Board of Supervisors — 2020-04-13

COVID-19 Update and Public Health Response

• Public Health reported 267 total cases with hospitalization and ICU levels leveling off, noting that social distancing measures are currently effective.
• Staff outlined a four-track strategy for the Lompoc Federal Prison, including securing a state hospital unit and offering testing to staff.
• The Board received the file and standard CEQA declaration for this item.

FY 2020-2021 Budget General Overview

• The CEO presented a status quo budget developed prior to the pandemic, highlighting a projected two-quarter recession and significant revenue risks in sales and transient occupancy taxes.
• Staff proposed using cannabis tax revenue growth and strategic reserves to backfill temporary revenue losses while deferring new major initiatives.
• The Board discussed the procedural timeline for budget adoption, noting that final decisions on spending triggers may be deferred to the fall.

Public Safety Functional Group

• The group represents nearly 50% of the General Fund Contribution and faces revenue declines from Prop 172 and realignment.
• Expansion requests were submitted by the District Attorney, Public Defender, and Sheriff’s Office, including specific funding for cannabis enforcement.
• Board members requested an analysis of jail population versus staffing costs and expressed concern over the elimination of the Isla Vista Community Resources Deputy position.

Health and Human Services Functional Group

• Staff presented financials showing the group accounts for 41% of county FTEs, with key challenges including expanded Medi-Cal eligibility and funding risks.
• The Behavioral Wellness department proposed a "better than AOT" program focusing on intensive outreach and housing placement rather than judicial mandates.
• Public commenters strongly advocated for the permanent adoption and funding of the Assisted Outpatient Treatment (AOT) program.

Community Resources and Public Facilities Functional Group

• The group faces challenges related to cannabis permitting, deferred maintenance, and homelessness response, with operating expenditures at 19% of the county total.
• Expansion requests included funding for Community Services, Planning and Development planners, and Public Works road maintenance.
• Staff explained that delaying the Environmental Control Action Plan (ECAP) would impact the Environmental Impact Report and new emission reduction goals.

General Government and Support Services Functional Group

• Key challenges include implementing the public safety radio network and managing capital maintenance projects.
• Expansion requests were made by the Clerk Recorder Assessor, General Services, Human Resources, and Treasurer Tax Collector for additional staffing.
• Staff confirmed that resources are already allocated for the Treasurer to handle housing conservatorships related to the AOT program.

Policy and Executive Functional Group

• The group holds 24% of the General Fund Contribution, largely for county-wide projects like the strategic reserve and Northern Branch Jail.
• Expansion requests included funding for emergency management consultants, a County Counsel legal professional, and a cannabis oversight analyst.
• Board members discussed the cost of interpreting board meetings in Spanish to improve accessibility.

Library Services Special Issue

• Staff presented a $1.3 million request to address status quo deficits and meet minimum service standards recommended by the ad hoc committee.
• The Board discussed the recurring nature of library deficits due to the lack of a permanent funding plan, which the committee is currently developing.
• Public commenters advocated for continued funding, citing the essential nature of library services and the specific deficits in unincorporated areas.

Planning and Development Long-Range Work Program

• Staff presented three options for funding the 2020-2023 work program, ranging from adding two project managers to using one-time consultant funding.
• Option 2 involved using consultants for housing law updates and coastal short-term rentals while delaying other projects to the next fiscal year.
• Board members generally preferred Option 1 to avoid delaying revenue-generating projects, though some requested to see the full budget context first.

Budget Resolution and Library Funding Motion

• The Board adopted staff’s recommended actions A through D for the FY 2020-2021 budget development workshops.
• A motion to direct staff to include the library deficit in the recommended June budget passed, separating it from the additional planning staff request.
• The meeting was adjourned until Tuesday, April 21, 2020.

Closed Session

• The Board considered a matter of conference with real property negotiators regarding potential conservation easements near San Miguelito Road and Sudden Road.
• Staff reported that there were no reportable actions taken during the session.

Meeting Opening and Announcements

• The Chair called the April 13, 2020, meeting of the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors and budget workshops to order. The Clerk called the roll, confirming all members were present. The Board recited the Pledge of Allegiance. The Clerk announced there were no changes to the agenda, provided information on public participation via email or phone, and noted that media participation in the hearing room was permitted. There were no requests for public comment on items not on the agenda.

Departmental Item No. 1: Hearing to Consider Recommendations Regarding a Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Update

• The County Executive Office presented a hearing to consider recommendations regarding a COVID-19 update. The Public Health Department reported that as of the previous day, the county had 267 total cases, with 162 active, 105 recovered, and two deaths. Case distribution was provided by area, noting the City of Santa Maria and the Lompoc Federal Prison reported the highest numbers. Hospitalization and ICU levels were described as leveling off, with ICU occupancy steady between 17 and 18. Data on age distribution indicated a significant number of cases in the 30–49 age group. A model from Los Angeles County illustrated the projected impact of physical distancing on case spread, indicating that maintaining current distancing measures would result in lower infection rates compared to reducing or eliminating them. The presenter stated that social distancing was working and that Governor’s Executive Order N33-20 would remain in effect until further notice. Local health officer orders could be more restrictive but not less restrictive. The presenter discussed ongoing conversations with the California Department of Public Health (CDPH) regarding criteria for lifting orders and the complexities of testing, including supply shortages and varying efficacy of serology tests.
• Supervisors asked questions regarding mask mandates in grocery stores, hospital capacity thresholds for activating alternate care sites, and the concept of herd immunity. The Public Health Department stated that mask requirements for grocery stores were currently up to individual businesses but that the county was considering expanding face-covering mandates through health officer orders. Hospital capacity was cited at approximately 699 beds, with alternate care sites planned to be activated at 50% capacity. The department noted that herd immunity requires a high percentage of the population to be exposed or vaccinated, which has not yet been achieved.
• Public comment was received from three individuals. One commenter asked about mental health statistics, including suicides and overdoses, related to the stay-at-home order. Another commenter cautioned against prematurely lifting physical distancing measures, citing the county’s position relative to the epidemic curve and the limitations of external data analysis. A third commenter raised concerns about the rapid increase in cases at the Lompoc Federal Prison and asked about county coordination with the Bureau of Prisons.
• In response to the comments, the Public Health Department stated that it was coordinating with the Lompoc prison leadership on a four-track effort: securing a self-contained hospital unit from the state, offering testing to prison staff, implementing disease containment measures, and coordinating with state and federal officials. The department also stated it would work with behavioral health, the Sheriff, and the District Attorney’s offices to track data on domestic violence, child abuse, and unemployment impacts.
• The Chair thanked the presenter and noted the complexity of communicating scientific and logistical challenges to the public. The Chair and Supervisors discussed the importance of collective action in flattening the curve.

Motion and Vote

• A motion was made and seconded to receive the file and the standard CEQA declaration for Departmental Item No. 1. The motion passed unanimously.

Fiscal Year 2020-2021 Budget Workshops: General Overview

• The County Executive Officer (CEO) presented the general overview for the FY 2020-2021 budget workshops. The CEO noted that the information presented was developed prior to the COVID-19 health emergency and represented a status quo budget. The purpose of the workshops was to provide an overview of preliminary information, discuss pandemic impacts, summarize departmental budgets, and receive input. The CEO outlined the agenda, which included trends in revenue and expenditures, fiscal issues, functional groups, and special issues on libraries and the planning and development long-range work program.
• An analyst from the CEO’s office presented the evolving economic outlook based on UCLA Anderson forecasts. The forecast indicated a two-quarter recession with a drop in GDP of approximately 6.5% to 7.5%. Unemployment in California was expected to peak at over 16%, with approximately 2.2 million jobs lost. The leisure and hospitality, transportation, and warehousing sectors were expected to be severely impacted. The forecast assumed that stay-at-home orders would abate in the summer; any extension would prolong recessionary impacts.
• The CEO discussed revenue sources at risk, including transient occupancy tax (TOT), sales tax, gas tax, and interest income. Cannabis tax revenues were not expected to decline. Property tax revenue trends were presented, noting that Santa Barbara County had not experienced negative growth in previous recessions. The CEO outlined the county’s strategy: ensuring continuity of government, reducing impacts to the community and employees, maintaining status quo budgets where possible, deferring major initiatives, and refraining from granting budget expansions. Funds carried over from the previous year were set aside in reserves to mitigate impacts. The CEO noted that the county would return in the fall for mid-year reductions if required and would seek federal and state assistance.
• The Budget Director presented details on the preliminary budget, noting that it was built on pre-COVID revenue and cost estimates. The budget fully funded board commitments, including the Northern Branch Jail Operating Fund, 18% deferred maintenance funding, the fire tax shift, and the county strategic reserve. The Budget Director identified revenue categories susceptible to impact, including sales tax, TOT, unsecured property tax, interest income, Prop 172, realignment revenues, gas tax, and Mental Health Services Act (MHSA) revenues. Strategies to address revenue losses included using cannabis tax revenue growth to backfill losses, utilizing the strategic reserve, seeking federal and state assistance, and developing contingency plans.
• On the expense side, the Budget Director identified costs associated with response activities (e.g., emergency operations center, shelters, procurement of medical supplies) and increased demand for safety net services. Preliminary budget figures showed projected increases in total operating revenues, general fund operating revenues, discretionary general revenue, property tax, TOT, and sales tax, all of which were noted as subject to change due to the pandemic. The average cost per employee was cited at approximately $153,000 for about 4,300 FTEs.
• The Budget Director detailed the allocation of cannabis tax revenues, which are categorized into enforcement costs, tax collection and program administration costs, and one-time purposes. The current thinking involved setting aside $3 million for upfront COVID-19 response costs, $7 million for discretionary revenue loss backfill, and 18% for the maintenance policy. Four expansion requests for cannabis tax revenue were noted from the DA, Sheriff, CEO, and Treasurer Tax Collector, totaling approximately $1.8 million.
• The Budget Director discussed deferred maintenance funding, including the 18% policy adopted in 2014 and baseline funding for public works, general services, and parks. The preliminary budget included allocations for prioritized projects through the Capital Improvement Program (CIP), including building infrastructure replacement and the new Cuyama Sheriff Substation.
• Fiscal issues were categorized into three groups: those addressed in the preliminary budget (deferred maintenance, public safety radio communication system, escalating liability costs, electric vehicle fleet conversion), those submitted as expansion requests by departments (not recommended for grant due to fiscal uncertainty), and those not yet addressed (records management system for the Sheriff, 340B prescription revenues). The Budget Director noted that the public safety radio communication system project was expected to cost approximately $45 million, with debt service set aside in the preliminary budget.
• The CEO mentioned that the Governor’s January budget bill remained active but not yet passed. The presentation concluded with a transition to the functional groups section of the budget workshops.

Budget Workshop Presentation – General Discussion and Process

• Board members and staff discussed the allocation of marijuana tax revenue, with one member noting that libraries were excluded from previous one-time allocations and suggesting that maintaining status quo funding should include all departments. Another member inquired about the procedural timeline, distinguishing between the current presentation, the June budget hearings, and potential mid-year (December) adjustments. Staff explained that the preliminary budget is due in May for June hearings, with further information to be provided as it becomes available. Staff indicated that triggers for spending or holding back funds could be established in June, with final decisions potentially deferred to the fall or winter.
• A member asked whether the use of cannabis tax revenue for ongoing services constitutes a policy change or a temporary suspension. Staff clarified that the recommendation is to use cannabis revenue as a one-time backfill for temporary revenue losses (realignment and sales tax), adhering to the board’s existing policy intent that cannabis revenue is for one-time use, not ongoing operations.
• Staff explained the Budget Act requirements, noting that funding sources must equal financing uses. They outlined the process for estimating revenues and the timeline for adopting the budget resolution, noting that any actions after the final adoption require a forfeits vote.
• A member pointed out an apparent contradiction in the board letter regarding the maintenance of current staffing levels versus the deferral of major initiatives. Staff clarified that the intent is to defer new major initiatives while continuing to fund existing board-directed initiatives (e.g., Northern Branch Jail, fire tax shift) and maintaining service levels to the extent possible. Another member raised concerns about potential declines in property tax revenues due to increased bankruptcies and reassessments by hotel owners.
• Public comment was received from five individuals:
• Renee O’Neill (Letter): Expressed support for the Assisted Outpatient Treatment (AOT) program, increased staffing for Planning and Development and the Sheriff’s Cannabis Enforcement Team, and support for the Fire Department.
• Joe Armendariz (Letter, on behalf of Santa Barbara County Taxpayers Association): Urged the board to streamline permitting and approval processes to facilitate business reopening and revenue generation, suggesting the creation of a task force to study local regulations.
• Andy Caldwell (Phone): Questioned the designation of all county jobs as "essential," noted that other local governments were laying off staff, and criticized the board for not addressing non-essential positions. He also cited a decline in the pavement index and urged the board to address essential vs. non-essential employees to avoid future cuts to core services.
• Erica Goodfellow (Phone): Inquired about the county’s plan for reopening businesses and expressed concern about the impact of the economic shutdown on domestic violence, suicide, mental health, and unemployment.

Departmental Functional Group Summaries

1. Public Safety Functional Group

• Departments Included: Court, Special Services, District Attorney, Fire, Probation, Public Defender, and Sheriff’s Office.
• Key Challenges: Declines in Prop 172 and realignment revenues; legislative changes affecting revenue and workload; high demand for data storage due to video footage; coordination needs for video arraignment; recruitment and retention issues; and the Sheriff’s DSU model for law enforcement contracts.
• Financials: The group receives approximately $142.1 million in General Fund Contribution (GFC), representing nearly 50% of the county total. Operating expenditures are $374 million (approx. 1/3 of county total). FTEs are just over 1,500 (36% of county total).
• Service Level Reductions: Probation reduced one deputy probation officer position (approx. $127,000) due to state revenue shortfalls. The Sheriff’s Office reduced three positions (3 FTE, approx. $580,500) and requested restoration of these funds.
• Expansion Requests:
• District Attorney: 3.5 FTE, approx. $460,000 ongoing GFC.
• Public Defender: 6 FTE, approx. $420,000 ongoing GFC and $475,000 one-time.
• Sheriff’s Office: 37 FTE, approx. $5.5 million ongoing GFC and $1.7 million one-time (including a correction to make a $100,000 dispatch governance request one-time instead of ongoing).
• Cannabis-Specific: District Attorney requested a truck ($41,000 one-time, $5,000 ongoing); Sheriff’s Office requested a new cannabis enforcement team (6 FTE, $1.2 million ongoing, $300,000 one-time).
• Board Comments: A member expressed concern about the elimination of the Isla Vista Community Resources Deputy position, citing its positive impact on local statistics. Another member requested staff analyze the relationship between jail population, staffing, and overtime costs to identify potential savings.
• Public Comment: No requests to speak.

2. Health and Human Services Functional Group

• Departments Included: Behavioral Wellness, Child Support Services, First 5 Santa Barbara, Public Health Department, and Social Services.
• Key Challenges: Operational and fiscal impacts of COVID-19; risks to funding streams (MHSA, realignment); expanded eligibility for services (e.g., Medi-Cal expansion for seniors, Healthier California for All); and succession planning.
• Financials: The group receives $24.4 million in GFC (8% of county total). Operating expenditures are $419 million (approx. 1/3 of county total). FTEs are just over 1,700 (41% of county total).
• Expansion Requests: Public Health (Animal Services) requested 2.5 FTE, approx. $240,000 ongoing GFC and $7,300 one-time.
• AOT Program Discussion: A member asked about remaining pilot funds and the cost impact of using the judicial component of AOT. Staff noted the department is not requesting GFC expansion for this program. Dr. Fisher (Behavioral Wellness) explained that the three-year pilot found intensive outreach and engagement reduced negative life events, while the "black robe effect" (judicial mandate) had mixed results. The department proposed a "better than AOT" program with expanded eligibility criteria to include referrals from concerned citizens, focusing on intensive outreach and housing placement.
• Public Comment:
• Celia Ramirez (Letter): Thanked the board for funding the AOT program, citing its success in helping her son return to medication and stability.
• Anna Campbell (Letter): Advocated for the permanent adoption and funding of Laura’s Law (AOT), citing its effectiveness in reducing hospitalizations and incarcerations.
• Tricia Thompson (Letter): Shared her son’s story of recovery through AOT and urged the board to provide permanent funding for the program.
• Lynn Gibbs (Phone, NAMI Public Policy Committee): Highlighted the success of diversion programs and the AOT pilot, and urged for full adoption, expansion to North County, and improved referrals.
• George Kaufman (Phone, NAMI): Recognized the teamwork between county departments and the community in serving vulnerable populations with serious mental illness, and urged the board to approve provisions for AOT, CIT training, and co-response teams.

3. Community Resources and Public Facilities Functional Group

• Departments Included: Agricultural Commissioner, Weights and Measures, Community Services Department, Planning and Development, and Public Works.
• Key Challenges: Cannabis permitting and enforcement; new state mandates (Industrial Hemp); staffing issues; COVID-19 impacts (overnight camping closures, restaurant revenue declines, gas tax revenue drops); deferred maintenance backlog; and homelessness response.
• Financials: The group receives $20.3 million in GFC (7% of county total). Operating expenditures are $224 million (19% of county total). FTEs are approx. 522 (12% of county total).
• Expansion Requests:
• Community Services: 1.5 FTE, approx. $1.7 million ongoing and $2 million one-time (including a library-related request).
• Planning and Development: 2 planners, approx. $260,000 ongoing.
• Public Works: $4.2 million ongoing for deferred road maintenance.
• ECAP Discussion: A member asked what would be delayed if the Environmental Control Action Plan (ECAP) work was not moved forward. Staff (via a department representative) explained that the delay would affect the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and the development of new 2030 emission reduction goals, with consultant costs estimated between $500,000 and $750,000.
• Public Comment: No requests to speak.

4. General Government and Support Services Functional Group

• Departments Included: Auditor Controller, Clerk Recorder Assessor, General Services, Northern Branch Jail Project, Human Resources, Treasurer Tax Collector, Public Administrator, and Debt Service.
• Key Challenges: Implementation of public safety radio network; capital maintenance projects; IT systems support; employee training and retention; legislative changes impacting elections; and potential revenue impacts from COVID-19.
• Financials: The group receives $38.3 million in GFC (13% of county total). Operating expenditures are $105.5 million (approx. 10% of county total). FTEs are 355 (approx. 8% of county total).
• Expansion Requests:
• Clerk Recorder Assessor: 1 Department Business Specialist, $114,000 ongoing.
• General Services: 2 FTE for contracts and HR management, $325,000 ongoing and $7,500 one-time.
• Human Resources: 1 Department Business Specialist, $116,000 ongoing.
• Treasurer Tax Collector: 1 Financial Office Professional Expert for North County office, $162,000 ongoing; and 1 Financial Office Professional Senior for cannabis tax collection, $128,000 ongoing.
• AOT/Housing Conservatorship: A member asked if resources were allocated for the Treasurer (as Public Guardian) to handle housing conservatorships related to AOT. Staff responded that the board had already added a position in the current fiscal year to enhance the Treasurer’s ability to respond, and that departments work collaboratively to ensure resources are adequate.
• Public Comment: No requests to speak.

5. Policy and Executive Functional Group

• Departments Included: Board of Supervisors, County Counsel, County Executive Office, and General County Programs.
• Key Challenges: Coordinating COVID-19 response and recovery; strategic planning for revenue and expenditure impacts; legal advisory services; litigation; and managing the KPMG operational review.
• Financials: The group receives $71.9 million in GFC (24% of county total), largely held in the General County Programs department for allocation to county-wide projects (strategic reserve, Northern Branch Jail, cannabis tax). Operating expenditures are $55 million (5% of county total). FTEs are approx. 102 (approx. 1% of county total).
• Budget Notes: County Counsel’s GFC increased by approx. $4 million in 2021 due to a policy change capturing costs through the cost allocation plan rather than direct charges. The CEO’s office has high operating revenues due to the Risk Division (general liability and workers' compensation).
• Expansion Requests:
• CEO’s Office (Office of Emergency Management): $275,000 to retain consultants for continuity of operations plans and update emergency management agreements.
• County Counsel: 1 Legal Office Professional, $134,000 ongoing.
• CEO’s Office: 1 Principal Analyst for cannabis oversight, $208,000 ongoing.
• Board Comments: A member suggested considering the cost of interpreting board meetings in Spanish to improve accessibility. Another member agreed to look into the cost.
• Public Comment: No requests to speak.

Closing Remarks and Next Steps

• Staff outlined the next steps in the budget process, emphasizing the use of one-time funds for one-time costs, backfilling discretionary losses, and funding high-priority initiatives. They noted the need to continue evaluating COVID-19 impacts, develop budget reduction and contingency plans, and complete the recommended budget for release in May, leading up to June hearings.
• Board members acknowledged the importance of fiscal responsibility and agility. One member highlighted the benefits of the Renew22 initiative in increasing organizational resilience, citing examples such as video arraignment and remote work. Another member discussed the potential long-term savings from bail reform and the importance of processing cannabis permits quickly to secure revenue and jobs.
• No motions were moved, seconded, or voted on in this section. The meeting proceeded to the next part of the agenda.

Closed Session Report

• The Board reconvened from closed session. Staff reported that the Board had considered one matter of conference with real property negotiators regarding potential conservation easements over properties near the intersection of San Miguelito Road and Sudden Road, southwest of Lompoc. The agency negotiators were General Services Director Jeanette Pell and Planning and Development Director Lisa Plowman. The negotiating party was Daniel Duke for Straus Wind Energy LLC. Staff noted that there were no reportable actions and that Supervisor Adam recused from participation in the matter.

Special Issues: Library Services

• Staff presented an update on the countywide library system, noting that the ad hoc committee formed to establish a long-term equitable and sustainable funding model is not yet complete and will return with a full report prior to the June budget hearings. The presentation covered the unique delivery model involving the county and four city partners, benchmarking results, and projected fiscal year 2021 status quo deficits.
• Staff outlined that the largest cost to address inequities is related to staffing, with recommendations including a minimum of two staff persons present at all times, full-time leads at certain branches, and professional librarians at medium-sized branches. Other recommendations included increasing collections funding to a minimum of $2 per capita, expanding programming, improving technology, and addressing facility needs. The total cost to meet minimum standards was estimated at $670,000. Staff noted that status quo deficits must be addressed before addressing these inequities. The combined request for status quo deficits and the ad hoc committee’s recommended standards totaled approximately $1.3 million. Staff recommended that the Board consider providing additional funding to address status quo gaps while directing staff to seek cost-sharing with city partners, and to consider providing funding above existing levels to work towards the committee’s phase one standards.
• Board members discussed the nature of the request, with Supervisor Williams noting that maintaining the status quo budget involves funding the deficits, which have historically been treated as one-time expenditures. Staff clarified that the recurring nature of the deficits is due to the lack of a permanent funding plan, which the ad hoc committee is developing. Supervisor Hartmann highlighted the value of the ad hoc committee’s work in understanding the different types of libraries and services.
• Public comment was received from eight individuals and six letters were read into the record. Speakers and letter writers generally advocated for continued or increased funding for county branch libraries, citing the essential nature of library services, the financial impact of the pandemic, and the specific deficits faced by branches in unincorporated areas. Several speakers highlighted the efforts of library staff during the pandemic, including mail delivery of books, virtual story times, and job assistance programs.

Special Issues: Planning and Development Long-Range Planning Work Program

• Staff presented the 2020-2023 Work Program for the Long-Range Planning Division, returning to the Board after a March 24 meeting where additional analysis was requested. Staff outlined the division’s responsibilities, staffing levels (4.5 FTEs for required services and 6.5 FTEs for directed work), and current projects, including mandated projects, board-directed projects, and grant-funded projects.
• Staff analyzed the Board’s request regarding whether one-time funding for consultants would allow the division to complete all projects in the work program. The analysis indicated that while consultants could assist with specific tasks such as public outreach, research, and drafting ordinances, project managers were still needed to manage the programs. Staff identified two projects where consultant services would be beneficial: objective design standards for housing (State Density Bonus and Housing Accountability Act amendments) and short-term rentals in the coastal zone.
• Staff presented three options: 1. Option 1: Add two project managers (original request), resulting in long-term capacity expansion. 2. Option 2: Use one-time consultant funding (approx. $125,000) for the housing law updates and coastal short-term rentals, allowing the addition of farm stays and short-term rentals to the work program, while delaying other projects (ag tiered permitting, utility-grade solar, and annual zoning ordinance amendments) to the next fiscal year. 3. Option 3: No additional funding or staffing. This option involved reducing staffing allocation for the state housing law amendments and delaying multiple projects (ag tiered permitting, utility-grade solar, annual zoning ordinance amendments, and potentially farm stays or short-term rentals depending on the sub-option chosen).
• Public comment was received from three individuals. Speakers discussed the importance of cannabis regulation and enforcement, urging the Board to allocate resources to manage cannabis permits and enforcement effectively. One speaker specifically urged the Board to support efforts to identify and enforce against corrupt actors in the cannabis industry and to fix the permitting process to ensure orderly review. Another speaker expressed concern about the long-term ramifications of short-term decisions regarding cannabis and urged the Board to protect future generations.
• Board members discussed the options, with Supervisor Williams expressing a preference for Option 1 (adding staff) to avoid delaying revenue-generating projects like utility-scale solar and farm stays. Supervisor Hartmann agreed with Option 1 if feasible. Supervisor Lavagnino stated he would support Option 1 but wanted to see the entire budget context before making a final decision, noting that other departments also have critical needs.

Motion and Vote

• Supervisor Williams moved to direct staff, to the extent feasible, to include the library deficit and long-term planning staff in the recommended June budget. Supervisor Hartmann seconded the motion.
• Supervisor Lavagnino stated he would not support the motion at this time, preferring to wait for the full budget context in June to ensure all departmental needs are considered equally. Supervisor Williams argued that excluding the library deficit was inconsistent with protecting the status quo for other departments. Supervisor Gunn provided a general comment on the budget process, suggesting a prioritized list of expenditures and more aggressive financial management.
• The Chair clarified the motion to separate the library funding from the additional planning staff request, directing staff to include the library deficit in the recommended June budget. The motion was put to a vote.
• Vote Outcome: The motion passed.

Departmental Item No. 2: FY 2020-2021 Budget Development Workshops

• The Clerk of the Board presented the final business item, which involved taking action on Recommendations A through D from the County Executive Office regarding fiscal year 2020-2021 budget development workshops.
• A motion was made to adopt staff’s recommended actions A through D. The motion was seconded. Following a roll call vote, the motion passed.
• The meeting was adjourned until Tuesday, April 21, 2020.