Board of Supervisors — 2018-09-11

Yeah.

Okay.

Good morning everybody, sorry for the delay. We have a technical difficulty but we are trying to resolve it and we will be getting started shortly, thanks.

And I'd like a moment of silence before we begin our session. Today is September 11th, and we shall always remember. Thank you. Can I get a motion on approval of the minutes of August 28? All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. It's unanimous and the CEO's report

Good morning, Supervisors. This morning I wanted to just give a quick update on some of the activities that you might have read about regarding the Lompoc Riverbed activities. The county's been very active in supporting the city of Lompoc and its initiative to assist homeless people in the Lompoc Riverbed. And I know that as has the 4th District Supervisor's Office who's taken the lead.

Lompok Chief Pat Walsh is here but I first wanted to give her report on what the county has been doing. We've been providing assistance and services. Through many of your county departments through the triage center, connecting folks to detox services, shelter beds. Bewell's been trying to arrange showers and security has been looked at or being, costs have been offset. In particular social services has stationed eligibility staff to assess Center customers, probation has deployed sworn officers to assist the police department. The sheriff has also provided deputies to assist the Lompoc Police Department. Behavioral wellness is provided staff for engagement and outreach and linkages for individuals as well as providing hygiene kit.

Taking a lead, assisting and securing in-kind services with roll off bins and helping with the cleanup. The public defender has also been involved in assisting and providing transport. So we've been active, it started yesterday and the county will continue to assess the needs and continue to work with the city. And with that if Chief Walsh wants to come up and say a few words?

Good morning, thank you for the opportunity. I really am here to watch what you guys do with your emergency shelter thing but thank you for the opportunity to speak. So yesterday it was a sea of tan and green in my Briefing room because the Sheriff's Department sent a bunch of deputies. Probation was there, parole was there and we had no resistance, no arrest. The homeless were all packed up. It was kind of neat to see the public defender and her staff and the deputies in the probation and Lompoc police actually helping the homeless move out.

We towed cars out of the river, and now today we're back in trying to get most of the trash but that's probably going to be a several month process. But we're back in the river because I would say about 20 people went back in last night and re-inhabited their camp so we're back doing the evictions today. But very successful, 27 people last night when I left at 630 in the triage center. A lot of them longtime addicted folks saying things like yeah maybe it's time I get sober and I need help and so saying the right thing. So now the real work begins. So I just want to thank the county for being there in such an amazing force and we'll see how it goes from here. And if you have any questions I'm here for ya.

Supervisor Hartman.

Well, I just wanted to thank you for taking my office on a tour out there. I came away with a souvenir of serious case of poison oak. It's not easy living there. But I was so impressed by you and how you know everyone there by name

and by

history. And everyone has a different story and requires a different way to find their way back into the mainstream. So congratulations, and I'm so proud of our county working together with you to address this really multi-dimensional issue. And it's going to take a concerted ongoing effort, so thank you.

And just before we move to ceremonial items, I do have requests already to pull A4, A11, A16. I'm just giving this as a warning to staff. A11 in particular, I think the request is for a brief presentation and with that we'll move to the ceremonial items, A28 through A30. Can I get a motion on these ceremonial items? All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed? It's unanimous.

828.

Thanks, okay for we're gonna start with item a 28. This is sponsored by Supervisor Williams This is the resolution of accommodation honoring Hannah Rubin cover Julia Rutherford Daly and Sarah York Ruben as the Arts Commission Of the Arts Commission as our September 2018 employees of the month for Santa Barbara County And if those three individuals could come up Hannah Julia and Sarah To the podium and you have George Chapman as well And I will read the resolution into the record Whereas the Community Services Department's Office of Arts and Culture employs Hannah Rubicaba, Julia Rutherford-Daley and Sarah York-Rubin. And they are recognized for their commitment and dedication to providing equitable art access for Santa Barbara County residents and visitors.

And whereas, Hannah, Julia and Sarah launched new initiatives and programs increasing services to diverse audiences countywide. Establishing office hours in North County, creating the inaugural North County Arts Symposium and hosting the Student Poetry Out Loud competition in Santa Maria for the first time. And whereas these employees maintain the county's public art collections, curate county galleries in Santa Barbara and Santa Maria and facilitate public art at Kachuma Lake, Waller Park, Guadalupe, Orchid, Carpinteria, Santa Barbara, Goleta, Cuyama, Buolton and Santa Maria.

And whereas staff supports the Arts Commission and work of the commissioners to provide arts funding and education promoting the county's incredible cultural organizations and practitioners through arts grants. And whereas the Office of Arts and Culture is considered by the State of California to be an exemplary model, it is recognized as a state-local partner by the California Arts Council.

Now hereby I order in resolve that this Board of Supervisors recognizes Hannah Rublickava, Julia Rutherford Daly, and Sarah York Rubin for their exceptional contributions to the county and the community, and recognize them as our September 2018 Employees of the Month. Thanks.

Chair Williams and members of the board, thank you so much for your support and also your kindness. We are grateful to you and your staff for your ongoing commitment to the arts community. It is a privilege to serve in the county and the Arts Commission. I am constantly inspired by our colleagues and their dedication to helping people. Every day, Hannah and Julia put in 200%. Their passion is evident in the quality and quantity of work they produce.

And the art success is possible through the steadfast support of Community Services Director George Chopjian, my boss. George makes every effort to help us offer guidance and encouragement. And empower us to be the best we can be. We are incredibly fortunate to work with him and the CSD team, thank you again so much for this honor.

If I may, you know for me this is a real pleasure to have these three staff people. They are full of energy they care about the community as you know North County has seen a tremendous change in the arts projects and arts programs and that's due to Sarah and Julia and Hannah's efforts A lot of energy perfectionists, couldn't ask for better staff people. And we have some really good staff people in CST as you know and it's really hard to choose employee of the month but again they are tremendous in what they do and I'm proud to be working with such professionals so thank you for your support for the arts as well

Item 829.

Chair Williams, members of the board, item 829 is sponsored by Supervisors Williams and Wolfe. This is a resolution proclaiming the month of September 2018 as Suicide Prevention Month in Santa Barbara County. And Alice Gleghorn is here I saw, and is Gina Carvajal with

you? She is supposed to be in Santa Barbara.

Okay great, if Gina's there come on up to her, there she is. Okay, I will read the resolution into the record. Gina, can you hear us? Okay. Well, I'll read the resolution and then we can go to Santa Barbara for comments from Gina. How's that? Whereas this resolution recognizes suicide as a national and statewide public mental health problem in suicide prevention as a national and statewide responsibility and designates the month of September as National Suicide Month in Santa Barbara County. This month overlaps World Suicide Prevention Day which is September 10th. Is recognized internationally and supported by the World Health Organization. And whereas suicide is the 11th leading cause of death in California, the second leading cause of death among individuals between the ages of 25 and 34, and the third leading cause of death for youth ages 15 to 24.

And whereas one person completes suicide every two hours in the United States, and more than twice as many people die by suicide in California annually than by homicide. And whereas over 90% of the people who die by suicide have a diagnosable and treatable mental illness at the time of their suicide. Whereas it's estimated that 4.73 million people in the United States are survivors of suicide loss, according to the American Association of Suicidology.

And whereas the stigma associated with mental illness and suicidality works against suicide prevention by discouraging persons at risk for suicide from seeking life-saving help and further traumatizes survivors of suicide. Keys are recognize suicide as a national and state public health problem, and declare suicide prevention to be a priority. Promote awareness that suicide is a public health problem that's preventable. And develop and implement strategies to reduce the stigma associated with being a consumer of mental health, substance abuse, and suicide prevention services.

It's now hereby ordered and resolved that this Board of Supervisors recognizes the month of September as Suicide Prevention Month in Santa Barbara County passed and adopted today.

We are, Gina. Thank you.

That's the issue of suicide, suicide prevention and all of the services that are available here in this county. We're very fortunate and blessed to live in a community where people care for each other from law enforcement down to the mental health people, to the people on the streets. And it's an issue that we can all tackle by just turning to the person next to you and asking them how they're doing and offering a hand. So I'm honored and humbled to be here and accept this resolution in Santa Barbara. Thank you.

And I'd like to add my appreciation to Supervisors Wolf and Williams for sponsoring this resolution, and the rest of the board for their support of behavioral wellness throughout the year. I really do appreciate the attention that you pay to these concerns. And I also want to honor the collaboration that we have with Glendon and with Santa Barbara Response Network as well as the school system.

We work most closely with families and students through our collaboration with the schools, and I want to just acknowledge all the work that's done throughout the years. You don't always see it but we are there in support of students, children, families throughout our community and we appreciate the support. Thank you.

Thank you. We have a brief announcement by the Mr. Clerk and.

Pardon me, I just want to note that we did post an addendum for the admin agenda last week. On Friday this adds item A31 to the administrative agenda from the auditor controller. This is regarding the annual internal audit plan for the 10 month period from September 18 through June 2019 and if you could make that a part of your motion when you adopt the administrative agenda. Thanks.

Thank you so I have requests to pull A4, A11, A15, and A16. Is there any other requests to pull? Can I get a motion on the balance of the agenda? Is there a second? Motion and second. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed? It's unanimous and that motion includes A31.

Chair Williams, members of the board. Item A4 is from Community Services. It's to consider recommendations regarding the 2018 update and annual adjustment affordable housing in lieu fees and inclusionary housing requirements. And we have a request for Mr. Caldwell to speak on that item.

Chair Williams, members of the board, Andy Caldwell representing COLAB. We understand that the home builders, if they had to pick their poison would pick the in lieu fees rather than having to build the units because that kind of messes up their project. But that's if they have to bake the boys and my understanding of this is that jurisdictions have discretion as to whether they have this program and our issue You can't make things affordable by taxing them.

And that's really what this is. Ostensibly, you're making a developer pay an impact fee for providing housing of which there is an acute shortage. And then you're taking the fee, a set of fees that can be hundreds of thousands of dollars and basically redistributing that to nonprofit to help poor people. But the bottom line here is Developers and businesses don't pay taxes or the cost of regulations, they pass it on to the buyer.

And I wish, and here's just a really practical question or request. Would you dare put a note On the house of every you new unit and said the county Board of Supervisors by their discretion is artificially raised. The price of this unit by X number of tens of thousands of dollars in order to pay for affordable housing in the North County. Would you be up front with them and tell them that we've raised the price of housing, especially in the South County by millions and millions of dollars over the years. Making that individual homeowner pay the price for somebody else's affordable housing?

The public doesn't understand what's going on here. They don't know what the price of housing is. And is that really a solution? Is it really the burden of a new home buyer to pay for affordable housing. I agree we need affordable housing, it's horrible. It's absolutely horrible. But who made it the responsibility of those home buyers to pay? That's the moral ethical question here.

Because we all agree housing is too expensive, I totally agree. But we also have to look at land use including CEQA and other things, environmental regs. I've been told by builders that the cost of a house 40% of that cost over what it used to be is environmental regulations including energy and things like that. Earthquake and all that. And we say it's necessary, we say we have to do it but it's one of the reasons people can't afford a house. But would you dare be truthful to the buyers?

Thank you

Mr. Adam? And stated a different way, I think I'm saying the same thing that Andy's saying but stated it a different way. What we're doing here is just a failure to acknowledge what I like to call fiscal physics. You can't argue with physics and what this is making the thing that we're trying to make cheaper more or less affordable, more expensive. Because all of these costs get passed on, and then when the costs get passed on to a set of houses that are the market rate houses.

It makes them more expensive and then that becomes a comp for all of the other houses. That comparison price bleeds over into the entire market at large, and so it makes all of the other housing that's available more expensive. So I just think it's counterproductive and there's another aspect to this thing that I find a little troubling and And that's great.

But it hurts more individuals than they help. In the end, because like I said with respect to the comps on 100% of all Class of house or value, you're making everybody else in that whole value range pay more. So I think it's poorly advised and I think we should stop doing it and so I won't be able to support it.

Well, I would hope that at some point we would ask a good economist for their opinion because this is going to be strange coming from the left. I actually think the free market determines the price of housing and that new housing is such a small part of the amount on the market so it's actually resale housing Greater community in my opinion, because there's far more of it.

Builders don't, if they can sell a house for $1 million, they sell a house for $1 million regardless of whether they spent 500,000 or 600,000 or 700,000 building it. Your theory essentially is saying that builders would charge less than the market would bear if their costs were less, which that's not my experience. However, if you're right it could provide a disincentive because some projects wouldn't price out and Say that's why this isn't a perfect mechanism, but we're.

We're desperate, and this mechanism does work to produce housing. I would say that there are definitely some other things that would be even a larger factor. In terms of cost far more than the in lieu fee is the cost that jurisdictions require for the building or parking even if they're say in an area where you don't need four parking spaces per unit. Think about parking costs a builder between $20,000 and $40,000 to produce depending on where it is.

And that's a larger cost and so if we want to reduce costs for building in this community, we should be thinking about the decoupling parking. Or other ways that you can allow builders to produce more. And I'm definitely enthusiastic about figuring out ways for better housing production, particularly in the south where we have more jobs and we shouldn't be depending on the north to be doing all the housing production in the

county. Supervisor Wolf?

Thank you Mr. Chair, I appreciate the discussion and I also want to thank the department for writing a very comprehensive report. And it seems like we might need a separate motion on this so I'll go ahead and move item A4.

I'll second. Supervisor Lavenino?

Yeah, I just want to weigh in because I am going to be supporting it and then I just want to explain why. Primarily because I don't really know what the other option is, and if we get out of the way and just let the market take over. I don' t know who would ever as a builder myself, if I was a builder, I don't know why I would ever build an affordable house.

In this market, why would I build a house that a teacher or a retail? Santa Maria's Ag and Retail, And that's not going to change for quite a while, so I'm not sure how that person ever buys a house if you just open it up to the market. So I see this working in a way in that We're moving forward on the Depot Street construction. That project would have never happened without these in lieu fees, that's going to take people off the street it's going to take people out of the shelters and so I see some good in it.

It's not a perfect system, I get that and if someone's got a better system Let's talk about it over this next year and figure out a way to maybe either perfect this method or come up with something completely different. You know, Andy's I understand the thing about putting the thing on the door. As long as we get to put one on the door of Depot Street too so everybody that gets one of those homes it says hey you're getting a home because the Board of Supervisors voted to allow you to find an affordable house. Like I said I just don't think it's perfect but for me this works and if you ask I haven't had one builder come to me and tell me that this is This is a problem for them, like you said. Maybe it's because they have to pick their poison but I'll be supportive.

Chair and supervisors, just for context as the board agenda letter states. This is part of the county's implementation of County Code Chapter 46A which is part of how the county implements its requirements or its obligations under the government code and per the county's housing element so any discussion about this item as an option is also tied in with the county's housing element just for context.

That's, well good reminder. Mr. Adam?

Well I just want to say that I have had developers come to me and say that these fees among others, everything is another rock on the pile. When you have an expense, it comes out of the profit or it comes out of the sales price. So somebody's going to pay for that at some point and so the more expenses we pile on is the more expensive this thing has to be. Yeah, I would welcome a good economist taking a look at this and letting us know what they think about.

You know, this whole subsidy versus and I think we have to really think about the questions that we ask too. It's not just how much does this program put on any house? And does it bleed over as I'm contending into other houses in the same price range? Our permitting policy and our housing policy, and see what that does to either encourage or discourage development. And how does that have an impact on the pricing?

On a broad range of pricing points. And I think that, you know, part of the way you get more low income housing is by moving people that are at the bottom end of the economic scale up the ladder. So by building a higher quality house You put things out there that are on the market for other people to move up into, and they become upwardly mobile and vacate those lower end houses. So that's how you make more low income housing by creating more high income housing.

It's true that when you make an investment in a construction project, you don't necessarily want to market it to the people who really can't pay for it. You want to market it to the people who have the money. Like Al Capone says, you're ob's bank because that's where the money is. So it's natural that the private sector wants to market to people who want to pay and it's equally natural that those people have to come from somewhere and to the extent they don't just come in from outside and fill those openings by moving in from LA or something.

You create more housing here if you create any new house, no matter what the value is. Supervisor Wolk?

I'm sorry. I'll just restate my motion, I guess.

And I am still a seconder. I would just say that I definitely like Mrs. Lavinia. Do not hear this as the big impediment to housing. Now on the other hand when fees in one South County jurisdiction were very, I did hear that it was an impediment, but not at the county's level of inclusionary. And that if we really want to work on this issue and I do think we should, we should be talking about the things that builders generally put very high which is the length Because that is expensive.

The zoning requirements such and the inflexibility of zoning requirements, such as not to not have parking but to have some units have more parking and some units have less parking so that they are decoupled. Which I could see in Isla Vista or maybe even downtown Orkut being a reasonable idea. With that, we have motion and second. Why don't we do a roll call?

Ms Hartman?

Aye.

Mr Adam? No. Mr Lavinino? Aye. Ms Wolfe?

Aye

Mr Williams? Aye Passes 4 to 1 Okay, A11? A11 is brought to the board by the County Executive Office and the Sheriff. It's to consider recommendations regarding false alarm cost recovery options. We're going to attempt to go to Santa Barbara for Mr. Frapwell. We are still having some issues but we'll see if we can connect.

Yes. Thank you, Mr. Flapra.

And then I am joined here in South County by the undersheriff and Paul Clemente, our principal analyst within the county executive office. He was our principal analyst on this report and they can answer more in depth questions. The purpose of the item today is really in response to your June 19th referral, in which you asked staff to get together from multiple departments to examine ways that we can address an increase that we've experienced in response default alarms.

The objective was really to see if there's a more efficient and effective way to respond to alarms but not waste time, staff time responding to alarms that turned out We looked at several options and actually explored probably four or five before we boil it down to the two options that we identified in your staff report. The most viable options based on what congealed down into our research was really this idea about doing a verified response protocol.

And at the other end of the extreme, putting in a full alarm permit ordinance. Staff estimated that the hours and materials required for both options, the auto controller was helpful in preparing cost estimates for each and those are outlined in exhibit or attachment A and B to your staff report. We're recommending the implementation of a verified response for reasons that are also identified in Attachment A.

But really it is because we believe that we can make a significant improvement in the efficiency of both our dispatch and our law enforcement personnel responding to alarms, and that we should be able to see considerable reduction in those that turn out to be false. The staff time to implement and the savings that are there are outlined in attachment A and B for the two options.

Ideally, if we're able to reduce the number of false alarms that law enforcement responds to and dispatch has to respond to there could be a $60,000-$90,000 staff time that could be redevoted to more important law enforcement activities. With that I'd be happy to answer any questions and I am joined as I mentioned by the undersheriff and Paul Clemente here in South County.

Supervisor Adam. Flushed out enough for me. I'm not really voting on something that has enough detail in it to where I can support it. And the verified response deal, Appropriate for a business, but I don't see how that's you know having I don't even want to Lexi or what's what's this Alexis? Yeah. Yeah, I don't even want it. I don' t even want an Alexa in my house. You know, I don''t want yeah Shockingly yes You know Yeah, that's right. There's enough people in our houses talking isn't there?

And regardless of what we say. Anyway the audible and visual monitoring really makes me uncomfortable and that may be appropriate for a business. And really the preferred alternative for a business because if you have the video cameras and whatnot, that might be great but If you have people trying to live in a house, I would find it amazing if all of us thought it was a great idea to have visual intrusion into our homes.

And maybe we should try this on a business scale first and see how it works and see if technology improves to the point where we can be assured that they're not just We're not broadcasting our private conversations out into the world. And when that private conversation becomes electronically what probably amounts to a file, You know, where could that go? How could it be accessed? You know there's 13 year olds hacking things all over the place and so you know maybe the Russians will come and get our conversations. I don't know but anyway Part of it and then the part on the personal witness, that seems a pretty high standard. What if I'm not home? That's the purpose of the alarm system being set when I leave is there's not going to be anybody home and so I want somebody to respond at that point and see if there's a reason that it went off.

I happened to be in Chile last year during January and We had an incident where the alarm went off, and there wasn't anybody there. But there was an alarm that went off, and the neighbor called us in Chile and told us that our alarm was going off. And so somebody responded and found out there wasn't anybody there but There's a reason that we had it set, and that was because we weren't home. So that wouldn't work in that event, and so I'm not a big fan of the way it's set up here. And then going to option two, You know, if we have some costs that we have to recover maybe that could be a legitimate choice. I don't know if we've got I forget. Oh yeah, no we don't have a suggested price so you know I kind of don't want to just tell the sheriff will go out and do whatever you want between 1440 or $40 for the permit fee.

You know it's not quite A real proposal to me. It's kind of some great ideas, but I wish that it would come back to us as a real proposal and we can vote on it up or down or maybe tinker with it a little bit.

Well, it might be appropriate for the undersheriff to kind of back up and explain verified response because I do think there may be some confusion here. Supervisor Lavenino? I'll wait for that. I think that's a good idea.

It would not be the entity that would be monitoring the home, it would be the resident themselves. So when the resident called in and would say hey I have this system, I'm looking at this on my phone or I'm looking at it through the internet and I'm seeing an individual which actually happened last week. We had a citizen who saw, had a system in their home and they were able to see that the house was broken into. And we had deputies respond over there and actually took the individual into custody a short distance away because we had a very good description.

That's what we'd be looking at for the verified audio or video response. And many, many alarm systems right now come with an audio feature. Regarding the question about personal, there are a lot of alarm companies that have security guards that also patrol and also we have neighbors. So if an alarm goes off and there is a neighbor who sees something going on, that would be the personal side of it. And there is a lot of work still to do, Thank you Mr.

Yeah, when this came to me it looks like that there's two options. And so I'm good with going forward and studying which one works. I mean, I think to give people perspective in the report it said there were over 6,000 alarms and we only wrote a report on 35 of those. So we obviously have an issue. And there's gotta be, I remember the last time we saw this there were reports of the people that are the big problems where they have hundreds of alarms that go off constantly. And so we do have to recoup those costs.

Assuming that if I'm a business owner and I have 150 false alarms and I start getting charged for those, I'm going to fix the problem. I'm good either way. I do think it needs to be fleshed out a little bit more with some costs associated with it and some charges and brought back to us but I looked at this as I thought we were just saying yes, this is something we want to address.

And you guys have to figure out whether we're going to do verified response or an ordinance and we're going to bring it back to us.

Chair Williams and Supervisors, that's correct, Supervisor Lavinia. Because your board actually directed my staff to gather the information with the sheriff's office. I think at the time we all thought we might be doing a few ordinance but as the group met and came up with this it's really that's why the language in the board letter is to refer the matter to the sheriff if it's a change in protocol. If we are going to actually implement an ordinance change, we would come back to your board.

I'm fine with the ordinance. The city of Santa Maria has one, city of Santa Barbara has one and basically what it is if you have too many violations then we start charging you and I think that starts fixing the problem because maybe somebody's got a cat that is running around their house and setting off the alarm but something, I think once you start writing the check you'll fix the problem.

Supervisor Hartman?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. So for CEO Miyasato, the way I read this report was that the recommendation was for verified response and so is that correct?

Yes, that's correct.

Okay. And I do support that, I think the cities have a much more condensed area. And even that it didn't look like it was very lucrative. It was a lot of administrative investment for not much money realized. Why not start with the least administrative burden and see how that works for vast and sprawling unincorporated area of the county? So I commend the Sheriff's Office and the CEO's office for finding a way to come forward and make this more efficient while also not going immediately to the most cumbersome system.

Supervisor Wolfe.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I support the recommendation and thanks staff for getting us to this point and just finally under Sheriff Saul congratulations on your appointment. Terrific news. Thank you, Mr Chair.

Or or condolences. So we're going to be knocking at your door a lot. I could go either direction. I just feel like we need to try something different than what we're doing right now, because what we're doing right now with nearly 6,000 alarms that didn't even need a police report That's staggering. And again, I just want to thank the sheriff's dispatchers for taking the wool off my eyes on this. It was just because I did a little visit to the dispatch and asked them about what they do and asked them well what do you get the most calls for?

I was thinking about something else and False alarms, and so I just feel like we need to move in one of these directions to try it. See if it works. One of my suggestions- A remix there. One of my suggestions might be to just examine whether or not a verified response protocol needs to be implemented on everyone, or just on the ones that you get a lot of repeat false alarms on at least at first. But I'll leave that up to the professionals to work on and trust your judgment and obviously You will keep us informed moving forward.

I have a question on that.

Mr. Labanillo? I actually like that because I think Supervisor Adam brought up a great point, especially what you said, Supervisor Hartman. We are rural county. If my neighbor's not around and I'm out of town and I've got my alarm set but I don't have video which a lot of us don't And my alarm goes off, that's why I got the alarm and I'm expecting someone to show up.

So I don't really know how if you're not there you're going to do the video or the, I'm not going to call my neighbor to run over and see if my house is being burglarized. You might, so I don''t know how that's going to work. But I like the idea of kind of mixing the two. And if you have a- Yeah, my neighborhood

has had a good idea. I don't think your neighborhood either Steve.

So I don't really know how that would work verified response but if you had a combination of the two where If after the fourth alarm You have to have a verified response before we're going to go out there anymore That might work, but for me that's a professional decision on your end. But I don't like just the verified response by itself because I don't really want anybody else showing up at my house and I don' have video alarm system or maybe I do.

I don''t want the bad people to know.

Supervisor Adam. Thank you. Two things, one is what's the vision on what happens to a monitored system that doesn't have any video or audio? Because what I have at this time is a system that's got the regular old style maybe Yeah, well that too. Plenty of firepower behind it but I always tell the alarm guys look all I want to know is there's somebody coming in. That's good enough.

I'll take care of the rest. The, see that's what you say Steve. No we just have the old style entry, I don't know what you call them, the sensors that go off when you open the door or a window gets opened. And so, that's not either video or audio. So what now and then the call center that if the call center calls the house and asks if there's something wrong and nobody answers then it goes to the sheriff. So what's the vision under that scenario under a verified response in that scenario?

Under Sheriff Lindbergh. Okay, we'll see that's first of all. That's not good enough for me and I don't know what the prevalence of those old style systems are. I suspect there's many, many of them out there and so we're not going to be responding to most people. And so that's a problem. And then the other thing is, and maybe I'm stepping into with the help of my 26 year old son, stepping into the 21st century a little bit with these canary cameras.

And what I found out immediately, because he thinks it's really cool for any time somebody walks in front of the thing for it to call him. Well there's a lot of people as it turns out, there's a lot of people walking in and out of my house so it sits there and calls me all day and tells me somebody's Somebody's there, so I had to shut that feature off. So now, I can't have my phone going off 30 times a day.

How do I do that? This is my problem with this whole presentation here. It's nothing that we can say, that's a great idea, I support it without just saying well you guys go do what you want. You see what I mean? I

believe any substantial change would still come back to us at some point. And so if we make definitive that we would like there to be some criteria for the verified response, meaning that we are applying that to ones who have maybe a history of false alarms. I think that could be something that is taken into account.

Okay, well maybe we should think about this just a little bit more before we do something final. This is pretty, it seems a little bit innocuous. The dollar figures are not scary. Not so many zeros on the end of it that we really have to pay attention to it but I think it's security in people's lives and so not the least of which is my own. I think we should maybe just slow down a little bit and think about this for another month, and maybe we could all meet with the Sheriff's office or under sheriff. And maybe we should all go to the, and I've been remiss because I haven't been to the dispatch center and I need to.

So maybe that's a conversation that would help me with that and maybe we should talk about this a little bit more before we take final action.

Yeah, I mean without them here, I hate to say something in their name. But it does seem to me that dispatchers probably want to catch bad guys more than anybody and they identified this as a major, major problem. And so I do hope that we will move forward today and I think it's not about reducing Law enforcement, it's about prioritizing it because the way it is now to me it's a justice issue.