UnGovr Words

Board of Supervisors — 2017-04-04

Board of Supervisors — 2017-04-04April 4, 2017

Switch meeting
BodyBoard of Supervisors
MeetingRegular Meeting
Date📅 April 4, 2017

Click any transcript line to jump the video there.

Meeting Summary

  1. PendingQueued for transcription.
  2. AIYou are hereAuto-transcribed and summarized; not yet human-verified.
  3. VerifiedReviewed and corrected by a person.

This summary was AI-generated to save you time. It may miss or misstate details, so verify against the official recording and the transcript.

At a glance

Honorary Resolutions (Items A24–A28)

  • The Board approved five resolutions recognizing National Crime Victims Rights Week, Service League volunteers, and an Employee of the Month.
  • Additional resolutions commended a retiring Probation Department employee and proclaimed April as DMV Donate Life Month.
  • Representatives from the District Attorney’s Office, Service League, and One Legacy spoke in support of the respective recognitions.

PACE Special Assessments (Item A1)

  • The Board reviewed the City of Lompoc’s adoption of Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) assessments.
  • Staff clarified that the County has a ministerial duty to place these assessments on the tax roll once the city passes its resolution.
  • The Chair noted the item was ministerial and no formal vote was taken.

Mental Health Rehabilitation Center Feasibility Study (Item A2)

  • The Board discussed a Community Corrections Partnership report regarding the feasibility of a Mental Health Rehabilitation Center at the former Juvenile Hall site.
  • Staff confirmed that the $4 million allocation could be used for a new building if the existing structure is not viable, provided it aligns with public safety goals.
  • The item was discussed as part of the administrative agenda without a formal vote.

Isla Vista Youth Projects Loan (Item A3)

  • The Board considered a $300,000 Community Development Block Grant loan for building acquisition by Isla Vista Youth Projects.
  • The Clerk read a correction to the recommendation, clarifying the funding mechanism as a loan rather than a grant.
  • The Chair commended the organization for its fundraising and programming efforts.

Legal Services Agreement (Item A5)

  • The Board reviewed an agreement for professional legal services with outside counsel for consultation on tribal relations.
  • Supervisor Lavagnino clarified that the agreement authorizes consultation only and does not permit participation in litigation.
  • No vote was taken during this segment of the administrative agenda.

Planning and Development Fee Ordinance (Item A9)

  • The Board considered the adoption of a proposed fee ordinance for the Planning and Development Department on second reading.
  • Supervisor Adams stated he would vote against the item, citing a lack of prior process improvements.
  • The motion to adopt the ordinance passed 3-2.

Animal Services MOU (Item A14)

  • The Board considered a memorandum of understanding and license agreement between partner organizations and Animal Services.
  • Supervisors commended the animal shelter for its high adoption rates and no-kill policy for adoptable cats.
  • No vote was taken during this segment of the administrative agenda.

Debris Basin Modifications (Item A17)

  • The Board reviewed recommendations for the Maria Ignacio Creek Debris Basin Modifications Project.
  • A public speaker presented an alternative water design proposal for Atascadero Creek.
  • Staff indicated they are moving forward with a state stormwater capture grant and offered to meet with the speaker.

Interim Urgency Ordinance for Non-Medical Marijuana (Item 1)

  • Staff presented an ordinance temporarily prohibiting commercial cannabis activities for 45 days to allow time for a permanent ordinance.
  • The Board clarified that the ban does not affect personal possession, cultivation of up to six plants, or existing legal non-conforming medical operations.
  • The motion to follow staff recommendations passed 5-0.

Cannabis Cultivation Related Operations Registry Program (Item 2)

  • Staff proposed a voluntary online registry for commercial cannabis operations to collect data for environmental and economic impact analyses.
  • The Board discussed the implications of priority review for registrants and the distinction between voluntary registration and mandatory licensing.
  • The motion to approve the first reading of the ordinance and direct staff to modify the registry form passed 4-1.

Public Health – American Humane Association Recommendations (Item 3)

  • Staff presented a progress report on implementing 464 recommendations from the American Humane Association assessment.
  • The Board discussed establishing an Animal Services Advisory Committee to replace the sunset oversight team, noting cost constraints against a formal commission.
  • The motion to accept staff recommendations and require a status report in six months passed.

Property Tax Administration and 2017 Assessment Roll (Item 4)

  • The Clerk-Recorder-Assessor presented a briefing on the 2017 assessment roll, noting the net secured roll doubled from 2002 to 2016.
  • Staff discussed revenue estimates, including a 4.5% projected growth in assessed value and adjustments for oil and gas assessments.
  • The Board received and filed the presentation without further action.

Reauthorization of Public Educational and Government (PEG) Access Fee (Item 5)

  • General Services presented an ordinance to reauthorize the 1% PEG fee on state video franchises in unincorporated areas.
  • The fee generates approximately $260,000 annually from Comcast and Cox, restricted for capital expenditures related to PEG access facilities.
  • The Board approved the introduction of the ordinance and continued the hearing to April 11 for second reading.

Measure A Program of Projects for Fiscal Year 2017-18 (Item 6)

  • Public Works presented the five-year Measure A Program of Projects, highlighting a $284 million deferred maintenance backlog.
  • Staff noted that a larger portion of funds is directed toward operations and corrective maintenance due to gas tax losses.
  • The motion to approve the staff recommendations passed.

Closed Session

  • Staff reported that the Board convened to discuss two existing litigation cases and significant litigation exposure in a third case.
  • The Board also met with labor negotiators for the County Public Authority for In-Home Supportive Services and other bargaining units.
  • Staff reported that there were no reportable actions taken during the closed session.

Full summary

Meeting Start and Minutes

  • The April 4, 2017, meeting of the Santa Barbara Board of Supervisors began with a roll call and the Pledge of Allegiance. A motion was made and seconded to approve the minutes from the March 21, 2017, meeting. The motion passed.

Administrative Agenda: Honorary Resolutions (Items A24–A28)

  • A motion was made and seconded to approve five honorary resolutions (Items A24 through A28). The motion passed. The Clerk read the resolutions into the record:
  • Item A24: Proclaimed the week of April 2–8, 2017, as National Crime Victims Rights Week. A representative from the District Attorney’s Office spoke in support.
  • Item A25: Commended the Service League volunteers for their 50 years of service to the Public Health Department and their final donation of over $35,000. A representative from the Service League spoke.
  • Item A26: Recognized Shawna Jorgensen as the April 2017 Employee of the Month. CEO Mona Miyasato and Ms. Jorgensen spoke.
  • Item A27: Commended Melinda Houser for 31 years of service to the Probation Department upon her retirement. Ms. Houser spoke.
  • Item A28: Proclaimed April 2017 as DMV Donate Life Month. Representatives from One Legacy and a transplant recipient spoke.

Administrative Agenda: Item A1 (PACE Special Assessments)

  • The Board considered recommendations regarding property assessed clean energy (PACE) special assessments for the City of Lompoc.
  • Discussion: Supervisor Adams stated that the City of Lompoc had adopted PACE and that the County has a ministerial duty to collect, though he expressed opposition to PACE. A public speaker from the Santa Barbara Association of Realtors requested the Board deny the action due to concerns regarding predatory lending, lack of regulation, and investor divestment. Staff clarified that once the City passed its resolution, the County has a ministerial duty to place the assessments on the tax roll, with indemnification provided for the County. Supervisor Williams argued that PACE provides necessary financing for energy efficiency that many homeowners cannot afford otherwise.
  • Decision: The Chair noted the item was ministerial and did not call for a formal vote unless requested. No vote was taken.

Administrative Agenda: Item A2 (Mental Health Rehabilitation Center Feasibility Study)

  • The Board considered a recommendation regarding a Community Corrections Partnership (CCP) report on a Mental Health Rehabilitation Center (MHRC) feasibility study and an associated budget revision.
  • Discussion: Supervisor Wolf provided context on the history of the South County Juvenile Hall site and the decision to explore its use for an MHRC. Supervisor Adams questioned the sufficiency of the $50,000 budget for the study. Staff clarified that the $50,000 is for hiring a qualified consultant to assess the facility’s condition and code compliance, not for internal staff work. Supervisor Lavagnino asked about the flexibility of the $4 million CCP allocation if the existing building is not feasible. Staff and the CEO confirmed that the funds are allocated for the site and could potentially be used for a new building if the existing one is not viable, provided the use aligns with public safety goals under AB 109.
  • Decision: No vote was taken in this segment; the item was discussed as part of the administrative agenda.

Administrative Agenda: Item A3 (Isla Vista Youth Projects Loan)

  • The Board considered recommendations regarding a $300,000 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) loan to Isla Vista Youth Projects for building acquisition.
  • Discussion: The Clerk read a correction to the recommendation, changing the term "grant" to "loan." The Chair commended the organization for its fundraising and programming.
  • Decision: No vote was taken in this segment.

Administrative Agenda: Item A5 (Legal Services Agreement)

  • The Board considered an agreement for professional legal services with outside counsel for consultation on tribal relations.
  • Discussion: Supervisor Lavagnino clarified that the agreement authorizes consultation only and does not authorize participation in litigation.
  • Decision: No vote was taken in this segment.

Administrative Agenda: Item A9 (Planning and Development Fee Ordinance)

  • The Board considered the adoption of a proposed fee ordinance for the Planning and Development Department on second reading.
  • Discussion: Supervisor Adams stated he would vote against the item, noting he would have supported it had process improvements been implemented first. Supervisor Lavagnino requested a roll call vote. The Chair moved the item, which was seconded.
  • Vote Outcome: The motion passed 3-2.

Administrative Agenda: Item A14 (Animal Services MOU)

  • The Board considered a memorandum of understanding and license agreement between partner organizations and Animal Services.
  • Discussion: Supervisors Hartman, Wolf, and Williams commended the work of the animal shelter (ASAP) and its volunteers, noting its high adoption rates and no-kill policy for adoptable cats.
  • Decision: No vote was taken in this segment.

Administrative Agenda: Item A17 (Debris Basin Modifications)

  • The Board considered recommendations regarding the Maria Ignacio Creek Main Branch and East Branch Debris Basin Modifications Project.
  • Discussion: A public speaker presented an alternative water design proposal for Atascadero Creek. Staff indicated they were moving forward with a state stormwater capture grant process and offered to meet with the speaker to discuss his proposal.
  • Decision: No vote was taken in this segment.

Approval of Balance of Administrative Agenda

  • A motion was made and seconded to approve the balance of the administrative agenda. The motion passed.

Public Comment (Non-Agenda Items)

  • One public speaker addressed the Board regarding a previous dispute with the Building and Safety Department, alleging procedural irregularities and requesting a review of his case.

Departmental Agenda: Item 1 (Interim Urgency Ordinance for Non-Medical Marijuana)

  • The Board heard a presentation on an interim urgency ordinance for non-medical marijuana under the Adult Use of Marijuana Act (AUMA).
  • Presentation: Staff explained that the ordinance temporarily prohibits commercial cannabis activities (cultivation, processing, distribution, etc.) for 45 days to allow time for the creation of a permanent ordinance. It does not affect personal possession or cultivation (up to six plants) or existing legal non-conforming medical marijuana operations. Staff noted that the ordinance would ban all outdoor commercial cultivation.
  • Public Comment: Six speakers addressed the Board.
  • One speaker supported the ban on residential activity.
  • One speaker supported the ordinance, citing water scarcity and the complexity of regulation.
  • One speaker from the Carpinteria Valley Association supported the ordinance, citing odor, environmental impacts, and safety concerns.
  • One speaker urged the Board not to extend the ban beyond 45 days, arguing it would foster a black market.
  • One speaker representing cultivators supported the ordinance and the registry, arguing that modern cultivation uses less water than claimed.
  • One speaker supported the ordinance and the 22-month extension, citing water usage concerns and environmental impacts in specific canyons.
  • Clarification: Staff clarified that expanding or moving a legal non-conforming medical marijuana operation would jeopardize its non-conforming status.
  • Discussion: The Board discussed the scope of the ordinance, clarifying that it applies to non-medical cannabis cultivation. Supervisor Lavagnino inquired about the duration of the ban, confirming it is a 45-day ban with a review scheduled for May. Staff explained that a longer duration was not recommended to allow sufficient time for environmental review and the development of a permanent ordinance, which would supersede the emergency ordinance. Supervisor Williams noted that the ordinance is a step toward a permanent permitting process but does not immediately resolve enforcement resource issues. Supervisor Adams commented on the difficulty of the situation and the necessity of responding to the current agricultural commodity status of cannabis. Supervisor Wolf asked for clarification on legal non-conforming status; staff explained that legal non-conforming status requires compliance with both zoning and state regulations as of January 19, 2016, and that determinations are currently being made in code enforcement cases. Staff confirmed that after the ordinance passes, only personal use (six plants indoors) and medical marijuana cultivation would be permitted.
  • Motion: Supervisor Lavagnino moved to follow staff recommendations A, B, and C.
  • Second: The motion was seconded.
  • Decision: The motion passed.
  • Vote Outcome: Passed 5-0.

Departmental Agenda: Item 2 (Cannabis Cultivation Related Operations Registry Program)

  • Staff Presentation: Staff presented a proposal for a voluntary online registry program for current and intended future commercial cannabis operations in unincorporated areas. The goals include collecting data to inform CEQA and economic impact analyses and establishing a pool of registrants who may receive priority review for future county licenses. The registry is not intended for personal use growers. Staff noted the program would cost less than $800 in staff time and could be operational by the end of the week, remaining open until June 30, 2017. The form collects data on location, operation size, water usage, neighboring uses, and environmental considerations.
  • Discussion:
  • Supervisor Lavagnino thanked the ad hoc committee and staff, noting the county is also pursuing an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) with a timeline extending into early 2018.
  • Supervisor Wolf questioned why current non-medical cultivators would register if they are in violation of the ordinance just passed. Staff explained that registration may offer priority review for future licensing and that industry participants wish to provide data for environmental and economic reviews. Supervisor Wolf expressed concern about the fairness of granting priority review to those who register by June 2017 versus those who enter the market later. Staff clarified that the language "may receive priority review" does not create a monopoly or foreclose the Board's future options, and was designed to minimize legal risk based on surveys of other counties.
  • Supervisor Williams explained the subcommittee's intent to encourage compliance and transparency, arguing that prioritization rewards those who come into the light rather than those who wait. Supervisor Adams countered that not registering does not necessarily indicate illegitimacy, as some may be waiting for clearer rules.
  • Supervisor Lavagnino stated he initially wanted the registry to be mandatory for licensing but was counseled against it due to legal concerns. He emphasized the need to understand the scope of the industry, comparing potential cannabis acreage to other crops like broccoli and vineyards.
  • Staff presented the purposes of the data collected through the registry, noting its utility for economic and environmental baseline analyses and for assisting staff and the Sheriff’s Department in responding to odor complaints by providing geographic information on site locations. Staff clarified that the registry is voluntary and does not involve staff validation of the data provided, though the form includes a self-certification statement under penalty of perjury.
  • Supervisors discussed the terminology used in the form, specifically the use of "non-personal" rather than "commercial" or "non-medical" cultivation, noting that there is no specific legal definition for "commercial" in this context and that the language was chosen to align with state law definitions. Staff explained that the form distinguishes between indoor and outdoor cultivation sections.
  • The board discussed the economic impact analysis, with staff reporting that a consulting firm (HDL) is being engaged to provide three levels of analysis: general industry impact, taxation options based on registry data, and enforcement cost analysis. The contract is under $25,000, with preliminary data expected in May–June 2017 and a final report anticipated around August 2017.
  • Supervisors debated the consequences of providing false information. Staff noted that the form already contains a penalty of perjury clause. Some supervisors expressed concern about linking the registry to the permitting process for enforcement purposes, while others supported incentives for compliance. Staff clarified that the registry is separate from the permit application process, though verification may occur during permitting.
  • Staff outlined the implementation timeline, recommending that the registry launch immediately after the second reading of the ordinance (scheduled for the following Tuesday) and remain open until June 30, 2017. Staff proposed making specific changes to the registry form based on public comment and board feedback, including shortening the form, adding license type checkboxes, and adding categories for THC/CBD cultivation, without requiring a new first reading of the ordinance.
  • Supervisors discussed the purpose of the registry, with some expressing frustration over the lack of a clear list of non-conforming operations and the need for better data to inform policy and enforcement. Others emphasized the importance of a regulated industry generating tax revenue to fund proactive enforcement.
  • Public Comment: Approximately 24 speakers provided comments.
  • Support for Registry/Industry Perspective: Several speakers, including farmers and industry representatives, supported the registry as a step toward compliance. They highlighted the economic benefits, the safety of cannabis, and the advanced agricultural practices (water recycling, limited pesticide use) used by local growers. Some requested specific additions to the form, such as distinguishing between THC and CBD production and including "Type 1c" specialty cottage cultivator licenses. Others urged the Board to adopt the program to ensure local operators are not locked out of the state market.
  • Concerns from Neighbors/Residents: Residents expressed concerns about odor, light pollution, and the proximity of grows to schools and homes. Some requested stricter consequences for dishonest information in the registry and more specific regulations on odor control and lighting. One speaker noted that the registry form did not adequately address these specific regulatory concerns.
  • Legal/Procedural Comments: An attorney raised concerns about tying non-conforming status to specific properties versus applicants, citing AB 21. Another speaker from the Carpinteria community urged strict enforcement and noted the negative impacts of large-scale grows.
  • Other: One speaker representing a farming association expressed concern that regulating cannabis as an agricultural crop might set a precedent for other crops or violate the Right to Farm ordinance.
  • Motion: A motion was made to approve the recommended actions, including approving the first reading of the ordinance title and waiving the reading of the ordinance, and directing staff to make the specified changes to the registry form. The motion was seconded.
  • Vote Outcome: The motion passed 4-1.

Closed Session Report

  • Discussion: Staff reported that the board convened in closed session to consider two existing litigation cases (Morrison v. County of Santa Barbara and County of Santa Barbara v. Cobellans), discuss significant litigation exposure in a third case with legal counsel, and meet with labor negotiators for the Santa Barbara County Public Authority for In-Home Supportive Services and for all bargaining units, unrepresented employees, managers, and executives.
  • Decision: Staff reported that there were no reportable actions taken during the closed session.

Departmental Agenda: Item 3 (Public Health – American Humane Association Recommendations Progress Report)

  • Discussion: The Interim Public Health Director and Assistant Director presented a progress report on the implementation of the 464 recommendations from the American Humane Association (AHA) assessment. Staff highlighted key achievements, including:
  • Adoption of a hybrid governance model with community partners, including the approval of the fourth Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with ASAP.
  • Improvement of organizational culture through subcommittees and collaboration.
  • Hiring of an Operations Manager to reduce the span of control for the Animal Services Director.
  • Revision of all policies and procedures, with a new stakeholder input process.
  • Use of the AHA report as the foundation for the strategic plan.
  • Increased use of the Chameleon software system.
  • Improved communication and collaboration with community partners.
  • Cessation of animal housing in the Pillsbury building, with plans for future demolition/rebuilding.
  • Implementation of daily rounds for passive population management.
  • Addition of a Director of Veterinary Medicine and Registered Veterinary Technicians.
  • Appointment of a Behavioral Enrichment Coordinator and use of the SAFER assessment method.
  • Hiring of a central dispatcher.
  • Development of ongoing training programs and OSHA compliance measures.
  • Staff proposed the establishment of an Animal Services Advisory Committee to continue the work of the oversight team, which is set to sunset in June 2017. The committee would include current oversight team members, new community representatives, and be open to the public. Staff noted that the department does not support the creation of a formal Board-appointed Animal Services Commission due to administrative burdens and costs.
  • The Board discussed the distinction between a formal commission and an advisory committee, noting that a formal commission incurs higher costs due to stricter noticing and minute requirements. Supervisor Williams expressed support for the advisory committee model but requested a formal vote in the future (within six months to a year) to determine whether to establish a commission or continue with the advisory committee format. Supervisor Lavagnino noted that Animal Services is proceeding with the advisory committee recommendation and emphasized the financial constraints that make a formal commission difficult, stating that the nuance between the two formats is minimal regarding the Board’s acceptance of recommendations. Supervisor Adams highlighted the ongoing budget deficits and the need for the public and private sectors to collaborate efficiently without the formalities of a commission.
  • Staff outlined the proposed composition of the Animal Services Advisory Committee, which would include up to 16 members with two-year rotating terms. The membership would include a veterinarian, representatives from shelter-based partners (ASAP, Animal Care Foundation, BUNS, CAPA), humane societies, the community at large, Santa Barbara Animal Control, animal services volunteers, and local rescue organizations. Staff agreed to continue using subcommittees as a method for community engagement.
  • The Chair requested additional information regarding the qualifications and transition of membership from the oversight team to the advisory committee. The Chair also suggested incorporating language from a letter submitted by Dr. Barnes regarding the committee’s charge, which includes building communication skills, supporting existing expertise, and serving as a vehicle for self-review.
  • Public Comment:
  • Linda Greco (Animal Care Foundation): Supported the formation of a permanent, solution-based committee or commission to continue oversight, accountability, and advocacy, expressing concern about political appointments.
  • Phil Seymour (BUNS): Supported the need for an independent Animal Commission that reports to the Board, or at minimum, an interim body that is open, inclusive, and not controlled strictly by staff.
  • Lisa Kenyon (Animal Services Operations Supervisor): Highlighted improvements in animal care, volunteer programs, and staff culture, noting a 92% live release rate. Expressed gratitude for board support.
  • Angela Walters Rockwell (ASAP): Supported the county’s proposal for an Animal Services Advisory Committee and opposed the creation of an Animal Welfare Commission, citing bureaucracy and cost.
  • Motion: Supervisor Wolf moved to accept Staff Recommendation A and B, with the addition that staff working with Animal Services return to the Board in six months with a status report on progress. The motion was seconded.
  • Vote Outcome: The motion passed.

Departmental Agenda: Item 4 (Property Tax Administration and 2017 Assessment Roll)

  • Presentation: The Clerk-Recorder-Assessor presented a briefing on property tax administration, the status of the 2017 assessment roll, and revenue estimates. The presentation covered the property tax cycle, the interrelationship between the Assessor, Auditor-Controller, and Treasurer-Tax Collector, and the types of property taxes (secured, unitary, supplemental, and unsecured).
  • Assessment Details: The Assessor reported that the net secured roll for Santa Barbara County doubled from $35 billion in 2002 to $71 billion in 2016. The presentation included data on documentary transfer taxes, indicating a stable real estate market despite recent fluctuations. The Assessor discussed Proposition 8 (Section 51) adjustments, noting that the number of properties with lowered assessments decreased from a peak of 24,000 to 14,200 in the current year. Oil and gas assessments were noted to have decreased significantly due to lower oil prices, with the California Assessors Association setting the assessment price at $56 per barrel for the current year.
  • Revenue Estimates: The Auditor-Controller explained the calculation of the 4.5% projected growth in assessed value for fiscal year 2017-18. This projection accounts for Proposition 13 inflation adjustments, property ownership changes, new construction, and oil/mineral/gas values. The estimated secured property tax revenue for the General Fund was discussed, including adjustments for shrinkage, contributions to former Redevelopment Agencies (RDAs), and the shift of 25% of growth to the Fire District.
  • Questions and Comments:
  • Supervisor Wolf inquired about the timing of oil and gas assessment determinations, with staff confirming that estimates would be provided during budget hearings.
  • Supervisor Lavagnino asked about the status of assessment appeals. Staff reported approximately 740 outstanding appeals, most of which are residential and being processed quickly. Larger appeals are pending status conferences. It was noted that 95% of cases are resolved before reaching the Assessment Appeals Board, with final determinations potentially going to Superior Court.
  • Public Comment: Dennis Allen, a building contractor, discussed the County Energy and Climate Action Plan and the "Smart Build 2" program. He proposed an incentive to defer tax assessment for energy efficiency improvements in existing homes to encourage upgrades beyond Title 24 requirements.
  • The Chair noted that deferring assessment for improvements would require state legislation, as current codes only exempt specific improvements like solar. The Assessor clarified that many energy improvements (e.g., insulation, window replacement) are often treated as repair and replacement and do not trigger reassessment.
  • Supervisor Williams requested a one-page summary of which improvements trigger assessment and which do not, with an emphasis on energy-related improvements. Staff agreed to provide this.
  • Motion: A motion was made to receive and file the presentation. The motion was seconded.
  • Vote Outcome: The motion passed.

Departmental Agenda: Item 5 (Reauthorization of Public Educational and Government (PEG) Access Fee)

  • Presentation: General Services presented a hearing to consider recommendations regarding an ordinance reauthorizing the county’s PEG fee on state video franchises in unincorporated areas. The PEG fee is 1% of service providers' gross revenues and is restricted for capital expenditures related to PEG access facilities (cameras, transmission equipment, microphones). The current ordinance expires with the state franchise terms (Cox in 2017, Comcast in 2021). The reauthorization would allow the county to continue collecting the fee, which generates approximately $80,000 annually from Comcast and is expected to generate approximately $180,000 annually from Cox. This is in addition to the separate 5% franchise fee.
  • Questions: Supervisor Lavagnino inquired about the specific franchise fee amount for Comcast, which was stated to be between $400,000 and $500,000 annually.
  • Public Comment: Jeanne Sparks, a member of the Santa Maria Community Television Board of Directors, spoke in support of the PEG fee. She highlighted the City of Santa Maria’s use of PEG fees to fund a public television studio and channel (SMC-TV) available to residents and non-profits. She noted that the City is facing funding shortfalls and requested that the County consider contributing some of its PEG funds to support SMC-TV, thereby providing a service to North County residents without the County needing to establish its own studio. She invited the Board and public to attend a public meeting regarding the station’s future.
  • Status: The item was presented for first reading. The Board was asked to approve the introduction of the ordinance and continue the hearing to April 11 for the second reading and adoption. No vote was recorded in the provided text.

Departmental Agenda: Item 6 (Measure A Program of Projects for Fiscal Year 2017-18)

  • Presentation: Public Works presented the five-year Measure A Program of Projects (POP) for North and South County. Measure A is a reliable annual funding source for transportation needs. The presentation covered ordinance requirements, revenue projections, distribution formulas, and the state of the transportation network.
  • Funding and Distribution: The current year’s Measure A funding is approximately $6.8 million, with a Maintenance of Effort (MOE) requirement of about $1.5 million. Funding is distributed between North and South County, with a minimum of 10% allocated to alternative transportation (pedestrian, bicycle, transit). Within each county area, funds are distributed by lane miles (North County) or a combination of population and lane miles (South County). Due to gas tax losses, a larger portion of Measure A funds is now directed toward operations and corrective maintenance rather than capital projects.
  • Infrastructure Condition: The presentation detailed the backlog of deferred maintenance, which increased by approximately $25 million to $284 million. Pavement is the largest component of the backlog. The County’s overall Pavement Condition Index (PCI) is approximately 58, compared to an ideal state of 84 and a statewide average of 66. Maintaining the current PCI level requires approximately $13 million annually.
  • Questions and Comments:
  • Supervisor Adams inquired about a specific road failure shown in the presentation, which was attributed to the failure of aging drainage structures (rusting/dislocation) leading to erosion. Staff explained that drainage structures are cleaned annually, and significant failures are treated as individual projects rather than part of the routine pavement inspection cycle.
  • Supervisor Adams asked how the $25 million increase in deferred maintenance relates to the $13 million request, with staff clarifying that the $13 million is specifically for pavement preservation to maintain the current condition index.
  • Public comments were provided regarding infrastructure funding. One speaker emphasized that infrastructure maintenance requires direct investment and that societal expectations for infrastructure without corresponding funding are unrealistic. Another speaker noted that residents feel they are already paying their fair share through taxes and suggested that the issue may relate to prioritization rather than a lack of awareness.
  • Motion: The Chair requested a motion for the recommendations on the staff report. The motion was seconded by Steve Lavagnino.
  • Vote Outcome: The motion passed.