on average for every 20 custody deputies that we actually do hire, we lose anywhere from three to five custody deputies either during the academy or during the custody training process for various reasons. They just don't make it or they decide it's not the job for them.

This does not account for hiring due to attrition that we have to continue to do in addition to this obviously to maintain our existing staffing levels.

2:55 – 3:0918 turns

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.812:55:08 · ≈ 11:55 AM

The sheriff I have a question about that so I mean, we've had trouble just basically keeping up with attrition. What are we going to do differently that we've got to go out and hire 75 guys? Right.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 20Proposed2:55:20 · ≈ 11:55 AM

Well, a number of different things. We're going to have more recruitment cycles than we have because we'll have some additional people in human resources to help us do just that. We're actually looking at targeting specifically some additional target groups that we can hopefully take better advantage of them. We've been able to in the past people leaving the military for example either Vandenberg Air Force Base or in Port Wainimi I also hope that the fact that we're going to be building a brand-new state of the art facility is going to be able to be used as a draw as well and perhaps A way to get people who are currently working as custody personnel in other communities to want to come and work in Santa Barbara County in this Facility as well.

So we're looking at different ways to To to explore this. We've had a tough time as you're aware because of a big hole that was kind of blown in our and our staffing levels as a result of some of the cuts and some anticipated layoffs that didn't occur. We are making very good progress in terms of filling that now and it's anticipated that when we get to this stage, we will have sufficient recruitments that we will get these people on board and hired by that time The operative cost analysis slide right here.

This shows the overall costs for AB 900. It shows the adjusted Estimates and the bottom line here is a decrease of what we had originally thought was going to be about 17.3 million dollars We're estimating that for this phase of the project for AB 900 phase one That we're gonna have costs in terms of two thousand sixteen seventeen dollars Seventeen eighteen though eighteen nineteen dollars, excuse me of $15,862,000 additional dollars. In other words we're going to transfer existing personnel our overall cost is estimated to be about 20 million dollars when we take into account the staff that we will shift over we will come up with about this 15.8 million it's actually about a million and a half less than we thought that it was going to be originally even though we've actually expanded it by four people This next slide will sort of preface the question that Supervisor Farr had, and this slide should look familiar to you by now.

The plan on how we're going to come up with the funding to actually operate the jail facility for the benefit of the public and those who may not be familiar with this what we came up with was a 12-year plan to carve out a portion of general fund growth That the county is anticipating having in future years has had in the last few years and we anticipate will occur in there in the next few years.

And that they carved out portion will be kept. In a fund and will continue to grow as more and more is carved out that fund will grow to the point where we'll have about 18 million or so that will be available in 2016 17 when we actually open the jail We will start to draw down from that fund and continue to carve out these additional pieces as we move forward so that by the end of Now, this is under AB 900 as you're aware.

SB 1022 is something that factors in now new that we didn't have when this plan was put together. The ongoing costs are for the existing facility are going to remain within the estimate but the transition costs are going to be higher as a result of having to Move some of those people up in terms of their hiring. As you mentioned supervisor far the preliminary indication is that we are going to have to modify this plan so that in 2017-18 In this year here instead of carving out a 1.5 million dollar piece we would need to up this by 200,000 to be a 1 point 7 million dollar piece that would continue as the cycle goes forward but we would go from the one to 1.3 to 1 .5 and we would accelerate We're also going to be exploring some other options.

We'll be finalizing this plan, but that's sort of the preliminary idea of what we've got right now. But we'll be coming back to you with this when we come back with the SB 1022 add-on if you will to this project.

not transcribed≈11s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
not transcribed≈9s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.813:00:21 · ≈ 12:00 PM

Supervisor Wolf?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 11Proposed3:00:23 · ≈ 12:00 PM

Thank you, Mr. Chair. You know Sheriff Brown we've talked in generalities about the impact to public safety specifically the funding of the JL as it relates to Measure M and so you're looking out I mean basically every year we're putting in significant amounts of general fund To keep this going and and then in years 20 22 23 we're going to be depending fully on the general fund Have you given any thought to?

And it's not necessarily your responsibility. It's the Board of Supervisors' responsibility if Measure M passes, but you're not ignorant of the fact of our budget challenges. So could you comment on how you would foresee the impact if Measure M passes to us moving forward with this? If we could even do that?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 20Proposed3:01:29 · ≈ 12:01 PM

Supervisor Wolf through the chair. Obviously, I do have concerns and I've gone on record as having concerns about Measure M. I think that Measure M is a...I would categorize it probably as the right idea but the wrong approach and actually I would hope that Measure M Would come into being and that perhaps an alternative plan. Like this could maybe be designed for maintenance where it would be incrementally carved out of future growth rates and budgets because my belief is that measure M would have a very detrimental impact obviously on the general fund which is where we derive the majority of our funding and as you point out where Essentially all of this additional funding would have to come to operate the jail facility So I do have some concerns about it.

I know there's going to be a lot of debate and a lot of dialogue about it We are you know still in the early stages of the recovery and unfortunately, there's a lot of things that we need and should have that we don't have as a result of The funding levels that we that we do have but I do have major concerns about it Supervisor far

CommentDesiree Coleman Chair I'dProposedself-stated3:02:42 · ≈ 12:02 PM

Thank you, Mr. Chair. So Mr. Alvarez I'm going to ask you to jump in here but I had asked a question to the effect that as part of the discussion that your existing jail staff were going to be added to the jail transition team because of the experience that they had and that new staff were going to be hired to backfill And so I asked if the financial impact had been accounted for in your budget for the transition years affected.

Mr. Alvarez, you responded that yes this had been contemplated however that you only became aware recently of the significant proposed increase in transition costs that previously had been 3 million in years prior to opening and now would be 5.8 million so that's a lot more than the 200,000 that you talked about adding to the 17-18 year so maybe I'm confused here

not transcribed≈9s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 21Proposed3:03:43 · ≈ 12:03 PM

Supervisor far through the chair. So the revised transition plan is calling for earlier hiring than the original plan, and so as you knit it out to the time it actually opens and you get up to the actual opening, it will draw a total of 1.8 million more Thank you very much. And so I think what the sheriff was just suggesting was that in 200,000 would be added but that would be added every year So it would That 1.8 million would be one time that you would need to correct So I think that doing that on an ongoing basis is how that would be recovered in his proposal.

not transcribed≈17s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
CommentDesiree Coleman Chair I'dProposedself-stated3:04:36 · ≈ 12:04 PM

So $200,000 a year to get to 1.80 we don't have enough years here Do we unless we're going all the way to the end of the chart? I guess I'm still confused

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 21Proposed3:04:46 · ≈ 12:04 PM

I believe that there are some other additions of $100,000 a year in subsequent years that the Sheriff is proposing. We have not received that formal request to really analyze and approve so we haven't really studied that revised funding plan.

CommentDesiree Coleman Chair I'dProposedself-stated3:05:02 · ≈ 12:05 PM

Okay, well I guess what's difficult for me is that we're really talking about three interrelated areas. We're talking about the cost to operate the main jail. We're talking about the costs to operate in the transition to this jail project as well as then how the anticipated star facility fits into all of this. And I just want to be clear that you know in the transition, the staff that you're going to be hiring years ahead of the actual opening are paid for out of the jail operations account that we're adding to. But if there are other existing staff which you mentioned That are currently at the main jail that are also being pulled that you then need to backfill for.

Then that comes back, I think, to your general custody sheriff's budget outside of this jail funding. So I'm trying to get a handle on how this looks in the big picture because when it comes to the board and in the transition years You know, there may be money in the jail account that we're adding to but if it's causing deficits that have to be filled and increase your budget in the other area of your budget. In the existing custody area of your budget I want to understand that and that's what I'm having difficulty with. Supervisor Park

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.813:06:30 · ≈ 12:06 PM

can I just piggyback on that real quick? I agree with you that the transition focus and it doesn't look like we have too much communication. There's maybe a lack of communication somewhere But I think we need to tackle that, or maybe we could tackle that during budget. We need this chart to come back to us and be updated and modified of how that's all going to happen so that it doesn't look like it's going to affect this year but outgoing years, and we need to see how that's going to affect us. So if that portion needs to be brought back at budget, but what also about when is the start presentation coming to us?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 20Proposed3:07:06 · ≈ 12:07 PM

We anticipate that will be in front of you with the that package as it were within the next 2 months. OK.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.813:07:15 · ≈ 12:07 PM

Supervisor

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 20Proposed3:07:16 · ≈ 12:07 PM

Wolf.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 11Proposed3:07:18 · ≈ 12:07 PM

I just. You know this chart has always. And

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 20Proposed3:07:23 · ≈ 12:07 PM

they don't

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 11Proposed3:07:23 · ≈ 12:07 PM

like it, I don't like it and I don't like it when there's changes to it when we when we have depended on this chart which I have never liked. So We really, I'm concerned that if there was always this notion of doing this early staffing plan why those numbers were not included in here. It's fine that we'll revise it and we'll have it for next budget hearings but what concerns me is that these numbers might continue to change and continue to have an impact on our general fund so I guess I implore you to make sure that these numbers are accurate. We're going to be, I assume we're going to be one of our actions today is approving the resolution for the preliminary staffing plan. It's preliminary which is a good thing it's not solid but And I'm assuming that it's as close to a solid as you expect it to be.

But anyway.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 20Proposed3:08:32 · ≈ 12:08 PM

Supervisor Wolf through the chair, I will point out that this chart when it was originally designed was really only anticipating AB 900 SB 1022 was not in the picture at all We had anticipated that it was going to take about 17 million. We've actually gotten fortunate that our revised costs look as though they're going to be significantly lower than that and are going to help us pay for the additional costs of staffing the STAR facility once it was born, but we have to change this chart and we will do that and provide you with an updated funding cash flow once we present to you the concept I'm not sure that we're going to be able to see SB 1022 being folded into this project but I would say that you know there is sufficient funding in in this project for the AB 900 phase of it.

But we're actually now looking at a revised overall

3:09 – 3:1724 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 11Proposed3:09:30 · ≈ 12:09 PM

And even when I see a budget decrease, well that's very nice. I also question how is it that now all of the sudden we're looking at costs that are much less than what we anticipated and then magically- Well the reason

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 20Proposed3:09:46 · ≈ 12:09 PM

for that,

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 11Proposed3:09:46 · ≈ 12:09 PM

Supervisor Wolff, is because

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 20Proposed3:09:48 · ≈ 12:09 PM

of PEPRA.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 11Proposed3:09:48 · ≈ 12:09 PM

We didn't know about

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 20Proposed3:09:49 · ≈ 12:09 PM

PEPRA when this chart was originally

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 11Proposed3:09:50 · ≈ 12:09 PM

designed. I understand that, but you also mentioned the fact that you might have custody deputies coming who may not, where PEPRA may not apply to them. So all I'm just saying is Sheriff Brown please be cautious and don't underestimate the costs that it may cost the county.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.813:10:13 · ≈ 12:10 PM

Supervisor Farr?

CommentDesiree Coleman Chair I'dProposedself-stated3:10:14 · ≈ 12:10 PM

Thank you Mr. Chair and Sheriff, again in looking at this chart there is an amount here for inmate medical which seems to go down. But then I'm trying to balance that with the chart that's not in your presentation, but it's in our packet. That is the total cost which shows almost $5 million estimate for non-personnel costs which includes the jail medical contract.

Which then brings the total to almost $21 million. So I guess I'm trying to sort out what's covered as far as the medical, considering there is such a big medical facility. As a part of this with then the separate contract that would go forward for the rest of the medical which is not part of your staffing but still would be staffing that's in the jail.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 20Proposed3:11:16 · ≈ 12:11 PM

Right, well Supervisor Farth through the chair, that cost is representative A portion of the medical cost that we currently pay for in our existing operations in South County. We're going to be Moving when this is all said and done. We're going to be reducing our South County facility our overall We have a thousand inmates there now that's going to go down to about 600 so about a 40% shift in terms of cost is going to go up to the northern branch jail, so that's why the Reduction in terms of the or the amount that's in essence credited against what the costs increased costs are going to be for the new facility goes for

CommentDesiree Coleman Chair I'dProposedself-stated3:11:59 · ≈ 12:11 PM

Okay so but for this, this is just for the North County Jail and this is for all non-personnel costs including the jail medical contract. In other words

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 20Proposed3:12:10 · ≈ 12:12 PM

we're going to be reducing our main jail medical costs by that amount? So that in essence becomes a credit against the medical costs of the new jail.

CommentDesiree Coleman Chair I'dProposedself-stated3:12:19 · ≈ 12:12 PM

Okay, so the assumption is that Corizon who does who we have the contract now is you're going to have one bigger contract with Corizon that covers both the main jail and the North County Jail? And then how does that work with the need for the specialty services? Is it still all the same contract?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 20Proposed3:12:42 · ≈ 12:12 PM

It's all it'll all be the same provider will be obviously getting a larger contract for more services because we're going to increase our overall capacity by system wide by about 20 percent. So we will have a need for some additional medical staff and so forth but yes it's all going to be from our contract provider who at this point is is car eyes.

CommentDesiree Coleman Chair I'dProposedself-stated3:13:05 · ≈ 12:13 PM

OK so when we talk about the opening day costs. The 15 million now is for our staffing but the contract cost then is what brings it up to 20 million

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 20Proposed3:13:21 · ≈ 12:13 PM

actually the 20 million is what the actual cost is in other words if you take all of our staffing all of our supplies all of our services it comes to twenty million two hundred thirty eight thousand dollars These costs here are what we currently are paying in the South County and we're going to no longer have those people or those services, or those inmates in the South County. We're going to push them into this new facility. So these costs will be...these $5 million will be transferred costs so that 5 million comes off of this 20 million to become the 15.8 million And it was always that way with the 17 million was always reflective of I think a 23 million dollar original operating costs for the facility.

The cost minus the value of the transferred existing costs that we would send up there

CommentDesiree Coleman Chair I'dProposedself-stated3:14:14 · ≈ 12:14 PM

Okay, well again is it's just It's very difficult when we're really talking about three facilities the existing jail the North County Jail and Potentially that the star facility about and ultimately worked Ultimately.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 20Proposed3:14:30 · ≈ 12:14 PM

We have to think of it really as a jail system rather than three separate

CommentDesiree Coleman Chair I'dProposedself-stated3:14:34 · ≈ 12:14 PM

It's

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 20Proposed3:14:35 · ≈ 12:14 PM

an overall jail system.

CommentDesiree Coleman Chair I'dProposedself-stated3:14:36 · ≈ 12:14 PM

And I totally agree, but I've never really seen that. That's kind of the chart I would also like to see is personnel costs, medical costs, contract costs in all of this laid out between the three facilities because you're right even though we have cordoned off this money for the North County Jail into a separate fund eventually when it opens it's going to be blended in with your whole custody operations and become really one line item in your overall budget But it does make it difficult when we're trying to estimate cost savings or cost increases, when we're moving services and personnel around. Thank you Mr. Chair.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.813:15:15 · ≈ 12:15 PM

All right thank you. Mr. Alvarez has input.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 21Proposed3:15:20 · ≈ 12:15 PM

Yes, supervisor far through the chair. So that is one of the schedules that I did look at and the way that they the sheriff's office approached it is to say here's the current cost per inmate at the existing jail facility. They took the number of beds that were going to be transferred over or inmates that we're gonna be transferred over and transfer those medical costs. And then they also looked at the incremental number of new beds that they would have at the new facility and then they use that same incremental cost per inmate so they did look at it in that way but it was on a detailed schedule but I didn't I did review that and find it to be reasonable

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 20Proposed3:15:50 · ≈ 12:15 PM

All right Sheriff Brown. Thank you, Chair. This next slide shows some other submission items that have to go to the state. These are necessary to remain in compliance with regulations that are pursuant to AB 900. They include design development drawings, the operational program statement and other periodic submissions that will be required by the Board of State and Community Corrections.

As such staff is requesting the authority to continue to make those submissions as they are necessary Staff will return to the board for all items that require approval both in accordance with county policy and state requirements that are associated with the AB 900 grant. Some of the other attachments or documents that the Board of State and Community Corrections requires as part of the overall process but does not require board approval, we're providing them to you anyway to avoid any confusion to their reference in the documents so that you can have a complete knowledge Taking place with this project. The operational program statement is a required document which documents or shows that we have intend to fully operate the facility in compliance with state regulations.

So then in summary, the need today for necessary board actions and resolution would be to approve the preliminary staffing plan. And again that plan has been reworked based upon the actual design, the concept shift schedules and the review by our project jail experts Liebert and Associates. And also the operating cost estimate and revenue sources, including an update of prior cost estimates that include the new analysis of staff refined operating costs and a 30 year cost projection.

3:17 – 3:3129 turns

CommentDesiree Coleman Chair I'dProposedself-stated3:17:45 · ≈ 12:17 PM

Mr. Chair?

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.813:17:46 · ≈ 12:17 PM

Supervisor Farr.

CommentDesiree Coleman Chair I'dProposedself-stated3:17:47 · ≈ 12:17 PM

Thank you Sheriff. So what is our timeline? What would need to come back to the board? And when do you anticipate that happening?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 20Proposed3:18:00 · ≈ 12:18 PM

Can we go back to the timeline slide maybe that was at the beginning of the So again red has already been accomplished I We are looking at a future number of things that have to be done. Let me just get into the right spot here. We're right about here, right now we're going to continue and I'm sorry we're here. We're going to need to do The state public works board will approve these construction documents of assuming that you are approved this today and send it to them in November.

Actually, I'm going to defer this to Tom because he's the go-to guy on this. Actually, I think once you approve this it will then get to the point where we can start moving in the right direction Before we go to the bid and construction process, I think there's one more approval process.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 22Proposed3:19:32 · ≈ 12:19 PM

Yeah after board and chairman after approval today the State Public Works Board would calendar these items for their review and following that we would be coming back to your board For approval of the plans and specifications and permission to bid the project before that would then go also to the state public work board for them to approve that at that time. And that would be in November, that it would come back to you for that action or any other action you tell us to come back for before then.

CommentDesiree Coleman Chair I'dProposedself-stated3:20:05 · ≈ 12:20 PM

Okay so um... So for this timeline its November before we would see this again?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 22Proposed3:20:12 · ≈ 12:20 PM

For specifically actions related to AB 900 solely yes anything joining the SB 1022 would come at a different timeline

CommentDesiree Coleman Chair I'dProposedself-stated3:20:20 · ≈ 12:20 PM

Okay, and other than but before that Because of budget we would get into the discussion that we've had as far as Costs with transition and other things associated with this But this particular project itself is not anticipated to come back to us before November

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 22Proposed3:20:40 · ≈ 12:20 PM

Not for any mandated actions by the AB 900 regulations. That's what I

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.813:20:45 · ≈ 12:20 PM

think. CEO has

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 22Proposed3:20:45 · ≈ 12:20 PM

some

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.813:20:45 · ≈ 12:20 PM

input on

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 23Proposed3:20:46 · ≈ 12:20 PM

that. Chair Lavinino, Supervisors, just to clarify as well. Actions regarding the 1022 grant would come back to your board and when we get staffing projections with that, we would come back with a full look to respond to what Supervisor Farr said looking at the staffing needs for both AB 900 and 1022. I just want to remind the board that in your actions today you are approving a preliminary staffing plan that goes to the state and part of the preliminary staffing plan is this transition plan. So, the data in here does include the accelerated staffing proposal from the sheriff that is part of the preliminary staffing plan so you would be submitting that to the state.

The good thing, the good news is that although Mr. Alvarez said it is we believe about 1.8 million dollars short from The plan that we've been using those funds would not be needed until the out years after the jail is opened. So there is some time to work on that, but we would be bringing back to you a plan that's consistent with how we plan to fund and staff the jail.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.813:21:50 · ≈ 12:21 PM

Supervisor far well actually just

CommentDesiree Coleman Chair I'dProposedself-stated3:21:53 · ≈ 12:21 PM

so just to clarify so if we agree to the plan today which according to the timeline I guess we're up against the deadline. We have to do that and then work were obligated to that before we really know how we're going to handle the cost

CommentSteve RonaldoProposed3:22:11 · ≈ 12:22 PM

Mr. Zamenino and Supervisor Farr, so one of the questions that always comes up with the Northern Branch Jail is as you're making decisions when is the actual point of no return? And the answer is always after you've put the project out for bid but before you've actually awarded the contracts So you are making some decisions as you go that are certainly spending money for the county as you go towards going out to bid, but you will have an opportunity after it goes out to bid to make a final decision about awarding the contract. The other two points I'd like to make based on comments we've heard today are just what is the significance of the preliminary staffing plan?

And the preliminary staffing plan is under the California Code of Regulations a requirement for us to stay in compliance with the timeline that you've contracted for in the two agreements. But later, once there's the preliminary staffing plan is in and done with, whether the existing jail or the Northern Branch Jail, is subject to its own Title 15 requirement for a sufficient number of personnel. So there's not a one-for-one connection between the preliminary staffing plan and the Title 15 requirement for a sufficient number of personnel, but it's essentially the same state that's looking at both. So you'd want as this plan does to have to be approximating as best as possible how many people you plan to be staffing the facility with I'll also note that the other requirement that's lying out there is the requirement to, quote, staff and operate, end quote, the Northern Branch Jail within 90 days of completion.

That doesn't say staff and operate at the 100% level or staff and operate at the 92% level but there is a bit of a shock absorber. There if needed for the board in after the completion of construction as to how if you have a shortfall on funding and use it operate at 93% or 92%. You do have somewhat of a shock absorber there. And I'll also just note that, I think the sheriff had highlighted That as terms of returning he was speaking only of mandatory return items And I think you had tabled for the moment just the discussion of project stabilization agreement But if you want to pursue that and give direction to return we do have a clock running and would need to Lock down a solid project stabilization agreement not certainly not later than November and preferably sooner than that so it could be incorporated into the bid package and Which would require further action by the board long before November.

Okay, Supervisor Wolff

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 11Proposed3:24:54 · ≈ 12:24 PM

Well that was going to be my question because I'm looking at the timeline that it says fall Was when we'd have to have the permission to bid So we have to move it would seem that if this board wants to move forward on project labor agreements We have to do that sooner rather than later so that's basically repeating what you just said

CommentSteve RonaldoProposed3:25:13 · ≈ 12:25 PM

Chair Lavagnino and Supervisor Wolf, that's correct. So we are internally saying certainly not later than November we would need final board approval on a project stabilization agreement but I would recommend significant input on what you want in that project stabilization agreement before then so that we could work with staff and also with the other parties to it So they were not trying to do that all in a very short time period I Supervisor Carbajal

CommentIsla VistaProposed · by introduction3:25:47 · ≈ 12:25 PM

Thank you. So, uh, I'm just trying to understand the mechanics of given direction Mr. Guzzoni is Would we be able at this hearing to say go work on developing a PLA and bring it to the board for consideration by the time frame that you are saying we need to do? Yes. Okay, so you could actually bring us one that you think touches on a number of issues that would be in the best interest of the county for consideration by this board where we could modify, accept wholeheartedly or what have you but you can come back to us with an option framework?

CommentSteve RonaldoProposed3:26:42 · ≈ 12:26 PM

Sure, let me know once you raise our carpal. Yes And I think that given the short time frame between now and say late October I Think that that approach would be good to come in with some key pieces of it Such that if the board wanted to take a course change 10 or 20 degrees one way or the other your negotiators would be aware Of that and we wouldn't be you know right on the deadline the October November deadline with a significant course change

CommentIsla VistaProposed · by introduction3:27:07 · ≈ 12:27 PM

Thank you very much

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.813:27:09 · ≈ 12:27 PM

All right. Mr. Pontus, by the way happy anniversary for those of you don't know this is Matt's one year anniversary today. This is what we do to everybody that's been here for one year. It's great I get to have a two hour presentation

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 8Proposed3:27:24 · ≈ 12:27 PM

and it's been great so far

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.813:27:26 · ≈ 12:27 PM

yeah

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 8Proposed3:27:27 · ≈ 12:27 PM

on March 6 2008 Board of Supervisors certified a final subsequent EIR for acquiring the projects 50 acre site and building and operating in new jail with up to fifteen hundred twenty beds In December 6, 2011 the Board of Supervisors considered an addendum for this 376 bed AB 900 Northern Branch Jail project. On October 8th 2013 the Board of Supervisors considered an addendum for a future 228 bed SB 1022 star Northern Branch Jail extension project.

The CEQA action by the Board of Supervisors dated on December 2011 was part of an authorizing the Sheriff's Department to apply for the AB 900 Phase 2 Conditional Award And the county that the county has now received. The 2013 CEQA action was part of authorizing the Sheriff's Department to apply for the SB 1022 star funding since the board's actions in December 2013, the Northern Branch Jail Project has had no scope changes staff therefore recommends that the board determined that no further sequel review is required for approval today.

Mr. Chairman, at this time I'd like to turn it over the sheriff will give up some wrap-up comments then perhaps we can finish our discussion on construction workforce agreements.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.813:28:45 · ≈ 12:28 PM

Okay very

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 20Proposed3:28:46 · ≈ 12:28 PM

good. Sheriff? Well, thank you very much. In closing I would just like to say that as you can see much work has already been accomplished to make this new jail a reality and I am very grateful for an exceptionally proud of the great team that has been assembled and that has been diligently working on this project it's been a pleasure to work with Matt Uh, at the department head level and the team members particularly on this project have really made both of us very proud.

That team includes members of my staff in particular I want to thank Lieutenant James Meter and Commander Tom Jenkins Plus a host of others from general services in particular Celeste Manolis and Leanne Anderson and John Green all have worked very hard on this. And a remarkable support group that we have from our county council, from our auditor controller and from the CEO in the CEO's office. Plus our outstanding architects from Rosser International, our construction management professionals from Kitchell and our jail experts from Liebert & Associates. We're very fortunate to have a true A team working on this project and it's going to be I assure you a facility that we can all be very proud of as well as one that is going to bring a huge economic boost to the county at a time when it is so desperately needed.

After more than 30 years of collective attempts, we are now well on our way to having an appropriately sized county jail system with a state-of-the-art facility as a flagship that will be in essence a hybrid between a jail and a prison. Exactly what we must now have in this post AB 109 era. So thank you for your support in getting us to the point that we're at today.

And we stand ready to answer any questions that you may have about the project.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.813:30:42 · ≈ 12:30 PM

Very good, Sheriff. I think we probably asked all of our questions as we were going through but thank you very much. We do have, I think 14 requests to speak from the public. We're going to blaze right through this so that everybody can get something to eat afterwards. We will, we're going to go three minutes each. Everybody's waited here patiently. So we'll give everybody their full three minutes and I think we have some in Santa Maria and some here, so I don't know what's easier for us. You want to do Santa Maria first? Let's do Santa Maria first.

And so just line folks out. Go ahead, Madam Clerk.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed3:31:24 · ≈ 12:31 PM

Chair Lavinino and members of the board, we have 14 requests to speak on item number one. We will begin in Santa Maria with Andy Caldwell to be followed by Joe Armadaris.

3:31 – 3:397 turns

PresenterAndy CaldwellColabProposedself-stated3:31:38 · ≈ 12:31 PM

Chairman Lavinino, members of the board, I'm Andy Caldwell representing Colab. You know, we look at this project kind of actually look at it in light of Measure M That this project should have been initiated and funded 30 years ago when the court basically limited the number of people we could keep on our jail despite the fact that they should have been sentenced to jail.

So, we would ask the board and we expect the board in getting 90% of the funding from the state to go full speed ahead. You know, we don't mind you dickering with the sheriff as to whether or not you have to hire that many people two years in advance. We do think the board should refrain from trying to pretend they're an architect and save $6000 of county money on a tower.

But the biggest issue today is this discussion you've been having about PLAs We are absolutely and totally committed to a local hire program. Whether that's union or non-union, we want there to be a level playing field and we want as many people locally hired as is possible. But as you know, I serve as the executive director of an organization that has organized labor and non-labor organized labor contractors.

And to tell you the truth, I'm hearing it from both sides as to what this local hire plan means in actuality. So when this comes back, I would like you to have an independent opinion on what it means. Does it create a level playing field for locals? Does it create an unlevel playing field or an advantage to union workers or union contractors? Is there enough contractors of either sort in our local area to satisfy these contracts?

We would like to have some independent analysis on this, but most of all we do not want This issue to be a deal killer for the construction. An argument can be made that 90% of this money is coming from the state of California, not the local economy. So even though we want local hires as a first and foremost priority, we don't believe that should be a deal killer because the rest of the states putting money into this. And so I don't think that we could try to rig this And in essence, kill the project if you don't get the hiring process that you want.

So that's the balance we would like to see applied. Thank you.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed3:34:45 · ≈ 12:34 PM

Our next request to speak is from Joe Armendariz to be followed by Sam Stanford.

GuestJoe ArmendarizeSheriffProposedself-stated3:34:54 · ≈ 12:34 PM

Welcome members of the board. I'm Joe Armendarize representing Santa Barbara County Taxpayers Association I want to congratulate the sheriff who, I believe has done a stellar job in securing the funding for what is without a doubt an essential component of our public safety infrastructure. I think it can't be overstated how important this is to the public health and the public safety of Santa Barbara County.

It's not often that I disagree with my very good friend, Andy Caldwell. And maybe this is not necessarily a disagreement as much as it's perhaps a viewpoint in a more nuanced perspective. Look, the Taxpayers Association isn't a coalition that includes labor and so I'm going to just speak sort of from the heart on this and that is that I don't believe that there's any debate whatsoever None at all that project labor agreements are bad for the taxpayers. This is true from New Jersey to California, and I think that if you construct a project labor agreement there will be no doubt about the fact that it will include poison pills that will make it almost impossible for non-union contractors to compete. And at the end of the day, whether the money comes from Sacramento or from the fourth floor of the county administration building.

These are taxpayer dollars and the idea that a project labor agreement could be constructed in such a way as to be too clever by half in my view is not acceptable. There's no question when you look at the data, study after study after study project labor agreements increase the cost of public project construction by an estimated 18 to 20%. Private contractors, moreover, are put in a very difficult position when asked to participate within the context of a project labor agreement because they're asked to do things that make it difficult for them to submit competitive bids.

When they are asked to, for example, contribute money to public employee pensions in addition to their own private pensions, the notion that that's not going to drive up the cost of their bid I just think defies mathematics and so while I want to state unequivocally that this project is important, and I want to state unequivocally that I believe the economic impacts direct and indirect could be substantial.

The idea that we would unnecessarily drive up the cost of this construction because it's good politics in my view is absolutely completely unacceptable. And I would hope that you would refrain from including a PLA in this project. Thank you. Thank you.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed3:37:56 · ≈ 12:37 PM

Our next request to speak is from Sam Stanford, to be followed by Tim Binet. Our next request to speak...

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.813:38:12 · ≈ 12:38 PM

Go ahead, that's Tim.

CommentTim BennettProposedself-stated3:38:13 · ≈ 12:38 PM

I think Sam's gone, so my name is Tim Bennett. I'm a business agent for the IVW Local 413, also on the Board of Trustees at Allan Hancock College since 2004. As a trustee at the college, we've had many construction projects as you probably know in the last few years. I think we made a mistake at the college by not using some sort of local workforce agreement. We've had more than $100 million worth of projects. Most of the contractors and workers were from out of the area with little or no care about our community so I just ask you to please don't make the same mistake that I think that we made and keep the revenue here.

Keep our local people working at home And I ask you to please move forward with a local construction workforce agreement. Thank you.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed3:39:10 · ≈ 12:39 PM

Our next request to speak is from Sherry Brunner, to be followed by Joe Ferino. Joe Ferino?

3:39 – 3:476 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 7Proposed3:39:25 · ≈ 12:39 PM

Mr. Chairman and members of the board, thanks for the opportunity to speak to you today. As Executive Director of the Central Coast Chapter of NECA, I represent electrical contractors from San Luis Obispo and Santa Barbara Counties. Those contractors employ hundreds of electricians and apprentices, workers who are earning good wages and are shopping, dining and playing right here in our area.

A local construction workforce agreement or project labor agreement, project stabilization We'll help to increase those opportunities for county residents. An agreement has been proven to favor local contractors, and as we know a local contractor is putting more money into our local economy, pursuing further business opportunities here and is working to create fair employment for local skilled workers.

A complex project like the jail requires considerable expertise and highly skilled workers who can cooperatively perform on a daily basis. Without this cooperation, delays occur as subcontractors are unable to perform their tasks as needed. One of the main purposes a construction workforce agreement serves is to coordinate work rules, processes, safety rules and timelines for all skilled workers on the project.

With an agreement, the owners in this case, the Santa Barbara County are involved with the contractors as partners, helping to ensure that the expected project is completed on time, on budget and without unnecessary burden. With a construction workforce agreement all contractors know at the onset of the program what their expected work will be when they can expect to perform those tasks and the number of workers they will need onsite. And this allows them to perform much more productively In closing, I'd like to say I am a local resident. I'm a homeowner and taxpayer.

And I believe that a local construction workforce agreement will work to stimulate growth in this county and it will ensure fair wages and safe working conditions for all concerned. Thank you for this opportunity today and I urge you to consider a project workforce agreement. Thank you.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed3:41:50 · ≈ 12:41 PM

Our next request to speak is Joe Ferino to be followed by David Baldwin.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed3:41:58 · ≈ 12:41 PM

Mr. Chairman and other board members, I rise today in favor of selecting a workforce agreement using the local workforce is exactly the kind of thing that we need to do for too long. Other communities with a lower cost of living have brought their contractors and their workers into our area Those companies and those workers return with the profits and the wages to the community from which they came from.

In the meantime, our workers are not making money. They're unable to continue to pay taxes in our area for our projects. Moreover, our youth needs work and our youth needs apprenticeship opportunities so they can have a decent life for themselves and their families. I am retired and I don't need a job but I have needed the job in the past in this county. I've also owned a bar and grill on Upper De La Vina Street I was a member of the Chamber of Commerce.

I know as a businessman and former Chamber of Commerce member that I need the workers in my community to be making money if they're going to be able to come out and spend that discretionary income at my bar-and-grill, which I no longer have. Anyway earlier in this meeting I saw us celebrate The Lady Dons and other community people and area residents, our family, our friends and our neighbors.

These are exactly the people that we should be giving work to. I believe Mr Adams quoted the fact that local taxpayers pay 97% of our income. I say let's give those 97% a job. Thank you so much.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed3:44:08 · ≈ 12:44 PM

Our next request to speak is David Baldwin, to be followed by James Campbell.

PresenterDavid BaldwinPlacers and Cement Masons UnionProposedself-stated3:44:16 · ≈ 12:44 PM

Hi I'm David Baldwin with the Placers and Cement Masons Union. I'm a lifetime resident of San Luis County and I cover northern Santa Barbara County and San Luis Obispo County for the Cement Masons Union. I'd like to commend the board on an important discussion around these workforce agreements. You know, the number one issue for anyone should be, and it certainly is for the building trades, is local hire. And that's what these agreements are all about.

We use local hiring halls We call ourselves local unions, and the reason the word local is in there is because we're established in the locals so that we can assure that local people are doing the local work. No matter what side of the union non-union thing you're on, the idea of local people working on local jobs should be something that we can all get onboard with.

And the only way to ensure that is the use of local hiring halls. I think Santa Maria and local area workers deserve a fair shot at these jobs on this project, and the only way to ensure that is through a PLA. There are numerous independent studies by leading economists and universities that show that PLAs, workforce investment agreements, whatever term you want to use, are nondiscriminatory and they keep local tax dollars local You see less on-the-job injuries and more jobs that come in on time and under budget.

The idea of cost savings by keeping local building trades workers off a local project doesn't sit well with me, it doesn't feel right to hear it said, and it shouldn't feel right to you either as local electeds. As supervisors, you have to weigh out this issue. And I think at the end of the day, Are you going to have a project that ensures local people have the best shot of working on the job or not?

And are you gonna have a project that sets parameters to ensure that the workers have things like pension and health care, or not? Are you gonna have local control and local issues addressed because the only way to address them is within the confines of a Project Labor Agreement. There was some mention made earlier about paying into public employees pensions That has nothing to do with this discussion. These are private contractors, private pension plans, no public employee pensions.

I also heard in the discussion early on about Kitchell's labor outreach and I'd like to point out, I've been a labor leader here for 18 years. That's all I do. I was never contacted by Kitchell. I'm often contacted by other contractors who are going to come into the area or who are looking to understand the local workforce or the local contractor base. I never was contacted by Kitchell so I have Suspect their their findings and lastly I just want to direct ask the council to direct staff to enter into agreement That has the strongest Language for local hire that can be had. Thank you.

Thank you

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed3:47:30 · ≈ 12:47 PM

Our next request to speak is James Campbell, then we will return back here in Santa Barbara with John Luton

3:47 – 3:5616 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 24Proposed3:47:37 · ≈ 12:47 PM

Hello Mr. Chairman and Board of Trustees, I'm just a local construction worker and I think it would be great for me and my co-workers if we could get a PLA pass because like right now I'm having to travel 100 miles just to get to work and back and I live right here spend my taxes right here in this community I think it's only fair that if we could get local hire and get our guys that live around here to build this building because I can look over there and I see these guys building this building. I'm like, man, that's just right around my corner from you. Why am I traveling 100 miles to go to work and back every day and not spending time with my family?

And that's all. I'll keep the short and that's how I think it would be best for everybody in our community. If you could get a PLA passed for us. Thank you.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed3:48:29 · ≈ 12:48 PM

Our next request to speak is John Luden followed by Gary Mosel.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 25Proposed3:48:36 · ≈ 12:48 PM

Good afternoon, I appreciate the opportunity to speak. I did bring a PowerPoint but didn't want to bother you with doing that so I have copies here to distribute for you. The nutshell of this and first of all Supervisor Wolfe, I really appreciated your acknowledgement of donors. I actually met my wife at a blood drive so you never know what she'll get out of being a donor She started her PhD program here in Santa Barbara and we fell in love and we get her any chance we can get. So, we've been coming here every chance we can since 99 and love the community.

The California Construction Compliance Group was formed in 2004 to monitor and enforce prevailing wage law, make sure workers are paid their due. We have helped to recover over $500,000 for workers. Most of those are on union projects. So we have a lot of expertise in this area especially with project labor agreements. It is an incontrovertible fact that a PLA So if you want more money for mental health services or more money spent improving the lead quality standards on a project and lowering operational cost, you're throwing money out the door by using a PLA. The biggest study in the state of California, the most comprehensive looked at over 518 schools put the number at a 13 to 15 percent increase in cost. That's $28.90 to $32.49 cost per square foot if you do a PLA.

A New Jersey study put the cost at 30% increased on schools that was the New Jersey Department of Labor under a Democrat administration. And just recently down in Oxnard, they had a 20% to 30% increase. If we're going to argue back and forth about which is better, whether you improve local hire or whether it raises costs, there's a simple solution. Bid it both ways. Bidding without a PLA, bid it with the PLA. See which one has a better promise of bringing local workers and lower cost because I guarantee you all know the answer.

The other thing that I want to say is that you're trying to hire everything that you want from a PLA or the stated reasons for doing it actually gets harder with a PLA. When you walk up and you say, the non-union contractors are going to have to pay into the union pension funds which they will, they will also bear liability If those pension funds become insolvent, that's why non-union contractors will not take that risk. They will not bid fewer bidders. The San Diego Unified School District did a study with a pro PLA board. Their study and I can provide a copy it showed that their bidding pool dropped from 11.7 bidders to 6.2 per project. Their costs went up.

So this would be a damaging thing if you lock out non-union contractors and Santa Barbara County is not. That diverse in comparison to one county we analyzed in Contra Costa, you've got almost a million people. They only had 38% local hire with a million people and half the size of a project.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.813:51:44 · ≈ 12:51 PM

Thank you very much. I'm sorry, you said you come back as much as you can? Where are you now? I'm in San Diego now. Okay, very good. Supervisor Carbajal?

CommentIsla VistaProposed · by introduction3:51:52 · ≈ 12:51 PM

You drove all the way up here from San Diego for this hearing? I did. Thank you.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.813:51:59 · ≈ 12:51 PM

Yes, it is.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed3:51:59 · ≈ 12:51 PM

Our next request to speak is Gary Mosel to be followed by Freddie Romero

CommentGary MoselProposedself-stated3:52:04 · ≈ 12:52 PM

Hi, I'm Gary Mosel. I'm a community activist a contractor and I passed The Architectural Board of Review for eight years first I'd like to talk about a little bit about the building and I feel like the architecture of the building competes with the airport as you said and I'd rather have the Airport welcome people to Santa Barbara than the correctional facilities So I think that the architecture of that building should be a little bit more diminutive, and it should reflect what the building is. However, the style and the character is important, and I do believe it should be attractive to look at.

And the mission style is certainly an acceptable style but it does need to be diminutive. Secondly, I want to talk about the solar. They did say that they were going to use solar water heating which is 75% more efficient than PV so I think though the water heating is important and it also will produce more labor for local contractors which brings me to the point of the PLA I am a plumbing contractor here in Santa Barbara. Our business actually started in 1933, I've had the pleasure of doing several jail projects myself. I did the expansion at the local jail right here and I did the municipal court building down below. Both of those would not be able to be accomplished if I was not signatory towards the union contractor. The union labor provided me with skilled personnel That I was able to do the projects on budget on time.

And I believe it's important for the local community to get that money and I am very strongly support the labor agreement and there we are

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.813:53:53 · ≈ 12:53 PM

under 30

CommentGary MoselProposedself-stated3:53:53 · ≈ 12:53 PM

minutes

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.813:53:54 · ≈ 12:53 PM

thank you so much. Supervisor Carbajal.

CommentIsla VistaProposed · by introduction3:53:59 · ≈ 12:53 PM

As our next person comes up, I just have a question for Mr. Gazzone. I know I also asked you in advance to look into various court decisions or what have you but it pertains to this never ending argument of cost. What the courts opined about cost, I think would be important to hear from you right now in terms of the previous speaker. The second previous speaker not the last.

CommentSteve RonaldoProposed3:54:30 · ≈ 12:54 PM

Chair Labadino and Supervisor Carbajal, so there is a debate on cost I'll say that the California Supreme Court has stated that prevailing wage law really tends to provide everyone with the even footing. So if it's a public contract prevailing wage law will apply whether you're union contractor or non-union contractor and that's about as far as they can go with the court decision after that will just be practical experience with contracts?

CommentIsla VistaProposed · by introduction3:54:58 · ≈ 12:54 PM

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed3:55:00 · ≈ 12:55 PM

Our next request to speak is Freddie Romero to be followed by Eric Christian.

PresenterFreddy RomeroElders Council for the StProposedself-stated3:55:05 · ≈ 12:55 PM

Hello Chairman Lavagnino and fellow supervisors. My name is Freddy Romero, and I represent the Elders Council for the St. Nisban of Chumash Indians. And I'm not here necessarily to oppose the project or to speak about the budget costs or PLAs. My concern or the elders' concern is to voice their concerns about the inadequacy of the EIR that they failed to address in terms of archaeology.

The issue is not specifically like I say to with the county jail, but it's proposed site given its sensitivity of the area and its location. We do have some real deep concerns about that. The elders wish to address in a public forum such as this. Although we did address it with the county during the EIR process, it wasn't adequately addressed during that time or received by them that we felt when the EIR came out, the study they had received and that they had accepted was not adequate to our concerns given the area that the jail is proposed.

The original proposed area which is located not too far from where this proposal areas located. There was there was a discovery that was made so the jail was actually moved to the new site. And speaking with my elders, even after that proposed site there was a tract of land that was near the proposed site where there were some illegal excavation that was being done by the landowner. I spoke with the county. The county went out there I'm here today to ask that you would give some consideration prior to allowing the commencement of this project that there would be additional studies taking place in order

not transcribed≈20s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen

3:57 – 4:0318 turns

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.813:57:19 · ≈ 12:57 PM

Thank you. I have just a quick question, just for clarification. Is it Sandy Nesbitt of Chumash Indians? Yes. Okay very good thank you.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed3:57:27 · ≈ 12:57 PM

Our next request to speak is from Eric Christian to be followed by Mercy Urea.

PresenterEric Christianthe Coalition for Fair Employment and Construction formed 15 years ago solely toProposedself-stated3:57:32 · ≈ 12:57 PM

Supervisors my name's Eric Christian and I'm the Executive Director of the Coalition for Fair Employment and Construction formed 15 years ago solely to oppose project labor agreements Unfortunately, you bring shame upon this entity because you actually are having a discussion or as the supervisor's at least been blunt enough to admit wants to have a discussion on project labor agreements. The most divisive discriminatory agreements in the construction industry. So divisive, so discriminatory and so controversial that 11 different entities in California have now banned them including the eighth largest city in America which voted 60 to 40% to ban project labor agreements. That's how welcome these are in our communities when the voters have a chance to vote on them.

So why are we suddenly having a discussion that goes from local hire to project labor agreements, when 85% of your construction workforce here locally according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics is non-union? You would be achieving the opposite ends if you have a project labor group in place on your project. The reason is, of course, because this is a political and ideological issue not a common sense issue. If it was a common sense or fiscal issue You'd be looking at Oxnard Union High School District which forced this upon their staff and the general contractor that have been approved to build their new high school in November of last year.

Pulled this out of the blue, had a PLA negotiated within 60 days and added $11 million dollars to the cost of their new high school. It went from 48 million to 59 million dollars just two months ago. Number one reason during the staff's discussion on this to the board was because of the project labor agreement you don't need You need to go a few miles down the road and ask the Oxnard Unified School District board members, the three of them that voted for this. What they're going to say to the taxpayers they just stole $11 million from? That's what a project labor agreement will get you. Here's what else it will get you. It will get you our focus like a laser beam Educating your public about what you're trying to do to them and their tax dollars, and the local workers you'll be discriminated against.

How will you be discriminated against local workers? Because PLAs regardless of what local big labor special interests argue all have the same provisions in them. You all have to pay union dues. You all have to pay into union health welfare pension plans. The Labor Department shows over 400 labor pension plans are in critical or endangered status. Are you aware of that? You want to enter into a project labor agreement, are you even aware of what the number of local union pension plans are on their critical endangered lists are?

So you have to pay into union pension plans, you have to pay union dues. You have to be hired through a union hiring hall and you have to only hire union apprentices despite the fact there are non-union apprentices. That's what a PLA will get you. Here is a suggestion. Do this on your timeline not on Big Labor Special Interest Timeline. Hold the study session where you actually have a discussion not as a supervisor wants which is just shove down everybody's throat with no discussion of what a PLA actually is. And you actually have a discussion before the board about what appeal is number one. Number two, send out a survey and I know I'm on my time so I'll be quick. Send out a survey to local contractors and ask them whether they would bid a project with or without a project labor agreement.

You'll be shocked at what the results are and I think that will speak to your local hire issue. And thirdly- No,

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.814:00:49 · ≈ 1:00 PM

no thirdly. I'm

PresenterEric Christianthe Coalition for Fair Employment and Construction formed 15 years ago solely toProposedself-stated4:00:50 · ≈ 1:00 PM

sorry we don't have time. Thank

CommentIsla VistaProposed · by introduction4:00:51 · ≈ 1:00 PM

you very much. Excuse me Mr. Chair, I have a couple questions. Go ahead. Sure, absolutely. So if a PLA came to us and they didn't have that union dues thing Does every PLA have to have that union? Yes. PLAs come from AFL-CIO National, not here locally. I understand. So should this board ask that a PLA come to us and it doesn't have that pension issue that you referred to or those union dues, I would love for you to come back and say, I stand corrected, because I am aware that they don't have to have that.

And it's really- What PLAs haven't had it? It's just intriguing to me to see that you feel that that's the case. What

PresenterEric Christianthe Coalition for Fair Employment and Construction formed 15 years ago solely toProposedself-stated4:01:43 · ≈ 1:01 PM

PLAs haven't had that? I've read every single one in California in 15 years. Which ones haven't had it?

CommentIsla VistaProposed · by introduction4:01:48 · ≈ 1:01 PM

Well, I think there's a number of them that haven't.

PresenterEric Christianthe Coalition for Fair Employment and Construction formed 15 years ago solely toProposedself-stated4:01:50 · ≈ 1:01 PM

But you can't name one?

CommentIsla VistaProposed · by introduction4:01:52 · ≈ 1:01 PM

You think

PresenterEric Christianthe Coalition for Fair Employment and Construction formed 15 years ago solely toProposedself-stated4:01:53 · ≈ 1:01 PM

you would know that if you make a statement like that?

CommentIsla VistaProposed · by introduction4:01:57 · ≈ 1:01 PM

We won't get into a debate.

PresenterEric Christianthe Coalition for Fair Employment and Construction formed 15 years ago solely toProposedself-stated4:01:58 · ≈ 1:01 PM

I wouldn't want to get into it with me either right now

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.814:02:01 · ≈ 1:02 PM

Sir, you know what you're Not representing your side very well at the present time. I don't think so Why don't we

move on to the next speaker

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed4:02:11 · ≈ 1:02 PM

our next request to speak is mercy read to be followed by Marcella Morales

CommentMercy UriaProposedself-stated4:02:18 · ≈ 1:02 PM

I Thank you, Mr. Chair and board members. My name is Mercy Uria. I was born Ventura County raised out in Santa Barbara County. I'm not a paid public speaker to go up and down the coast. And shoot down PLAs, but I am a member of the Carpenters Local 150. I did attend Elwood Elementary School, Colina Valley Junior High School, Dos Pueblos High School. So I'm still in contact with a lot of members who live in Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo County.

I've been a member for about 24 years now. I've been a representative for about six years. So, I do what's best for our members and for their families trying to put more guys to work and also do a lot of times speaking with contractors And employees working for these contractors, even on non-union jobs. So we spend a lot of time on jobs. I think the PLA or some sort of agreement would be great for local hire to keep our money here locally. What we do see a lot of and what's happening right now is you got big jobs going on all over the area, for instance UCSB.

A majority of the crews from Orange County, LA County, they're driving all the way up here right now. They're doing all their work and they're driving back home so the best way to keep your money here locally and put locals to work would be under some sort of agreement. Just just and by saying I'm supportive that anything I could do to help you guys out or Or due to give you some more information. I'd be willing to do that That's all I have thank you for the tank you

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed4:03:48 · ≈ 1:03 PM

Our next request to speak is Marisela Morales to be followed by Chuck Hendelson

4:04 – 4:107 turns

PresenterMarisela MoralesCAUSEProposedself-stated4:04:00 · ≈ 1:04 PM

Good afternoon Chair and members of the Board of Supervisors, my name is Marisela Morales and I'm Deputy Executive Director of CAUSE, the Central Coast Alliance United for Sustainable Economy. And we have offices in both North and Santa Barbara County. We are committed to a vibrant and sustainable local economy that reduces unemployment and improves job quality.

The County of Santa Barbara has the opportunity to reduce local unemployment and create quality jobs through a project labor agreement should you move forward with the Northern Branch Jail Project. Santa Barbara County as a whole has an unemployment rate well below the statewide average, Nevertheless, the countywide unemployment rate hides an egregious and growing divide at the city level. According to the California Employment Development Department, the difference in unemployment rates among cities is nearly four times as high in one city when compared to another.

So for instance Lompoc has an unemployment rate as of February of nearly 13% As compared to say the city of Goleta with an unemployment rate of three and a half percent so the North County cities of Lompoc Guadalupe in Santa Maria Currently have same double-digit unemployment rates as we saw during the recession six years ago The opportunity to adopt a project labor agreement is really the only tried and true public policy tool at your disposal that can assure local labor hire. Project labor agreements have been utilized by public agencies since the 1930s, So the unfortunate misinformation that PLAs will destroy and steal the coffers of public agencies does not stand with fact that they've been around since the 1930s.

In addition, Fortune 100 and 500 companies such as Toyota, General Motors, Walmart, Bank of America are amongst those that use project labor agreements. It would be hard-pressed to say that corporations such as Walmart carry the flag of pro-union agreements. So they have stood the test of time and really they are the only public policy tool to hold accountable local hire on public projects.

Lastly, there has been an effort to discredit project labor agreements including a mailer that you may have received and Just want to share that the same type of mailer almost verbatim was used with the Ventura County Board of Supervisors just two years ago And we would hope that you would not fall sway to such lies and fear-mongering. Thank you very much

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed4:07:01 · ≈ 1:07 PM

Our next request we don't

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.814:07:06 · ≈ 1:07 PM

know clapping please thank you I

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed4:07:09 · ≈ 1:07 PM

Our next request to speak is from Chuck Cuddleston, to be followed by Brian Gregory.

CommentChuck CuddlestonProposedself-stated4:07:14 · ≈ 1:07 PM

Good afternoon. My name's Chuck Cuddleston, business manager for the Electrical Workers Union 413 in Santa Barbara County. Many of our local members would like to have been with you today but my members, the majority have been working out of town for over two years so they're not at home. They'd like to have one of these projects nearby. I'm very concerned about the representative for the ABC here today, Eric Christian what he's trying to accomplish. He is an outsider. He just solely goes up and down California opposing project labor agreements.

If you mention a PLA anywhere in California Mr. Christian pops out like my grandson's toy jack-in-the-box just right on time. It seems outsiders like Mr. Christian and those that he represents don't want your constituents local Santa Barbara County workers to work where they live and pay their taxes. My guess is that Mr. Christian has paid pretty well to post PLA, yet he sends a cookie cutter flyer out and again with misinformation we did address the stuff about double payments and all this stuff's been addressed in the proposed PLA but instead he hasn't done his homework and he sends a cookie cutter flyer out like I said without facts so I wouldn't rely on that at all Mr. Christian's organization claims that this PLA is a union-only agreement, an agreement that excludes nonunion contractors and unrepresented workers.

Well, that's simply not true. It's illegal for any general law public agency to give favoritism to any construction contractor based on their union affiliation or shop location. Likewise as per the National Labor Relations Act it is illegal for any labor union to deny a qualified person regardless of union membership the ability to sign the unions out-of-work books.

Any PLA must ensure that all contractors and all qualified workers have an equal opportunity to engage in the agreement while providing the local workforce with a first right of refusal to perform their work. The proposed PLA for the North County Jail Project does exactly that. And as to the motives of the ABC that he represents itself, here in California Senate Bill 776 had to be passed to protect workers from an ABC labor compliance committee that took earnings from workers' paychecks to fund their political agenda. In effect, workers' dollars were being taken to be used against workers' best interest.

The ABC also once filed an injunction to prevent the implementation of a new rule by the U.S. Department of Labor that would encourage the hiring of disabled Americans and military veterans. Doesn't it seem that the ABC has always taken the low road? The last time Mr. Christian was here and had their news conference, the ABC were opposing a potential PLA and I noticed that employer standing in the background that was supporting his efforts. That employer had been banned from doing any prevailing wage work because he had violated workers' rights by depriving them of their pay on a prevailing wage project right here in Santa Barbara.

So what's the real agenda for Mr. Christian and the ABC? It certainly doesn't seem to be for Santa Barbara County residents or its local workforce, thank you.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.814:10:10 · ≈ 1:10 PM

Our

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed4:10:12 · ≈ 1:10 PM

next request to speak is from Brian Gregory to be followed by Steven Weiner.

4:10 – 4:238 turns

PresenterBrian GregorySanta Barbara County Electrical Apprenticeship Program Apprenticeship is the proProposedself-stated4:10:23 · ≈ 1:10 PM

Chairman Board my name is Brian Gregory and I'm the director of the Santa Barbara County Electrical Apprenticeship Program Apprenticeship is the proven method to learn any craft or trade. It combines paid on-the-job training, under a journeyman electrician in our case during the day and then technical training in the classroom at night. The magic of apprenticeship doesn't work with just one or the other but the combination of the two together can take someone like me and turn them into a real electrician that can support a family here in Santa Barbara County We are a self-funded, private industry educational institution.

The employers that use our apprentices pay for their training and they choose to do this because with the phone call they can get the best quality worker that is receiving the exact type of training that they want and they need them to have so their business can be successful. Apprentices in our program come from all over Santa Barbara County. We've trained apprentices from every one of our high schools We have apprentices with college education and college debt that didn't get him a job. We have displaced workers from the recession There's no prouder moment for me than attending our graduation ceremony Well, we get to watch the students that have worked and studied so hard for five years become journeyman electricians With skills and a trade that nobody can take away.

I'm here today to support a PLA and to secure a place on this project for Santa Barbara County apprentices in all the trades, not just ours. I wish you could meet the individuals that are on our waiting list right now I'm overwhelmed by the quality, the drive and the aptitude of our local young people that are just waiting for an opportunity to succeed and excel in a career.

But we can only train as many electricians as we have projects to put them on. And it breaks my heart when I drive past a project and I know they're not using local labor and I know that there's no structured training and future As a taxpayer and a voter, it just kind of ticks me off when our dollars and our training opportunities are just given away. So I urge you to support PLA, keep our money here, keep our jobs here but most importantly help us provide training career opportunities for our residents and our future taxpayers.

If you'd like more information on apprenticeship or how this agreement can affect our apprenticeship, please contact me anytime. Thank you.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed4:13:19 · ≈ 1:13 PM

Our next request to speak is from Stephen Weiner to be followed by Ethan Shankman

PresenterSteve Weiner I'mworkersProposedself-stated4:13:28 · ≈ 1:13 PM

Well it wasn't started out say good morning but it's good afternoon board chair supervisors staff. My name is Steve Weiner I'm the big labor force big bad labor force and I'm proud of it. I'm here and I represent the workers. I don't represent the contractors. I represent the workers. One thing I'd like to do, the first thing I'd like to do is start by thanking all the men and women who came here today to show up for the support of local hire.

If I could just ask them to stand, everybody who's here to support local hire. You can see we brought a few people here and up in Santa Maria as well. Here are some points on project labor agreements. A project labor agreement is the only way to maximize the number of local workers in a general law county. It increases the number of highly skilled workers on the project.

It helps to reduce the overall construction costs by ensuring that work will be completed efficiently, cooperatively, economically and without interruption. It ensures the maximum use of apprentices. It aids in creating a safe workplace. It includes a program called Helmets to Hard Hats which puts our veterans to work on projects. Project labor agreements bring projects in on time and on budget.

From 2008 to 2012, there was $130 billion, not with an M, with a big B, billion dollars worth of work covered under project labor agreements. I handed in the list of them. There's six pages for you to look at. That's a lot of money that was This is not something new and agreements have been proven to work. And I would imagine if there was one that didn't work, the opposition my good friend Eric Christian who really likes me will be yelling this from the rooftop and he doesn't. They all speak in general terms they attack in general terms agreement is going to increase the cost certain contractors will not be able to bid on it. It doesn't increase local hire and that is discriminatory That all makes good sound bites and yet they never point to a specific project where any of this has happened.

Why? Because there are none. There was a flyer that Eric Christian put out, part of it stated that PLAs increased the cost and it said quote in the Oxnard Union High School District Board just learned about it the hard way when their PLA covered the high school project came in $10 million over the estimate The truth is the board learned that they upgraded the sewer, they upgraded the electrical system. They increased the scope of work. They decreased the timeline. They added materials that were required by the DAS and there were other items added. Do you think that might have raised the price a little bit?

And one thing, every project... You're over your time. Am I over my time? Yep sorry. Okay now won't tell you about the quarter 1% that Eric represents.

not transcribed≈8s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.814:16:38 · ≈ 1:16 PM

Don't tell us about that! Chair

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed4:16:42 · ≈ 1:16 PM

Levinino and members of the board, I have been told that our final speaker Ethan Shakeman has withdrawn his slip.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.814:16:48 · ≈ 1:16 PM

Okay very good so that closes out our public comment. I'll bring it back to the board for deliberation. Supervisor Carbajal

CommentIsla VistaProposed · by introduction4:16:56 · ≈ 1:16 PM

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Well I thought today was very insightful from so many different perspectives. I think it was great to get all the details of our jail project, our financing and the various steps that we need to take. Want to commend our sheriff for again his leadership and getting us to this point I think it's it's been a fluid process on many levels and even a little bit fluid still going forward, but I Think that a lot of the credit goes to Sheriff Bill Brown And all the good work that him in his team and CEO Miyasato and all our county staff that have worked on this project It's by no means I think it's a perfect and final with all the details we like to have certainly gives us a little bit of uncertainty.

But I think is as substantive as we're going to get where we're seeing in front The only recommendation I would modify is Recommendation E, no Recommendation F which said it would say direct general services staff to return to the board with a Project Stabilization Agreement framework or PLA of options. With options should I say Regarding including regarding utilizing local construction.

Well, regarding utilizing local construction workforce agreement so I think that just basically allows staff to work on a PLA PSA and bring back to us one with recommendation of options for the board to consider. And to that end, I don't know if it's premature Mr. Chair but I'll gladly move the item with that modification.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.814:19:04 · ≈ 1:19 PM

Okay. Moved and seconded discussion on the motion? Okay well I'll say a few words then if nobody else is going to jump in before we vote. I also want to commend the sheriff. Shoot this thing has been going on for decades and we do have 20 grand jury reports You know, I'm just as concerned about the cost as everybody else up here. But you know we do need to protect taxpayers money and we need to look at everything but really in the back of my mind there's always that voice of what's the alternative?

This has to be done this North County Jail is Decades overdone, we've got court orders, we have grand jury reports. And when are we ever going to get a chance that we have something that we're going to get in jail for ten cents on the dollar? It's just never going to happen again and I really commend you for the job you did of not only getting the North County Jail funding but also the STAR program as well.

The North County Jail has been my number one priority since I was first running for office, and I will be hopefully there in 2018 cutting a ribbon in front of that building. You know, getting to the PLA discussion on this, I came into this with eyes wide open and ears open because I'm not an expert in this and I wanted to get educated in this. And today's hearing for me was very eye-opening.

I mean, I heard one side of the argument that seemed to be very measured, reasoned, balanced. And the other side was very divisive. First off, I want to say I'm not going to be intimidated into making a decision one way or the other and I'm not going to be bullied into making a decision one way or the other. I'm going to do what's best for the taxpayers, the way I see it. And the way I see it is, and I think that taxpayers deserve, is to have the most highly trained professionals on that job.

And I'm confident those people exist here in Santa Barbara County or SLO County and Ventura County. But I also want assurance that every qualified worker whether they're in a union or not in a union, they're going to have access to these jobs. And so you know I think it's I think I thought it was interesting that people have said this is almost an evil undertaking when we haven't even seen really what we're looking at. We have a framework but I think as oftentimes happened with Santa Barbara County We're going to try to do things a little bit differently than other counties have done them before.

So I'll be very interested, I'm not saying I'm going to support a PLA and I'm not saying I'm against it. I want to see exactly how it comes out but my main focus is to make sure that the most qualified individuals are building that facility. And so that's where I'm going to be on this. So I'm interested to see what we come back with and the other thing is, I think people need to know is the average person out there might not understand that this isn't a decision when it's public works project. We are gonna be paying prevailing wage on it anyway.

So I want to get biggest bang for my buck. And I'm also interested in what the costs are going to be associated with if there are additional costs associated with a project labor agreement, but also on the other side you want to see where those savings would be in a project labor agreement with no interruption and work and those types of things. So I'll be very interested to see what comes back. I still have an open mind and I'm looking forward What's returned to us?

Anybody else so with that We have a motion on the floor. We have a second all those in favor aye any opposed passes unanimously and As a great chairman I finished item 1 by 120 in the afternoon We're off to we're off to a good start Yeah, we'll clap for that you get okay, so Hold on just a second, folks. We have to take two seconds worth of direction here. Mr. Gazzone can you please read closed session for us? What

4:23 – 6:053 turns

CommentSteve RonaldoProposed4:23:43 · ≈ 1:23 PM

do you expect? The board has noticed today four or five items. First is conference with labor negotiators with all unrepresented employees and managers. The second is a series of public employee performance evaluations scheduled for Public Defender, Fire Chief, Public Works Director, Community Services Director. And estimate from CEO is 90 minutes on those items for the closed session that will be held in the large conference room.

Ninety minutes.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.814:24:14 · ≈ 1:24 PM

So let's say 1 to 230? Two hours? I know but we're I know how what's that? Let's do 215. Oh, no. Yeah, whoa three three Let's do three o'clock will do three o'clock We'll do our best to get through and we will take up item two at three ♪ ♪ Yeah.

CommentHarry HagenProposed · by introduction4:26:45 · ≈ 1:26 PM

¶. A. ♪ ♪ The. The. ♪ ♪ The. ♪ ♪ The. ¶. ♪ ♪ ♪ The. You. The. ♪ Yeah. ♪ You. The. Yeah. . . Yeah. Music Yeah. The. ♪ The. ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ . . Yeah. Hello. Yeah. ♪ Yeah. ¶. ¶. ¶. ♪ ♪ The. The. The. Music Thank you. ♪ ♪ ¶¶ The. ♪ ♪ ¶. ¶¶ ♪ ¶. ¶¶ The. Hi. ¶¶ Yeah. Yeah. ♪ ¶. ♪ ¶. ♪ Yeah. ¶. ¶. Hi. Hi. ¶¶ ♪ ♪♪ Hi. ♪ The. . . I'm ♪ You. . . You. . . Good morning. Music Good morning.

The. ♪ Oh. ♪ ♪ The. ¶. ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ Yeah. ♪ . . . . ♪ The. ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ Yeah. You. ¶. The. Hi, everyone. Hi, everyone. ♪ ♪ Hello. ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ Yeah. ¶. The. ¶. ♪ . . The. ♪ ♪ ♪ The.

6:05 – 6:148 turns

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.816:05:33 · ≈ 3:05 PM

Okay. We will reconvene the meeting of the Board of Supervisors. We're going to item number three.

CommentSteve RonaldoProposed6:06:07 · ≈ 3:06 PM

Mr. Chair, first report that there are no reportable actions from closed session.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.816:06:13 · ≈ 3:06 PM

Except that I did not return your pen. Sorry about that. All right. Item 3, Madam Clerk?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed6:06:20 · ≈ 3:06 PM

Chair Lavinino, members of the board. Item number three is from Community Services. It is a hearing to consider recommendations regarding the draft citizen participation plan fiscal year 2014 through 2015 annual action plan and fiscal year 2011-12, 2012-13 and 2013-14 substantial amendments for the use of federal funds under the home investment partnerships program community development block grant and emergency solutions grant Annual grant programs.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 26Proposed6:06:51 · ≈ 3:06 PM

All right, Mr Parker. Thank you Chair Lavanino and members of the board. I'm here today with Dinah Lockhart, Lori Baker and AJ Quineva. We're here to provide you with a report on our NOFA and action plan proposals. Lori?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed6:07:09 · ≈ 3:07 PM

Thank you good afternoon chair Lavanino and members of the board.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.816:07:13 · ≈ 3:07 PM

I think you need to get that a little bit closer to you.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed6:07:17 · ≈ 3:07 PM

We are here before you today to present three items for your consideration. First, to consider revisions to the county's citizen participation plan. Second, to consider recommendations for funding under the Federal Community Development Block Grant, the Home Investment Partnership Act and the Emergency Solutions Grant. Third, to receive a staff report on the Home Consortium and CDBG Urban County Annual Action Plan. And annual action plan amendments for submittal to the US Department of Housing and Urban Development.

Today marks the end of a 30 day public notice period and all public comments received during the notice period including those that may be heard today should be considered by the board. The annual action plan and annual action plan amendments as approved today will be finalized and brought back to the board on May 6th, to receive final approval to submit the plans to HUD.

Prior to today, HCD has received a few comments from applicants commending HCD's use of the Zoom Grants application program which they found easy to use. Another comment was received by email and is attached to your board letter. Each year the county has allocated funds from HUD to administer programs under the Community Development Block Grant, the Home Investments Partnership Program and the Emergency Solutions Grant.

The county partners with several cities to administer the funds throughout the county. On November 19, 2013 the County's Housing and Community Development Division, HCD issued a Notice of Funding Availability or NOFA to invite applications for community development block grant and emergency solutions grant funds. Due to the nature of the home program, the availability of home funds was not included in the NOFA rather applications for home funds will be accepted on a year-round basis.

Key criteria for application review were whether projects could be completed in a timely manner, project feasibility and eligibility, and the organization's capacity to complete the projects. HCD staff and Board of Supervisors appointed committees reviewed the applications and their funding recommendations are being presented to you today. In the audience today there is Skip Simansky, Chair of the Capital Loan Committee and a member from the Human Services Commission was planning to attend.

The county's home allocation for the 2014-15 program year is $937,493. 10% of the grant will be used for administration. $843,744 is available for home eligible projects. Of this amount, $246,765 will be used by the city of Santa Maria to administer a tenant based rental assistance program. The remaining funds will be awarded as applications are received. After applications are reviewed by HCD staff and the Capital Loan Committee, HCD will present funding recommendations to the board for final approval.

The county CDBG allocation for the 2014-15 program year is $1,511,673. After deducting the partner cities sub allocations, the county's CDBG portion is $619,129. In addition to this amount, $392,802 in CDBG will also be allocated which consists of $22,534 of unused funds from the cities of Buellton and Solvang. $246,789 from prior year projects that did not go forward and $123,479 in CDBG program income.

This totals $1,011,931 which is available for CDBG capital projects. The 2014-15 CDBG public service allocation is $142,875 and there are $8,145 available from prior year funds. As a point of clarification there were 27 applications requesting $542,295 The following capital projects are being recommended for funding. Eighty nine percent of the funds are recommended for facilities that are county owned or managed.

Note that a portion of the funds will be used for project delivery costs and the funds recommended for women's economic ventures are not subject to the 15 percent public services cap and will come out of available funds after deducting allowable amounts for administration and public services This map shows the countywide geographic distribution of the capital projects recommended for funding.

All maps in this presentation have been reviewed and updated as necessary, and may differ from the ones in your packet. 15% or $142,875 of the county CDBG allocation may be used for public services programs. In addition there were $8,145 in unutilized prior year public services funds. Therefore $151,020 are available for public services grants. 27 applications were received requesting $542,295. And this shows the programs recommended for funding.

The following public services programs were not recommended for funding. Again, HCD received 27 applications requesting over a half million dollars in public services funds. This map shows the geographic distribution of recommended CDBG public services programs throughout the county. This year, the county was awarded $126,795 in emergency solution grant funds. And after deducting the allowable 7.5% for administration that leaves $117,285 for programs that address homelessness. Nine applications were received requesting a total of $257,345.

Nine applications, or excuse me eight programs are recommended for the available funds. One program was not recommended for ESG funding however it did receive funding through the CDPG public services allocation. This list shows a list of the recommended ESG programs. I

not transcribed≈16s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
not transcribed≈11s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
not transcribed≈15s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
not transcribed≈16s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
not transcribed≈12s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
not transcribed≈13s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen

6:14 – 6:2014 turns

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.816:14:48 · ≈ 3:14 PM

have a question on that slide. Why unlike Good Samaritan Shelter Rapid Rehousing, I appreciate this but we're actually recommending more than what they requested.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed6:15:03 · ≈ 3:15 PM

Do we have a member from the Human Services Commission here? Or in Santa Maria?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 26Proposed6:15:12 · ≈ 3:15 PM

Chair Lavanino and members of the board these particular items went through a committee made up of the Human Services Commission They evaluated each one of these applications. They did site visits, they interviewed the applicants and these are their recommendations that we're bringing forward to the board today.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.816:15:32 · ≈ 3:15 PM

Okay I'll check with my human services commissioner then and see there's a couple of them it's just interesting that they actually going to give him more than what the person requested okay

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed6:15:48 · ≈ 3:15 PM

And this map shows the geographic distribution of the recommended ESG programs. Whenever there is a substantial change to a previously approved annual action plan, an amendment must be approved by the board and submitted to HUD. Prior year annual action plans are being revised to recommit CDBG funds that have become available due to projects not going forward and projects that were completed under budget.

In addition $50,000 from the 2013-14 home funds will be used by the city of Santa Maria for its tenant based rental assistance program. Finally, we are here today to request the board's approval to recommend a revision of the County Citizens Participation Plan which governs when revisions to an annual action plan are required and how citizens may participate in the action plan amendment process.

There are three key changes. The first is to require an action plan amendment only when there is an increase in a project's funding by 50% or more. Second, to allow flexibility in the public notification process. For instance, publication and local newspapers will no longer be limited to display type advertisements which can be costly. Copies of action plans and amendments will be provided to key libraries in North and South County rather than all libraries saving on printing costs.

Third, the revision also permit flexibility to allow the county to accept home applications on a year-round basis. It's important to note that these changes do not eliminate board approval process for funding approvals and do not limit the ability of the public to review action plans and amendments And to submit comments. On May 6th, staff will return to the board to recommend the following actions.

Approve the 2014 annual action plan and action plan amendments which will include the board approved projects and to authorize a county executive officer or designee to execute HUD related forms. And this concludes the staff report.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.816:18:05 · ≈ 3:18 PM

Thank

CommentIsla VistaProposed · by introduction6:18:05 · ≈ 3:18 PM

you.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.816:18:06 · ≈ 3:18 PM

Supervisor Carpall?

CommentIsla VistaProposed · by introduction6:18:07 · ≈ 3:18 PM

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I thought this was really well done and I want to give you guys kudos. It's very thorough, it's very clear. I just have one question and one little issue that I wanted to see if my colleagues might be open to modifying but could you help me understand the decision making for the capital projects? Who made that did we have a committee was it the same committee? I know we have the Human Services Commission and if you could help me understand that how that was better

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed6:18:39 · ≈ 3:18 PM

sure for capital projects Applications are submitted through the zoom grants application process HCD staff's reviews them for eligibility Organizational capacity project timelines and budgets Then the recommendations go to the capital loan committee and the Capital Loan Committee can either support staff recommendations They can make other recommendations.

CommentIsla VistaProposed · by introduction6:19:06 · ≈ 3:19 PM

Who's the Capital Loan Committee?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed6:19:09 · ≈ 3:19 PM

Skip Szymanski is the chair, and it has a representative from We have Mr. Theo Filotti from our auditor's office, Mr. Dale Azam, City Housing Authority, Ms. Jennifer McGovern, she's from the housing trust fund, Mr. Ken Johnson, he's a developer and Mr. John Polanski, he is a non-voting advisory member from the housing authority of the county

CommentIsla VistaProposed · by introduction6:19:37 · ≈ 3:19 PM

Great. Well, I think they did great work but what caught my attention is that if you look at the requests and what was recommended almost everybody got everything they wanted. The veterans group for the Lompoc Vets Memorial Building requested 54 and they got 30. And you know if everybody else when you consider that only $24,000 more would complete their project Why would we not just give them that and just cut everybody just a tiny little bit so they could have their full amount. And almost everybody still gets overwhelmingly everything that they wanted I just think it would allow them to complete a project instead of just giving him a little bit and it would be in keeping with the whole framework.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed6:20:26 · ≈ 3:20 PM

The first thing

6:20 – 6:2819 turns

CommentIsla VistaProposed · by introduction6:20:29 · ≈ 3:20 PM

I know. Yeah, I could unravel things more but that one just caught my attention and...

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed6:20:37 · ≈ 3:20 PM

There was a portion of that project that was not eligible for CDBG funds so we had to remove it.

CommentIsla VistaProposed · by introduction6:20:42 · ≈ 3:20 PM

Is that why?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed6:20:43 · ≈ 3:20 PM

It was window coverings for acoustical improvements and the CDBG considers that furnishings and equipment and it's not eligible.

CommentIsla VistaProposed · by introduction6:20:50 · ≈ 3:20 PM

So it was a matter of qualifying. Correct. It didn't qualify. Okay. That's very helpful because I thought maybe it was, eh, we'll give them this much versus more. That's very

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed6:21:00 · ≈ 3:21 PM

helpful. If I may, because these are capital projects we're very sensitive to making sure that the project can still move forward with the funding that they have because we know that partial funding could make the whole project infeasible.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.816:21:14 · ≈ 3:21 PM

Okay, thank you. Supervisor Farr and Supervisor Wolfe?

CommentDesiree Coleman Chair I'dProposedself-stated6:21:17 · ≈ 3:21 PM

Thank you Mr. Chair. Actually on that same page I wanted to see whether we could make a small amendment. You know, I had spoken with representatives of the Santa Barbara Student Housing Co-op, the Newman House And they're trying to go forward with a big rehabilitation project there. One of the few, the only student housing co-op in Isla Vista and they have really safe housing and they run on a shoestring but the committee felt that they just weren't ready which is why you see a zero there. And even though I would've liked to have given them something to get him going I'm willing to leave it the way it is but that one change I would like to have the board consider is.

The Kyrie all sidewalks my understanding having talked to public works only asked for that amount as a phase 1 when they found that there was extra money. They gave it to them to do phase two. In order to complete the upsizing of the street lighting in Isla Vista, if $35,000 could be added to the 98,000 we could finish all those phases which I think we would all agree would really help with public safety in the area which we need.

And it's my understanding, and I think Mr. Daubertein is here and could speak to it that if the $35,000 was taken from the recommended amount for the sidewalks that Public Works could still do both of those projects and still do both of the phases of the Chi Rial sidewalk so that project should not be harmed by doing that small change.

CommentMatt DaubertyProposedself-stated6:23:06 · ≈ 3:23 PM

Good afternoon, Chairman Lavagnino and members of the board. My name is Matt Dauberty and I'm with Santa Barbara County Public Works. The $35,000 represents less than 5% of the total project cost. It's very possible that when bids come in for this project, the bid would actually absorb the $35 thousand so we're really not overly concerned about the shift in the 35 thousand.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.816:23:32 · ≈ 3:23 PM

Very good, thank you. So how do we change that? Do we just say hey, we're changing it? Do we just need to direct staff or what

CommentDesiree Coleman Chair I'dProposedself-stated6:23:46 · ≈ 3:23 PM

does that look like? Well if the board concurs then I would ask that we amend this list. This is the only list that I'm concerned about And amend that amount from $98,000 to $133,000 and I think amend the other amount to $538,931. And I realize this is in Supervisor Wolf's district and I'm sure she wants to comment but again it doesn't appear that the sidewalk project would be slowed down or damaged by that.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 11Proposed6:24:21 · ≈ 3:24 PM

Thank you. I was just going to commend the committee for their recommendation for this sidewalk. We received a letter from Dr. Robert Gaines from the Veterans Center, who I know was thrilled that this recommendation had come forward. Not only did he note that That this is a very difficult street and yet it's heavily used by veterans. It's used by folks from the adjoining St. Vincent's property, and also from the jail. So getting the funding for this in both phases I just have to thank Public Works for getting us on the table.

And then to the committee for approving it. The number requested, and I don't mean, the number requested for the Isla Vista street lighting was 98,000 and that's what they got. I would prefer that we keep the numbers the same and As part of the motion if the bids come in lower that the money can go to Isla Vista rather than making a change right now. But unless there is an absolute guarantee That these sidewalks will be completed because you're talking about $35,000. If that's going to impact this huge project then I don't think it's worth it.

So I either need a firm guarantee that it's going to happen. And if not, then let's put in the language that I suggested so I'd like to hear from Public Works how confident you are and I guess the other thing is why the 98 requested from the street lighting wasn't increased if they needed more money?

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.816:26:27 · ≈ 3:26 PM

Do you want to tackle the first one, Supervisor? Well

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 11Proposed6:26:29 · ≈ 3:26 PM

let's go. Let's listen to Matt. Sure. Chairman LaVigno. Because that may take care of it.

CommentMatt DaubertyProposedself-stated6:26:35 · ≈ 3:26 PM

Supervisor Wolff, yes. So when we originally proposed this project, we looked at it in two phases. And that would mean there would be, at one point, design and engineering costs associated between one phase. And then the staging, the mobilization, the advertising, packaging the bid package for it. That would have to happen in two different steps and with two separate projects. There would be some duplication of those costs. And so by combining this into one project, we do believe there will be significant cost savings associated with that almost close to 10%. So when I think about bidding a project like this as a single project, we're more confident that a missing amount on the order of 35,000 could be captured in a lower bid. Am I 100% confident?

I can't say that. But my confidence is relatively high because of the cost savings that would be gained from combining it into one project.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 11Proposed6:27:39 · ≈ 3:27 PM

Okay, and that makes sense. Thank you. All right. Supervisor Farr, I'm fine if you want to... It was lowering it by $35,000 and increasing your streetlights by 35?

CommentDesiree Coleman Chair I'dProposedself-stated6:27:55 · ≈ 3:27 PM

Thank you, Supervisor Wolf. I appreciate that very much and just the explanation for the difference in the amounts. You know we've had this very large phase project going on in Isla Vista to upsize the street lighting and to put in also coincidentally missing pieces of sidewalk And so because of what happened in Isla Vista, not even at Deltopia. But even prior to that we really felt like if there was a way that we could accelerate these phases and when I talked with Public Works they said that really what they needed to finish off the upsizing on the existing poles was another $35,000.

Rather than have to wait through another year cycle to get the money, since it wasn't that much money. That's why I asked for this year so we could get it all done and I appreciate you being willing to agree to the amendment. Thank you Mr. Chair.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.816:28:55 · ≈ 3:28 PM

All right great. Supervisor Wolfe your light is on? Oh

CommentDesiree Coleman Chair I'dProposedself-stated6:28:58 · ≈ 3:28 PM

I'm sorry.

6:29 – 6:4618 turns

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.816:29:02 · ≈ 3:29 PM

There was no well there were 2 speakers only if we had questions regarding Valley Haven are people helping people. Everybody's good with those 2 projects okay, but that yeah they're great everybody knows are great. All right so need a motion.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 11Proposed6:29:22 · ≈ 3:29 PM

Okay, well I'll make a motion that we approve all of staff's recommendation with a slight modification on the capital projects. The 2014 county capital projects increasing the county, the Isla Vista street lighting program by $35,000 And decreasing the County Public Works sidewalk by $35,000 with the understanding that that sidewalk will be completed.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.816:29:58 · ≈ 3:29 PM

Good enough? Okay, moved, seconded. All those in favor? Aye. And opposed? Passes unanimously. Look at that teamwork. Right on, all right. Okay we're going to item four.

CommentHarry HagenProposed · by introduction6:30:14 · ≈ 3:30 PM

Take a second. Go

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.816:30:31 · ≈ 3:30 PM

item

CommentHarry HagenProposed · by introduction6:30:32 · ≈ 3:30 PM

four

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.816:30:33 · ≈ 3:30 PM

please. Madam Clerk?

not transcribed≈13s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed6:30:57 · ≈ 3:30 PM

Chair Lavinino, members of the board. Item number four is from planning and development. It is a hearing to consider the recommendations of the county and Montecito Planning Commissions to approve case numbers 13 ORD 8, 13 OR D9, and 13 ORD 10 which would amend respectively the County Land Use and Development Code, the Montecito Land Use and Development Code, and the Article 2 Coastal Zoning Ordinance to implement a series of amendments that address emerging issues and correct the clarify existing language.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.816:31:26 · ≈ 3:31 PM

All right, good afternoon. I take our presentation today by Noel Engel. Mr. Chair, can I ask? Yes. Supervisor Carball.

CommentIsla VistaProposed · by introduction6:31:32 · ≈ 3:31 PM

Thank you Mr. Chair. This item was very confusing for me initially. I met with staff and I guess as you start off the presentation, I want to corroborate what I think I understand And that is that this item basically affords a lot more latitude and flexibility to legal non-conforming structures.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 19Proposed6:32:00 · ≈ 3:32 PM

Through the Chair, Supervisor Carbajal in particular residential non-conforming structures if adopted it will allow structural alterations in a way that has never been possible in the past and is currently not possible.

CommentIsla VistaProposed · by introduction6:32:13 · ≈ 3:32 PM

So this really enhances the flexibility of legal non-conforming residential structures? Yes, sir.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.816:32:22 · ≈ 3:32 PM

Okay, so we just broke a record for asking a question before we even started. Awesome.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 27Proposed6:32:29 · ≈ 3:32 PM

All right. Thank you Mr Chair and members of the Board of Supervisors. The purpose of today's hearing is for your board to review the recommendations of the county and the Montecito Planning Commissions, and approve ordinances amending the County and Montecito Land Use and Development Codes in the Article 2 Coastal Zoning Ordinance. The proposed amendments implement revisions required by state law, respond to requests by the Board of Supervisors, clarify existing procedures and requirements of the zoning ordinances Correct errors and omissions, and delete coastal zone regulations in the county in the Montecito Land Use and Development Codes since the Article 2 Coastal Zoning Ordinance remains the ordinance for the coastal zone.

This package of amendments includes 20 issue areas. However, the planning commissions are recommending revisions to only two of these areas and these are in regards to the maximum buildup periods for phase conditional use permits and development plans and structural alterations to nonconforming structures. These last few items will be reviewed in detail later on in this presentation.

The remaining issue areas are shown on the list, on the screen. Those did not generate any discussion by the planning commissions that resulted in revisions to the proposed text. We do not intend to discuss these in details unless of course your board has questions on the individual issue areas. The first item that the Planning Commission spent some time on was in regards to the maximum build-out periods for projects that are approved under phased conditional use permits and final development plans.

This was an item that is requested by your Board of Supervisors in 2011 when staff brought before you at that time, the 2011 General Package of Ordinance Amendments Included in that amendment was a proposed ordinance amendment that would allow for large projects that are approved by conditional use permits and development plans To have a phasing plan approved as part of their approval That would allow the project to be built out over a longer period of time. They would normally be allowed by the standard Time limits contained in the zoning ordinance Staff brought back to the commissions an amendment that would limit this period of time in which all follow-on permits would have to be issued, to 10 years. And that ten year period would begin following the effective date of the phase CUP or development plan, essentially the date that the project is approved.

The Planning Commission however was concerned that for certain projects, especially those which are done by non-profit corporations or community members that rely on fundraising to raise the necessary funds to complete the project. Would not be enough time. And so the recommendation is that the ordinance be amended, which is included in your packet to include that this 10 year period could be extended through the approval of a time extension by the planning commission.

The second item, which also engendered quite a bit of discussion amongst the commissioners was in regards to non-conforming structures and the situation in which structure alterations are made and in most cases not allowed to those structures. Non-conforming structures are legal Because they were either built prior to zoning being enacted in a certain area or we're in compliance with the zoning regulations in effect at the time they were constructed.

But due to changes in the zoning, they no longer comply to the current requirements and typically these are development standards regarding height setback lot coverage and things of that nature. Non-conforming structures are allowed to remain as long as they otherwise comply with the zoning restrictions regarding non-conforming structures, but they are expected to be removed over time.

There is an exception that's within the zoning ordinances that allow for non-conforming residences to be completely rebuilt if they are destroyed by a natural disaster. And we saw some of this occurring within the areas of the Tee and Hesa Cedar Fire recently. This last exception helps to preserve the housing stock within the county of Santa Barbara. Structural alterations are currently not allowed to be made to a non-conforming structure unless it qualifies under one of the three situations.

And that is, it would result in a conforming structure or the alteration qualifies as a seismic retrofit or would help to preserve and maintain a designated historical landmark. To clarify, structural alterations are changes that are made to the structural elements of a structure. For example, changes in the roof support system or load-bearing walls. It is possible to make certain alterations to a nonconforming structure provided they do not enhance the structural characteristics of the building. So for example you could add a partition wall within a structure provided that it's not load bearing You may also do normal repair and maintenance to non-conforming structures, such as replacing roof signals or repairing siding.

And it's also important to remember that these restrictions only apply to the non-conforming portion of a particular structure. So for example if a structure was constructed so that it intruded somewhat into let's say a side or front yard setback Then it's only that portion of the building that's within the setback area, which is not allowed under the current regulations to have structural alterations made to it. The remainder of the structure that is outside the setback area could be structurally altered in a manner provided that was allowed by the zoning ordinance.

The current regulations also do not explicitly address the situations where non-conforming structures are structurally altered without permits. The existing practice is that such structures must either be altered so they now conform to the zoning ordinance or be removed. Returning a structure to its previous configuration is usually not possible without altering the structural elements of the building, because this usually involves changes to the supporting roof members or exterior load-bearing walls.

The proposed regulations As Dr. Russell mentioned, would now allow alterations to non-conforming structures that are devoted to conforming residential uses and their accessory uses provided that the alteration does not extend beyond the existing exterior of the structure and that if the structure is 50 years old or greater, that the director determines that the alteration will not negatively impact any historical significance.

This change resulted from discussions at the Planning Commission That originally grew out of concern by the Montecito planning commission that the existing regulations prohibiting structural alterations to not performing structures could negatively impact some of historic buildings within And that if the owner was faced with not being able to alter that non-conforming structure to make it more livable, that their choice would then be possibly to demolish the entire structure and build a new one.

The proposed regulations also add a new procedure that applies when non-conforming structures are structurally altered without permits, and a permit cannot be approved for that alteration. This procedure codifies the existing practice I discussed earlier and would typically only apply to commercial and industrial structures. The procedure provides that the structure must either be altered so that it conforms or be demolished and That if the structure is not altered or demolished then it is then subject to zoning enforcement Also, the determination that a structural alteration has occurred in violation of the zoning ordinances may be appealed to the Planning Commission and ultimately to your Board of Supervisors So in summary, the effect of the proposed changes to the nonconforming regulations are that they relax the current restrictions on structural alterations to nonconforming residential structures.

They allow for the long-term continuation of nonconforming structures that contain conforming residential uses including any nonconforming accessory structures These regulations do not require that these structures be removed unless the owner chooses to do so and would allow because it would now allow structural alterations to occur. That a structure may be returned to its previous configuration if expanded in a manner that would not be in compliance with the zoning ordinance.

Very briefly, the next steps are that the amendments to the county and land use. I'm sorry, the County of Montecito Land Use Development Codes would be effective 30 days after adoption by your Board of Supervisors. And the amendment to Article 2 would have to be submitted to the Coastal Commission for certification before it's effective. And so our recommendations are that you make the findings for approval containing attachments A, D and G.

Find the proposed projects are exempt from CEQA in accordance with attachments B, E and H. And lastly to approve the ordinances which are attachment C, F and I. And this concludes my presentation.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.816:43:35 · ≈ 3:43 PM

Very good. Jacqueline do we have any public speakers?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed6:43:38 · ≈ 3:43 PM

Chair Lavinino members of the board we have one request to speak on this item and that is Willie Chamberlain

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.816:43:44 · ≈ 3:43 PM

Good afternoon, Mr. Chamberlain.

CommentWillie ChamberlainProposedself-stated6:43:46 · ≈ 3:43 PM

So you turned on your internet and then you ran down here and said I got to get in on this thing? Well, I didn't have to come down so early. That's good. Anyway, good afternoon. I am Willie Chamberlain from Las Levas. This whole non-conforming issue, I think is very, very bothersome and I commend staff for trying to help but I hope all of you know that you have non conforming structures throughout the county in every one of your districts This has been bothering me for 4050 years and with each zoning change things happen.

I spent 9 sessions in front of the planning Commission this year on the Gaviota Coast and each one of those sessions nonconforming came up between the planning department and the planning staff they did some things to try to make it better, but it is not good enough. And when you come in with such a requirement just let me read this item B If the rights to continue the non-conforming structure terminated, then the structure shall be either demolished or altered so that the structure may be considered a conforming structure. And sometimes that's not possible and so I think we've gone too far in requiring things to be demolished.

If we happen to have a residence on our property that for some reason doesn't quite conform because you can only have one primary residents and all the rest of them are or either employee or whatever and they've been there for 50 years. The House I live in is over 100 years old. They may not conform. But when we start putting things in here in our existing laws, it annoys me that it says the intention of non-conforming or these structures should disappear. Thank you very much.

Why is that an intention of our government to say if you have an older structure, it's been changed. It's no longer conforming because all of the zoning has changed but the building hasn't been changed. Why isn't that we can construct it so it can be legal? We could make the documentation legalize these things. I really ask you to do that. This is this is wrong the direction we're going like I said appreciate this direction was started, but I request that you send it back to planning department and let's get this thing straightened out. Thank you. Thank you.

not transcribed≈20s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen

6:46 – 6:5520 turns

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.816:46:30 · ≈ 3:46 PM

That's our public comment. I'll bring it back to the board.

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role6:46:36 · ≈ 3:46 PM

Well yeah, this is really my only problem in the whole deal. You know people think that when they build something there's the assumption that it's going to be there for its entire useful life and You know the. Like Mister Chamberlain says. You know the people put money into and have over the years. Maintaining and keeping them viable to use for one purpose or another.

And so basically everybody's acted in reliance on the idea that once something gets built you're not going to ever have to be told that you're going to tear it down, you know, you have to tear it down because And I think that the groves discussion kind of revealed that You know, there's just this assumption in our our collective consciousness, I think that You know once something's there nobody's gonna really take it away from you and You know this this This Section here just it does, you know to me it goes too far when we tell somebody at the demolish an existing structure I just I think it's too far and I would just like to see this part Either just stricken. I don't know if that's possible at this point We could adopt it without that without that section Is that is that possible mr.

Council Ms council, I'm sorry

not transcribed≈12s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 7Proposed6:48:42 · ≈ 3:48 PM

Yes that's possible it's a policy consideration for your board.

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role6:48:46 · ≈ 3:48 PM

I don't know if that made the record but apparently that is possible. So I don't know if there's anybody that would second a motion to do that, but I guess.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.816:48:58 · ≈ 3:48 PM

Well, if that's a motion, I would second it. But we also have some other discussion. Do you want to? Well, just with respect

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 28Proposed6:49:05 · ≈ 3:49 PM

to that item, you know, there's a section 23-3B.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.816:49:12 · ≈ 3:49 PM

Well, and since I seconded it, I guess I should say why I seconded it. And I appreciate all the work that's been done on it because I think it's much better than it used to be. But just when there's still that possibility in there of even as remote as, I never thought we would be in a situation as we were a couple weeks ago. Weird things happen and you end up in a situation. I mean, I would never want to be up here telling somebody they had to tear something down but Supervisor Wolfe and then Supervisor Carbajal.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 11Proposed6:49:40 · ≈ 3:49 PM

Thank you Mr. Chair, so maybe just to restate so I can better understand this someone who has a non-conforming structure can alter it as long as they get a permit is that correct?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 19Proposed6:49:58 · ≈ 3:49 PM

Through the chair Supervisor Wolf what we are proposing is that if you have a legal non-conforming residence that if this amendment is adopted by your board That you will be able to ask for permits as necessary to do structural alterations, thereby ensuring that this legal non-conforming residential structure will remain forever. However if you do something without permits that affects the legal non conforming status of the structure then that's when we'll be told that you have to take that part off.

At the very least. So yes, this goes through as long as you stay within that footprint of the building. You can do very significant changes to your building in a manner that you can't currently do.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 11Proposed6:50:54 · ≈ 3:50 PM

So it appears that this is giving people the option to do the work that they want to do. They just have to get a permit which It seems that that has been a public policy issue or statement to make sure that the changes that are done structurally are done right, they're done to code. And that if someone doesn't get a permit which we always want them to get a permit but if they don't get permit then it looks like they can Alter it so that it conforms.

Which is, um So they need to conformance. They need to change it so that it's not nonconforming anymore or it has to be demolished now. Is there? Is there an opportunity, or how does the administrative guidelines play themselves out? In other words, how much time do they have to get a permit. Is there an administrative hearing if someone disagrees that they should've gotten a permit?

I guess the bottom line for me is that this seems totally reasonable. You are allowing someone to do the work. They just have to get a permit.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 19Proposed6:52:23 · ≈ 3:52 PM

Through the chair Supervisor Wolf, let me give you a scenario that I think will answer your question. If someone has a legal non-conforming residential structure and they expand it into the side yard setback without permits we would not recommend that be ignored if that was reported to us we would open a code enforcement case and if in fact Change could be removed if it well first of all cannot be permitted. If it can't be permitted then we would have that removed and if the first part of this proposed ordinance goes through because we will now allow structural alterations of illegal nonconforming residents, it would be possible for them to simply Remove the piece that was built without permits so it's much more flexible and I again, I would emphasize that we're only talk when we're talking demolition here.

We're only talking about things that were done without permit. The alternative would be that we allow anything to be done without permit and we wouldn't recommend that. Well,

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 11Proposed6:53:32 · ≈ 3:53 PM

that's kind of how I look at it. And so I think the Montecito Planning Commission and our planning commission did a good job in straightening this out. Thank you.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.816:53:42 · ≈ 3:53 PM

Thank you, Supervisor Carbajal.

CommentIsla VistaProposed · by introduction6:53:45 · ≈ 3:53 PM

So as I understand there's many paths to correct the situation if a demolishment occurs it's with concurrence from the owner obviously who doesn't want to pursue any of the other options somebody violated they could either permit it remove it or demolish it but it's up to them to decide which option they want to pursue right

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 19Proposed6:54:12 · ≈ 3:54 PM

Through the Chair, Supervisor Carbajal in some rare circumstances there might not be a permit path for that addition. And if that's the case and they built it illegally without permits then that would have to come off at the very least.

CommentIsla VistaProposed · by introduction6:54:26 · ≈ 3:54 PM

Yeah, but the addition would have to come up with the existing structure as nonconforming. As long as they go back to that existing structure footprint, they're fine though correct?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 19Proposed6:54:36 · ≈ 3:54 PM

If our proposed amendments are adopted today yes because-

CommentIsla VistaProposed · by introduction6:54:40 · ≈ 3:54 PM

That's my point.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 19Proposed6:54:41 · ≈ 3:54 PM

Yes

CommentIsla VistaProposed · by introduction6:54:42 · ≈ 3:54 PM

No I'm not talking about the illegal stuff if you do something illegally It's very simple. You were caught, you just get rid of it and you go back to your existing legal non-conforming residence. What we're talking about is violations of that where people can then they're told you violated the law. You could either remove that from your existing legal non conforming or you could demolish it whatever you want to do right?

6:55 – 7:0321 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 19Proposed6:55:13 · ≈ 3:55 PM

Through the chair, yes. Supervisor Carbajal that's correct.

CommentIsla VistaProposed · by introduction6:55:16 · ≈ 3:55 PM

Okay and then in terms of community plans in terms of you have community plans that have non-conforming language in those plans throughout the county what's superseding this amendment LUDC amendment or to the community plans?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 19Proposed6:55:37 · ≈ 3:55 PM

Through the chair supervisor Carbajal community plan with Trump.

CommentIsla VistaProposed · by introduction6:55:40 · ≈ 3:55 PM

Okay thank

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.816:55:40 · ≈ 3:55 PM

you.

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role6:55:42 · ≈ 3:55 PM

Supervisor Adam Question So this is only residential

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 19Proposed6:55:53 · ≈ 3:55 PM

It's only residential and it's only structures not non-conforming uses which we're not talking about today

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role6:55:59 · ≈ 3:55 PM

Okay, so what about agricultural buildings

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 19Proposed6:56:05 · ≈ 3:56 PM

through the chair supervisor Adam it is our experience that We don't really have a problem with agricultural buildings because there's no height limitation and with setbacks on farms usually, I mean you might have an example but it's just not really very much of an issue. Because of the fact that your setbacks are like 20 feet, and the barns are almost always 20 feet or more away from the lot line. Where you have the issues is in those communities that were built before zoning.

And then when zoning went in or zoning changed, you have residential structures on small lots and that's where you get into the legal non-conforming issues more often than not. So just to summarize it. Has not been our experience that agricultural buildings are problematic.

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role6:56:58 · ≈ 3:56 PM

Okay. Well I like your ear. Your addition to the language where it allows substantial maintenance activities and updates and that kind of thing to occur within a nonconforming structure. But that's only residential, and I would love to see if that was ported over into the commercial or agricultural Setting because I think that there are some of those things. I have a barn I'm not sure given what you just said that it's not non-conforming because We built it as close to the property line as we could and I'm not sure it's not too close I So yeah, I'm just thinking through my inventory.

And if that it's a steel barn, I mean it's new construction and it is all permitted and everything but you know maybe somebody screwed up and didn't notice that it's too close to the property line. And so in the event that I want to do maintenance on it am I forced It's a good thing. And in

not transcribed≈7s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 19Proposed6:58:32 · ≈ 3:58 PM

fact, where this comes up most often in our experience and I'll use North County as an example when illegal nonconforming residents change his hands when somebody selling it The realtors call us and they say, hey what kind of restrictions do we have on this thing? And we're going to reach out to them if this is adopted today. We're going to reach out to them and we're going make it clear that this changes the game for legal non-conforming residences in a way that I think will enhance their value and allow the realtors to talk to the banks who might be leery about giving But the other thing that I would suggest regarding other issues, be they commercial or agricultural.

The planning commission has asked us to come back to them with a workshop on legal non-conforming issues and we haven't scheduled it yet but we are going to be going back in the next couple of months and that would be an opportunity for them to further explore these issues and possibly make Further recommendations as to things that they might like to see changed even more.

not transcribed≈16s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role6:59:59 · ≈ 3:59 PM

Okay, good deal

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.817:00:00 · ≈ 4:00 PM

thank you. Supervisor Carbajal and Supervisor Farr?

CommentIsla VistaProposed · by introduction7:00:03 · ≈ 4:00 PM

I think just to make the point Mr. Russell could you share let's just take one example what would the Groves be able to do with that non-conforming structure now that they weren't able to do before?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 19Proposed7:00:19 · ≈ 4:00 PM

Supervisor Carbajal through the chair. That is probably not the best example to use because that entire hearing was about a legal non-conforming use and whether that was legal. But if you look at that structure as a legal non-conforming structure, which looked like it was in pretty good shape, they would be able of We're going to have a lot of discussion about that. And those things can get confused

not transcribed≈17s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.817:01:05 · ≈ 4:01 PM

pretty easily. So I want to be

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 19Proposed7:01:06 · ≈ 4:01 PM

careful.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.817:01:07 · ≈ 4:01 PM

OK, thank you. Supervisor for Mister OK.

CommentSteve RonaldoProposed7:01:09 · ≈ 4:01 PM

Chair Levin, you know, and supervisors just responding to the first or the discussion by surveys are Adam answer was 11 in potentially deleting one section. If you if you want to go that direction were prepared to support Supervisor Farber, thank you

not transcribed≈13s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
CommentDesiree Coleman Chair I'dProposedself-stated7:01:31 · ≈ 4:01 PM

for that. Thank you Mr. Chair. I mean, I see this as a really good thing. It's enhancing the value of a lot of homes that were going to have difficulty being repaired if the repairs were substantive. So if they were built and they were built seven feet back from the street and the setback then became ten feet back from the street You know, then they were going to have a problem. Now they're not going to have a problem. I mean, I think the only problem they would have would be if they wanted to build a porch without permits that went five feet, you know another two feet, five feet from the street. Then they've got a problem. But before I think that they would have had a problem doing any substantive work.

You know on the home because it was within that 10 feet even though it was built like that so I think that this is a really good thing and enhances the value and protects people's property values makes it easy easier for people that are buying and selling property and I just don't see the downside to it. So you know I think that maybe I appreciate the fact that the Planning Commission wants to take a closer look at it, and I think that could address some of the questions that Supervisor Adam has had about what happens in other zone districts. But that's not really what's before us today. We're just talking about residential structures. And I'm very good with everything else. I think the Planning Commission did a good job. So personally, I know that there's, I think, a motion and a second out here, but I'm prepared to go ahead make a motion to approve it the way it is.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.817:03:07 · ≈ 4:03 PM

Okay, let me just ask one question. If I could have Mr. Chamberlain come back up. Ms. Chamberlain, I'm struggling with this so could you give me an example of hearing how these changes have been made? Can you give me an example of where you see the problem existing?

7:03 – 7:088 turns

CommentWillie ChamberlainProposedself-stated7:03:26 · ≈ 4:03 PM

I think the complications really come, as Mr. Russell mentioned, because of where you have non-compliance from a use which turns it into then non-compliance for structure. If we have older homes that could be an employee home, I can do some remodeling and so forth but if I have an older home that my parents had been living in its their home And I have a second home somehow that turns in like the Groves.

The problem with the Groves was it became nonconforming because of use to primary residences on the same parcel, therefore they weren't supposed to live there maybe but also if they can live there, they can do very little to improve that home. You can you can do some things which i think is helpful structurally But I think that it's a home. And I think we should be able to do more than what the rules that govern noncompliance.

I'm not saying this is bad, I don't like the part that says you have to demolish. That really gets me but other parts they've done some good thank you. Thank you. So the question

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.817:04:44 · ≈ 4:04 PM

for me, you want to jump in?

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role7:04:45 · ≈ 4:04 PM

Yeah, if I could. Sure. And maybe I can solve our problem here. Extricate us from this mess. If it's going to go back to the Planning Commission that pretty much satisfies my concern because You know, I think it's really hard to extract the use from the structure That's where, and maybe when you talk to the planning commission, roll that around for a while and see what they get because that's a problem with a lot of these things is You have this structure which has the value which now we're going to preserve by making it alterable, which is a good thing.

There's no argument on that but then it has a use and see if you're dealing inside that urban environment where you have a setback You know you can even do deal with that through a variance right. So you know those are not impossible to deal with and some of these other things that you have a more or less urban environment where you know you can end up with a neighbor dispute or something like I'm not in favor of those kind of things but to And make another motion that we just accept the package as is.

Hope that we can get some wisdom from the planning commission

not transcribed≈32s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.817:06:53 · ≈ 4:06 PM

second that. Okay, I have a question about that first so because use is what was in my It becomes nonconforming because of use. Now the person has an older home that's not in a neighborhood, it's off on some rows type thing like this. Now they want to work on that home and do something to it but you can't permit it because the use is nonconforming. So how then would they...it seems like he'd be in this catch-22 where you can't permit it and you can do anything to it? I mean help me out on this.

not transcribed≈8s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 19Proposed7:07:40 · ≈ 4:07 PM

It is true that it can be confusing at times. I think the simplest answer I can give you is that, I think we're solving part of the problem today and we are going to explore just that issue among others with the planning commission and how those should be treated and the issue of legal non-conforming use and legal non-conforming structure But again, today we're not changing any of the legal non-conforming use regulations.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.817:08:12 · ≈ 4:08 PM

Okay, so we have a motion? We have a second? All those in favor? Aye. Okay and with the direction it's going to go back to planning commission I mean that part they're going to take a look at. Very good. Well thanks for solving half the world's

CommentHarry HagenProposed · by introduction7:08:27 · ≈ 4:08 PM

problems.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.817:08:31 · ≈ 4:08 PM

Yeah we'll deal with that tomorrow. You guys good to keep going or you want a five minute break? All right, you can just leave. Hold on a second, CEO Miyasato. Let's take a five minute break and we'll be right back.

7:09 – 7:091 turns

CommentHarry HagenProposed · by introduction7:09:18 · ≈ 4:09 PM

♪

7:18 – 7:3336 turns

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.817:18:27 · ≈ 4:18 PM

Meeting of the Board of Supervisors.

We'll move on to item 5, which is from last week and Madam Clerk can you please read it in for us?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed7:18:36 · ≈ 4:18 PM

Chair Lavinino members of the board item number five is from the County Executive Office It is a hearing to receive and file a presentation on maintenance funding options and scenarios as a continuation of fiscal year 2014-16 budget development workshops

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.817:18:54 · ≈ 4:18 PM

Okay CEO Miyasato

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 23Proposed7:18:57 · ≈ 4:18 PM

Chair Lavagnino and board members, this is a continuation. Here we are again in the afternoon as a continuation of our budget workshops talking about maintenance funding options. And as you recall last week Mr. Buzanich went through the preliminary information that we had received from Jorgensen our consultant who's preparing our facility condition assessment report which is not quite finished but should be done in May.

So he went through that assessment and basically the bottom line was Jorgensen had estimated based on their methodology that we would need between 22 to 44 million dollars to fund renewal funding on an annual basis So what Mister Alvarez has done and what he's going to go through today with you is that he looked at different potential funding options. If you combined That's the appropriate level of funding. So what what the presentation today is about looking at different approaches We're not saying this is what you should fund we're just saying given the information from Jorgensen, which we still need Which we know we still need to review since it is preliminary He's just giving you different approaches And looking and different approaches and different options that looking at funding this over a longer term

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.817:20:21 · ≈ 4:20 PM

Supervisor Carbajal

CommentIsla VistaProposed · by introduction7:20:22 · ≈ 4:20 PM

So if you could help me understand this, CEO Waller. I mean, CEO Miyasato, I'm sorry.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.817:20:28 · ≈ 4:20 PM

Sorry. I'm

CommentIsla VistaProposed · by introduction7:20:31 · ≈ 4:20 PM

sorry. I got your name wrong, I apologize. So these preliminary figures from 22 to 44 is what we would need to maintain the current level of Stability and road

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 21Proposed7:20:51 · ≈ 4:20 PM

maintenance. Supervisor Carbajal through the chair, the 22 to 44 was the annual renewal funding to maintain the current level but that was before and that was for just the buildings and parks but that was before deducting what we currently spend and we do have that chart

CommentIsla VistaProposed · by introduction7:21:08 · ≈ 4:21 PM

up. And I'm just trying to understand if that the relationship of that figure with Measure M council Would that be the amount of money that we would have to fund every year? For Measure M, should it pass in addition to our roads or is

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 23Proposed7:21:25 · ≈ 4:21 PM

that... Supervisors through the Chair. According to our consultant to maintain our index that were using which is the FCI this is what it would require for us to do that yes.

CommentIsla VistaProposed · by introduction7:21:40 · ≈ 4:21 PM

So 22 to 44 million does that include roads are not?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 23Proposed7:21:44 · ≈ 4:21 PM

It excludes roads

CommentIsla VistaProposed · by introduction7:21:46 · ≈ 4:21 PM

so So on the low end, it's my understanding we need at least $9 million. So it'd be $9 million plus $22 on the low end.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 21Proposed7:22:00 · ≈ 4:22 PM

Supervisor Carbajal, you'd have to deduct the amount that's currently being spent so would we like to go to that slide now?

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.817:22:07 · ≈ 4:22 PM

Yeah, we've got that slide. You don't have your slide thing though right?

CommentIsla VistaProposed · by introduction7:22:11 · ≈ 4:22 PM

Somehow I didn't get my PowerPoint in mine.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.817:22:13 · ≈ 4:22 PM

Well that's because it's in the other binder. No.

CommentIsla VistaProposed · by introduction7:22:18 · ≈ 4:22 PM

No, I don't

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.817:22:18 · ≈ 4:22 PM

have it because you guys are supposed to bring your own fires.

CommentChuck CuddlestonProposedself-stated7:22:22 · ≈ 4:22 PM

Oh

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.817:22:29 · ≈ 4:22 PM

That's it. Okay, we're

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 21Proposed7:22:30 · ≈ 4:22 PM

sure that this is it so will jump ahead in our presentation here. So this was the 2 to 4%. And again that what the consultant indicates is that it's 2 to 4% of the current replacement value which is estimated at 1.1 billion dollars. So that gives you the range here. The amounts currently spent by general services and parks are 14 million So it really be on the low end of the 2% range, it would be 8 million plus the 9 million for roads to get you to a low point of 17 million.

Okay I get it.

CommentIsla VistaProposed · by introduction7:23:05 · ≈ 4:23 PM

Thank you.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 21Proposed7:23:09 · ≈ 4:23 PM

Okay and with that let's go ahead and jump back a few slides. Okay, so this is today's presentation. We'll just talk about the policy discussion. We'll go over what we had presented March 10th as what some of the ways to achieve that are. We will look at maintenance renewal funding needed. That's what we were just talking about. We will look at assumptions for the options and different funding scenarios to achieve that.

Talk to you about our observations as we went through this exercise and then talk about the next steps. So from a policy discussion then, we can maintain existing funding levels. We can augment that with use of one-time funding as we did last year. We added a little one-time funding to that. We can use some portion in this example, we might use 50%. And this is slide number two, I'm sorry three now?

In your packet? Yeah okay. Or we can use some portion of our year-end savings. Alternately, we could increase funding by a set amount each year. This would be similar to what we did with the jail operations fund and just determine how much funding we want to get to and get there over a period of time. And that would be examined in options two and three. We can increase funding by a percentage of unallocated general fund growth. This would be similar to what we did with the fire district tax shift. And that'll be looked at in options four and seven Or we could reallocate current general fund contributions.

That's not examined in this analysis and there are some other options as well that we discussed in March 10th, some of which won't be evaluating at this time. So this was one of our slides from the March 10th work session and at that point we didn't have the executive summary that we now have from the consultant. And at that point, we said Rhodes was going to be $9 million that we needed and at the 2% level of funding, we thought it was going to be somewhere between 9 and 12. That's changed a little bit now but so the potential ways that we might fund this would be to implement general fund program reductions To increase revenues, to dispose of or mothball facilities.

To target discretionary grants towards maintenance infrastructure. To designate a portion of discretionary revenue growth towards deferred maintenance and that's in large part what we're going to be looking at today as well as we would look at offsets of using federal and state funding as best we could. And so we would review these options and get back to you. Supervisor Farr?

CommentDesiree Coleman Chair I'dProposedself-stated7:25:48 · ≈ 4:25 PM

Thank you Mr. Chair, Mr. Alvarez I don't see Mr. Pontus here but I know when we talked about this before one of the things on the list was is that we just first of all have to have a complete list of what the county has so I'm hoping that when that comes back there will be some discussion or denoting of those properties that if the county wanted to start disposing of properties Or selling properties in order to gain more revenue. That that would be denoted somehow on that list.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 21Proposed7:26:24 · ≈ 4:26 PM

Absolutely, and so I think when we get that complete report in all the detail, I think all of these elements will be part of a funding plan that we adopt or that we pursue. So I think that's just one of the elements but absolutely once we get that information we would include that.

CommentDesiree Coleman Chair I'dProposedself-stated7:26:41 · ≈ 4:26 PM

Okay thank you.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 21Proposed7:26:43 · ≈ 4:26 PM

Okay on this next slide was requested that we that we have this this was presented March 10th and really if you go to the next one Joe so what we're showing here. Is this is our projected? unallocated Discretionary general fund revenues. So here we were saying it's 400,000 is what we're expecting for 14 15 15 16 going to 4.4 then 6.1 8.8 million dollars and 12 point 1 million dollars These were the assumptions that we had we were looking at a net revenue growth of about 3% per year for property taxes after the tax shift and that our Our salaries and benefits would be growing by about two and a half to 3% per year net.

And so this was what resulted, the result of that. So if we start thinking about carving out portions of our general fund growth, this would be that growth that we're currently anticipating. We identified that there is some level of need that exists today, and at this point it was some emerging issues that we were aware of at the time. Things change month to month. At this point we were thinking we were going to need $1.6-$2 million for mental health. That picture seems to be improving.

We also thought that there would be a lot of need for additional staffing, so we overlaid some of that. So these were some of the expected needs that we saw coming out there. And then lastly, we overlaid if we had to immediately fund to the level that the consultant said to keep things from getting worse I'll say. We expected that to be 20 million and that would overlay immediately and I think one of the concerns we have with available funding would be that it significantly exceeds our available growth so we'd have to overlay as we looked at the prior slide there are several other things that we could do and we'd have to look to several of those other things particularly in the near term here.

So just summarizing, we had kind of jumped ahead to that other slide and what we saw is the range goes from 17 million to 39 million with a midpoint of about 28 million for our funding needs. So this would be the additional funding the county would need to come up with And on the low end, at the 2%, it would be $9 million in roads. And that's a public works estimate is that $12 million of pavement preservation is needed and that they've identified 3 million of ongoing at this point which is about two-and-a-half million of Measure A money, 500,000 of general fund contribution.

In addition to that, they do get different sorts of money from time to time but this is what's identified as currently expected and anticipated ongoing available revenues to offset that 12 million need. And then within buildings was about $7 million to 23 and then parks was 1 million to 7. The next slide. And this is what we started with, and so this is where those numbers of the $7 million for buildings and 900,000 for parks are rounded to 1 million. That's where those figures were coming from. It was the estimation of the gross amount less the current spend to get to 8. So if we add the 9 million here that gets us to a 17-million dollar need on the low end, 39 on the high end, and the 28 million midrange point.

And this I think is where we stopped at the during the workshops so this schedule is taking that at the low end of the range it starting with that seventeen million dollars and then we've just increased that by three percent per year. So this is trying to identify what our funding need is within the fire department they are now allocating in their fourteen fifteen And so that would net down the need on the 2% or low end of the range from 16 million up to 21.2 million as we get out to 10 years out if What I overlaid on the bottom here is the 400,000 5.9. This is the expected growth in the general fund allocation. We did have one other assumption that we would have additional revenues coming in from a new revenue source that could be an increase in TOT or some other element but we have overlaid an increase of about 1.5 million starting in 15-16 and growing about 3% per year thereafter.

So our assumptions as we laid out different funding options are that general fund revenue and expenditure growth will assume those March 10th assumptions that we previously presented. We'll assume similar growth for the years beyond that, year 6 to 10. That new revenue of 1.5 million as I just mentioned will be assumed starting in 15-16, that funding similar to jail operations funding would occur so it would be an incremental general fund set aside however maintenance would start drawing immediately from that whereas with the jail it wasn't until a future date when the jail actually opened and that disposal of facilities and program reductions are not evaluated in this analysis but we would consider that as part of any plan as we go forward Assumptions continued would be that we would include recent public works federal grant as one time funding in the 14-15 year.

So, that funding is $4.6 million which was 3.7 million from federal sources and your board allocated 900,000 of general funds towards that. That there would be a three percent annual inflation applied to our funding needs so the cost would be inflated by three percent per year The funding period would vary depending on the allocated percentage of growth. We talked about the fire department assumption of allocating one million per year, and that starts in 14-15. And that also one time available funding would be used and we're assuming two million a year in these funding assumptions.

So the more specific funding scenarios that we're going to look at is to maintain existing funding and then we would add a portion of year end savings. And in this scenario, we'd assume that to be 2.5 million. The second funding scenario would be a 10-year straight line.

not transcribed≈19s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.817:33:01 · ≈ 4:33 PM

I have a question for you. Can we go back to the assumptions?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 21Proposed7:33:05 · ≈ 4:33 PM

This one or the prior one.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.817:33:06 · ≈ 4:33 PM

That one right there, I don't like so. The last. Bullet their one-time funding available assume 2 million dollars a year. So we're assuming this committee $2 million carryover because we've had that happen in the past or

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 21Proposed7:33:21 · ≈ 4:33 PM

that's hoping

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.817:33:22 · ≈ 4:33 PM

that happens

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 21Proposed7:33:22 · ≈ 4:33 PM

to chair Lavanino. So as we look at 1415, we estimate currently that we have about 5 million in 1415 and about 5 million again in 1516 that could be several things will We're going to be looking at a number of things. I think one example of items in there would be the money, the payment in lieu of taxes of almost 2 million dollars so something like that it has been ongoing and it may be ongoing but they it's threatened from year to year. So there are other things like this that do come up.

not transcribed≈9s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen

7:34 – 7:4513 turns

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.817:34:03 · ≈ 4:34 PM

I mean, I'm more interested in looking at. You know future growth. I just feel like if we have a balanced budget and we're moving forward that for me it's really scary to assume that there's going to be you know a present every year for us that is going to because we don't get that It's a very good point and what one of the things we look at is that in the near term. The growth is going to

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 21Proposed7:34:25 · ≈ 4:34 PM

be very limited and I would So then the second item is just a straight line method. So figure out the target you want to get to, divide by 10 and you'll be there in ten years, 15 years whatever funding period you so choose. In this example we've used ten years. You could use an accelerating amount so that you would start off low in the early years and just pick a number you want to do just like we did with jail. So you'll ultimately get there over time.

And then you could look at percentages of the growth, 10% to 50%. And so in years if you had no growth, you would have nothing. Or in other years, you would allocate that portion so it could be more or less than and we've shown the assumptions in here. So this is the first one. This is the status quo we're allocating. We're assuming that we would have 50 percent of the year end savings in this example, we're assuming five million dollars and that we would use two million dollars of one time funding so that would give us an ongoing amount of four point five million dollars per year. You'll see the four point six million in the first year is the federal land access program. That was the public works grant that we have.

And what I'm showing here is this is the 2% line starting at 16 million going up to 21.2 This is the 3% or midpoint line going to 35.5, so this is more or less just using year-end savings and 50 percent of your end savings and two million dollars of one time if we go to the next This is a straight line So you can see it ten years were at twenty one point two million dollars and we're starting with 2.1 million set aside out of growth or whatever other funding And then just adding 2.1 every year to that ongoing amount that you're setting aside and the challenges we saw in the anticipated general fund growth is that it would be very hard to attain these amounts in these early years. We did leave the $2 million a year of one time going out here, and again, that can be left in or taken out as we go forward with various assumptions.

The third option is accelerating contribution, and here the acceleration we're using is about $500,000 in the first year. And then it goes up to 1 million, 1.5, 2 million. So it's just stepping this up year over year by those amounts. And as we get out here, it would actually get us to about 23 million. By the time we get out to the 10th year to fund the 21.2 that we needed out here, we can again adjust this as we need to. It's just it would be a targeted method of getting to our desired target.

not transcribed≈14s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role7:37:13 · ≈ 4:37 PM

Supervisor Adam? So Mr. Alvarez in all these scenarios were still deferring really heavy amounts of maintenance.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 21Proposed7:37:24 · ≈ 4:37 PM

That's correct. So it would be increasing over the current funding, but it would not achieve the amount that was indicated between 17 million to 39 million. Okay.

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role7:37:34 · ≈ 4:37 PM

Good deal. Thank you. But

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.817:37:36 · ≈ 4:37 PM

what my problem with all of these charts is that line right there at the bottom line? We're not sure that that's I mean that I think these numbers are all kind of in flux if My first plan would be the first thing for me would be wipe out the buildings that we don't need that are a problem. You know shutter facilities move people around do what we need to do and I think that drops the number down considerably so some of these.

Some of these scenarios that look really drastic wouldn't have to be as drastic as we would assume that they would be by looking at this.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 21Proposed7:38:15 · ≈ 4:38 PM

And that would certainly be an element of the plan as we move forward get the final detail Right, yeah. Okay. And so I think this one and the next one are a good one to look at because this looks at 10% of our unallocated growth and the next one I believe is 15%. But if we look at this you can see that at this one we won't get there. We'll grow to 14.7 million of ongoing funding by the tenth year but we would not reach the 21.2 within that time frame at 10 percent of the projected growth.

If we move to 15%, That gets us just over the 21.2 million and again as you pointed out this does not have any shuttering any facilities or anything like that but it would take you about that period of time, that 10 year period using 15% of an allocated growth to get to that level of funding for the 2% funding scenario The next one is 25. So you can see that you're getting there much earlier as you step up the amount of funding You're allocating towards it and then at 50% I think you get there within About five years, you know, you'll be at that level but then again it would limit your other Funding opportunities so if we go to a summary Of those different options that we looked at this is the status quo straight line accelerating so forth you can see.

At at 10 years out we would still be a 2.5 million for the status quo on the straight line are funding annually would be up to 21.2 the accelerating would be a 2310% would be 14.7 15 would be 22.1 36 for 25% and 74 million at the 50%. And then what I've shown out here is the cumulative amount that would be set aside towards those funding needs. As a reminder, we're talking renewal funding not deferred maintenance but just as a point of reference our deferred maintenance for roads is currently thought to be 114 million and buildings is thought to be 94 million.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.817:40:12 · ≈ 4:40 PM

But Mr. Alvarez does M address that or not?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 21Proposed7:40:18 · ≈ 4:40 PM

Supervisor Lavinino, M says that you will not let your facilities get worse. Your buildings and facilities and roads get worse so it really doesn't address the deferred maintenance. It really goes to that renewal funding which practically speaking may address some of the items on the deferred maintenance list but it's really in that 2-4% range that you need to be to prevent things from getting worse. So

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.817:40:38 · ≈ 4:40 PM

even if we went with, I mean we're going to not make anything any worse right now? We'd still end up with a huge backlog of deferred maintenance, correct? And we wouldn't really have a plan at that point to tackle it.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 21Proposed7:40:53 · ≈ 4:40 PM

That's correct. So this gets us up to that level and then beyond those years or depending which option you chose would get you to a higher level which could start to reduce that deferred maintenance level. Okay. So, observations that funding in the near term is limited and a phased approach is feasible. Utilize one-time funding in the early years to help augment the funding needs.

Extended funding periods allow for other county needs. Straight line funding in option two uses almost all projected available funding in the early years That option six and seven, which were the 25% and 50% of growth allows for a shorter term to meet the funding needs but limits other funding uses. And the projections anticipate moderate growth but there is no downturn assumed in the 10 years that we're looking at. We've assumed kind of a steady rate of growth and as we know you have some years that are better, some years that are worse. Overall though that average will probably occur but you'll have ups and downs along the way.

This is again is the policy discussion page that we saw earlier so we can use existing levels or That's okay, or increase the funding in options two and three Or use some portion of the growth And again reallocate general fund contribution or other items as we looked at the March 10th discussion items that there are several options out there. I And as we go on to next steps, I'll turn it over to you.

We'll continue on. Okay so the top section is really considering for 14-15 what funds are available. So really the top section here is really what sources would be available? We'll look at our one time funding that's available. Look at allocation of year-end savings, and then any ongoing unallocated general funds as we come into the budget hearings. So really this top section would be our funding sources if you recall in 1314 your board did allocate an additional two million dollars of one time funding towards roads We could look at doing something similar This year or or look at all available funds And then determine what we want to allocate towards that For 14-15, the bottom section really is kind of some possible uses. So as we look at roads again last year we did allocate $2 million.

This year they will have in 14- 15 they will have the grant funded program that'll give them 4.6 million credit towards their target that they need. However, if we want to get to the 2 million we provided last year, We might look at another million on top of that or perhaps 2 million. I think this money goes towards roads that are less traveled than, I think, where Public Works would really want to probably spend their money if they had the choice.

And then lastly with General Services and Parks in discussions with Matt Pontus he's looking at really a pilot program that he's used previously Two four-person strike teams that would really go out and provide a lot of preventative maintenance towards the county. Feels that we could get a lot of bang for our buck in that method to not only prevent things from failing but also fix certain things that can be fixed with those two teams, and the anticipated cost of this would be about $1.4 million, and that would be something that we would look at supporting if the funds are available.

And that ends our presentation, and we're available for any questions.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.817:44:23 · ≈ 4:44 PM

Do we have any public speakers? Okay, Supervisor Farr.

CommentDesiree Coleman Chair I'dProposedself-stated7:44:27 · ≈ 4:44 PM

Thank you Mr. Chair. You know what just occurred to me I mean unlike the roads in the county buildings our parks generate income and I think have the potential to generate a lot more income and aspects of this have been discussed at the board from time to time. Supervisor Lavagnino and I have certainly talked about it some more in relation to Lake Kachuma So you know, I mean, I guess one of my goals in this would be how do we generate more revenue from the park space that we have? What are some of the options there to kind of whittle down that ongoing negative in the parks department budget. Because it seems to me that if we could come up with a good plan over time, parks should at least be revenue neutral or cost neutral as far as maintenance.

Or at least we should start to think about that because we have beautiful park spaces throughout all of the county. They do need a lot of money for maintenance but I also think they're heavily utilized by the community but I think they're underutilized as far as their potential revenue generating So that would be something I'd be interested in having the board discuss at some point in time.

7:45 – 7:5115 turns

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.817:45:49 · ≈ 4:45 PM

Mr. Alvarez, can you go to this chart here? I don't know if I saw it. Is it still an annual revenue funding needed? Okay so you ran those numbers pretty quick on Let's talk about the backlog for a second, not the day-to-day maintenance that we've been talking about. But let's go to the backlog. I know that doesn't refer to the backlog, but let's just say what's the backlog? Because I'm thinking of putting that on top of this. So the backlog is- Chair

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 29Proposed7:46:25 · ≈ 4:46 PM

Leving, they've estimated 150 million roughly in public works for roads and then 94 million combined for buildings and

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.817:46:36 · ≈ 4:46 PM

parks. That's 244 million so if we did that over 20 years We're going

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 21Proposed7:46:45 · ≈ 4:46 PM

to be

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.817:46:45 · ≈ 4:46 PM

spending. 1212 million a year. Okay, so. That 15 in the first column would like I mean if we were really going to address our issue. We'd be we'd be spent 35 million dollars next year. To really to

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 21Proposed7:47:10 · ≈ 4:47 PM

That's correct. Supervisor Levin, you know, but so I guess you need to determine do you want to start with the annual renewal funding to maintain?

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.817:47:17 · ≈ 4:47 PM

No, I know exactly what you're saying and I do want to start with the annual, but it's really, it's pretty daunting. Yeah. So when you look at what the overall picture is, I mean even with Measure M as tough as medicine might sound I mean, it's not even scratch scratching the surface but it's not dealing with the. Underlying problem and So we've got to come up with a plan of one of these or a combination of multiple ones.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 29Proposed7:47:51 · ≈ 4:47 PM

Yes? If I may add to your thoughts on that, back to Supervisor Farr's point a moment ago that as you take some of those underutilized buildings or the buildings that are too far gone to repair where the cost benefit analysis would no longer indicate the need to repair them. We do have that luxury obviously with buildings perhaps, but probably a little less so with roads. And so I would just make us aware that there's some marginal increase in benefit we could in doing that.

But our consultant has also pointed out that as you fund even at that 2% level, which is that industry minimum. There will be some incidental marginal improvement in some of that $94 million backlog as well because as you're doing things along the way to deal with the backlog, you're not having to necessarily turn around and do that same maintenance again. In the short term and so you do get a marginal benefit to do that. And I've asked him to take a look at that for us, to see if we can somehow quantify what that marginal benefit of spending at the 2% is to decreasing that $94 million backlog in terms of the parks and buildings.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.817:49:16 · ≈ 4:49 PM

Okay, one other question I have for the CEO, and I should have asked this earlier but Inside the jails proposal, I want to make sure that we have built in to our largest capital project ever a maintenance plan that fully covers so this doesn't continue to add on to our backlog.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 21Proposed7:49:39 · ≈ 4:49 PM

Supervisor levity to so that was included in the numbers that you saw today for the operating cost was about $725,000 identified for the maintenance staff and the materials that they believe would be necessary. To keep the jail properly maintained and up to speed now that does fall below the 2 to 4% that we've seen in the consultant's analysis here. And our office is requesting some more specific information to be looked at in light with that, to see if that really would be necessary in a brand new facility and one as specific as that because I'm sure it doesn't fit the mold of an office building or

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.817:50:16 · ≈ 4:50 PM

whatever. Well, we should really almost...I mean, I would be in favor of passing a policy directive up here that we don't build anything that does not have that 2% built into it Otherwise, we're basically building ourselves into a problem. I understand that the first year or the second year you're not going to reach that but it just seems that if we short ourselves on the maintenance front end it's going to end up causing us problems down the road so anyways.

All right anybody else have any discussion? None this was just for Supervisor Carbajal.

CommentIsla VistaProposed · by introduction7:50:53 · ≈ 4:50 PM

When does this item come back to us CEO Miyasato?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 23Proposed7:50:58 · ≈ 4:50 PM

Supervisors to the Chair, in particular we'll be coming back to you at budget hearings on allocation for 14-15. We'll be making recommendations and as Mr. Alvarez said one of the proposals from Mr. Pontes is to do these strike teams so we will be considering that given the whole list of one time funding needs. In May, Mr. Buzanich will be coming back with the rest of the consultant's report which is that 3500 pages building by building and having a discussion about that as far as the funding goes though that would be the next time you would mostly talk about that would be at budget.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.817:51:32 · ≈ 4:51 PM

Thank you. Supervisor Wolfe?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 11Proposed7:51:37 · ≈ 4:51 PM

Ms. Miyasato do you recall what our budget principles say at this point regarding deferred maintenance and capital?

7:51 – 7:535 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 21Proposed7:51:49 · ≈ 4:51 PM

Supervisor Wolf through the chair. So from recollection, it says that we'll continue to fund at the current level which is $1.3 million for general services, $500,000 for roads and $500,000 for parks and that will upon receipt of the final report look at funding plans and come back to the board once we have that information.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 11Proposed7:52:12 · ≈ 4:52 PM

Okay, so that amount is built in. You will build into the budget and then make other recommendations?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 21Proposed7:52:20 · ≈ 4:52 PM

Yes those amounts are currently reflected in the 14-15 recommended use.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 11Proposed7:52:24 · ≈ 4:52 PM

Thank you.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.817:52:26 · ≈ 4:52 PM

All right, is that it? Do we need a motion to accept the report? Motion's been made. Seconded. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Okay, we are adjourning and we will meet again next week in Santa Maria at 9 o'clock on Tuesday. You.