Meeting Summary
This summary was AI-generated to save you time. It may miss or misstate details, so verify against the official recording and the transcript.
At a glance
FY 2018-19 Budget and Financial Status Report
- Staff presented the mid-year budget update, noting that 65 of 68 departments were at or under budget with specific variances in the Sheriff, General Services, and General Revenues.
- Supervisors requested that future reports include total annual departmental budgets and data on unfunded liabilities such as OPEB and deferred maintenance.
- The board received and filed the report after public comment regarding the financial impacts of oil industry changes and marijuana enforcement.
Local Vendor Preference Policy Update
- Staff proposed allowing local vendors to match the lowest non-local bid for tangible goods to increase competition and reduce barriers to doing business.
- Discussion focused on the economic multiplier effects of local spending versus the county's fiduciary duty to secure the lowest cost.
- The board approved a six-month trial period for the new outreach process, with a requirement to report back on local sales tax benefits and vendor participation.
Sierra Madre Cottages Affordable Housing Loan
- Staff requested a $1.4 million loan using federal HOME and inclusionary housing funds for a 39-unit senior housing project in Santa Maria.
- The loan is structured as a residual receipts loan, meaning interest is paid only after the project’s financial obligations are met.
- The board approved the loan to leverage local dollars for affordable senior housing, despite concerns regarding the high cost per unit compared to market rates.
Oil and Gas Development Briefing
- Staff provided an overview of onshore and offshore development, compliance inspections, and the status of specific projects including the Plains Pipeline shutdown.
- Discussion covered the county's limited role in Underground Injection Control exemptions and the process for pursuing liability from defunct operators.
- The board received the report and determined the item is not a project under CEQA, with staff offering to provide further analysis on liability and state regulations.
Closed Session
- The board approved an appeal to the Ninth Circuit regarding a qualified immunity issue in the Barbary v. County of Santa Barbara litigation.
- No reportable action was taken during conferences with real property and labor negotiators.
- The board appointed Lisa Plowman as Director of Planning and Development and Maria Elena DeGuevara as Director of Human Resources.
Full summary
Meeting Opening and Pledge of Allegiance
- The Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors called the February 12 meeting to order. Following a roll call confirming the presence of all five supervisors, the Chair shared a video of two young boys reciting the Pledge of Allegiance. The board then recited the Pledge of Allegiance.
Approval of Minutes
- A motion was made and seconded to approve the minutes of the February 5 meeting. Upon roll call, the motion passed 5-0.
Administrative Agenda
- The Chair asked if any board members wished to pull items from the agenda or if there were public requests to speak on agenda items; neither occurred. A motion was made and seconded to approve the Administrative Agenda. Upon roll call, the motion passed 5-0.
No decision 0–0
Public Comment (Items Not on Agenda)
- Three members of the public addressed the board: 1. Ed Kalaski: Spoke regarding a project rejection by the Santa Barbara Association of Realtors (SBAR), alleging that the rejection reason provided (that a second story was located solely over a garage) was factually incorrect. He expressed frustration with the appeal process and the handling of his project by county staff and previous supervisors. 2. Ben Peterly (Santa Barbara Channel Keeper): Discussed sediment disposal currently occurring at Carpinteria Beach. He distinguished the current activity from the 2018 emergency debris flow response, noting that the current work appears to be preventative debris basin maintenance rather than emergency cleanup. He stated that county communications have characterized the activity as "beach nourishment," which typically requires Army Corps of Engineers permits. He requested that the county obtain the appropriate permits if the activity is indeed beach nourishment and noted that a recent press release implied monitoring results were available when they were not yet finalized. 3. Dorothy Dent: Spoke regarding a conservatorship case involving a senior citizen named Patricia. She alleged that the conservatorship system resulted in an illegal eviction of the senior from her home to a facility eight hours away. She cited concerns about the influence of pharmaceutical companies on medical decisions within the conservatorship system and requested an investigation into the matter.
Agenda Item D1: FY 2018-19 Budget and Financial Status Report
- Presentation: The County Executive Office presented the second-quarter (mid-year) update on the county budget performance as of December 31, 2018. The report highlighted that 65 of 68 departments/funds were positive or at budget. Six reportable variances were identified in the General Fund, primarily due to staffing vacancies, overtime costs (Sheriff), and revenue fluctuations (General Revenues). Specific notes included:
- Sheriff: Negative variance driven by overtime costs for fixed post positions and mutual aid costs for the Hill Fire in Ventura County, offset partially by salary savings from vacancies.
- Community Services/Parks: Positive variance due to higher-than-budget camping revenues at Kachuma.
- General Services: Negative variance due to staffing vacancies and savings from the Voluntary Early Separation Incentive Program (VSIP).
- General Revenues: Trending higher than budget by approximately $1 million, driven by secured property taxes, VLF in lieu of property taxes, RDA distributions, and interest/earnings. This was offset by lower-than-anticipated supplemental property taxes and TOT taxes (due to delays in the reopening of San Francisco Ranch and Miramar).
- Special Revenue Funds: Overall positive $3.8 million. The Healthcare Fund showed a potential year-end negative of $548,000, which staff projected would close closer to zero. Court Special Services showed a negative variance due to state law changes reducing the court's ability to collect fines/fees (specifically driver's license renewals) and increased costs for conflict attorney services related to multi-defendant cases (MS-13 and Golden State Killer).
- Discussion:
- The Chair requested that future reports include the total annual budget for each department to provide context for variances.
- Supervisor Adams requested that future reports include data on unfunded liabilities, specifically OPEB and deferred maintenance, to provide a complete financial picture. Staff agreed to include these items in the next quarterly report.
- CEO Miyasato clarified that the current report compares departmental performance against the approved budget and noted that attachments contain the full departmental budgets.
- Public Comment:
- Andy Caldwell (Colab): Requested a report on the financial impact of oil industry changes (bankruptcies, shutdowns) and the projected finances of new oil projects (ERG, Petro Rock). He also questioned the net revenue impact of marijuana enforcement versus tax revenue, noting that many operations are being shut down. He requested an update on the pension fund status following the December stock market decline.
- Motion and Vote:
- Supervisor Williams moved to receive and file the FY 2018-19 budget and financial status report.
- Supervisor Williams spoke in support of the motion, addressing the public comment regarding marijuana revenue by stating that revenue has enabled expanded enforcement staff, leading to more busts, and that compliant businesses will contribute to revenue.
- The motion was seconded by Supervisor Hartman.
- Upon roll call, the motion passed 5-0.
Agenda Item D2: Local Vendor Preference Policy Update
- Presentation: General Services presented a proposed update to the local vendor preference policy for tangible goods. The current policy, formalized in 2005, provides a 6% preference for local vendors. The proposed change would allow the lowest local vendor within 6% of the lowest non-local bid to match that non-local bid. The goal is to increase vendor participation, maximize competition, and reduce barriers to doing business with the county. The policy applies only to tangible goods and does not affect federally funded projects.
- Discussion:
- Supervisor Hartman asked why the policy focuses on tangible goods rather than services and why the preference is 6% compared to 5% in other jurisdictions. Staff explained that the 2005 board vote focused on tangible goods to stimulate local business, and legal opinions at the time supported preferences for supplies. Supervisor Hartman suggested that reducing the preference to 5% might allow for expansion to services.
- The Chair clarified that the goal is to increase competitive bids from outside vendors while retaining local participation.
- Supervisor Hart asked about the impact on the 60% local vendor performance goal. Staff clarified that the 60% goal applies to all purchasing, while this specific policy change affects only tangible goods (approx. 4.6% of total spend). Supervisor Hart noted that the match provision could reduce the local vendor share and the associated local economic multiplier effect, suggesting a trial period with a review in six months.
- Supervisor Adams expressed concern that the preference acts as a disincentive for out-of-county vendors to bid, potentially costing the county more money than the 6% preference saves, and suggested that a proper study had not been conducted.
- The Chair asked about outreach efforts to inform vendors of the change. Staff stated they are communicating with local chambers and the Pacific Business Times but acknowledged that more outreach is needed.
- Supervisor Hartman asked for clarification on the difference between the current 6% preference policy and the proposed change. Staff explained that the current policy allows a local vendor to win a bid if they are within 6% of the lowest non-local bid, whereas the proposed change would allow a local vendor to match the lowest bid. Supervisor Hartman asked how success would be measured. Staff indicated they could track the number of times the match provision is utilized, noting it has been rarely used in the past. Supervisor Hartman asked if there were legal issues; legal counsel confirmed the board has discretion in this area for supplies, distinct from construction contracts.
- Public Comment:
- Andy Caldwell (Colab): Questioned whether local vendors currently under contract were notified of the proposed change. Staff confirmed outreach to chambers and specific vendors. Caldwell argued that the local vendor preference is crucial for the local economy due to the multiplier effect and sales tax revenue, citing an example where buying equipment locally generated significant sales tax. He stated that the cost of doing business in Santa Barbara County is higher, and the preference helps offset this. He criticized past lack of outreach to local manufacturers and businesses.
- Joe Armendariz (Santa Barbara County Taxpayers Association): Argued that the policy increases costs for consumers and businesses, suggesting a comprehensive hearing on reducing the cost of doing business in the county instead.
- Supervisor Williams: Expressed support for the intent of supporting local businesses but stated it was the wrong time to change policy due to current economic struggles for local vendors, noting that the county’s purchases should reflect community values.
- Another public speaker: Argued that government has a fiduciary duty to use taxpayer money efficiently and should lower the cost of doing business rather than subsidizing local vendors.
- Motion and Vote:
- Supervisor Hart moved to attempt the new vendor outreach process for a six-month trial period, with a report back to the board comparing previous experience, including local sales tax benefits and multiplier effects, against the additional vendors obtained through the new system.
- Supervisor Hartman seconded the motion and requested that the review also consider extending the preference to services, as other counties do.
- CEO Miyasato stated that staff would return with more research within six months.
- Supervisor Lavinino noted that while the county has a fiduciary responsibility to consider the lowest bid, keeping money local can be financially sound due to sales tax and multiplier effects, and emphasized the importance of data collection and vendor outreach.
- Upon roll call, the motion passed 3-2.
Agenda Item: Sierra Madre Cottages Affordable Housing Loan
- Presentation: Staff presented a request for a $1.4 million loan consisting of $1.1 million in federal HOME funds and $285,000 in inclusionary housing ordinance in lieu funds for the Sierra Madre Cottages project in Santa Maria. The project will provide 39 senior housing units and one manager’s unit. Staff explained that 9 units will be income-restricted by the county for 20 years, while all 39 units will be restricted by the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit program for 55 years. The loan is a residual receipts loan, meaning interest payments are made only after the project’s financial obligations are met and cash flow is positive.
- Discussion:
- Supervisor Hart asked about the affordability term and the likelihood of the loan being repaid, noting that such loans often end up as grants due to maintenance costs. Staff confirmed the 55-year loan term and stated they have a track record of receiving residual receipts, though it is not expected for several years on this specific project.
- Supervisor Lavinino asked about the cost per unit compared to purchasing existing homes on the open market. Staff clarified that the total project cost is approximately $23 million, with the county’s loan representing about 6% of the total, and that the financing structure involves equity from the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit program.
- Public Comment:
- Andy Caldwell (COLAB): Questioned why taxpayer dollars are being used to build new affordable housing in Santa Maria, which he described as an already affordable market, rather than in areas with higher housing costs like the Santa Barbara Valley or South County. He argued that purchasing existing homes would be less expensive and questioned the lack of cost breakdowns for the project.
- Motion and Vote:
- Supervisor Hart argued that the project is necessary because the target population cannot afford market-rate homes, and that the county is leveraging local dollars to create a significant housing asset. He moved to approve items A, B, C, and D of the staff report.
- Supervisor Williams supported the project but agreed with the public comment that more sites are needed in South County.
- Supervisor Adams stated he would not support the project due to the high cost per unit.
- Upon roll call, the motion passed 4-1.
Agenda Item: Oil and Gas Development Briefing
- Presentation: Staff provided a briefing on the status of onshore and offshore oil and gas development, compliance inspections, and federal leasing programs. The presentation covered the location of existing facilities, primarily in North County and the Santa Maria Valley, and noted that 16 offshore platforms are adjacent to the county. Staff reported on inspection results from 2015 to 2018, including violations and fines issued by Planning and Development, the Fire Department, the Air Pollution Control District, Environmental Health, the Division of Oil and Gas and Geothermal Resources (DOGGR), and the Regional Water Quality Control Board.
- Specific Projects and Regulations:
- Staff detailed the status of specific projects, including the abandonment of Vinico’s Platform Holly, the shutdown of the Plains Pipeline, and the status of applications for the Arrow, ERG Resources, and Petro-Rock projects.
- Staff discussed Underground Injection Control (UIC) aquifer exemptions, explaining that these are regulated by the EPA and state agencies, with the county having a limited role primarily through public comment. Staff noted that the Cat Canyon Oil Field exemption application is planned for release later in the month.
- Discussion:
- Supervisor Hartman asked for clarification on the UIC exemption process, the criteria for exemptions (based on total dissolved solids), and the county’s role. Staff explained that the county typically does not heavily involve itself in the comment period and that no violations have occurred in Santa Barbara County.
- Supervisor Williams asked about steps to ensure future spill response capabilities, specifically regarding night-time and near-shore cleanup. Staff indicated that the Office of Emergency Management is updating the County Oil Spill Contingency Plan, which is expected to be presented in March, and that the county is coordinating with the Coast Guard on exercises.
- Supervisor Lavinino asked if any spills in the reporting period escaped containment; staff confirmed that major spills were confined to secondary containment areas and smaller spills did not reach open waterways.
- Supervisor Hart expressed that the report is a useful tool for decision-making and supported annual briefings. She asked for status updates on contaminated soil remediation, fire risks associated with private electrical systems, baseline trucking operations, freshwater consumption during drought, details on the nature of violations, and information on wastewater injection wells.
- Staff (Planning and Development) explained that the goal of inspections is compliance rather than issuing violations. Staff noted that many minor issues are corrected on-site during inspections, resulting in fewer formal notices of violation.
- Supervisor Hartmann asked about liability for onshore operators if a company goes bankrupt, specifically regarding sales prior to 1996.
- Staff (Zarbich) noted that County Code Chapter 25 does not specifically allow the county to pursue future operators, but DOGGR has authority to go back to previous operators from 1996 forward.
- Ben Pitterly (County Counsel) mentioned that the county has experience with performance bonds for pipelines and franchise areas.
- Pat Abel (DOGGR) clarified that DOGGR can pursue liability for operators who sold properties after January 1, 1996. For sales prior to 1996, the division cannot pursue the previous operator under that specific statute but has state funds available for orphaned wells. He explained that operators must be in good standing to receive permits, and the new WellSTAR system enforces compliance with assessments and bonding. He noted that DOGGR issues permits for wells, not facilities like tank batteries.
- Chair Williams asked for clarification on whether a county ordinance requiring remediation for new permits would be duplicative of the 1996 state statute for pre-1996 wells.
- Pat Abel (DOGGR) stated that if an operator is in good standing, they can receive permits for rework. If an operator is defunct, the division uses state funds for remediation. He noted that the division is updating regulations for idle wells and bonding.
- Ben Pitterly (County Counsel) offered to provide a detailed analysis breaking down liability by well, pipeline, and jurisdiction (state vs. federal) to determine if a county ordinance is necessary.
- Supervisor Hart asked for the scope of the state’s liability analysis regarding unmitigated oil wells.
- Pat Abel (DOGGR) stated he had not yet reviewed the statewide report but offered to provide information on aquifer exemptions and injection wells.
- Public Comment:
- Linda Kropp (Environmental Defense Center): Requested updates to the briefing regarding the Offshore Leasing Program, state consistency reviews for offshore fracking, and the Natural Resource Damage Assessment Process. She requested the county consider an ordinance requiring sellers and transferees to retain liability for abandonment and decommissioning, expand the Energy and Climate Action Plan to include stationary sources, hire a full-time oil spill prevention and response coordinator, and hold these briefings annually.
- Brian Troutwine (Environmental Defense Center): Discussed soil contamination at ARA and ERG sites in Cat Canyon, noting that cleanup is delayed until decommissioning (30–50 years). He cited specific contaminants and volumes of contaminated soil. He also raised concerns regarding fire risks associated with oil projects, referencing the 2016 Cat Fire and 2017 Lease Fire, and noted that county fire response times exceed the standard five-to-six minutes.
- Lauren Lankenau (UC Santa Barbara/EDC Intern): Presented data on global warming and the feedback loops of carbon dioxide emissions. She advocated for adopting a zero-emissions threshold for evaluating oil projects.
- Tara Messing (Environmental Defense Center): Requested additional disclosure in the briefing regarding the aquifer exemption process, specifically the pending exemption for the Sisquaka Monterey Formation. She cited a DOGGR report stating Santa Barbara County has 115 disposal wells supporting 917 enhanced oil recovery wells. She also requested disclosure of trucking impacts, including accident rates, hazardous materials, and roadway damage costs.
- Alicia Rossler (Environmental Defense Center): Requested more detailed information on the nature and frequency of inspections and violations, particularly regarding enhanced oil recovery (EOR) projects. She requested disclosure of total freshwater consumption by oil and gas projects, noting that EOR projects require significant freshwater for drilling, well cleanouts, and acidizing.
- Judy Birch: Commented on code enforcement violations, noting that fines may be insufficient deterrents. She cited studies suggesting methane emissions are higher than previously detected. She expressed opposition to aquifer exemptions, pipelines, and trucking, advocating for alternative energy.
- Joe Armendariz (Santa Barbara County Taxpayers Association): Argued that the oil and gas sector generates significant revenue and should be celebrated. He stated that methane production has decreased despite increased fossil fuel production. He suggested that the regulatory scrutiny in Santa Barbara County is unique compared to other global oil-producing regions and that violations are a natural byproduct of strict oversight.
- Andy Caldwell (COLAB): Requested that GRECA be separated from other operators in violation reports. He cited a marine biologist’s opinion that removing offshore rig legs would harm marine life and suggested leaving the legs in place. He provided context on minor violations (e.g., exit signs, fire extinguisher markings) and noted that the industry had no spills out of containment or into waterways. He also mentioned seeps in Goleta and Hope Ranch.
- Larry Bishop (Retired Hazardous Materials Specialist): Stated that zero-violation inspection reports are unlikely in an active oil production environment. He described the enforcement process as difficult, requiring multiple approvals from supervisors, chiefs, and the District Attorney.
- Motion and Vote:
- A motion was made to receive the report and file it, and to determine that the item is not a project under CEQA (Staff Recommendation A and B).
- The motion was seconded by Supervisor Hart.
- Upon roll call, the motion passed 5-0.
Closed Session
- The board moved into closed session to consider the following items: 1. Existing litigation: Barbary v. County of Santa Barbara. 2. Conference with real property negotiators concerning eight parcels along Randall Road and East Valley Road in Santa Barbara. 3. Conference with labor negotiators concerning all bargaining units. 4. Public employee appointment: Human Resources Director (approximate salary: $15,500/month). 5. Public employee appointment: Director of Planning and Development (approximate salary: $15,300/month).
Closed Session Report
- The Board received a report from the CEO regarding five matters considered in closed session: 1. Litigation (Barbary v. County of Santa Barbara): The Board approved the County Counsel’s recommendation to appeal a qualified immunity issue to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal. The vote was unanimous. 2. Real Property Negotiations: Conferences were held regarding properties on Randall Road and East Valley Road. No reportable action was taken. 3. Labor Negotiations: Conferences were held with negotiators for all bargaining units. No reportable action was taken. 4. Appointment of Director of Planning and Development: The Board appointed Lisa Plowman as the Director of Planning and Development. The vote was split, with Districts 1, 2, and 3 voting in favor and Districts 4 and 5 voting against. 5. Appointment of Director of Human Resources: The Board appointed Maria Elena DeGuevara as the Director of Human Resources. The vote was unanimous.
Adjournment
- The Chair adjourned the meeting. The next meeting is scheduled for February 26th in Santa Barbara at 9:00 AM.