BodyBoard of Supervisors
MeetingRegular Meeting
Date📅 May 7, 2019

UnGovr Transcript

iHow this transcript is madeUnGovr transcribes the official recording with automated speech-to-text, separates speakers by voice, and matches voices to the seated roster. Names and attributions are AI estimates and may contain errors.Verify any quote yourself: click anywhere in the transcript and the official video jumps to that exact moment, so you can check any quote against the recording.
  1. PendingQueued for transcription.
  2. AIYou are hereAuto-transcribed and summarized; not yet human-verified.
  3. VerifiedReviewed and corrected by a person.

0:00 – 0:032 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed0:00 · ≈ 9:00 AM

Thank you. Alright.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.882:55 · ≈ 9:02 AM

It might be a good thing. Yes, she's always she's the nice one. Oh it'll work out. All right, good morning. I'd like to call this meeting of the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors to order for May the 7th. Madam Clerk can I get a roll call please?

0:03 – 0:0710 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed3:25 · ≈ 9:03 AM

Mr. Hart? Here. Ms. Hartman? Here. Mr. Adam? Here Mr. Williams? Here Mr. Lavanino?

Pledge of Allegianceceremonial · click to expand · ≈23s recited, not transcribed
ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.883:31 · ≈ 9:03 AM

Here Please rise and join me in the Pledge of Allegiance

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.883:55 · ≈ 9:03 AM

Can I get a motion to approve the minutes of our April 9th meeting?

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.844:00 · ≈ 9:04 AM

Second.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.884:02 · ≈ 9:04 AM

All those in favor? Aye. Passes unanimously. Can I get a motion to approve the minutes of our budget workshops of April 15, 17 and 19? Motion to approve.

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.844:14 · ≈ 9:04 AM

Second.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.884:16 · ≈ 9:04 AM

Motion's been made and seconded all those in favor? Aye. Any opposed passes unanimously do we happen have a CEO's report this morning

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed4:24 · ≈ 9:04 AM

We do, Chair Lavaneen and Supervisors. I just want to do a quick mention to recognize and congratulate our Public Defender's Office. They were recognized last week by the Women's Fund of Santa Barbara with a small grant of $65,000. It's a very competitive grant process so they are very happy to receive it. They were recognized for their program which as you know embeds a licensed clinical advocate to work with public defender to conduct assessments and Very good.

not transcribed≈22s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.885:12 · ≈ 9:05 AM

And unfortunately, we have to begin our meeting this morning with a little bit of a somber start. And it's with sadness that Santa Barbara County officials learned of the sudden passing of long-time county treasurer tax collector Gary Faramisco on April 26, 2019. Mr. Faramisco's career with the county began in 1982 when he was hired as the assistant treasurer He was first elected as the Tax Collector and Public Administrator of Santa Barbara County in 1985, upon which he was re-elected to serve a total of 18 years.

For part of his tenure with the county, Mr. Faramisco also served as the administrator of the Santa Barbara County Employees Retirement System and oversaw investment management for SPSRS. Harry Hagan who currently serves as the Treasurer Tax Collector said Gary Faramisco is one of the most ethical, intelligent, and hardworking public servants I've ever had the honor But my fondest memories of Gary will always be how kind, generous and funny he was. We lost an exceptional man with his passing.

Mr. Faramisco was a life member of the County Treasurer Tax Collectors Association. He served as an officer and board member of SB CSRS and had affiliations with the Public Administrator and Conservators Association in Veteran Service Officers. He served as a volunteer, member, and on the Board of Directors for various non-profit and other associations. In addition, he proudly served as the United States Coast Guard Reserve for 28 years and was a retired Master Chief Yeoman Personnel Administration.

According to Mr. Ferramisco's family, Gary's huge smile, hearty laugh, warm heart, profound wisdom and generous spirit will be dearly missed by family and friends. The Board of Supervisors and county staff send thoughts and deepest sympathies to the Ferramisco family at this time. Services have already been held but if you would join me in the moment of silence in memory of Gary.

All right, thank you very much. We'll now move on to our resolutions to be presented this morning. If I can get a motion to approve items A1 through A7? So

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.847:23 · ≈ 9:07 AM

moved. Second.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.887:24 · ≈ 9:07 AM

Moved and seconded. All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? All right they passed unanimously we'll move on to A1

0:07 – 0:124 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed7:32 · ≈ 9:07 AM

Chair Lavinino, members of the board. Administrative item number one is from Supervisor Williams. It is to adopt a resolution recognizing the week of May 5th 2019 through May 13th 2019 as National Correctional Officers Week in Santa Barbara County and if I can have our undersheriff and any custody staff to join him at the podium please? Whereas the week of May 5th through May 13th represents a period of time where correctional officers across the United States are recognized for their service and dedication to their local communities. And whereas custody operations at the Santa Barbara Sheriff's Office, consisting of the main jail, medium security facility, administration, contracts management programs, classification and transportation unit are highly regarded professionals working in Concert with other local criminal justice and public safety entities.

And whereas 46 years ago, the sheriff's office and this board recognized the need to create a sheriff's correction officer rank structure that would best serve the duties of our correctional officer specifically trained in the unique needs of a detention facility responsible for the housing security and transportation of all inmates incarcerated in Santa Barbara County. And whereas, correctional officers reporting for duty ready for their challenges of an ever increasing overcrowded jail system are faced with danger in their work environment on a 24-7 basis. All the while maintaining order, security and preserving the care, custody and dignity of those individuals charged to their care.

Whereas the citizens of Santa Barbara County can rest assured that these men and women are dedicated to their service and perform their duties in a professional and ethical manner while displaying integrity, courage, and fairness. Thus ensuring the safety of the community, their fellow officers, and incarcerated individuals. Now therefore be it hereby ordered and resolved that this Board of Supervisors recognizes the week of May 5th through the 11th 2019 as National Correctional Officers Week And takes this opportunity to thank the men and women of the Sheriff's Office who have chosen this field of corrections as their service to our community, passed and adopted today.

CommentUnder Sheriff Saul LindverProposedself-stated9:53 · ≈ 9:09 AM

Good morning, Chair Lavagnino and Board. I'm Under Sheriff Saul Lindver and very proud to represent our custody staff. This week is National Correctional Officers Week and we honor and thank all of our hardworking custody staff. Corrections is a difficult business. Our custody staff deals with some trying customers who can be dishonest, defiant, disrespectful, and on some occasions physically aggressive toward each other and staff.

We are proud to say that this behavior is consistently met with self-discipline, compassion and courage. The demeanor, behavior and attitudes that our custody staff model to our inmates has a profound positive and even inspirational impact. Our custody staff touches the lives of more than 12,000 people annually. The challenges are many and they do their job with dedication and professionalism.

As President Ronald Reagan said, no group of Americans has a more difficult or less publicly visible job than the brave men and women who work in our correctional facilities. On behalf of Sheriff Brown and all the members of the sheriff's office I thank you for recognizing this very committed distinctive group of professionals. I would like to add that if someone listening or watching is interested in a rewarding career with the challenge to make a positive difference in a person's life and their community we're hiring.

Thank you very much.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 4Proposed11:14 · ≈ 9:11 AM

Good Saul, because if you weren't going to say it I was going to. And I just want to give a special dedication to the favorite correctional officer in my life, a man named Mike Stevenson who still comes to the facility. He is one of your retirees. When I was a teenager growing up in Ivy, I didn't necessarily have the most positive conception A law enforcement officer was, but then Mike took me in when I was in 10th grade to live. His son was a good friend of mine and is still a good friend of mine.

And I saw the hard work he put in. I saw the hours he put in. I saw the psychological struggles and toll that it could sometimes put on a person and on a family. And man, it made me completely change my mind about law enforcement and about the work that your men and women do. Thank

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.8812:18 · ≈ 9:12 AM

you. And I would just say on behalf of the rest of the board members we really do appreciate the job that you do and we do know it's probably the toughest job in the county. I've had a brother-in-law that served up at CMC, and I know the psychological and physical toll it takes on a person. So he mentioned that when you are the guard, you are actually also basically serving time there so it's very difficult. So we do appreciate all the work that you do and we thank you.

All right, that takes us to item A2.

0:12 – 0:165 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed12:55 · ≈ 9:12 AM

Chair Lavinino and members of the board, administrative item number two is from Supervisor Williams and Supervisor Hart. It is to adopt a resolution proclaiming the month of May 2019 as Mental Health Month in Santa Barbara County. And if I can have Sharon Byrne to the podium please?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed13:13 · ≈ 9:13 AM

And Alice Cleghorn? I'm sorry, I just texted with her and she is indisposed and not able to make it this morning so I will stand in. I'll go ahead and read the resolution.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed13:25 · ≈ 9:13 AM

Whereas the US Surgeon General has found that one in every five Americans experiencing a mental disorder in any given year, and half of all Americans at some point in their lives. And that those experiencing mental illness are far more common than cancer, diabetes, heart disease or arthritis and are real treatable diseases that can affect anyone regardless of age. Whereas the Santa Barbara County Mental Health Commission supports proactive community collaborations to maximize the mental health of all people.

With effective treatment, individuals with mental health conditions can recover and lead full productive lives. And whereas the Santa Barbara County Behavioral Health Steering Committee has adopted vision and guiding principles which represent the core characteristics and service principles for the system and are included in all system planning activities and service. And whereas the Santa Barbara County Department of Behavioral Wellness is deploying change agents at all levels of clinical operations and administration to advance system change. And whereas the Santa Barbara County Department of Behavioral Wellness is developing commitments from all system partners reflecting the system framework for culturally. Competent, accessible, integrated, continuous and comprehensive system of care in which any door is the right door for those with a combination of substance abuse and mental illness issues.

Now therefore be it resolved in order that this Board of Supervisors hereby proclaim the month of May 2018 as Mental Health Month and calls upon all Santa Barbara County citizens to fight stigma associated with mental illness and reaffirm a commitment to supporting the mental health of all people in Santa Barbara County past and adopted today.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed15:03 · ≈ 9:15 AM

Thank you so much for this resolution. I did want to take the opportunity to say how grateful I am for the support of all members of the board with our work. There's been a heightened attention to our issues, Locally and across the state, we're very pleased that we're able to do as much as we're able to do right now with the new sources of funding that have come from the state level. And from the local resources that have been provided to us.

And I did want to mention that we will have a number of different May is Mental Health Month activities this Including on the 21st, right after your board meeting across the street in the Sunken Gardens. We'll be screening an important movie on rights of folks with mental illness called 55 Steps. The movie will start when it gets dark outside but we'll be having activities on May 21st beginning at 5 or 6 PM so we hope to see you there. Thank you.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.8816:09 · ≈ 9:16 AM

Takes us to item A3.

0:16 – 0:213 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed16:11 · ≈ 9:16 AM

Chair Lavinino, members of the Board, Administrative Item Number 3 is from Supervisor Hart. It is to adopt a resolution of accommodation honoring Toni Lorien upon her retirement from the Office of County Counsel after over 28 years of service to the county of Santa Barbara. If we can have Toni to the podium? Whereas on March 29th 2019 Senior Deputy County Counsel Toni Lorien retired after more than 28 years of faithful and caring service to the county of Santa Barbara And whereas Ms. Lauriam found her professional calling in the noble work of child welfare services, and for two decades worked tirelessly alongside the county's dedicated CWS social workers to protect a generation of vulnerable children.

Whereas conservative estimates are that Miss Lauriam prepared for and conducted more than 1,000 juvenile court hearings, and filed more than 100 briefs in the California Court of Appeal. But her Minnesota modesty would prevent her from telling you that she won more than 90% of those appeals. And whereas, in addition to her regular work, Ms. Laurian has given generous amounts of her time to colleagues and clients as a calm and trusted mentor, trainer, and role model. And even now in retirement is helping to provide a smooth transition for his successor.

And whereas many institutions have a poet laureate but only Santa Barbara County has a Poet Laurian And her forthcoming freedom in retirement promises volumes of verses as well as travel in search of her Norwegian roots and a long-awaited freedom with her husband Ned, mother Patricia and furry family members Chico and Willow. Now therefore it hereby ordered and resolved that this Board of Supervisors commends Toni Lorien for her faithful and distinguished service to the citizens of Santa Barbara County, congratulates her upon her retirement from county service, and wishes her and her family many years of good health and happiness passed and adopted today.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 7Proposed18:23 · ≈ 9:18 AM

So to avoid a lawyer joke here, we choreographed ahead of time and won't wrestle for the microphone. Thank you to the Board of Supervisors for recognizing Senior Deputy County Counsel Tony Laurean's more than 28 years of service to Santa Barbara County. Thank you to Tony's colleagues including those from Department of Social Services both those who are with us here today and those who are in or en route court for one of the three Child Welfare Service calendars.

Thank you to Tony and her husband Ned who is with us in the audience You get a wave out there. Tony worked her cases. She is respected and liked by her colleagues and clients Her work helped to protect Santa Barbara County's most vulnerable children Going back to being both respected and liked Having both of those is not always the case for people in general and for attorneys in particular So I recognize it here as part of Tony's career success Tony thank you for your hard work and results and best wishes in your transition to the next chapter This is your chance to have the last word.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 8Proposed19:31 · ≈ 9:19 AM

Boy, that never happens for attorneys. We're always juggling for the last word. So thank you to the Board of Supervisors for the very nice resolution. I want to say that one of the things I most remember is that I started the day before the Painted Cave fire, so it's been a memorable journey starting with that occasion and Had, I don't know if a wonderful time is a good way for an attorney to phrase it. But I have very much enjoyed my career. I want to thank my boss Michael Gazzone, the other administrators Rachel Van Molen and my direct supervisor Marty McKenzie, my colleagues former and current. My co-workers, especially my administrative assistant of 17 years, Marlene Van Den Heuvel.

My husband Ned, my dogs of course. And I want to say a direct shout out to my wonderful clients, the social workers. A number of them are here for Foster Care Awareness Month. But they are the most hardworking people who deal with the most, well I know you mentioned custody deputies too but they deal with very difficult situations. With families and children who are the most vulnerable population in the county.

I've enjoyed immensely my 20 years of working for child welfare services. Before that, I did have the opportunity to work with Gary Faramiska who you mentioned. Doing probate and mental health conservatorship cases, and he was everything that you stated in your opening remarks. I would not trade my career with social services for anything the work was challenging Difficult it was like juggling cert files as they went the situations were Difficult, sometimes heart rendering. But I always said the goal of the systems including my wonderful clients and coworkers was to make the lives of children better one child at a time. Thank you.

0:22 – 0:304 turns

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.8822:18 · ≈ 9:22 AM

Thank you for that. I can see why you want all your cases now, you know? All right, Jacqueline next item.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed22:25 · ≈ 9:22 AM

Chair Lavinino, members of the board, Administrative Item number four is from Supervisor Hartman and it's to adopt a resolution recognizing the month of May 2019 as National Foster Care Month in Santa Barbara County and if I can have the Koroshek family to the podium. Whereas on any given day in Santa Barbara County there are approximately 350 children and youth in foster care who need love, support and guidance so they can thrive and develop to their fullest potential.

And whereas our children and youth in foster care are separated from their homes through no fault of their own and deserve to live in nurturing and safe family environments that provide a sense of belonging and compassion that will help these children and youth overcome the effects of trauma neglect on their own growth and future development. And whereas, due to families and other heroes in our community working together to ensure our children and youth in foster care receive the care and nurturing they deserve so that they can overcome the effects of abuse and neglect. And prepare to reunify with their parents, transition to a permanent plan or self-sufficiency.

And whereas there are numerous individuals and organizations who work to increase public awareness of the enduring and valuable contributions of foster parents. I recognize that the foster care system is only as good as the people who generously choose to be a part of it. And whereas, the ongoing combined and heroic efforts of resource families, mentors, advocates, social workers, volunteers and other members of the community of Santa Barbara County steadfastly come forward on behalf of the most vulnerable members of our society so that our children and youth in care are able to face life's challenges without feeling alone or isolated. Now, therefore be it hereby ordered and resolved that in recognition of the role of resource families in providing loving and safe homes for our children and youth in foster care, the Board of Supervisors of the County of Santa Barbara recognizes May 2019 as National Foster Care Month passed and adopted today.

PresenterAmy KruegerAdult and Children's Services with the Department of Social ServicesProposedself-stated24:49 · ≈ 9:24 AM

All right, good morning board. I am Amy Krueger, Deputy Director of Adult and Children's Services with the Department of Social Services. We have the pleasure of honoring Frank and Adrienne Koroshek today as well as their daughter Eloisa. And also present are members of the Resource Family Association Student Support Team also known as RFAST. We have the club president Jackie Moreno as well as the club vice president Alex Guadagno.

The Korosheks first became a resource family back in 2005 in Los Angeles County. And they transferred to our county, Santa Barbara, in 2014. During that time they have fostered 13 children and two of which they adopted. They are exceptional foster parents in that they embrace the concept of fostering not just the child but the whole family. As an expression of that, they've been able to support children in their home as they transition to other adoptive families. They have also been able to help support reunification for children in their care with their families of origin and maintain relationship with them even after they left the child welfare system and become part of their enduring support network.

And in addition to that, Frank who is a English teacher at San Marcos High School has started the Resource Family Association Student Support Team. He started this program in order to expose youth in high school to the needs of our vulnerable children and families in the foster care system. And because of that over 100 students at San Marcos High have learned about and had the opportunity to contribute to the foster care system.

And part of the activities that they coordinate are organizing and providing childcare to resource families, doing events such as clothing drives and closets for children in foster care. And they've also started a monthly speaker series that brings human services professionals to come and speak and to help educate students about the needs of children and families.

So their commitment to helping nurture a passion for service and the awareness of children and families in our community is truly inspirational. And again, why we are recognizing them today and while they were overwhelmingly nominated to be the family that we wanted to recognize here. So I'm going to let Frank say a few words. Thank you on behalf of the department.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 9Proposed27:13 · ≈ 9:27 AM

Well thank you, this is such an honor and there are just two things I wanted to highlight. First of all that my wife and I as we entered this journey 13 years ago, I think we approached with a lot of fear what could happen, you know? And there were a lot of questions that family members would ask us and I would say that over this 13 year journey when we thought we were saving kids. I think the kids saved us, you know? So and my daughter stands here as a testament to things I've learned from her and each child that we brought in, I think has brought us to the point where we realized it's not about fostering to the child. It's about fostering to the whole family. And so we walk alongside these families and we love and care for each one of them.

And to see our family grow with an extended family and an occasional fourth child that's We have one coming tomorrow to give the family a break and so we can love on this child. And there's a lot of joy that comes with that, and it's a lot of hard things too but we're caring for people not just the child but the whole family. And I hope that we can continue that partnership between foster families in between these families that need support. And it's not like a hostile relationship is a partnership. The second thing was, These two students, come on up here. Jackie was a freshman I wasn't even her teacher I was her sister's teacher and she came in at the time where we just started this idea like how well the student said you look tired and we want to you know what can we do to help you know foster youth etc because I tell them my stories and so we came up with this idea to start this club where we would first provide Support for foster families from you know doing parents night out.

Give them a date night where they can or do laundry night or just sit on a bench and look at each other because we're so tired kind of night, and so we would do this monthly thing and it's grown to be quite large where we have 100 kids each year who are signed up for this club. We just had an event on Friday and will be providing child care at the Wellness Resource Family Appreciation Day on the 19th up in Buelton.

But what I think they know We wanted to provide childcare for the parents to give them respite, but I also wanted to imprint upon their lives needs in their community and to watch them just kind of. I mean this is a club that students sometimes don't even really bother to get community service hours they just show up to be there to play with the kids and always tell me oh it's so fun because you're just playing with kids and the kids see these two especially And they run up and they can't wait to be with them. And a lot of our parents keep coming to our events just because the kids want to see the students, you know? And I'll let them speak about their experiences a little bit not to put too much pressure on you as I'm having to say goodbye to them as they're going off to college and we're in our last month together but I know they're gonna do some great things and I can't wait to hear their story

0:30 – 0:355 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 10Proposed30:14 · ≈ 9:30 AM

I would just like to say that being a part of this program has been one of the most rewarding experiences of my life. And I've learned many valuable lessons from the strong and resilient foster youth that I've met, and along with the hardworking and dedicated supporters of the foster youth. So I definitely plan on continuing with my journey and definitely also consider adopting myself in the future.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 11Proposed30:43 · ≈ 9:30 AM

All right. I'd like to say that at the very basis of this club, it's about connecting with people and providing support for such an important community as well as serving as a positive role model for children. And I can't say how much I've learned about community and family from the children we get to work with and the families who get to work with. And hopefully one day I'll get to become a foster parent myself. So thank you so much.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.8831:07 · ≈ 9:31 AM

Awesome. Greg Levin walked in and everybody stood up and started clapping. And he was like, hey this is interesting. Okay we're gonna go to item A5.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed31:38 · ≈ 9:31 AM

Chair Lavinino, members of the board. Administrative item number five is from Supervisor Lavinino it is to adopt a resolution of accommodation honoring the Santa Barbara Adult Protection Services Unit as the May 2019 Employees of the Month in Santa Barbara County and if I can have Olga Zermeno Jamie Green Angelica Salazar-Flores Sheila Montemayor and Judith Sotelo to the podium Whereas the Santa Barbara Adult Protective Services Unit are recognized for their ongoing dedication to protecting vulnerable adults in our community who fall prey to abuse and neglect, and their tireless efforts to provide excellence in public service by ensuring those they serve are treated with dignity, respect, and professionalism regardless of the circumstances they face.

And whereas the Santa Barbara Adult Protective Services Unit social workers have over 40 years of combined public service in Santa Barbara County and investigated over 1,300 allegations of abuse and neglect in 2018. And whereas in 2018 the Santa Barbara Adult Protective Services provided emergency support services to the community local shelters and impacted individuals during the Thomas Fire 19 debris flow and subsequent mandatory evacuations And whereas the Santa Barbara Adult Protective Services Unit has demonstrated strong leadership and collaboration with other county departments and within the community in meeting the ongoing needs of our vulnerable population.

And whereas, the Adult Protective Services Unit exemplifies a commitment to professional ethics and standards that is reflective of the entire Countywide Adult Services Division within the Department of Social Services. Now, therefore be it hereby ordered and resolved that this Board of Supervisors recognizes the Santa Barbara Adult Protective Services Unit as the Employees of the Month for May 2018. Passed and adopted today.

PresenterAmy KruegerAdult and Children's Services with the Department of Social ServicesProposedself-stated33:42 · ≈ 9:33 AM

Good morning again, Amy Krueger. A few words about another one of the groups I think that could be considered for one of the toughest jobs in the county are Adult Protective Services Unit in Santa Barbara region. So every day, our APS staff are responsible for investigating situations involving elders and dependent adults who are potentially victims of abuse, neglect or exploitation. They respond 24-7 to assess reports to provide supportive services and linkages to county and community resources. And they work with individuals and families to provide a safety net overall for our most vulnerable adult older independent adults. In addition, they serve alongside community organizations and advocacy groups to help educate our community about elder abuse prevention and identification.

And how to support a person's right to dignity, self-determination, and to live in the least restrictive environment possible. Our APS team is also responsible for identifying and tracking vulnerable adults in our community, and are often the initial responders during weather related emergencies or community or natural disasters. And following the Thomas fire and the 1-9 debris flow, our staff were activated for every evacuation to account for and assess the needs of the vulnerable adults that were impacted in our community.

This type of work is very difficult. It takes a special person to do this job, and they consistently handle the most complex and sensitive situations with compassion, patience, and professionalism. They collaborate with other county agencies, community organizations, and service providers every day in order to improve the outcomes of those adults that they serve. So today we're recognizing them for their everyday heroics, as well as their role in ensuring that our vulnerable adults have a lifeline and have the support they need in times of crisis. So thank you so much for recognizing them. We appreciate your support.

0:35 – 0:382 turns

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.8835:52 · ≈ 9:35 AM

All right. A six.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed35:56 · ≈ 9:35 AM

Chair Lavinino and members of the board, administrative item number six is from Supervisor Lavinino is to adopt a resolution proclaiming the month of May 2019 as Water Awareness Month in Santa Barbara County. And if I can have Frey Crease, Tyrone Le Fay and Kalani Durham to the podium? Whereas water is California's most precious resource and our quality of life and economic well-being depend on the efficient and prudent management of water resources. And whereas on May 9th, 2016 the Governor of California signed Executive Order B-3716 making water conservation a California way of life bolstering California's drought resilience and preparedness by establishing longer term water conservation measures. And whereas on May 17 2018 the California Legislature passed two bills Senate Bill 606 and Assembly Bill 1668 that together implement executive order B-3716 by directing a transition from temporary emergency water restrictions to permanent long-term improvements in water use.

And whereas, on March 19th 2019 the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors terminated the proclamation of local emergency caused by drought conditions that have been ratified since January 21st 2014 while acknowledging recurring droughts in Santa Barbara County are more likely with the impacts of climate change and whereas on March 19th 2019 Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors further determined that a prolonged water supply shortage still exists within Santa Barbara County And urges all residents throughout the county to continue conserving water now and into the future.

And whereas, despite receiving above average rainfall this winter and significant increases in surface reservoir storage, continued vigilance of our water supplies remains a priority following the driest consecutive seven years on record in Santa Barbara County. And whereas, the County of Santa Barbara through the Public Works Department is working cooperatively to conserve and protect our valuable water resources with water purveyors throughout the county and facilitate the securing of additional long-term supplies. And whereas this cooperative effort was established decades ago because the efficient use of our local water resources is always a priority Not just in times of drought and water shortage. Now therefore, be it hereby ordered and resolved that this County of Santa Barbara Board of Supervisors State of California proclaims May 2019 as Water Awareness Month in Santa Barbara County.

And urges all residents to learn more about their precious water resources and the importance of wise water use. And to join in supporting local water agencies and organizations in their efforts to be water-wise in Santa Barbara County passed and adopted today.

0:38 – 0:437 turns

CommentFray CreaseProposedself-stated38:38 · ≈ 9:38 AM

Chair Lavinino, members of the board. My name is Fray Crease, Santa Barbara County Water Agency Manager. While we received much-needed above average rainfall this winter, which resulted in a noticeably fuller Kachuma Lake, following seven years of historic drought we are still experiencing the cumulative impacts of the drought on our water supplies. Realistically it will take several more years of productive winters to keep reservoir storage up, allow the groundwater basins to recover and repay certain supplemental water debts for our water supplies to fully recover.

This is why it remains important for all of us to continue to use our water supplies efficiently and for water conservation to become a part of our lifestyles, rain or shine. For more information on our water supplies and ways we can all conserve water, I invite everyone to visit the Water Awareness Month display in the lobby here and at the Better Avia Center in Santa Maria.

At the display here today, we will be showing the winning videos from our recent high school video contest, a successful and popular program that's celebrated its 20th anniversary this year. This year's theme for the contest was A Day In The Life Of A Water Saver. I'd also like to recognize our water conservation team, Tyrone Le Fay and Kalani Durham who implement our countywide water conservation programs. They do a great job and we appreciate their valuable work.

Thank you for your recognition of Water Awareness Month and the importance of continued water conservation in Santa Barbara County.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.8840:17 · ≈ 9:40 AM

And our final resolution of the morning, A7.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed40:20 · ≈ 9:40 AM

Chair Lavinino, members of the board, administrative item number seven is from Supervisor Lavinino it is to adopt a resolution proclaiming the week of May 6th 2019 through May 12th 2019 as Compost Awareness Week in Santa Barbara County and if Bob Engel can please come to the podium?

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.8840:40 · ≈ 9:40 AM

He's bearing gifts that's good

not transcribed≈6s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed40:51 · ≈ 9:40 AM

Whereas the Composting Councils of Canada, Ireland, Australia, United Kingdom and the United States have declared the first week of May to be the annual International Composting Awareness Week. And whereas compost improves soil structure, reduces erosion and protects the ocean from pollutants carried by urban stormwater And whereas using sustainable soil enriching compost helps prevent erosion of valuable topsoil without depleting valuable wildlife habitats. And whereas community sustainability is enhanced by composing green waste, biosolids and other organic materials and promoting the use of renewable resources in landscaping horticulture and agriculture. And whereas the County of Santa Barbara has initiated green waste collection programs with their franchise haulers to aid in the efforts of environmental sustainability And whereas Engle and Gray Inc.

Regional Composting Facility in Santa Maria has been successfully composting organic material for sustainable agriculture practices, now therefore be it hereby ordered and resolved that this Board of Supervisors proclaims the week of May 6th through the 12th 2018 as Compost Awareness Week in Santa Barbara County passed and adopted today.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 12Proposed42:05 · ≈ 9:42 AM

Chair, fellow board members. I'd like to say that it's kind of appropriate that we're last because we're kind of always at the end We're at the end when we pick up the green waste cart a curbside in North County. We're at the end and we collect biosolids countywide We're at the end of the grape season where the last thing that comes out is great pumice, and we compost all these valuable organics and so always being at the end of the process is not a bad thing and We're building healthy soil And could be more appropriate with water and awareness month because the utilization of compost in landscape saves water and also creates healthy plants. So on behalf of the International Compost Awareness Week And the United States Composting Council, this is in seven countries now.

And we've been coming here for the last I don't know, I think I missed a couple of years but we've been here about 18 years I think now so really like to thank you for your support and thank you very much.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.8843:23 · ≈ 9:43 AM

All right, that'll take us to the balance of our administrative agenda. I understand there's a few items pulled from the public, A15 and A27. Do board members have any items they wish to pull? Mr. Adam? Mr Hart? Jones? Mr Williams? All right, let's take A15 then.

0:43 – 0:486 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed43:45 · ≈ 9:43 AM

Chair Levin you know members of the board we have one request to speak on administrative item fifteen this is from community services it is to consider recommendations regarding the community service department parks division development of a county wide recreation master plan and I have March and tell. Our speaker.

CommentMark ShatilloProposedself-stated44:03 · ≈ 9:44 AM

Good morning, Mr. Chair, members of the board. I'm Mark Shatillo and I wanted to speak in favor of this item and acknowledge and appreciate the leadership that it's taken to get this to you. There is three things I want to talk about, the need, the timing, and the opportunity for the countywide recreational master plan. With growing populations we've seen that there is an increased demand for recreational facilities. We do have underserved populations throughout the county and we're now learning more clearly the significance of nature and recreational opportunities for all populations, for kids especially.

And so the need there for recreational planning and expanded recreational opportunities here in Santa Barbara is significant. We stand now on the timing front with the availability, thanks to Prop 68 of $4 billion in the state for recreational and parks facilities. And so it's critically important that we Do as a county the planning efforts that are necessary to be positioned so that we can third point take advantage of the opportunities you need to have plans in place and we need to be ready. So with no further comments, I'll just say that this is long overdue and very much appreciated throughout many different parts of our community and we hope that your board will support this plan. Thank you very good. Thank you

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed45:33 · ≈ 9:45 AM

A27. Chair Lavinino, members of the board that brings us to A27 this is from Public Works to consider recommendations regarding the Transportation Development Act claim for fiscal year 2018-2020 and we do have one speaker on this item as well and that is Mark Scintillo

CommentMark ShatilloProposedself-stated45:49 · ≈ 9:45 AM

Once again, good morning. I wanted to just offer a few words of support and appreciation for the works of the folks in the Transportation Division with respect to the Transit Needs Assessment and Supervisor Hart your long work on this. Supervisor Williams has been a staunch ally In recognizing that the state's Transportation Development Act is an environmental justice and civil rights statute.

And it is one that is designed to direct state funding to meet the transportation needs, and the transit needs of our most disadvantaged communities, the most vulnerable, transit dependent, the communities that rely on public transportation systems as a lifeline. To be able to accomplish the things that they want to do and to move ahead in their lives. And so unfortunately, the legislative program that was set up by the state creates a tension because when jurisdiction makes a determination that they don't need those funds to meet the needs of those communities, that they can be used for another meritorious purpose.

Roads maintenance and and the kinds of things that the public works department is called upon to do on a regular basis. So I want to applaud the effort of the staff of the transportation division it's been 15 years coming to reach a point, and I think that this year is officially the first year That all of the TDA funds coming to the County of Santa Barbara and all the cities, all of the jurisdictions throughout Santa Barbara County are going to be directed towards public transit and alternative transportation systems. And that's a huge milestone. I just wanted to be here to mark that moment. Thank you for all your leadership and the good work of staff.

This is a significant development and it really does underscore The significance I think of the county's commitment to address the needs of these populations. The resolutions are always heartening to sit through, I don't get them every week but you guys do and I have to say I'm moved by a number of the presentations that we've seen here today and I think it really just reflects that the county is getting good stuff done.

And I think this is another on that scorecard so thank you for your work on this.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.8848:01 · ≈ 9:48 AM

Thank you. Okay, I will take a motion to move the balance of the administrative agenda. Oh, hold on. I'm sorry. There were a couple announcements.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed48:11 · ≈ 9:48 AM

Chair Labadino and members of the board, I do have two announcements to make today. We posted an addendum on Friday to add administrative item number 45 from Supervisor Williams. It is to approve the appointment of Ron Pellucci to the Montecito Planning Commission term ending January 1st 2021. And this is in the first district. And just to note it is on our agenda but item A13 the department is requesting to continue That item from community services to consider recommendations regarding a California emergency solutions and housing program application to our June 4th, 2019 meeting. So if you can just add those to the balance.

0:48 – 0:5310 turns

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.8848:47 · ≈ 9:48 AM

Okay? So can I get a motion to move the balance with those announced changes? So moved.

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.8448:55 · ≈ 9:48 AM

Second.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.8848:56 · ≈ 9:48 AM

Moved and seconded. All those in favor? Aye. Anybody opposed? Pass unanimously. Okay that takes us to public comment.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed49:07 · ≈ 9:49 AM

Chair Lavinino and members of the board, I have one request to speak on public comment today and that is Ed Kalaski.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 13Proposed49:22 · ≈ 9:49 AM

Good morning. I have some tremendous news. Five years later now since Alex Bujold kicked us out of the meeting at the Board of Architectural Review It's a tremendous event and I appreciate it to all the people who have helped me. But I had to deal with the three corrupt people, Janet Wolfe and Anne Almey. And Alex Pujo over the last five years. If Janet Wolfe were still here, I think I'd still be talking about being kicked out of the meeting in 15 seconds, not able to show our drawings, not able to speak.

And get lost. My biggest mistake, I think was in that when I was leaving that fifth meeting, I didn't just yell my head off. I wanted to just scream and that was a big mistake in my life that I didn't do that. None of this probably would have happened if I had just kept screaming but unfortunately I walked out. You know my younger brother said you can't deal with the corrupt government it's just not worth it.

Well, at any rate that was our first attempt to show the drawing. The second attempt was when I almost got my head bashed in by the guard who was sent up The police might stick out and anyways, we've got a meeting out of that. It looked like everything was going to go fine, terrific but then Anne informed me no, that's not true. You gotta put it solely over your living room so you gotta view your neighbor's backyards which from day one we never wanted to do. Our third attempt was in 2018.

When my architect decided to talk to Anne and Alex, and instead of presenting the drawing I wanted. He presented what Anne and Alex wanted which was to essentially have setbacks. And that's where I am today. They again want setbacks even though back in about the third meeting they deemed that setbacks were not necessary for our project. And my architect gave a tremendous speech that meeting, and they agreed we did not need setbacks. So now I gotta figure out how much extra it's gonna cost if we do setbacks. So it's been since June or excuse me May 16th until 2014 until now May 3rd just to show my project is I think there was 75 talks. I gave here before the board and about 50 talks before the Board of architectural review to get to this point tremendous.

Thank you all particularly Craig, even if you didn't do anything but somebody did It's a welcome pleasure. I didn't show the other...

not transcribed≈19s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.8852:44 · ≈ 9:52 AM

Mr. Hart, on behalf of all of us thank you very much.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed52:47 · ≈ 9:52 AM

Huh?

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.8852:49 · ≈ 9:52 AM

Okay your time is up Mr. Klasky. I'm sorry. You're over half a minute. All right let's go to departmental. Is that the end of public comment?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed53:00 · ≈ 9:53 AM

Chair Lavinino and members of the board that is our only request to speak. All right

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.8853:04 · ≈ 9:53 AM

we'll close public comment period and we'll move on to departmental item number one.

0:53 – 0:559 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed53:09 · ≈ 9:53 AM

Chair Lavinino and members of the board, departmental item number one is from community services. It is a hearing to consider recommendations regarding the approval of the action plan substantial amendment consisting of 70,000 for Agnes Avenue ADA site improvements and this is in the fifth district.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 14Proposed53:27 · ≈ 9:53 AM

Good morning Chair Lavinino and members of the board. Today I'm going to turn this presentation over to Lori Baker and Ted Teibel who are with our housing community development section. I think it will be a brief presentation.

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role53:40 · ≈ 9:53 AM

It will be very brief indeed. Good morning, Chair Lavinino and members of the board. We are here today for consideration of funding for a Santa Barbara County General Services project for which CDBG funds is being requested to be used for the ADA improvements at the site. Today with me is Ted Tiber who will present the project.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 15Proposed54:06 · ≈ 9:54 AM

Good morning, members of the board. Santa Barbara County General Services is requesting federal community development block grant funds for an ADA site improvements project in Santa Maria. Amending the action plan for these funds requires public hearing. Today concludes the 30 day public comment period for the proposed amendment and as of right now we have not received any comments on this matter.

The county acquired the property and the existing 1,200 square foot building in 2016 to expand mental health services in the area. Construction is currently underway. The requested Federal Community Development Block Grant funding will supplement a California state grant to complete the project. Here you can see on the left the pre-existing property and the proposed ADA improvements on the right. Recommended action will allow completion of the Behavioral Wellness Mental Health Facility in 2019.

This slide briefly summarizes today's recommended actions. The board is being asked to approve the draft action plan amendment awarding $70,000 to Santa Barbara County General Services. We're happy to answer any questions and we have two representatives of general services also here to answer any questions about the project. Thank you and this completes the staff report.

Very good.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.8855:17 · ≈ 9:55 AM

Is there any public comment on this item?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed55:22 · ≈ 9:55 AM

Chair Lavagnino, members of the board we have no request to speak on this item. Do

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.8855:25 · ≈ 9:55 AM

we have any questions from the board? Can I get a motion to move the recommended action?

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.8455:34 · ≈ 9:55 AM

So moved. Second.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.8855:36 · ≈ 9:55 AM

Moved and seconded all those in favor? Aye. Anybody opposed? Passes unanimously great thank you be nice to have a paved parking lot there All right, that takes us to item number two.

0:55 – 1:119 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed55:55 · ≈ 9:55 AM

Chair Lavinino and members of the board, departmental item number two is from the Santa Barbara County Employees Retirement System and this is a hearing to receive and file a report and presentation from the Santa Barbara County Employees Retirement System on the June 30th 2018 pension plan actuarial valuation. Good

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.8856:14 · ≈ 9:56 AM

morning Mr.

GuestGreg LevinChief Executive OfficerProposedself-stated56:14 · ≈ 9:56 AM

Levin. Thank you Mr. Chair if you just give me a second I'll get my presentation set up. Thank you. Thank you, Chair Lavignino and honorable members of the Board of Supervisors. My name is Greg Levin and I am the Chief Executive Officer at the Santa Barbara County Employees Retirement System. And I am pleased to present our annual report of our operating results and answer any questions that you may have.

So when I'm out in the community, I've taken to beginning my presentation with a statement about the value of public service. We serve 10,000 members who serve our community and they do a great job every day and they work hard to make our community the beautiful community that it is. And I think it's important to center the conversation around that and begin with that framing.

What we do at Santa Barbara County Employees Retirement System is we work with you to help build a quality workforce to serve our community. We serve to encourage public service by providing part of your compensation package, and one of the things that we do is we strengthen the bond between the county and the employee by providing a compensation package that's built around legacy and retention of your best and brightest employees.

We also provide a pathway for advancement and development of your membership. If people are unable to retire later in their career, they will not leave. They have civil service protections and it's very important that you have tools and mechanisms to positively rotate your workforce. And one of the things that SB SERS does is it helps you do that by providing a dignified retirement to members.

So a little bit about who we are. We are currently 43% male and 57% female. We have about 4,500 active members excuse me retired members and we have 4171 active members and 1589 deferred members. The average age at retirement for our membership is 58.6 years and the average age of a retired member today is about 70.1 years old. For the active members, their average annual salary is $81,649 and their average age is 44.9 so just a shade under 45 years old. And for the deferred members, their average age is 45.5. As supervisors it's important to point out as an economic engine I mentioned earlier about enabling a dignified retirement and one of the things that a dignified retirement allows people to do is stay in their community after they retire So SBCO is currently about 70% of our members stay in Santa Barbara County.

If you broaden that to include the Tri-County area, that number goes up into the high 80s. As a consequence, Santa Barbara County pays out about $100 million into the community every year in the form of benefit payments. That money gets spent at our local shops and businesses and supports our community and it gets reinvested. So we consider ourselves to be an economic engine for Santa Barbara County.

We talk a lot in our business about a sustainable fiduciary commitment, and that is based around a mosaic of factors that come together to complete the picture. And I've included some of the major ones here but we use a 7% assumed rate of return for valuing your liabilities and assessing what we think we're going to earn in the financial markets I'm pleased to say that we were an early adopter of generational mortality assumptions, which means we're ahead of the curve on recognizing longevity improvements with our membership.

And when you use a 19-year amortization with direct rate smoothing, that is really an equivalent to a 15-year amortization with five-year asset smoothing. So when you put all of that together, you calculate an actuarial liability of just under $3.9 billion And a market value of assets of just over $3 billion, leaving an unfunded actuarially accrued liability of almost $900 million. And all of this information on this slide is based on June 30 2018 data. We value the portfolio every year at June 30 and that's where these numbers come from.

So at SV Service, we are an investor. We are investing assets on your behalf and on behalf of our membership. And this slide here shows that over the last 25 years we've earned 7.12% since inception which really isn't our since inception number because we were formed in 1947 but our modern record keeping, i.e., our data that we have in computers goes back to 1987 And since inception, we've averaged 8.26%. But a lot's changed over the years especially since the great financial crisis of the 2008-2009 era and since then we've averaged 5.52%.

In the last five years things have improved a little bit and we've been averaging 7% which is consistent with our current assumed rate of return. But in looking at the chart one thing you should take note of is the amount of volatility that happens at the back end of the chart You can see from 2008 on forward, the returns while positive on average are very much more volatile. They're going up and down a lot more. And what that means is that we need to manage risk in the portfolio because volatility is the enemy of return.

If you have $100 and you lose 50%, You have $50 left. If you gain 50%, you have $75 after that, you're still short $25. That's what volatility does to an investment portfolio and that's why we focus on volatility

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 16Proposed1:02:10 · ≈ 10:02 AM

control in our investments. Supervisor Adam? Yeah, you're actually a lot shorter than that because

PresenterBrittany HeatonProposed · by introduction1:02:17 · ≈ 10:02 AM

at that point the first year that you were supposed to make 7% compounded, you lost the 50%. And in the second year when you made 25, you lost the compounded. Right. So it's actually... You should add $114

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 16Proposed1:02:35 · ≈ 10:02 AM

the second year and you only have 75. Right? You should have greater than 114 actually with compounded. Well yeah right okay.

GuestGreg LevinChief Executive OfficerProposedself-stated1:02:44 · ≈ 10:02 AM

That's absolutely

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 16Proposed1:02:45 · ≈ 10:02 AM

right. I'm not that good at math. The numbers

GuestGreg LevinChief Executive OfficerProposedself-stated1:02:46 · ≈ 10:02 AM

that I've shown here are actually compound return numbers So there's been a lot of hard work in the area of pension benefits and compensation at Santa Barbara County lately, and I believe this graph shows this. What this shows is that your employee contributions are increasing over a three-year period. That's largely due to what's happened at the negotiating table. With your management staff being successful in negotiating increased employee contributions on the part of legacy employees, that means the employees are paying a greater share of what's called the normal cost of the system.

Consequently, the county is paying lesser than it would otherwise be because of those labor agreements. We showed that at the graph in the right, excuse me, the graph in the middle. The boxes with the red dots are the portion of the county's contribution that the employees are assuming on the county's behalf. Now with the UAL cost trend, things are a little different. And this is a complicated chart so I just want to explain it a little bit here but what you see is the blue bars are connected to the axis on the left that is the amortization payment expressed in terms as of a percentage of payroll and as you can see it's been rising gradually And that's because one, the discount rate on the plan has been lowered. And then two, we've been slowly amortizing losses from the 2008-2009 period.

The orange triangles and lines represent what your payroll growth has been. And you can see the axis on the right shows the year over year growth in your payroll. And what I want to point out is that this axis is actually flipped as it gets higher That there's a negatives on the top and positives on the bottom. And that's because there's an inverse relationship between the size of your payroll and the percentage that you pay for amortization on a percentage basis, that's because we're taking a fixed liability and allocating it across your payroll. So as your payroll gets smaller, that allocation to each payroll dollar gets greater. And so what you've seen is that over the last year, your amortization payment increased by about 1.3%.

And that is largely because of I would say about 70% related flat payroll growth. Your payroll growth has only increased about 0.34% last year and we currently estimate that your payroll is going to grow at about 2.75% a year, so a fairly significant difference and that's why on a percentage basis you're seeing that rate go up however on a nominal dollar basis that rate has actually declined a little bit due to gains in the portfolio So this slide shows your contribution projections forward for the next 20 years from 2018, which is this valuation period which will take effect through 2020 budget through the year 2040 in terms of your budget periods.

The blue bars on the top are your employer contribution rate, and the green bars at the bottom are the employee rate. And that orange bar in the middle is the employee offset. So that's the negotiated employee cost share that you have implemented at your county. What you can see is that it maximizes budget year 2021 for a year and then it starts to shrink over the next 10 years after that or maybe 15 years after that And the reason for that is, is that rate does not apply to your PEPRA employees which are employees that were hired after 2013.

And those PEPRA employees already pay a full half share of their pension costs and so they're paying higher rates than your legacy employees and that's why they don't do the employee pick up or at least that's the idea I believe behind the negotiations. I was not sitting at the table but that's what I surmise. And so these increased, uh, these contributions increase over the next two years and then they taper off.

What you see in year 2030 is a significant decline in the employer contribution rate that's attributable to the completion of our amortization of the 2008-2009 market losses from the Great Recession. And then after that, you see a gradual tail where they drop down and as your PEPRA employees become the majority of your membership and they are sharing a full 50% of the cost of the pension, you can see it becomes about half county, half employee contributions. So a nice 50-50 share.

It's important to note that this model here assumes that all assumptions are going to be met and that we're going to average 7% each year in investment return for the portfolio. And so if there are market losses or Other changes that would cause actuarial gains or losses, this chart can change going forward in the future. However based on those same assumptions you can see that we project currently that we will be fully funded somewhere between the year 2030 and 2031 again that assumes that we will be earning 7% on average every year And that we won't have any significant market losses or actuarial changes. At that time, that we're fully funded, we expect to be approximately a $6 billion pension plan, so about double the size that we are currently.

As you are the Board of Supervisors, the Board of Retirement is the body that governs the plan and sets your contribution rates and recommends them to you for adoption. By California law we are required every three years to do what's called an asset liability study and a actuarial experience study It's been three years now, since October of 2016 when that process was last completed. And that process is currently underway with our consultants and our actuaries working on the information.

This is a very long and involved process that relies on data inputs from several different sources. And it takes place over about a six month period. And it culminates in three public meetings at the Board of Retirement where members of the public or any other members are welcome to come and address the board Those meetings start in September of 2019 and they run through September, October and December of 2019.

How do we look compared to our peers in terms of the assumptions that we have adopted today? If you look at our employer contribution rates, we are in the cohort that is the green bar in the middle. There are seven other California county plans that are in this same band as us so we're roughly right in the middle in terms of being the median employer contribution rate In terms of single equivalent amortization period, that's the pace at which you are paying down your liabilities. We're just to the left of the median with an average I believe our average is actually 12.7 so we're in that group of three California counties right there seven counties have quicker repayment schedules About 10 counties have slower repayment schedules. One thing to note about these charts though is that these do not account for counties that have issued pension obligation bonds, which is when a county goes to market and borrows money to pay down its pension liabilities.

Santa Barbara County has not done that and so when you say well why are there seven plans ahead of us? And taken to the context that several of those plans may have issued, or their plan sponsors may have issued pension obligation bonds. And that is the reason why they have quicker repayment schedules. Our average member rate is among the lowest of California counties and that is because 20-30 years ago when these legacy benefit plans were adopted at the county of Santa Barbara Half rates were implemented, which means rather than award compensation directly to members, the County of Santa Barbara elected to subsidize the retirement costs as part of their compensation package. And for that reason, the average member rate is on the low side and also it's worth noting This 67.9% includes the employee pickup, and so you shouldn't be doing an adjustment to move us one box to the right.

We are even with the employee pickup among the lowest in the state. Given all of that, our funded ratio is in the median. We are between 75 and 79% funded. I believe 77.2%, so we're right in the middle of that band. There's six county plans that are in the group with us. There's five county plans that are more well-funded, but again you should consider the issuance of POBs at those counties because that will improve a pension plan's funded rate and there are nine plans that have a lower funded rate than we do.

1:12 – 1:237 turns

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.881:12:00 · ≈ 10:12 AM

Yeah and on that funded ratio of those nine that show a higher percentage, do we know if they have a higher Assumed rate of return, which would then in turn make it look like a better picture.

GuestGreg LevinChief Executive OfficerProposedself-stated1:12:13 · ≈ 10:12 AM

So the next slide is... We don't

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.881:12:17 · ≈ 10:12 AM

know which ones those are.

GuestGreg LevinChief Executive OfficerProposedself-stated1:12:20 · ≈ 10:12 AM

I would guess that many of those plans are in the 7.25% pocket. That's a very good point that you make. The assumed rate of return or the investment return assumption Impacts your liabilities, the lower it goes the bigger your liabilities are. So if you have a higher assumed rate of return then you're going to have lower liabilities which is going to improve your funded ratio and as you can see we lowered to 7% in 2016 many plants lowered right after that in that same cycle. We are typically all one or two years apart in terms of when we do our three-year actuarial experience studies And if you had talked to me in 2016, I would have said that we would probably be in this band here on the left among the lowest. But what's happened is that everybody has moved in lockstep and so now we are in what I would call pretty close to the, well since there's 11 above us, we're actually a little bit below median but middle of the pack is how I would describe it at this point.

This next slide is a very important slide, and I think to bring it back full circle. What this shows is the composition of your membership with the blue bars on the bottom, your legacy employees. These are the employees that are in the older plan tiers that are paying the half rates that are paying the employee pickups. And then the green bars are your newer employees that are in your PEPRA plan, and those are members that were hired after January 1, 2013.

And as you can see over time, the trend changes as we get attrition from things like retirement. Our retirement rates have increased about 20% over the last three years and so we're retiring significantly more members each year as part of what we do at SB Service. But the important takeaway here is right around 2022-2023, that flips and there are more PEPRA members than there are legacy members. And so they were very much the future. And what that's going to do is that's going to impact your employer contributions because PEPRA members pay more. Even with the employee pickup in place, they still pay more than legacy members. And so that will be a down pressure on your employee contribution rate and as I remind everybody that'll also change things through the negotiating process because you have a two-tiered compensation system at the county and so that presents different incentives to your membership.

That's an important thing to take away from this slide. A little bit about our daily practice. Over the last year, we've focused a lot on communication at SB Service and trying to provide value to our membership and explain that value to our membership and to our plan sponsor. After all if one of our reasons for existence is to improve the bond and strengthen the bond between county and employee it doesn't help if our membership doesn't know what we do in the positive impact that we're having on our community So one of the things I've included in your packet is our annual report. Very proud of this document, my team worked very hard on it. This is our first ever initiative for SB CSRS but as part of our daily practice at SB CSRS we strive to be compassionate and responsive.

We recognize that the decision to retire is a very big decision. It can often be a catharsis or it can be stress-inducing decision for a lot of our members. And in that we try to give active feedback and strengthen trust and build confidence so we speak truth. We're knowledgeable and forthright, and our mission is to empower individuals to make better decisions. We communicate honestly and clearly, and we are efficient and innovative. We're open to new ideas and solutions, and our approach to process improvement is continuous and thoughtful. And I thought it was important to mention that to you because there's a lot of the same concept building going on at the county. And I know Mona has been doing a lot of good work at the county in terms of encouraging innovation and encouraging the employees to think about new and better ways to accomplish their mission.

We're doing the same thing at SB Service, so I wanted to support you on that. And so our member contract and our promise to our members is that we will protect and grow your assets. We will enable you to make smart retirement planning decisions, and we will most importantly deliver on the promise of a dignified retirement. I did at the beginning of this presentation pass out some additional materials.

We received some questions last night in advance of this item and so I'd be pleased to go and talk about those or we can just wait and see if those questions come up during the item.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.881:17:17 · ≈ 10:17 AM

Well while we're looking at that, can you explain, just kind of give us a thumbnail real quick on change That the board has made on asset allocation strategies and kind of how that's moving. Sure,

GuestGreg LevinChief Executive OfficerProposedself-stated1:17:32 · ≈ 10:17 AM

I think this is a great slide to talk about this. I was at a presentation at the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania last week and this was a slide that one of the presenters used. And I think this really just sums it up. What this slide shows is what the asset allocation was like in 1995 what the average asset allocation was like in 2005 and what the average asset allocation was like in 2015. And in 1995, the 10-year treasury rate was over 7%. It was actually 7.98%, and so you could achieve a 7 1⁄2% assumed rate of return by investing solely in bonds at the U.S. government which is still today the strongest credit out there and the lowest risk investment that you can invest in.

Things have changed a lot since 1995, and what we've seen is persistent low interest rates and persistent low yields. And so over time what you've seen is that asset allocators which is what the Board of Retirement is I'm Other types of investments like US equity, non-US equity, real estate and private equity. And the thing to note is that those investments have become much more volatile. They're subject to a lot more risk. They have higher returns over a longer time period But they also go up and down a lot more. And so when you look at the bottom, you see a line there that says standard deviation. And so with that allocation in 2005 only 50% bonds, you can see there was about a 50% increase in standard deviation. And not to bore you with statistics but what a standard deviation is, is that it says within one standard deviation You can expect that two-thirds of the time, you will have outcomes within that range.

So if your standard deviation is let's just call it 9%, excuse me, two-thirds of the time, the investment portfolio is going to earn somewhere between negative 1.5%. And positive 16.5%. Fast forward to 2015, the asset allocations have changed even more and the average asset allocation now includes about 12% allocation of private investments, 13% allocation to private real estate and then a significantly greater allocation to equities And the reason for that is, is that in 2015 the yields on bonds were something like 2 to 3%. We could make 7% solely by investing in bonds. However as a consequence we're also taking more risk and our standard deviation of the average pension plan in 2015 was about 17%, which again means that you're gonna two-thirds of the time you're gonna earn somewhere between negative 10% and positive call it 25%.

And so that's that volatility that you're seeing at the end of that chart I showed earlier, that shows our investment returns every year. And therein lies the risk. So the big takeaway from this chart is that we are taking in terms of and the average pension plan in order to meet its return objectives is taking about three times as much risk in the investment market as it was 20 years ago.

And that's a significant difference. And that is something we work every day at the Board of Retirement to try and minimize, and we look for assets and asset classes that what we call de-correlate so they behave counter to the market signals whether or not in a good example if that is stocks and bonds usually when stocks go down bonds go up. That's not always the case. For example, in 2008 we saw a lot of what we call correlation of beta which meant everything went down at the same time. But that's the idea behind no diversification and our focus is really on managing risk at the Board of Retirement and that's what we work hard to do every day.

The next slide I have here, and I got a question from the supervisor's office. I will not name names but- It was me. I realize that I omitted a piece of information in this document here which was the overall funded status of the OPEB plan. And so what this slide does is it shows the funded status of the OPEB plan It's currently 13% funded, however that's an improvement. Five years ago it was 0% funded and so steadily and surely making progress on funding the county's liabilities. We show that to our membership that over time they count over the last five years the county has built up over $16 million of assets.

I'm pleased to say that we have one other plan sponsor that's actually Almost 100% funded. They made a decision about 10 years ago to start advanced funding of plan and that plan sponsors the air collision control district, and they are now almost completely funded. So very important to point out that there's a lot of good things happening in the fiscal responsibility arena at County of Santa Barbara, and you've done a good job in terms of taking steps to overall reduce your liabilities over time.

not transcribed≈25s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
PresenterBrittany HeatonProposed · by introduction1:23:14 · ≈ 10:23 AM

Supervisor Adam? Well, don't dislocate your shoulder patting yourself on the back because if you add up the $886 million and the $124 million, you're over a billion dollars of unfunded right? Right. Yeah okay thank you

1:23 – 1:3511 turns

GuestGreg LevinChief Executive OfficerProposedself-stated1:23:40 · ≈ 10:23 AM

So the next question I got was about our amortization policy. And there was a question regarding whether or not the changes the Board of Retirement made in 2014 were both transparent and whether or not they had any impact, the impact of extending the county's pay down or what that impact was. First thing I want to say is as part of adopting this policy, the Board of Retirement eliminated the concept of smooth actuarial value of assets. And what this chart shows and this is the information the board had when it made its decision. We were lucky enough in 2014 and around then we actually did have a slight gain. This chart only runs through 2012 because that was the point at the prior experience study. However, what it shows as of 2012 the asset value and the market value and the smooth asset value were almost exactly the same.

2013 and 2014 were small gain years however You can see it had approved and it had synced up. All asset smoothing really does is it takes a five-year average of the market values, and it's a volatility control that people use to smooth out the contribution rates for employers. It does have the consequence of being less transparent though. In 2009 for example you can see that we were Reporting an asset value based on smoothing, that was probably I will call it you know three four hundred million more than what's actually in the plan. So one of the things that was nice about adopting the market value of assets approach is that now we're speaking truth and saying what's in the plan is actually in the plan. We're not amending asset values as a way of smoothing volatility What direct rate smoothing does is that actually instead of smoothing the value of the portfolio, it just smooths the change in the contributions.

So it essentially accomplishes the same thing. I'm going to flip forward to slide 18. Slide 18 was our old amortization method. And what the green line shows is the pay down of the UAL balance. And so you start at one and you're zero, and you finish paying it down in 19 years. So that's a 15-year amortization with five year smoothing of assets. The next slide I'm going to show you is direct rate smoothing. This is what the Board of Retirement adopted in 2014. There it is.

I'm going to flip back for a second. That's the old method. This is the new method. Are you noticing any change? You're probably not, because they're exactly the same. The pay down is almost exactly the same. And so really with the new amortization method that was adopted, all we did was improve the transparency of the system. We put some volatility control on there to help you manage the impact of your contribution rates And we've continued on the same pay down cycle.

So that's the additional and supplemental materials that I have provided to you, and I'd be pleased to answer any additional questions you may have.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.881:26:59 · ≈ 10:26 AM

Very good. Madam Clerk, do we have any public comment?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed1:27:03 · ≈ 10:27 AM

Chair Lavinino and members of the board, we have one request to speak. And that is Andy Caldwell in Santa Maria.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 17Proposed1:27:22 · ≈ 10:27 AM

Your CEO, Mona Miyasato has a difficult task in paying all the bills and that the retirement board and their staff is doing the best they can to give you the best return on investment. But there's a question I've had for 20 years that's never been answered. As you know, we have supported early retirement for police and fire because they think you can't do those jobs in life without incurring a whole lot of other problems.

But what we never understood is why does SEIU get both social security and county pitch? I've never understood that. My mom, some of you know this, my mom was a county retiree and I was actually grateful she had it. She was on security but that's beside the matter. You know, I felt a little bit insulted when your director there called the pension system an economic engine for the county.

It's a black hole. This sucked a hundred plus million dollars a year out of your general operating funds, which could be used to even pay higher wages to some people or to fix our roads or things like that. But the fact of the matter is most of the jobs done by SEIU are jobs that you would find in the private sector and right here is your average pension payout They never include how many of those people are getting Social Security. The traffic pension payout is more than most people will get with Social Security.

And you have to ask yourself, why are government employees considered a different class or worthy of double the reward of the people that are paying the bills? They talked about how many people in the county will be able to stay here because they can afford it. I talk to people in the private sector every single day that are leaving, cuz they can't afford it.

Especially once they retire, they can't afford to stay here. And you have to ask yourself why aren't we treating a class of employees different and better than the people paying the bills who have similar jobs? And finally, we always want to remind you, hope that the stock market's not going to go down is not a plan. Hope is not a plan. Thank

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.881:30:19 · ≈ 10:30 AM

you. Any questions from the board? Comments? I'll jump in. I'm the new member of the Board of Retirement and I've only been to a couple of meetings but I have to say I am very impressed with the quality of the work The depth of the knowledge and you know, I think there's been some very prudent decisions made by the board. The two that pop into my mind is the lowering of the assumption rate which was controversial at the time and tough to do but I think it's turned...

It was the right decision and A lot of times people can, if you wanted to I guess make it look better. It would be an easy thing to do. We could keep the assumption rate higher. If we were at seven and a half or seven and three quarters, we could walk around and have a party and have a headline that said we're 90% funded. You know, but I think the grown-up thing was done.

And reality is that as you pointed out it's going to be tough to get a 7% return when you can't just sit and park your money somewhere and enjoy a 3 or 4% bond return. The other thing I think is closing the amortization period for the unfunded liability at 15 years and we are paying off That $886 million. So I think some prudent decisions have been made, and I appreciate the folks that made those tough decisions. The reality is it's always going to come with the caveat that something bad might happen.

And I don't think anybody could've predicted what happened in 2009 but if you look at the entire length and breadth of that investment period from inception Factoring in the Great Recession and the Great Depression, this has returned a little over 7% over the life. And so while you can't predict, all we can ask you to do is bring in a chart and say if everything kind of stays the same. I mean it would be hard for us to say okay predict 10% next year and then 2% fall and So all we can really do is predict a 7%, and I think it shows that that is the prudent choice.

Over 25 years, that's what it's returned. That's probably where it should be. And I know we're fluid and as things change, I'm one of those crazy people that looks at the market every day which you shouldn't do. I see it's down over 550 points today so I get nervous about my own investments. But I know now being at the Board of Retirement that we're in it for the long haul, and it's not today. It's not next month. It's not next year. It is the next 25 or 30 years. And I'm confident in being on that board You know, the other thing is the board does provide outstanding educational opportunities for board members.

I got into that and I started sitting there and people that I know started asking questions that were way over my pay grade. And realized that they go to, I mean, there's opportunities all throughout the country for our board members Savvy, I guess is the word. And so I appreciate that too. So it's an inexact science but I think what we're doing is betting on the American economy in the long haul and for me that's a good bet to make.

Mr. Gazzone?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 7Proposed1:34:03 · ≈ 10:34 AM

Chair and Supervisors, I normally wouldn't jump in after a public comment but this is one that may help the board and probably save me a follow-up question at some point. And that is the relationship between the Social Security Act and state retirement systems or the ability of public agencies to opt out of social security And California had looked at this in the sense that they went to the Supreme Court in 1986 after trying to remove some political subdivisions from Social Security.

After a particular section of the act was enacted in 83, and the Supreme Court indicated that that was not an option for them. So the board is not a free actor in this area. We could spend more time on this at some future time, but we had looked at this as part of Renew 22 as to options that were available and that was a quick dead end. Okay?

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.881:34:55 · ≈ 10:34 AM

So CEO already was on it

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed1:34:57 · ≈ 10:34 AM

I Was and unfortunately we can't opt out okay

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.881:35:01 · ≈ 10:35 AM

All right, so if there's no other questions if I can get a motion to accept the report

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.841:35:08 · ≈ 10:35 AM

So moved

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.881:35:10 · ≈ 10:35 AM

Moved and seconded, all those in favor? Aye. Anybody opposed? Mr. Levin thank you very much we appreciate it. We're going to take a 12 minute break we'll come back at quarter till for the next item

1:44 – 1:482 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed1:44:03 · ≈ 10:44 AM

you Good morning.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.881:48:09 · ≈ 10:48 AM

All right for agenda management, well we'll see we're gonna see how I Along this goes, but I was going to say that we were going to move measure a till after lunch. But we may not need to so we'll see how we go. The lunch is going to be at noon so We'll factor that in all right let's read item three into the record.

1:48 – 1:576 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed1:48:37 · ≈ 10:48 AM

Chair Levinino and members of the board departmental item number threes from the county executive office it is a hearing to consider recommendations regarding public safety dispatch separation

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 18Proposed1:48:51 · ≈ 10:48 AM

Chair Lavagnino, members of the board thank you for the opportunity to update you on the public safety dispatch options that has been under discussion for some period of time as you are well aware. I'm joined by our analyst from our office, A.J. Kinoveva who's done a great deal of work on this project as well and we're excited to make this presentation to you.

Just a reminder of previous board actions the board originally met in July 25th of 2017 and received the Delta Works consultant report and directed staff to return With a detailed analysis of of the options that were outlined in that report. That reporting back was delayed due to the Thomas fire and the debris flow. We did return in August 2018 and presented 2 out the 2 Delta works options to the board. The board found in favor of Delta Works Option 2, which was a separation of the law and fire functions. And requested, in addition requested an analysis of the feasibility of partnering with the City of Santa Maria.

As a reminder, the two Delta Works options at that time were to optimize, option one was to optimize the current operation. In the in the public safety dispatch center and recommended forming a multidisciplinary oversight group replacing the sheriff's commander with a civilian executive director. And there were several additional actions, several of which have been accomplished. The estimated cost of that option at that time was an increase of just over $1.1 million to the existing budget.

Delta Works option two was to create a separate EMS and fire dispatch center modeled after Ventura County. Two aspects of the Ventura County model which were reviewed by staff revealed two things that I think might be of interest to the board, one is that the Ventura County system has historically been separate so the center that they currently have has evolved over time And secondly, the cities and districts that participate in the Ventura County model do not engage in specific cost reimbursement. There is an in-kind system that they have but they're not paying the county.

The estimated budget for that separation again at the time of the Delta Works report was about an increase of just over $2.8 million and not counting whatever the impact would be on the sheriff's budget by the departure. In 2000 and November of 2018, we returned with an update to the board. And the board approved the staff recommendation which was to do a further study of which discipline should leave the current center Determine whether or not the Santa Maria facility is appropriate to house what we've chosen to call the Regional Fire Communication Facility.

And if so, in what format should a partnership with Santa Maria take either full integration or space lease? And I'll expand on that in a second. The staff findings subsequent to the November meeting, which I bring to you today. One is that the separation of fire and law dispatch operations is technically feasible and it does offer some significant benefits.

Secondly, that moving the sheriff's operation out of the existing center is not cost effective nor is it operationally desirable. A third that Santa Maria would be an excellent partner for a redundant center, but there are significant barriers to full integration which we'll talk about in a second. And that we will go forward pursuing the location and identification of alternative locations.

With respect to the city of Santa Maria's communication facility they have a state-of-the-art facility I know that several of you have visited that center. It handles both police and fire operations, and it is currently housed in the police station. They use a Motorola computer-aided dispatch system for both law and fire. And they use an ultra high frequency 700 megahertz system which is unique in this county, and their system is fully encrypted which is also unique in this county.

Between August of last year and February of this year, there were multiple meetings held between the affected department heads in the city of Santa Maria. And we looked at two specific options. One was integrating into the current Santa Maria City system and the other was building a separate fire facility, a fire communication center within the existing police department some open space that they have.

The first option, the integration option relied pretty exclusively on the use of MotorolaCAD. And this really represents the most significant stumbling block to this partnership. MotorolaCAD is not widely used by fire agencies in California. It is not recommended by any of the county fire chiefs and the vast majority of the fire agencies are on VHF and they are not encrypted which is also a barrier.

The City of Santa Maria has made it very clear that the use of Motorola CAD is a requirement for partnering with them. Additionally, there is the same issue of the ability to have expanded floor space in the Santa Maria facility. That's the same challenge that FIRE has identified in the current facility. It's the ability to broaden their operations in the event of a major fire.

The second option we looked at was an internal buildout within the police station. That was determined to have a lot of issues associated with it, not positive. It was highly disruptive to the existing police operations. There was a lack of supporting infrastructure, not so much in terms of technology but in things like parking and building access etc. It was essentially after we the more we looked at it, it was essentially a leasing operation that could be really done anywhere and connected with the city. And ultimately both the city and the county determined that that arrangement was not fiscally advantageous.

In conclusion with regards to Santa Maria, the fire agencies in this county including County Fire would prefer not to transition The build-out option, option 2 that I just discussed is not fiscally advantageous either for the city or the county. But their center would be an excellent redundant facility and staff would recommend that we pursue that option going forward.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.881:55:59 · ≈ 10:55 AM

Mr. Malachian before we leave Santa Maria got a question so in the event of some catastrophic incident Are we going to have a hard time communicating with Santa Maria if other responding jurisdictions respond to Santa Maria or how's

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 18Proposed1:56:18 · ≈ 10:56 AM

that? The current emergency coop plan, continuity of operations plan with regards to dispatch essentially moves the county operation to the city of Santa Barbara. And with some significant limitations. Operations would continue with respect to and that would include being able to communicate with the city of Santa Maria. It's a trend, I'm not suggesting that it would be as smooth as is now but it would work when we talk about developing a redundant facility The idea is to put some additional consoles in the city of Santa Maria's dispatch center that would allow an instant transition of operations from the South County to the North County.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.881:57:07 · ≈ 10:57 AM

I'm more concerned about, and I don't really understand it that well so help me with this, is if they're on a different radio system That's not compatible with ours. Would our, let's say our fire guys are showing up? Are they going to be able to communicate with their fire

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 18Proposed1:57:20 · ≈ 10:57 AM

department? There is bridging technology. It is not that they cannot. It is that it becomes much more complex and complicated to do it. But bridging technology does exist and some of the more recent radio purchases allow for switching of bands between 700 and 800. So it can be done. It's just not the simplest.

1:57 – 2:062 turns

PresenterBrittany HeatonProposed · by introduction1:57:49 · ≈ 10:57 AM

Supervisor Adam and therefore reliable.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 18Proposed1:58:01 · ≈ 10:58 AM

I would supervisor Adam to the chair, I would let someone with more sort of technical expertise and answer that. Answer that question I I would not necessarily say that it would be less reliable but the possibility for error is certainly increased. So moving forward, there were several assumptions. And I could have easily moved these two slides to the front end of this presentation.

There are several project assumptions that were built into this from the beginning. One is that the Regional Fire Communication Facility will meet what are called essential services construction standards. That is, it's a higher level of construction standards designed to withstand earthquakes, fires, etc., in a system that is above normal construction codes.

Secondly, that any partner agencies that join this facility will contribute financially to the facility's operation. And that formal action by various elected bodies is necessary before we can actually incorporate funding assumptions into into a budgetary plan. All of the fire chiefs in the county have expressed their support for this separation but We still have no action yet from any of the elected bodies formally committing to this. My understanding is that there are discussions underway and I'm not suggesting that's not going to happen, but as we move forward in developing our funding assumptions have been based on the idea that we would be doing this alone and if we did get partner agencies to join us then that would obviously contribute to the financial well-being of the project.

There will then be, currently there is one single public safety answering point under this system, there will be two but the primary public safety answering point will continue to be run by the sheriff. This is the standard throughout the state of California and the secondary PSAP will be operated by the fire service. 5th, nothing in this transition should negatively impact the sheriff's budget. And lastly, should the EOC expansion option be selected?

There should be no loss of space or functionality at the existing at the existing EOC. Talk a little bit more about that in a minute. We discussed over the course of the last few months we've discussed several options, but we reviewed 3 in some detail and we are bringing 2 of those 3 to you for approval for further study. Option number 1 is to expand the existing Emergency Operations Center Option number two is to co-locate the fire and sheriff PSAPs in the current building. This is sometimes referred to as the Austin, Texas model. And option three is to build a new facility adjacent to the current facility.

With respect to option one, an expansion of the EOC. It would involve pushing out the west side of the existing facility. There is adequate infrastructure and it is readily accessible. And that building is already built to the essential facilities standard that I mentioned earlier. The challenges in this option is we need to ensure that we don't infringe on the existing operation And in March of this year, when you reviewed the capital improvement budget there was a suggestion or discussion about expanding the EOC to allow for call center and sleeping quarters.

We believe that can be addressed going forward but we are aware of that. And we don't know, we haven't yet determined. Part of that process would probably involve moving the sleeping quarters to station 19 which is just up the hill and I don't have cost figures yet on what that might involve. And as a note this option is preferred by the fire service. Option 2 is the so-called co-location model, the Austin, Texas model. In Austin, Texas, Harris County there are actually four jurisdictions that operate concurrently under one roof. It is technically feasible. The floor space in the existing facility is adequate to do this and there are underutilized areas of exterior balconies and floor space that could be converted into office space and additional dispatch locations.

The challenges are there's a difficulty in design, comparing it to the EOC function where you simply move the wall out and your square footage, your new square footage is essentially in one place. The design challenge for this is you identify several smaller areas around the existing facility. And so the design aspects are a little bit It's a little bit more technically complicated.

There are some governance issues that would still need to be resolved, it was one of the driving issues behind this project in the first place and probably the single most significant barrier is that you, and one led us to discard this as an option, is you would have to move the existing facility, the existing operation to some other location. Is not viewed as technically feasible to do this construction Option three is to build a new facility directly adjacent to the old one, utilizing the current parking lot. There are some positives to this. There is the ability to share infrastructure.

It utilizes an existing pad that is to say the current parking lot and the construction of a temporary sound wall would allow the current public safety dispatch center to continue operations during construction. Some of the challenges are the cost of building a new facility, the loss of existing parking space which is already at a premium and the fact that it's not in the North County. And it should be noted that the sheriff does not support this option.

We did look at three other options, but not to the same level of detail. One is a search for existing commercial property. That process is underway. The fire department submitted a list of specifications that would be required in General Services Real Property Division. As currently looking to see if there facilities available that might meet the requirements that they put forward.

There has been secondly, there has been discussion I want to start by thanking the board of Supervisors and staff of the city of Santa Maria about the possibility of building a new and separate fire communications facility. At some at some future point, depending on what direction the board chooses to go from here. But as of right now it is no more than a concept that's been discussed and lastly was option one of the Delta works report that is an upgrade of the current system. And a change in governance structure and that option remains you'll hear in a little bit from the both the fire chief in the under sheriff and that is the option of the sheriff continues to support.

We are proposing to return to the board in 60 to 90 days with both construction costs and staffing plans for options one and 3, that is the EOC expansion or the building of it have a new facility In addition, we want to bring some specific costs for upgrading the current center that was also discussed at the August 2018 meeting and an estimated impact on the sheriff's budget.

Additionally, we would hope by that time to have a much more clear idea about the active involvement of potential regional partners to achieve the borderless dispatch and regional response that the board has indicated That it wants. And before I go forward, I would like to both fire chief Hartwig and under Sheriff Lindbergh are here to address the board. And I'd like to turn to Chief Hartwig.

not transcribed≈11s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen

2:07 – 2:122 turns

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role2:07:06 · ≈ 11:07 AM

Thank you Mr. Maliki and members. Mr. Chair, members of the board, Ms. Miyasato I don't have a lot to add to that. I do need to tell you that there remains a very keen interest by the fire service, the first responders, rescue and EMS providers to regionalize for all of the reasons that you've heard plenty about. I would probably even at the risk of describing it or characterizing as something different with my colleagues here, describe it as an excitement about that opportunity. I believe that the report that Mr. Malekian has presented and will wrap up here is in line with what we want in the fire service not just the county fire district but my fire colleagues within the county. And we would like to thank Mr. Melecki and he's done a lot of work on this, worked closely with us but not just the fire district again but our colleagues as well.

Thank you

CommentUnder Sheriff Saul LindverProposedself-stated2:08:26 · ≈ 11:08 AM

Good morning, Chair Lavagnino and Supervisors. I'm under Sheriff Saul Lindgren speaking on behalf of Sheriff Brown and the members of the Santa Barbara Sheriff's Office. The Sheriff's Office would like to remind that the Board of Supervisors at the current Dispatch Center was designed and built to accommodate and provide regional dispatching to multiple agencies throughout the county. There are currently eight fully functional operational councils at the dispatch center, of which we routinely use six.

The center has room to add an additional eight consoles, increasing the capability to 16 consoles without major construction or floor reorganization. For comparison, the Santa Barbara Police Department routinely runs four consoles. The Santa Maria Police Department runs three consoles and Lompoc runs two. This includes law enforcement and fire operations. Borderless dispatching has been brought up as a reason for the separation.

With some system upgrades and additional staffing, the current Public Safety Dispatch Center would be capable of borderless dispatching. There is no technical need to separate the Public Safety Dispatch Center to implement borderless dispatching. The current Public Safety Dispatch Center has proven its capabilities to handle major events requiring multiple public safety disciplines time and time again.

As an example, the Wheeler Fire, Paint Fire, Zacca Fire, Gap Fire, Goleta Postal Shooting, T Fire, Hazes Cedar Fire, Deltopia Civil Disturbance, Isla Vista Mass Murders, the Sharper Fire, Refugio Oil Spill, Ray Fire, Whittier Fire, Thomas Fire, and the 1-9 Debris Flow. Let's also not forget 30 years of unsanctioned Halloween festivities. The separation of the Public Safety Dispatch Center is counter to several aspects of the Renew 22 initiative.

In considering rebalance, separating the dispatch center would be adding an unnecessary expense to a fragile budget with an uncertain economic future. Some of the goals of redesign is a consolidation of core functions, technology and partnering. The current Public Safety Dispatch Center is an example of consolidation and partnering. Separating the center would be in contradiction to their new 22 initiative.

In relation to respond separating the dispatch center would not be improving customer service and it may actually slow critical information provided to 911 callers and response times. I would also like to remind the Board, as was done by Assistant CEO Melekian, that the consultant report from DeltaWorks was the first option presented in the report was keeping the Consolidated Dispatch Center and addressing issues such as staffing technology and governance which the board has started to do with the funding of the five call takers.

If the board is still desirous of dispatch separation and considering the two options being recommended, we prefer option one with proposed caveat of redundant dispatch capability in North County. Placing a secondary dispatch center in close proximity to the primary center is illogical as whatever event threatens the primary center would more than likely affect the secondary center much like the paint fire.

Recommendation number three amplifies this proximity issue as it will be within steps of the primary center. This option will also remove the needed parking spaces to an already crowded lot and add more staff to fight for parking. Additionally, several years ago fencing a gate and a camera system were added between the main jail inmate reception center where inmates are released and the dispatch parking lot. This was done for safety of the dispatchers as several of them were confronted by people being released from the jail during late night hours.

Although there may be attempts to limit the disruption to the current Public Safety Dispatch Center, there will be some construction noise and clamor. One can only hope this disruption would not occur at a critical time when needing to hear a frantic caller is paramount. Thank you very much for your time and attention.

2:12 – 2:224 turns

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.882:12:14 · ≈ 11:12 AM

All right I thought for a minute there that we I thought we had already gone through all of that, and I thought we had already made that decision. And we were kind of figuring out which option we were going to move to. So really, I was going to say it puts us in a, that statement puts us in a really difficult position just so you know. We actually could be putting people at risk because we're going to have a slower response time, I think is really flies in the face of what we're trying to do here.

And so public watching this is, I don't feel it's going to have the confidence that a secondary dispatch I don't know, I'm just really disappointed in that statement. I wish we could have gotten to the point where we could all get along and I for one have already made up my mind that and I thought we did as a board that we were moving forward and really we were looking at where this was going to be. And so appreciate your comments at the end about option 1 being the preferred but I think you know I don'y really think that was super helpful to be honest.

So Supervisor Adam.

PresenterBrittany HeatonProposed · by introduction2:13:45 · ≈ 11:13 AM

I'm not wild about any of the options, and I just don't want to say these things before we get public comment because I want my colleagues to be Able to kind of have them rolling around in their heads while we while we listen to public comment You know first of all the redundancy here is is not accomplished by putting it in the same place as everything else you know I want this thing in the North County someplace and you know, the real estate's cheaper. It's close to the workforce that's going to work there. You know we have 6,000 people a day leaving Lompoc to drive down here to go to work.

And those same people are going to be manning these dispatch posts in all likelihood. And so I would rather see this thing someplace on cheaper real estate. And and again back to the redundancy item, you know if you put it in the same Canyon as You know the headquarters for fire and EOC and a fire comes along and and threatens that thing or there's an earthquake or some other catastrophe You know, it doesn't spread your risk at all.

So you know I would love to see that center be someplace else like somewhere between Buellton and Lompoc. I think that's just a far better thing for the reasons mentioned I was with you as to whether this decision has been made or not, but if I could go back on that. If I could see myself going back on that and not being able to support A new building, especially if we're just going to put it in a parking lot of a place with short parking already. You know? I mean this doesn't seem to make a lot of sense to me. We should be trying for those reasons to get some real redundancy if we're going to do it and put it next to the people that are likely to work there.

A third concern of mine is borderless in Santa Maria Valley. We have a huge population in the 4th district, in Orchid and they're not Being as well served as they could and I really want to see that happen. And, you know, I wish Santa Maria would have done the same thing everybody else did but they didn't so I don't know how to make that work really reliably.

But I'm hoping that we can, we can make that happen because borderless is there's a huge population there. Even the people in the center even in city Santa Maria get county engines that respond to things. Occasionally and it would probably be more often if we had the borderless and everybody knew where Everybody's or the dispatch knew where everybody's Machinery was so they could dispatch it off properly.

So I Just want everybody to be thinking about that as we go along supervisor Williams

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 4Proposed2:17:27 · ≈ 11:17 AM

Well, my district like the fourth has a lot to gain from borderless dispatch. Neighborhoods like the Riviera on the city side or Mission Canyon on the county side or Carpinteria Hills on the county side or Carpinteria City on the Carp Summerland side this is Data. Most people don't know that we're really operating separate operations and they think I think most people instinctively think we already have borderless dispatch. Unfortunately, we don't yet and for me this is the driver behind this And it's also the reason why we should move forward today in my view, even though I agree with you that a North County site would have been better.

I'm real passionate about reducing vehicle miles traveled and reducing commuting. That would've been a real victory but it's not looking good. Address the undersheriff's comments, For the sheriff and for your predecessor, now sitting in a different seat. Just the basic ideas. I'm not wanting to choose between two vital public safety agencies. I simply want to go with whatever borderless dispatch other jurisdictions will participate in.

And I feel like I've given you guys enough. Time to come up to try to work out something with either the city of Santa Maria or the city of Santa Barbara. To drop their secondary PSAP and absorb into a borderless dispatch with sheriffs, but I don't see that there's any agreement there. And so to me, the only option I really have in front for borderless dispatch is a borderless dispatch with a separate fire and EMS function. And so that's why it's, for me, a clear choice because I haven't ever been given from the department another option for borderless dispatch that other jurisdictions will agree to and have said they will agree to And that's, I think that last part of the sentence is the only thing that separates where we're at. But it's crucial.

So I feel like we do need to move forward. I would love to understand either from general services or from others that have looked at this. Give me a guesstimate of which one is gonna be more expensive I mean, you guys are good at your job. So give me something what in and the you know there were no dollar signs in the in the in in the board letter and not that I expect that you would have a precise figure before we've directed Is it the sense of you guys and General Services that the build out on the Sheriff's part of the campus would be cheaper or that the build out at the EOC would be cheaper?

not transcribed≈13s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 18Proposed2:21:25 · ≈ 11:21 AM

Supervisor Williams to the Chair, we very specifically avoided trying to put specific cost numbers in there because one way or another this is going not be an inexpensive proposition. We wanted to make sure they were accurate. The the the simplest answer would be to say that the new construction adjacent to the sheriff's facility would be the more expensive.

I do not think it will be overly challenging to come back to you in pretty short order.

not transcribed≈9s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
not transcribed≈15s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen

2:22 – 2:275 turns

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.882:22:24 · ≈ 11:22 AM

60, 90 day. I go with 60. Go ahead. Supervisor Hartman?

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.842:22:28 · ≈ 11:22 AM

Thank you Mr. Chair. Well, I think there are a couple of issues. One is separation and I think we already decided that but to review my reasons the borderless response as well as the training of dispatchers and very different dispatch training for fire as opposed to law enforcement And I think that makes it easier to recruit and retain dispatchers, which is a very high priority. So I continue to support and not eager to revisit the issue of whether the two dispatch centers should be operated separately, fire and law enforcement. Then the question of location, and we really don't have an ideal option here. I think ideally yes, we would want to have something more redundant in another location. I look at where, I can't remember who but listed all the disasters and the fires they disproportionately by a huge margin are in South County.

Now I realize dispatch doesn't have to be where the disaster is but I think when you're coordinating with other jurisdictions it tends to be a gathering place So I think having some redundant capability in North County is really extremely important for obvious reasons, but I hope we can begin to look at that and perhaps incorporate that into our cost estimates or what we would need in a long-term strategy.

Whether we would do option one or option three, I think the Austin model as you say has been ruled out. But it seems to me that there would be real advantages at the EOC When you're managing an emergency and we're not quite sure where we're going to locate the EOC function organizationally, but that putting those together would make a lot of sense. And that there would be opportunities for people to use that in a larger capacity where they co-located.

I know that the participation of other fire districts is extremely important to whatever financial cushion we might have here. I know it's been supported by the different fire chiefs throughout the county, but we haven't had an opportunity to hear from the elective bodies. Don't have any cost to put before them either so I am hopeful that they will be supportive and that we can reduce the costs. I think one of the key things I want to emphasize is that we have to backfill for the sheriff's budget whatever dispatch and keep that high on everybody's I just want to say look. It just seems like you have a whole county

not transcribed≈8s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
not transcribed≈18s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
PresenterBrittany HeatonProposed · by introduction2:25:54 · ≈ 11:25 AM

There's a whole giant county out here. We should be able to find a spot, you know one would think that you could find a spot other than on top of an existing facility where there isn't enough room already it's already impacted So it seems ridiculous to me that we can't find a spot, especially in the north. You think about when 101 was closed and we were bringing employees up here on boats and flying them and all kinds of crazy things. It's just an ad for dispersing the control mechanisms You know, so you know I just think if we're not going to do that then then I'm back it at one and just just make option one work and and you know I hate to say that because it's it's I feel like I'm throwing a bomb but.

You know I've been trying to get this thing dispersed from the beginning in and And I think it's a good idea. It's just if we can't be executed properly, I'd rather not do it

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.882:27:13 · ≈ 11:27 AM

So just to clarify when you say option one there's a couple different option one So you don't mean option 1 the EOC option one? You mean option one just make everybody get along Yep, push them all back in the same building All right, so let's go to public comment.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed2:27:26 · ≈ 11:27 AM

Chair Labonino members of the board We have one request to speak on this item and we're going to Santa Maria for Andy Caldwell

2:27 – 2:3612 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 17Proposed2:27:35 · ≈ 11:27 AM

Chairman Labadino, members of the board. I've been doing this for 28 years. I'm confused to tell you the truth. One of the things that your staff says is the assumption is that partner agencies will contribute and that makes sense because the county doesn't represent the majority of people in this county, the cities do. And yet Santa Maria, the largest city in the county has a different system.

So how do you have orderless dispatch when the largest city in the North County has a different system than usual? Number two, Walbrook and Guadalupe are flat broke. They can't hardly afford what they're doing right now. So what does that leave you with? Buellton and Solvang is your financial partners? We found the sheriff's objections to be extremely troubling.

And we asked for a different format, but we actually would need a debate to tell you the truth between the sheriff and fire publicly. I know that you guys don't like airing dirty laundry in the Hatfields and McCoys so we went through that for years with the helicopters and the planes. But the bottom line for your sheriff's department to say this is going to put people at risk in slower response time, that's serious.

Because he is the only publicly elected county wide safety professional in the county. So you can't just blow that off. You know, one of the things that I asked four years ago and the board blew me off which is nothing new is mobile command centers. Why do you have brick-and-mortar building if in fact a mobile command center could work and be a fraction of the cost? We might be able to have three to five of them in each valley and region of the area.

The bottom line here is it may be And you don't have capability to share the info, then I think this thing's dead in the water before you've even started. How do you coordinate? Again, answer the question. How do you coordinate with Santa Maria murderously when they have a different system? Wrong booking model would be a broke. So what are we accomplishing here as far as the North County? In the South County, the county should be paying for

PresenterBrittany HeatonProposed · by introduction2:30:41 · ≈ 11:30 AM

Supervisor Adam well I think that can should be addressed what I'm understanding is we there is software technology to marry up Santa Maria's 700 with our 800

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 18Proposed2:30:56 · ≈ 11:30 AM

supervisor Adam that's correct

PresenterBrittany HeatonProposed · by introduction2:30:58 · ≈ 11:30 AM

okay and then Guadalupe is on 800

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 18Proposed2:31:08 · ≈ 11:31 AM

I'm not sure where they are tech technologically.

PresenterBrittany HeatonProposed · by introduction2:31:14 · ≈ 11:31 AM

Okay? Well in any event, they are already tied in so if we could talk to Santa Maria, we can talk to them Yes, sir. So functionally that's gonna work All right supervisor

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.882:31:29 · ≈ 11:31 AM

Hurt

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 19Proposed2:31:30 · ≈ 11:31 AM

Well, it is never easy to do regional collaboration and it's important to do it. So we need to move forward in the next step. Having the other regional fire agencies engaged on the borderless dispatch discussion is really important to public safety and making sure that we have people, the right equipment at the right place as quick as possible. So that's the value added to this whole conversation and how we get there Is the next step and all we're doing today is saying we're going to take the next step. We're going to get the information that is going to be created by staff to determine the relative costs of these two options, which will inform the next conversation with the regional partners as to what the cost sharing will be. We can't go to our other partners and have a significant substantive conversation until we have some real numbers about costs and what the implications of that are.

So all we're doing today is affirming the previous decisions to move forward on this path, to encourage regional collaboration. Move toward borderless dispatch and the fundamental information that's come forward since the last time this was discussed is the conversation with the city of Santa Maria about using their facility. And I appreciate the tour that I got at the City of Santa Maria.

The engagement of the city staff there, it's a very impressive facility state-of-the-art. Very capable and the potential to doing it as a regional facility was obviously designed in the first place but the challenge for fire dispatch is the difference in equipment and it isn't technically insurmountable problem But it is a challenge that introduces complexity in a mutual aid situation, particularly when engaging with CAL FIRE and all the various different fire agencies from all over the western United States who have been here helping us cope with significant disasters. And we can't have a situation where somebody rolls in, tries to engage and synchronize their radios. And somehow doesn't get on the same page and we have a communications issue in real time in a disastrous situation.

That's the purpose for having the integrated technology that all of the other agencies, fire agencies have. And that's just the reality as it exists. We can't change that by wanting it to be. A facility in the city of Santa Maria. So I think this is having staff go forward and cost out options one and three is the logical next step, and I'm supportive of that

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.882:34:00 · ≈ 11:34 AM

Okay, very good You know I hate doing this because I didn't talk to him beforehand But I see chief champion is here from the City of Santa Maria. Oh I would feel better if you could just come I guess you don't really have a choice at this point. If you could just kind of address, well, I'm not going to assume anything so just kind of get your take on where you think that this is going and the ability of us to be able to communicate with you in the future?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 20Proposed2:34:39 · ≈ 11:34 AM

We'll talk later Steve. Okay sorry. So thank you, Supervisors for allowing me to speak and hear Santa Maria's perspective on this issue. It has been a long conversation for sure we've had multiple partners come through and tour our center. And I've said this multiple times, I wish we would have had this conversation years ago when we were looking at facing the same situation that you are doing today. I will say this, that the gentlemen in the back of this room are united. We have one voice and that we do want and see the value of one dispatch center being able to dispatch those resources regardless of what jurisdiction, what community you're sharing. Again, the public expects that. And so as we move forward with the details, that's the next step in this conversation but That when Santa Maria took that step to move forward with a regional dispatch center, that was the mindset.

Is that it would be able to talk to other regional dispatch centers throughout California and certainly could support dispatching all the resources here in the county. And so this system was built for that we believe There is a solution still there. We believe that it could be done cheaper, but that is for the elected to decide and determine.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.882:36:09 · ≈ 11:36 AM

But in your mind, it is technically feasible for us to be able to still communicate with you if we had that separate structure and we were able to have borderless dispatch in the North County?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 20Proposed2:36:21 · ≈ 11:36 AM

We believe that if there are the two CAD systems, so we're not all on one primarily. We would like to be all on one CAD system would be the ideal model. If that doesn't exist and is impossible then we have to build that technology to bridge the two. Again it's a plan B obviously nothing that anybody wants but that may end up being the decision in the direction that we go.

2:36 – 2:429 turns

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.882:36:49 · ≈ 11:36 AM

All right, so I see Sheriff's Department shaking their head. And so if you're saying that can't happen in the new one then you're saying it can't happen in the existing one that you have which you told us. So Sol, if you could come up. Thank you, Chief Champion, appreciate it. So your argument is that we don't have that technology and we wouldn't be able to do that?

In the new in the new facility and if that's true, how would you have that technology to be do it in your old system

CommentUnder Sheriff Saul LindverProposedself-stated2:37:20 · ≈ 11:37 AM

chair loving? You know I'll get away from Delta works option one. Okay. I was just reminding us of that Yes in relation to Santa Maria the system they used is a totally separate CAD correct It's not my understanding actually asked the fire guys. It's not a Happy cab that for for the Fire Department Our Tritec, our current CAD has been built to accommodate county fire etc.

If we were to come up with the technology for bridging of the two which is viable I would just say that to me I'm concerned at that being a weak link. I'm not saying it's not possible my concern is it just being a weak link many times vendors Our proprietary and We currently have three systems in the sheriff's office. We have a CAD system an RMS system and a JMS system Different vendors, and we can't get them to communicate with each other My concern would be the weak link if it's feasible And if it can be done and it's up to the other fire services to discuss that or not my concern again It would be a weak link Okay All right

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.882:38:30 · ≈ 11:38 AM

Well, I'm prepared to move as Supervisor Hart said to move with further discussion on options one and three. And the reason being is, I think for the reasons that Supervisor Williams pointed out and It's not my, I am not an expert in dispatch and I'm not an expert in whether or not the sheriff should be in control or fire should be in control. But the only way that we get to borderless dispatch is with all of our sister jurisdictions. And they have weighed in that their preferred option is that we have two separate.

And so whether or not Sheriff will agree with that or not, Come on board. Doesn't seem that way, but I think that's the only way that we really get the entire buy-in and you know the fact that they're all here and in support. I think is critical to what work what we what our stated goal has always been so yeah, I would like to see it built in North County at the same time the EOC we own that property. We were already talking about. I know we've already looked at General Services already look at expanded it for another for other issues And so I think some of the works already been done.

We might be able to build on from there. So all help surprise William says it's like

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 4Proposed2:39:53 · ≈ 11:39 AM

well, I was just going to throw out the idea that maybe we only move forward on option one or I think it would be helpful if we could make one more cast out for a North can't what it would be to just build from scratch in North County facility on on

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.882:40:12 · ≈ 11:40 AM

it would be something to look at and I I would support that motion as well. Mister mulligan.

not transcribed≈35s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 18Proposed2:40:28 · ≈ 11:40 AM

So maybe option one and option 4.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed2:40:57 · ≈ 11:40 AM

Chair Lavagnino and board members, so I'll take responsibility for option three because I talked to ACM and the reason was if we just give you one South County option You have nothing to compare with. I have nothing to compare with as your CEO to understand Is that really the best that we can do? I actually think option 1 will be the most Inexpensive option probably the highest utility for us But I want to be sure of that and so I want to look at what other options we have So that's why I really wanted us to include option 3 also should there be a big event To have to have two Dispatch centers located next to each other. Other counties have done this does have some utility

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 4Proposed2:41:35 · ≈ 11:41 AM

well, I'm If our CEO won't really about it then I'm okay with it But I guess I just want to say I don't prefer it and you know Sounds like just you know on elimination of parking alone It might make Saul's I'm not going to go into the details of that. But I think it's important for us to have an ability to recruit more people harder and that wouldn't be in our interest. So, you know, I'll just put out there that I don't seem to like that one as much as the

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.882:42:08 · ≈ 11:42 AM

others. Okay. There's a motion then 4, 1, 3, and 4 which is the new option of exploring one more time if there's

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

2:42 – 2:5619 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 18Proposed2:42:25 · ≈ 11:42 AM

Chair Levine, that process is underway anyway so we can easily come back to you with at least some rough cost estimates. They may not be exact but they'll be some I think solid estimates

PresenterBrittany HeatonProposed · by introduction2:42:40 · ≈ 11:42 AM

Okay, Supervisor Adam. Well there's gonna be a cost per square foot that's a rough estimate cost per square foot and that's probably not going to change anywhere you build it and then it's going to be down to the cost per square foot of the land if you have to buy something new. If you want to use something at the Foster Road campus or someplace else that we already own then maybe that's not

not transcribed≈26s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.882:43:10 · ≈ 11:43 AM

We have a

PresenterBrittany HeatonProposed · by introduction2:43:11 · ≈ 11:43 AM

motion

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.882:43:11 · ≈ 11:43 AM

from Supervisor

PresenterBrittany HeatonProposed · by introduction2:43:12 · ≈ 11:43 AM

Williams. A second. Mr. Gazzone.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.882:43:40 · ≈ 11:43 AM

Okay, we have a motion and second. Do we need a roll call? Are we good? Okay all those in favor? Aye. Anybody opposed? Passes unanimously and we hope to see that back closer to 60 days than 90 so All right, we are going to take our last item before lunch So you want to read item four in please

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed2:44:05 · ≈ 11:44 AM

Sure

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.882:44:07 · ≈ 11:44 AM

We're still We still have a meeting. Sorry, go ahead.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed2:44:14 · ≈ 11:44 AM

Chair Lavanino and members of the board. Departmental item number four is from Public Works. It is a hearing to consider recommendations regarding measure A program of projects for fiscal year 2019 through 2020. Mr. Sneddon?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 21Proposed2:44:29 · ≈ 11:44 AM

Good morning Chair, members of the Board. Chris Nedden with Public Works Transportation. For this item I'm going to turn it over to Brittany Heaton who's head of our programs and project management in the engineering section and she'll take it from here

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 22Proposed2:44:43 · ≈ 11:44 AM

Thank you, Supervisor Chair Labanino. Good morning. I'm here today to present the Measure A program of projects for fiscal years 19-20 through 23-24. This is a tool that we use to take our revenue of Measure A and plan how we're going to spend it for the next five years. We will go over the ordinance, the Measure 8 ordinance and the investment plan requirements We'll talk a little bit about the Measure A revenues and the distribution countywide, and also within the unincorporated county.

We'll talk about the distribution of our program or projects and where we're spending our money. We'll also get into a little bit about state of the transportation system, and then move into our final recommendations. The Measure A ordinance was approved by voters in 2008 along with an investment plan And the requirements included in that ordinance are that we adopt, that every jurisdiction that receives Measure A funding adopts a five year program of projects. That gets incorporated into a master document that is ultimately adopted by the Santa Barbara County Association of Governments.

We also are required to certify our annual maintenance of effort funding allocation. The maintenance of effort is discretionary funding that a jurisdiction has to put into road maintenance, and we need to certify that that's going to remain constant from year-to-year so that measure A is supplementing and not supplanting. Our discretionary funding and then also reaffirm our distribution formulas and the priorities for use of Measure A funding.

So the revenues for 19-20 and then following four years are shown here on this slide. Specifically for 19-20, we're looking at approximately seven million dollars coming to the unincorporated county. Measure A is bifurcated north and south and so there's a hard line that I'll show on a next slide between In the north will receive approximately or estimated received 3.3 million dollars and in the south, $3.7 million in fiscal year 1920.

You can see from this chart that there are some, the estimates are looking at going downward as we move forward. There's a couple things affecting those revenues. And assumed spending slowdown in the next couple years. We have some slower growth in our county and generally, and the consultant that SBK uses to project their estimates is looking at things kind of staying pretty flat for the next few years. And then in fiscal year 21-22 there was an assumed bonding Of Measure A funds for the Highway 101 widening as well as to keep the whole program going.

And recently, the SBK Board adopted an option that would push that bonding out so next year when we come back to you, the revenue estimate should reflect that and we'll see a spike, a little bit of a spike but between 21-22 and 22-23, It's $600,000 or roughly a little less than 10% of our revenues. So here's the map that I was referring to. The various shades are obviously the different districts, so you can see we have a blend of Districts 1, 2 and 3 in the South County and then 1, 3, 4 and 5 in the North County.

In the north part of our county, our Measure A revenues are distributed 100% by lane miles. So Measure A revenues come to the unincorporated county by population purely. That's in the ordinance. That's what the voters approved. Then once it gets to the county, the north revenues are distributed 100% by lane miles and there are over 1100 lane miles in the North County.

And then in the south part of the county we distribute 50% by population and 50% by lane miles and there are roughly 500 lane miles in the south part of the county. This slide also talks about the requirement that we need to spend 10% of our revenues on alternative transportation. This would include pedestrian facilities, bike facilities, transit and that is for both north and south.

So our program of projects, which is attachment B in your packet Is broken up by various large groupings and those groupings include Operations which is our annual roadway maintenance and repair. That's the things that are wrote that's done out of our roadyards every year It's all of the emergency opening work when there's a storm it's and debris removal. It would be surface preparation for various Projects that we're doing throughout the year like crack ceiling and concrete repair, shoulder repair, mowing. So this is the day-to-day work that our crews do to keep the roads safe and operable.

84% of our Measure A revenues are programmed to be spent in that area. 13% of our funds are going to alternative transportation. So I just said that we needed to spend 10, so we're meeting that 10%, plus a little more. And then 3% is going into pavement preservation, so into our various capital maintenance programs. Usually there's a little bit of pavement when we're doing capital improvements and so we'll use some of the measure A to leverage a grant or something like that.

And then less than 1% is going into big capital improvement at the county, just for the county revenues. Now we're just going to get into a little bit about the state of our transportation system. This slide compares last fiscal year's backlogs, so we talk a lot about our deferred maintenance backlog and then it compares it to this year's and we have various components that we look at. We look at pavement, hardscape and trees, so that's concrete mostly for when we're talking about hardscape bridges and various structures, drainage structures like culverts And then traffic devices. So that includes everything from signs, signals, guardrail and even striping.

So you can see that we stayed flat for the most part in our backlog. We're at $315 million. That's our deferred maintenance backlog for transportation. Some of the components went up. We actually saw a reduction in our pavement backlog. And you can see also that below that chart we're showing the pavement degradation curve. This year where our pavement condition index, that's the PCI is at a 57 and that is the same as last year so we held flat on our payment condition index. So we are in the fair kind of Trending downward to poor on that curve. But we're holding steady at 57, and that's system wide.

not transcribed≈9s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.882:52:15 · ≈ 11:52 AM

Missy? I have a question on that. So on the pavement component of the backlog, how with the storm damage and everything that increased more maintenance, how did we reduce the backlog?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 22Proposed2:52:32 · ≈ 11:52 AM

On pavement in particular, so Chair Lavagnino our PCI was maintained by really reducing some of the thoroughness of the structural prep that we do. So we're taking our funding, the 18% unallocated growth, the SB1 and we're doing surface treatments throughout the county to cover more surface area because the pavement condition index is a measure of the surface and the driving surface Underneath the structural components, you can't see that because that's not how PCI is measured. So we feel that over time we've been spending our money, we've been doing a good job of spreading it out and doing more surface area.

That keeps our PCI steady and it can even increase our PCI because we're really looking at surface treatments throughout the county. We've been doing a lot of what we call preventive treatments. Is that. Do you

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.882:53:38 · ≈ 11:53 AM

know I don't want to channel Supervisor Adam here too much but I think OK well I just it is for us to have our backlog go down. I don't know if we spent 10 million dollars first off on pavement preservation last year so we're 151 million dollar backlog. We had storm damage that did I think it said somewhere in the report like $14 million worth of damage, 12 or $14 million worth of additional damage. But somehow our backlog went down to 141 million and hey, you know, I'll be the first one. I like good news but I want to make sure it's accurate and for me to tell people that our pavement component backlog dropped by 7% last year, I got to understand it a little bit better because it doesn't make common sense to me.

not transcribed≈21s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 21Proposed2:54:26 · ≈ 11:54 AM

Thank you. Thank you. The funding that we've been using on for that is a separate funding source than the ongoing maintenance source. So, we've been keeping on track with our ongoing maintenance over here and then adjusting the storm damage separately. And the storm damage doesn't really have a direct impact on PCI because the PCI is for 1,650 lane miles and the storm damage is covering maybe 10 miles or less of that. Right. So

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.882:55:13 · ≈ 11:55 AM

I don't really care too much about the PCI. I'm looking more at the pavement backlog index. I mean, not the index but the pavement backlog and I just don't understand how we reduced it.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 21Proposed2:55:24 · ≈ 11:55 AM

Right so that's partly because when you're looking at that it's based on a 10 year model done by our asset management database and it's feeding the current PCI readings into it in addition to other factors including spending models And so the backlog like last year or years prior. We're taking assumption rates of spending that were lower than they are now because of the 18% growth formula and SB1 funding that's coming in, and then it projects it out over 10 years. So if you start with a higher funding level over those ten years, It's going to calculate a lower backlog for you than it would if you're saying say you're spending 3 million dollars a year versus spending 8 million. So you still have a really big backlog, it's just not quite as big because you have your spending more on it and it's actually been holding together We're going to start to see that change now that it's if we continue to get these higher rain seasons once we start doing the inspection

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.882:56:31 · ≈ 11:56 AM

I never knew that model that number was modeled. I thought that was just like an inventory of we have a 151 million dollars worth

2:56 – 3:0013 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 21Proposed2:56:43 · ≈ 11:56 AM

So what it would say is if you could, if you spent 151 or 141 now million dollars today that would bring everything up to where it needs to be. But in reality that's not the way that you program funding because we don't ever get 150 million dollars so we stretch it out over 10 years with the funding we have and we see what that total is.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.882:57:07 · ≈ 11:57 AM

You know it just doesn't make any sense

PresenterBrittany HeatonProposed · by introduction2:57:08 · ≈ 11:57 AM

because last year you guys told us that we

not transcribed≈13s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 21Proposed2:57:29 · ≈ 11:57 AM

So there's two numbers we look at. One is to hold the PCI and one is to get the PCI to 70, which is what we aim for but we give the number for backlogged to stay at 57 versus to increase it to 70. That came out of the discussions in the 2012 time frame with Measure M and things like that. That's when it started being reported as the two-hold current is the number that people were discussing at that time.

PresenterBrittany HeatonProposed · by introduction2:58:02 · ≈ 11:58 AM

Well, I was just trying to stop the bleeding. Yeah, that it doesn't make a lot of sense to me either. And you know given the fact that you told us that we had $25 million worth of maintenance deferred last year or we added 25 million to the number coming in with 10 million dollars less is just I don't even know what the hell that means. It means we

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.882:58:32 · ≈ 11:58 AM

need to allocate 141 million get it done this year and then we won't have any deferred All right. So

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 21Proposed2:58:40 · ≈ 11:58 AM

I mean the take away. Yeah, it I mean that I guess the good news is things perform better over the last year than their projections were but and then bottom line is it's a big number where there's a big number or a big numbers still a big number.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 22Proposed2:59:05 · ≈ 11:59 AM

Just to wrap this up then, we're looking at a couple of recommendations today. We have a resolution for this year's program project so 19-20 through 23-24. We need to adopt that resolution as part of the ordinance requirement. We are also reaffirming the existing distribution that I discussed in the north and south counties. We have an original resolution from 2010 when Measure A came online that your board approved to, that established priorities. And so we will reaffirm that today and then finally direct staff to prepare the 1920 road maintenance annual plan. We've already started some of that preparation. We've met with your offices and you've looked at some of our street lists but this will, your direction today will allow us to finalize that and bring it back to you in June.

And then we have our standard CEQA notice of exemption. Those are our recommendations today.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.883:00:04 · ≈ 12:00 PM

Okay, do we have any public comment? Thank

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 22Proposed3:00:05 · ≈ 12:00 PM

you.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.883:00:06 · ≈ 12:00 PM

Thank you, sorry.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed3:00:08 · ≈ 12:00 PM

Chair Levine, no members of the board, we have no request to speak.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.883:00:10 · ≈ 12:00 PM

No requests to speak. Can I get a motion to move the recommended items? So moved. Motion's been made and seconded. All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Passes unanimously. Thank you very much, appreciate it. Thanks for responding to questions. Mr. Gazzone, closed session.

3:00 – 3:133 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 7Proposed3:00:32 · ≈ 12:00 PM

Chair and supervisors, today in closed session the board is noticed for three items which will take a total of about one hour. The first is a matter of existing litigation, the Southern California Fire Cases which is a coordinated complex litigation with proceeding case number 4965 Los Angeles Superior Court. The next is one matter of anticipated litigation with significant exposure to civil litigation. And the third is conference with labor negotiators concerning Deputy District Attorney's Association. Again my estimate is about one hour total.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.883:01:02 · ≈ 12:01 PM

Okay, let the record reflect that we are leaving at 1159 instead of 12. I'm sorry. All right? We'll be back. Good luck,

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed3:01:13 · ≈ 12:01 PM

Greg. Music Thank you. You. Yeah. You. Music you Hello.

3:14 – 3:522 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 23Proposed3:14:15 · ≈ 12:14 PM

Hello everyone. Music playing . .

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed3:16:13 · ≈ 12:16 PM

. . Hello. . . Hello. you you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Yeah. Thank you. you You. You. Hi. you Hello.

3:53 – 4:092 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 23Proposed3:53:41 · ≈ 12:53 PM

Hello everyone.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed3:54:38 · ≈ 12:54 PM

Music playing . . The . . . . . Hello. Hi. You. Thank you. Yeah. You.

4:12 – 4:143 turns

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.884:12:45 · ≈ 1:12 PM

Yeah. All right, I'd like to reconvene this meeting of the County Board of Supervisors. Mr. Gazzani can we get a report out of closed session please?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 7Proposed4:13:49 · ≈ 1:13 PM

Chair and supervisors today in closed session the board considered three matters. One matter of existing litigation, the Southern California Fire Cases which are complex coordinated proceeding case number 4965 Los Angeles Superior Court. Second item was one matter of significant exposure to civil litigation. And the third was conference with labor negotiators concerning Deputy District Attorney's Association. There are no reportable actions.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.884:14:11 · ≈ 1:14 PM

All right, I'd like to adjourn this meeting. We'll reconvene May 14th at Santa Maria at 9 o'clock. Thank you.