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.0:03 – 0:0716 turns
The next item of business is approval of the minutes from the January 26, 2021 meeting. Is there any discussion? I will now entertain a motion.
Move approval.
Second. Is there any further discussion from my colleagues? Seeing none, Madam Clerk will you please call the roll?
Roll-call vote Passed 4–0 Move approval. Second. Is there any further discussion from my colleagues? Seeing none, Madam Clerk will you please call the roll?
Show transcript
Motion passes unanimously
CEO Miyasato, is there a CEO's report today?
No report this morning chair.
Thank you Madam Clerk are there any announcements or changes to our agenda today?
Chair Nelson and members of the board yes thank you we have a couple quick announcements this morning for members of the public who are participating in today's meeting I would like to remind them if they turn to page two of today's agenda There is important information regarding public participation via Zoom. Individuals wishing to provide public comment during the Board of Supervisors meeting can do so via Zoom webinar by clicking the available link on page 2 of our agenda.
After registering, you will receive a confirmation email containing information about joining the webinar. Once the chair has announced the item you want to comment on please join the meeting with the information provided in the registration confirmation email. You will be placed on mute until it is your turn to speak. You'll be able to hear the board meeting live after calling in so you can turn off all other streaming devices.
The clerk will call you by name or the last four digits of your phone number. When removed from mute, you will hear a notification that your line has been unmuted. If you're using a touchtone phone, you may need to press star six to unmute yourself. Again if you're using a touchtone phone, you may need to press star six to unmute yourself. After you are unmuted please state your name before beginning your comments and each person may address the board for up to three minutes or at the discretion of the chair.
If you have any questions regarding this process, please call the Clerk of the Board at 805-568-2240. Again that's 805-568-2240 and my final announcement this morning is we posted an addendum to the agenda Adding administrative item A14. This is sponsored by Supervisor Williams and Supervisor Hart, it is to adopt a resolution proclaiming the month of February 2021 as Black History Month in Santa Barbara County.
In addition we amended departmental item number one. Adding an additional recommendation, Recommendation B. Departmental Item 1 is a hearing to consider recommendations regarding an update on the coronavirus disease 2018 COVID-19 update and Recommendation B is to receive and file a presentation on federal and state rental assistance program funding and provide direction as appropriate. This information has been distributed at the board and is also available online.
Thank
you for all my announcements.
Thank you, Madam Clerk. At this moment I'd just like to mention to my colleagues that I think there's some confusion about the potential continuance on item D3. I think we've heard some conflicting requests on whether that should be continued or not. It is my preference to hear that item and give some tentative direction to staff and I just wanted to make sure that my colleagues concurred with that. I'm seeing nods from up here in Santa Barbara. Is everybody comfortable moving forward?
Supervisor Lavigne, I'm fine hearing it.
Great. I don't think we're obligated to take action but I think it'd be good for us to at least have the discussion among the board so not hearing any or seeing of any objections will go ahead and move on but those people in the public that are interested in that item that will likely be heard after lunch today
The next item is approval of the administrative agenda do any board members request to pull any items on the administrative agenda? I'm going to go ahead and pull item A1. Madam Clerk, do we have any members of the public request to pull any items on the administrative agenda?
Chair Nelson and Members of the Board, we have no requests to pull any administrative agenda items from the public but I do believe Supervisor Williams intends to pull Administrative Item 14 this morning.
Okay. We'll take up administrative items pulled in numerical order. But before we do so, can I please get a motion to approve the balance of the administrative agenda except for administrative items A1 and A14?
0:07 – 0:0910 turns
So moved.
Second. Is there any further discussion? Hearing none, Madam Clerk will you please call the roll.
Roll-call vote Passed 4–0 moved. Second. Is there any further discussion? Hearing none, Madam Clerk will you please call the roll.
Show transcript
Motion passes unanimously
Madam Clerk, please read Administrative Item 1 to the record.
Chair Nelson and members of the Board, Administrative Item No.1 is from the County Executive Office. It is to consider recommendations regarding an independent contractor agreement with Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions Inc for the 2022 Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan MJHMP update.
All right, thank you. I just had a comment similar to last week but then I would like a roll call vote on this for my colleagues. Last week I heard from Supervisor Hartman's concerns and the stellar reputation of the planners assigned to the project. I'm sure that's true also with this contract as well. I do want to reiterate that this is not personal and I'm not an obstructionist. That being said, the local planner for this firm has been found by a North County jury to have defrauded the county.
Approving a contract with Woods Environmental is equivalent of the county hiring an audit firm that was led by a former employee that was found embezzled from the county. I feel it's my fiduciary duty and obligation to oppose this contract. Supervisor Hartman?
I move approval of a one please.
Second. Madam clerk, could you please call the roll?
Roll-call vote 0–1 move approval of a one please. Second. Madam clerk, could you please call the roll? · 4 under review
Show transcript
motion passes 4 to 1.
Madam Clerk, please read Administrative Item A-14 of the record.
0:09 – 0:198 turns
Chair Nelson and members of the Board, Administrative Item Number 14 is a resolution sponsored by Supervisor Williams and Supervisor Hart. It is to adopt a resolution proclaiming the month of February 2021 as Black History Month in Santa Barbara County. And receiving this resolution today via Zoom, we have Wendy Sims Moten, Lawanda Lyons-Pruitt, President of Santa Maria Chapter NAACP and Jordan Killebrew, Co-Leader of Healing Justice. Thank you for being with us this morning and I will go ahead and read the resolution.
Whereas the 2021 national theme is the black family representation, identity and diversity. And whereas when Carter G Woodson established Negro History Week in 1926 he realized the importance of providing a theme to focus the attention of the public. In 1976 Negro History Week expanded into Black History Month. The attention has never been to dictate or limit the exploration of the black experience but to bring to the public's attention important developments that merit emphasis And whereas the themes reflect changes in how people of African descent in the United States have viewed themselves, the influence of social movements on racial ideologies and the aspirations of the black community.
And whereas, while the role of the Bach family has been described by some as a microcosm of the entire race, its complexity as the foundation of African American life and history can be seen in numerous debates over how to represent its meaning and typicality from a historical perspective. And whereas the Black family has been a topic of study in many disciplines, history, literature, the visual arts and film studies, sociology, anthropology and social policy.
Its representation identity and diversity have been referenced stereotype and maligned from the days of slavery to our own time. And whereas the black family offers a rich tapestry of images for exploring the African-American past and present, the black family knows no single location since family reunions and genetic ancestry searches testify to the spread of family members across states, nations, and continents.
As family historians dive into archives, online newspapers and census reports to stretch the traditional boundaries of history they discover amazing life stories of their ancestors. Ordinary people who do extraordinary things. These stories inspire new generations and destroy old stereotypes And whereas black history is not just about the struggles black families have been through, but rather it is a time of rejoicing celebrating the accomplishments integrity leadership and determination.
And showing true character we honor history and celebrate progress that we have made. We are resilient and resolute in creating new opportunities for future generations Now, therefore be it hereby ordered and resolved that this Board of Supervisors declares February 2021 as Black History Month and calls on all residents to acknowledge and celebrate with appropriate ceremonies and activities passed and adopted today.
Thank you.
Supervisor Williams? Well I would just ask what our century would be without the moral leadership of persons of conscience from the black community. And though most of the time we limit this to Americans, I would broaden it in my focus on life. What century would we have without the moral leadership of a Martin Luther King Jr., or Fannie Lou Hamer, or Nelson Mandela, or Archbishop Tutu.
It's hard to conceive of our development as a human race in this century without the contributions Black leaders and black history. And so I would say it's representative of a universal yearning of oppressed peoples everywhere, and given the unfortunate state of human affairs for most of its history that's something that all peoples can relate to and look up to.
I would particularly think that in the time that we are in, it's relevant to not only look at the things that we all know about and are aware of some of the leaders perhaps that I mentioned but also look at the blotted out history of the aftermath of the Civil War reconstruction. And the flourishing of black life that took place in the South And how it was blotted out by terrorism and violence.
And a fatigue in the North, a fatigue among voters in the North where they had tired so much of the bloodshed of the war And the terrorism of the KKK that finally they just gave up on the dream of more equal and just America, and they said you know. I guess those Southerners, they can have their peculiar ways. And it was such a betrayal of our ideals that it's something that I think is enormously important to look at in history. I would recommend the most recent issue of Smithsonian for the history of the first congressman from the South, black congressman from the South, the first former slave in Congress, Congressman Rainey.
And say that it should show us that the ramifications of caving to terrorism and caving to violence as a force in a democracy is that justice can be delayed for a century in American life and should make us all resolved to never let terrorism, violence, extra legal means of monopolizing politics to take us, make us stray for a century from justice again.
Thank you Supervisor Williams. Supervisor Hart?
Yes,
Supervisor
Hart? I really appreciate Supervisor Williams remarks, I think he reminds us all of exactly why we need to celebrate Black History Month. It's important for all Americans to understand our national history in regard to race relations and the tremendous history of oppression and violence that has been inflicted on our black neighbors over the course of history And that is exactly the purpose of this month, is to remind people that in order to bridge the racial divide.
We have to reconcile our history and to understand to reconcile our history we have to understand it deeply into into really unveil the trauma and the oppression that has occurred. As a result of white supremacy in the history of our country, but I'm really impressed and and moved by the national theme of this month's Black History Month. The idea that we'd be celebrating the black family and the different perspectives identity and diversity of that That family is very important to to helping flesh out black history, because it is not just a story of oppression is the story of achievement and excellence and and and it is bound in its family. And there are countless examples I'm sure The tremendous community leaders that we have joining us today, Wendy Sims Moten and Jordan Killebrew and Luanda Lyons-Pruitt all have stories to tell about their own families.
They're multi generational families and how each generation has contributed to American history and those stories are replicated across our country. In so many ways that we are not aware of the contributions of African Americans to science and industry and medicine politics. So it is, it is a two pronged effort this month to remind everyone about the tragedies that have occurred in the need to grow and expand into a better future in our relations amongst all people. And also, just as importantly to celebrate the positive achievements and recognize the contributions that African-Americans have made to our country. So this is really a special month I'm glad we're approaching the hundred year anniversary of doing that. And I think that that is an opportunity for us to strive for better bigger things and the activities they're being organized virtually this month are a great springboard for them so thank you.
Thank you, Supervisor Hart and Supervisor Williams. I'd like to go ahead and introduce Wendy Sims-Moulton.
0:19 – 0:275 turns
Good morning. Good morning Chair Nelson and members of the board. It is indeed a pleasure and honor and privilege to be here to present this Black History Resolution. I've been a part of it for over 20 years now and each time I've learned more and more about history that wasn't in books Barbara County Board of Supervisors meeting Barbara County Board of Supervisors meeting And if nothing else, to inspire you to go and research what it is. Black History Resolutions isn't about giving just history but hopefully it's gonna inspire you to go back and find more about it and want to understand more about it because as we understand each other more and more, we will come to a place of understanding. We will come to a place of all Americans without segregating it out by this or that but we are Americans because we're understanding each other and we're taking the opportunity, we're taking the responsibility to research, to honor, to gain a better understanding of each other.
And I would like to end by just saying that the last line is that we are resilient and resolute in creating new opportunities for future generations, we cannot do that without understanding our history. It's really important to be able to do that. And then I would end with saying that I am hopeful that every time that we bring something that it's gonna get better and closer to a more inclusive America and that we're gonna come to grips with the grim realities of what happened And then we can move forward. But until we acknowledge it, we can never really move forward. We're always going to come back and talk about it but we're never going to really move forward so there's a line in the song on the Negro National Anthem that says lift every voice and sing till health to earth and heaven ring.
And I think we need to ring with our history understanding celebrating it recognizing acknowledging ring with the harmonies of liberty And I would say liberty for all. Let our rejoicing rise high as the listening skies, let it resound loud as the rolling sea. Sing a song full of faith that the dark past has taught us. So we know our history, we know that we're resilient, we know that we have come a long way through struggles and we wanna celebrate that. So we wanna sing a song full of hope that the present has brought us and facing the rising sun of our new day begun let us march on, let us walk on, let us talk on till victory is won. Thank you so much for adopting this resolution today.
Thank you, Miss Simpson-Moten. I'd like to introduce Ms. Lawanda Lyons Pruitt.
Morning.
Good morning.
Chairman Nelson and members of the board, I bring you greetings from the nation's oldest and largest civil rights organization, The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. You know us as the NAACP I want to thank you all for the resolution celebrating Black History Month and the black family. Today, I thought it would take a moment to briefly explain why we celebrate Black History Month and share a tidbit about my family as a child growing up in rural Mississippi in the 60s and 70s.
My life was segregated including in housing schooling And I can still remember many of the Jim Crow restrictions, such as the white and colored doctor's office and water fountains. In my school textbooks, as I remember there were no mentions of blacks African-Americans in their accomplishments with the exception of the surfs and George Washington Carver and his peanut inventions There was no mention of slavery, lynching of black men including Emmett Till, the bombing of the churches, the Holocaust or in essence people who look like me which was a way of keeping us subservient and in their minds and our place being that we were three fifths of a human being.
I grew up with my maternal grandparents A biological female cousin, a biological younger sister and three male first cousins. We were all about one or two years apart in age and the girls were adopted by our grandparents and that includes me. My grandfather Jim worked as a railman on the railroad track from the age of 14 Supporting his brothers and sisters, and later 10 girls and two boys.
My mother Audrey was one of the 10 girls. My grandfather instilled in me the value of an education as the key to a better life. And I can still remember as a young child sitting by a kerosene lamp and him with a third grade education helping me with my homework. I was one of the fortunate ones to have an aunt and uncle, both educators in California who shared my grandfather's vision of a better life for his clan.
There when I moved to California began to discover my history like Garrett Morgan being the inventor what we know today as the traffic light or February been chosen as Black History Month Because the two significant birthdays, that of our 16th President Abraham Lincoln, the author of the Emancipation Proclamation and Frederick Douglass an early African American abolitionists.
We have a number of events that we're in the planning stage on and we will be sending those out particularly through Miss Sam's Moulton And also through Santa Barbara Arts and Culture, Ms. Sarah Rueben York. And we will get those to you all. One thing that we have again that we will be repeating is the Mize Museum presentation of At The Table with Dr. King. We will be showing that all month and the link will be on our website and Facebook page So lastly, we know that black history is American history.
And as my friend Wendy says 365 days a week. In closing, I would love to tell you that this is one of my quotes but I can't Black History honor in the past celebrating the present inspiring the future. Thank you again for the resolution and your time and listening to me today.
0:27 – 0:3718 turns
Thank you, Miss Lyons-Pruitt for sharing your story and for those words. I'd like to introduce Mr. Jordan Killebrew, co-leader of Healing Justice.
Hello everyone and good morning. Thank you Board of Supervisors for uplifting our voice. Thank you for having us. I'm honored to be speaking among these powerful icons in our community, Ms. Windy and Ms. LaWanda, thank you. I am Jordan Killebrew, co-leader of Healing Justice among several hats I wear in the community. But one hat that I'm working towards is to be a storyteller.
You see the stories each and every one of us tell hold power. They pass along information representation goals achievements and above everything love. I have been asked Jordan why the need for such a month? Isn't every month a celebration of Black history? Yes. And then I nervously laugh, as I often do because the truth is it is the omission of these stories, these positive contributions of BIPOC and Indigenous folks that have been left out of our history books and what we teach our youth that we must make it and take it amongst ourselves to share our truths.
One example This past year, my father-in-law and I had a conversation. He now into his 60s, hopefully he's not mad that I share his age, confided that in this last year, he just learned fully what Juneteenth was. How had something so monumental to American history, you noted be overlooked withdrawn and not concluded? So we tell our own stories I am grateful to our local leaders, elders who are like family, like our national theme. Like Sojourner Kincaid Roll who knows the power of storytelling and so grateful that she trusts me with this effort to pass the torch.
I'm also grateful for The Collective of Healing Justice which is for the love of black people founded by Simone Russkamp and Crystal Seagard Farmer. This collective works tirelessly to uplift our most vulnerable bringing people together, and currently embarking with other Black-serving community organizations to form a Black African American Cultural Resource Center to provide space for our community.
Share our oral history and local contributions because there are many and they are mighty. So thank you for having me today but before I finish, I must charge our community at large with the effort to learn our full history, our full truths of our land to embrace this history and add equity in the stories we tell. Quite a bit of work we have to do. And as we come together, let's remember this.
Let's uphold this love, the storytelling and remember it's time to work in truth and have the audacity to envision and engage in a future that uplifts all. I hope truth and education around diversity, equity inclusion are prioritized and grateful for the efforts of the many organizations from Santa Barbara Young Black Professionals, the NAACP, Gateway Educational Services and Healing Justice just to name a few who are curating events in education and celebration of our black and African-American contributions to America.
These events range from yoga, chocolate baby story time, cooking classes by black caterers in restaurants and so much more. So we ask that you engage with us and to learn Please visit hjsb.org. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Cobreau. Madam Clerk is there any request to speak from the public on this item?
Chair Nelson and members of the board we do have one request to speak on this item.
All right I understand that Mr. Becker?
That is correct yes um we had one late request to speak on this item and that is Mr. Tom Becker.
Mister Becker go ahead when you're ready.
Thank you can hear me
we can thank you.
Thank you as a lot of Americans, I have a history family history and ancestral history going back basically when the United States was a colony of Great Britain. Slave hands slaveholding ancestors and I have abolitionists ancestors not unusual for were an American to have that kind of relationship. My ancestry comes from the state of Virginia, and the slave-owning part of my ancestry and the abolitionist part of my ancestry married. They married into each other.
And what happened is that my great-great-great-great grandmother Cole whose father was a slave owner When she got married to the Freemans, Daniel Freeman, she was given her an inheritance up front which included a slave girl. And they left Virginia in 1843 went to the free state then the Free State of Illinois and when they got to the Free State of Illinois, they gave the girl her freedom and asked her to stay on as a housekeeper for their children Somewhere out there, there may be members of the black community.
Who is ancestor my family owned? And I'm very steeped in this type of history. I love my family's history on both sides good and bad. And I like to say something to the black people that are speaking Malcolm X said it best. Your leadership has really sold you down the river on this thing. They're promising you things and giving you things just to keep you in line for your vote.
Your communities are filled with drugs, and crime, and poverty. And it's the liberals specifically the Democrats who keep you there and keep the members of your community there. You should be aware that Malcolm X said it the best and he's on YouTube. You can watch is very interesting. And the other thing I like to say to the African American people watching this, be aware that this county government is threatening and suppressing people who are actively attempting to raise issues of civil rights.
This happened last week! So the very people that are saying that they're on your side, or the very people who are threatening and intimidating people who are raising issues of civil rights. And whether counting the state policies are impacting negatively the communities of color in this state. Be aware of that very people who are patting you on the back today.
Thank you Mr. Becker, that's your time. Yes, Supervisor Lavinino.
Thank you. I just wanted to thank Wendy Sims Moten, LaWanda Lyons-Pruitt and Jordan Killebrew. I've found them to be very uplifting and something that continues to amaze me is, and I first came across this phenomenon when I was researching the service of Filipino veterans during World War II, was that the Americans who have suffered the most oppression and discrimination That have every right to be the most cynical among us are oftentimes, and as we heard today, the ones that are just calling us to be our better selves.
And so I would just say to the speakers today, consider me inspired and I support you 100%.
Thank you Supervisor Lavenino. Supervisor Hartman?
I've known Lawanda for quite some time, a decade at least and I'd never heard that story. And stories it goes back to our evolutionary history we evolved telling each other stories It's our earliest form of literature and immediately even when Mr. Becker was talking I really glommed on to his story because it's particular, it's personal, it's specific. It calls out empathy and it takes a lot of courage because in a sense you're stripping away the armor that we bring to everyday life And so I just thank Lawanda for sharing that. It was very moving, and I think we all need to listen more carefully.
You...I can't agree more. You need to know your history and what your group that you identify with contributed to your culture. It's what grounds you when you get buffeted around in the world And you really need a room of your own to stand up to a lot of the forces and culture, to get reinforced. So I thank those of you who brought the resolution. I thank everyone who spoke today.
We have a lot of work to do but by being open, by being vulnerable, I think it does call out our better angels so thank you.
Thank you, Supervisor Hartman. And my thoughts are the importance of history is to learn from the past. But history is also used to remind us to hold ourselves accountable by today's standards but also to look to the future to contemplate how subsequent generations may judge us. So anyways, those are my thoughts. Can I get a motion for to approve this item?
Chair Nelson and members of the board before you proceed with the motion, I did just receive a late request to speak on this item from another member of the public
all
right and that is Simone IKEA.
0:38 – 0:447 turns
Simone when you're ready thank you for joining us
Hi everyone, thank you so much for allowing me to speak. As has been mentioned I'm also one of the co-founders of Healing Justice Santa Barbara. I wasn't planning to speak but I called in after I heard that horrible comment and not one of you when given the time to address and condemn what that person said took the time to say that. So it's not congruent for you to say that you're going to celebrate and issue a proclamation of Black History Month, while you allow black people who have just presented with you who have shared their histories or testimonies special stories about their families and you let them see through Without correcting that comment and saying you know what this information is untrue. It is anti black, and it is harmful. So I would ask you to commit to doing more because quite obviously you are not doing enough.
Black History Month, one is not set to a month. It's not just a set amount of days. It is a daily commitment to valuing black life. So I would encourage you to actually do the things that are coming out of your mouth. It should not happen where we allow comments like that to stand especially when you're trying to present and honor the black people in your community.
I can address that, Mr. Chair. Mr. Becker routinely comments on sometimes the same issue on several items throughout the day in my opinion as judging from his behavior towards Miss Hartman last week, he's a bully and that type of behavior I usually feel is not mitigated by being you know even dignifying it with the response. I hope that Simone understands that this is in the context of bad behavior that, you know, I at least feel like should not usually even be dignified with a response.
But since she asked, I will directly address what Mr. Becker most terrifying my view response has been which is to use this platform to campaign against affordable housing because I don't think that there is any issue for working class people in this community that's more present than the fact that they are slowly being exiled, forced to live farther and farther from the community that many of them grew up in. that their parents grew up in. There's a reason why we have multiple black churches in this community and few black people, it's because the black people we have had here have been forced out by past policies by the housing market and Thank you, Mr.
Chairman. Government to do more on affordable housing and Mister Becker uses this platform to ironically. Lobby that the creation of affordable housing is a violation of civil rights, which is the context of these comments today.
Thank you supervisor Williams Supervisor Hartman
Yes, thank you Simone. As a supervisor sitting up here we understand that the public can criticize us and we also realize that we have a platform and when members of the public say things we generally don't respond. We have here greater power However, in this case I was a bystander and I didn't stand up. And I wrestled with that and generally if I'm conflicted I'll stay quiet before I say something but it was a reprehensible statement And it shows a tremendous lack of knowledge about history and the conditions that have been thrust upon the black culture and black families in our society. So, that's what we're trying to redress here. And so, Simone thank you for drawing that to our attention. Thank you for making me stand up.
All right, thank you Supervisor Hartman. I believe Supervisor Hart may have had a comment
Yeah, I just like to end on a more positive note. I think that I was particularly impressed by Wendy Sims Moten's reference to her passage of a spiritual and I thought the one of the things that I personally have missed the most about our COVID quarantine public health response was the Martin Luther King rally that I always enjoyed walking up State Street arm in arm With members of the community singing spiritual songs, celebrating the achievements of African Americans and black people in our country. And the sense of solidarity and community that brings to all of us who participate in that event is extremely valuable. And unfortunately weren't able to do that again this year but I really look forward to being able to do that again next year.
0:44 – 0:4910 turns
And I wanted to conclude as the chair that, I believe when we have public commenters bring things up. I think I was along the lines of where Supervisor Williams was that we have the opportunity to bring power to people in this platform and my preference would be to make this about the comments by Wendy Sims Moten I do find it offensive to believe any group is monolithic in their political views and I just think, and I do believe that to be offensive.
But it is absolutely Mr. Becker's right to speak. This is a forum, this is a public process and that's one of the great things about our country is that we can hear these things, we can discuss them as a group and we can, as I said, history will judge our actions and so hope that we all keep that in mind as we move forward. All right, can I get a motion to approve item A14?
So moved.
Second.
Madam Clerk, can you please call the roll?
Roll-call vote Passed 4–0 moved. Second. Madam Clerk, can you please call the roll?
Show transcript
Motion passes unanimously
Now is the time for the members of public to speak on items that are not on the agenda. Madam Clerk are there any requests to speak on items not on today's agenda?
Chair Nelson and members of the board, yes we have two requests to speak on general public comment today. And we will begin with Andy Caldwell to be followed by Renee O'Neill.
Thank you Mr. Caldwell when you're ready?
Chair Nelson, members of the board, Andy Caldwell representing COLAB. You know, I was really encouraged that Supervisor Williams sponsored this initiative to have an independent redistricting commission. Because as you know, Colab sued 20 years ago because we felt that Isla Vista should not have been in the North County community of interest and I was really heartened that, you know, maybe we would really get a nonpolitical map this year.
And I was kind of only casually watching this thing and I started to notice a bunch of things first of all back in November your board said that the firm that was selected as legal counsel was too biased towards conservative And then you also brought up the issue that as it turns out, they had a very very remote role in signing an attestation of a donation towards Supervisor Nelson which is a big nothing burger.
And I thought, well you know that's whatever. But then I started seeing Jonathan Abood mentioned in a Quiama Valley newsletter of the people he was lobbying or wanting to get appointed and I'm thinking what's Jonathan Abood doing in Quiama for crying out loud? And then the next thing I know Democratic Party activists such as Spencer Brandt who works for the party Lee Heller, who just gave Doss Williams indirectly $11,000. And all these other people started showing up week after week slamming Nielsen Mercimer and I don't even know Nielsen's Mercimer. We always use Chuck Bell whenever we did something.
And then they kept every week slamming the lawyers, slamming the demographic company Well, as it turns out they ended up picking Wucher. Now they said they rejected Nielsen because he was biased towards conservatives but the board majority 20 years ago used Wucher, Doreen Farr used Wucher and last night the attorney for Nielsen said one of you board members hired Wucher as your attorney in 2013. Why wasn't that revealed?
Who is that supervisor and is that not a conflict of interest since you're not supposed to have relationships with these people going back eight years? I am really bitterly disappointed. I try to be forthright in what we do, but what we're seeing here is a proxy war to stack this commission And I didn't care if Nielsen Merkstormer got it, but if they got rejected for being too biased.
Thank you Mr. Colwell that is your time.
0:49 – 1:0322 turns
We will now go to Renee O'Neill.
Ms. O'Neill when you're ready?
And I would just like to remind the public that if you are about to speak, you will get instructions to unmute your phone. If you're using a touchtone phone, you may need to press star six. Renee, you are unmuted on our end so you might need to press star six to unmute yourself.
All right, let's see if we can. I think we have one more request to speak. Maybe we'll come back to Miss O'Neill in a moment.
Yes, Chair Nelson and members of the board, we did request one.
Let's go ahead and go to Miss O'Neill.
Hello?
Renee, welcome.
Hang on. We're
ready for
you. Okay, can you hear me?
You sure can.
All right. Thank you so much. You can hear me?
Yes, Miss O'Neill we can hear you.
Yay sorry I did not get a phone call and it was because we have slow internet speed. It took awhile for the system to show me I could actually log in. Well, good morning chair Nelson and supervisors. I want to commend everyone on the board who spoke on behalf of the previous issue not Andy Caldwell I'm sorry I wasn't prepared for this and I'm a little nervous.
I actually was prepared with a little happy Groundhog Day speech and wanted to say Punksy Phil, the plump hedgehog prognosticator was surprised by a visit from Bernie Sanders today. And I posted a photo of Bernie on Facebook with him with the crowd anyway. Phil saw his shadow today so that means those who are getting slammed by Nor'easters may see six more weeks of winter The other thing I wanted to speak to today is Barney. It is Barney Molekians, I believe last day to attend the Board of Supervisors meeting as he is going to be moving on as chief of interim chief of police in Santa Barbara City.
I can't tell you enough how much I appreciate the service Barney has offered to our community, to our county and his oversight of Cannabis and covid he's a, he's a top top notch kind of guy. And I wrote him yesterday telling him, I wish we could clone him and have 100 of me such a dedicated conscientious and. has high moral standards. I am going to miss him very, very much but anyway, I will let y'all go here this morning and just thank you so much for all your support on the commenter. I don't remember his name that was rude.
Doss Joan Supervisor Hart Thank you so much. You guys have a great morning and I'll be seeing you at D two
All right, thank you Miss O'Neill. I believe our next speaker is Mr. Becker. Mr. Becker before you get started like to caution you to keep your public comment to items not on the agenda and that would also include the previous item. Mr. Becker when you're ready.
Thank you um i'll keep it to the issue of housing affordable housing which is not on As you recall last week and the week before, I told you that I have submitted comments to the Regional Transportation Plan Connect 2050 document in EIR. And I'm requesting that the ERR study and analyze the impacts of county and state housing and transportation policies on specifically the Hispanic community Now, it's my belief that the county government and the state government have specifically targeted communities of color to be the people who will occupy the high-density housing developments that are being built or approved by county and state governments.
And this action is actually preventing people of color from living in low density, single family home communities. Now we talk a lot about implicit bias or in some cases explicit bias. I don't know if it's implicit or explicit bias that state and county governments are engaging in when they encourage people of color, in this case Hispanic community to live in overcrowded disease infested high-density housing projects while discouraging them from seeking living in low density single family home communities.
Now I'm perfectly fine with people living wherever they want, I don't see any problem with that and I don't encourage people of any I don't think we should have the freedom of persuasion to live one way or the other. I think everybody should have the freedom to do that, but refer to some of these people that were criticizing me. I'm actually taking steps to have this issue study to determine why the county and city are county and state governments are basically almost forcing To not live in low-density single family home neighborhoods.
That's what I'm doing, I like facts. Call me a bully Doss, you call me a bully. I'm just seeking from you and the county facts as to what you're doing and why you're doing it. And seeking those facts to prove, I believe that you're actually bias against people of color in your housing and transportation policies. Don't like the way I talk, you don't like the way I approach things. I'm just seeking facts and those facts will the truth will set you free.
Thank
you Mr. Becker that is your time thank you. Okay I believe that concludes public comment unless we have any other speakers Madam Clerk?
Chair Nelson and members of the board I don't believe we have any additional speakers on general public comment thank you
Okay, we're going to go ahead and take a five minute break before we start item D1 in the departmental agenda. Thank you. Okay. All right, we're back to the board here.
The next item is Departmental Item 1. Madam Clerk will you please read the item into the record?
Chair Nelson and members of the Board, Departmental Item number one is from the County Executive Office. It is a hearing to consider recommendations regarding an update on the coronavirus disease 2018 COVID-19. Okay I
1:03 – 1:152 turns
think we're gonna go ahead and start with Dr. Doronoso. Welcome
Thank you good morning members of the board. If I can get my, if I can get my PowerPoint great thank you this morning's briefing next. This morning's briefing will include a summary of the Santa Barbara County COVID-19 data, as well as the anticipated blueprint metrics that will be released by CDPH today at noon. As well as updating your board on vaccination efforts and our progress with school plans. And lastly Mr. George Chapian We'll present the consideration of acceptance of state emergency rental assistance program and submission of expression of intent next.
This is a snapshot of our daily counts of active cases. The what we're seeing for the month of January in the last two weeks, active cases have decreased by roughly 50% from 2568 to 1288. The peak was on January 13th at 3,256. And at the bottom of my slide you could see that I've listed our website sbcphd.org this is where you can also get the graphs as well as publichealthsbc.org those are the two sites that you can get our community dashboard next This graph describes a 7 day rolling sum of new cases by area from January 14th through the 28th.
Happy to report that most of the areas described by these trends show continue to show a decrease in the cases. Unfortunately, we are still reporting that Isla Vista is still reporting an increase roughly from about 16% going from 55 to 64 cases. But to all the other areas, we are showing a decrease. Next. This graph describes our hospitalizations and deaths over the past two weeks from January 18th through February 1st.
The gray area and the red trend line describes hospitalizations, which has decreased from 208 to 170. The blue area and blue line trend describes the number of community members who have died unfortunately due to COVID-19 deaths have increased by 29%. So going from 231 To the current 298 we are reporting 67 deaths in a two week period. Next. From January 18th through February 1st, the blue line describes the Santa Barbara County actual ICU availability which has increased in the last two weeks from 7% availability to a 17.1% availability while the number of active cases is decreasing is encouraging our ICU availability is still low and of concern Next.
This is our anticipated CDPH blueprint metrics, this is for the week of January 17th through January 23rd. We are reporting that our adjusted case rate is 47.2, and that number was adjusted down from our unadjusted case rate of 63.8 due to our high volume of testing. Our testing for this period was 729.2 versus the state median for tests at Our positivity rate stands at 11.2, with our health equity metric at 16.7.
So we are still solidly in the purple tier. Next. This is another way of capturing our blueprint metrics. The black line Describes the testing positivity in our county, which is showing a decrease of 16% from the previous reporting period. The blue line describes testing positivity in the health equity metric areas and we are reporting a decrease of 13% from the previous reporting period next.
This graph captures are adjusted case rate, which as you can see is showing a decrease of around 5% from our previous rating period. Next. So from the previous slide, we're seeing a downward trend in our adjusted case rate at 47.2 daily new cases per 100,000. However I just want to underscore that this is still at a very unacceptable high level and it describes that we are still besieged by COVID-19 In addition, when we look at the blueprint metrics and we compare ourselves with our the rest of the jurisdictions. We are ninth in the state with the highest adjusted case rate. So we currently tie with Merced.
As a community, everyone needs to do their part to get us below the 25 cases per 100,000 so that we can reopen schools. And we need to get to seven new cases per 100,000 to be in the red tier. So what this means is that we must continue to double down In our diligence so that we can do everything possible to decrease our case rate and part of that getting there is limiting gatherings during upcoming events such as Super Bowl Sunday. So based upon our data during this pandemic, we saw spikes in cases after holidays such as the Memorial Day celebrations and the more recent winter holidays I'd like to give a huge applause.
And thank the comms team, Terry, Suzanne, Jackie and Tim just to name a few who have worked tirelessly to ensure that our community gets the messages and the tools needed to choose less risky behavior. So here as you can see we're saying don't let COVID-19 shut down in your home And so the best is not to gather, but if people choose to gather we are pleading. We are asking everyone to keep it outdoors where physical distancing and masking is a must and keep it small three household or less and keep it short less than two hours.
Next. I'd like to give your board an update on our vaccine distribution by city. We started this snapshot last week, and we will be updating it every week when we have new allocation. So this week we stand total the county total has 51,375 and we distributed to providers In addition to our 51375. I'd like to note that Marion Medical Center, which serves our north county areas did receive separate vaccine allocation as part of a multi-county entity. However the 12,955 plus is not correct. The approximate number Next slide, please.
So when we look at the number of doses and the types of community providers that our allocation has been given, it is to roughly 21% has been given to clinics. 19% was allocated to our public health community vaccination sites. 4% went to private to healthcare providers. So these are smaller physician offices, 49% went to the hospitals because as you recall the first rollout of vaccines was hospital-based to healthcare workers and the 7% to our pharmacy partners.
Next. This is a snapshot as of last night. Again, our county has received 51,375 total doses. We have ordered all of those doses and we have administered as a collective so all these providers whom we have allocated vaccines to collectively we have administered 38,334. So what that means in terms of percentage is that of the total number of vaccines we've received, we have administered 86%.
And if you look at the total number of ordered So we ordered our allocation last Thursday and expect that allocation to be delivered today, 6,550. So of that total ordered it's 75%. Mr. Chair? Steve?
1:15 – 1:2720 turns
Supervisor Lavinino, please.
Yeah I wanted to wait until the end but while that slides up I think it's important for this question to be answered and that is so when we're talking about doses is the second dose considered part of this or from what I understand a second dose is coming from the state? So these are just first dose?
This includes first doses and second doses
So question then is if 86% of it's already been distributed and is in the arms, so those people that have an appointment coming up towards the middle or the end of February for their second dose. Are we saying that we may not have the dosage to be able to give that out?
We're not saying that right now because we continue to receive second-dose allocations from the state along with first doses.
Great, thank you Supervisor Lavinino.
Supervisor Williams? Well I want to follow up on Supervisor Lavinino's questions. Last week you were saying you could break down this week how many of those doses are How many people have gone to 75 plus and how much have gone to health care providers? And I think what I'm trying to get at is trying to figure out how many more. People in the 75 plus are there left to vaccinate because obviously, there's a lot of people 65 to 74 who are wondering when they can go forward. That's one question You know, in turn I know this might be different with the different vaccines but what is the largest time spread that we can do between the first and second dose and count on it remaining effective?
So with regards to how many more 75 plus community members we need to vaccinate, it depends. When I checked in with two of our biggest partners which is Cottage, Cottage is reporting at least an 11,000 on their waiting list and Sansum at least an 8,000 And so we know that we have not reached that population completely. And with regards to the percentage of the 38,334, the percentage of that number attributed 275 plus And health care workers, we are still working on that number.
We anticipate to break down the total doses administered by demographics perhaps worse by the end of this week or early next week. With regards to what is the longest period. So it's 21 to 28 days depending on whether it's the Pfizer or the maternal. However, CDC has issued guidance that you can wait up to six weeks. On a call with our CDPH colleagues, they are still supporting that 21 to 28 day timeframe as much as possible.
I guess just requested to for us to make some sense of this, given that the. You know, the White House is counseling essentially to stretch it out as far as possible saying that more vaccines are on the way. While CDPH is telling us to hold back for some second doses, you know it and knowing that we have a whole lot of folks to vaccinate. To me it would be important to make some sense of that.
Thank you Supervisor Williams. I'm sure we all want to talk about this in a more robust way here once the presentation's through. So if you please continue supervisor or sorry promoted you or demoted you Dr. Dovrinoso
Thank you, Chair Nelson. Next is an update on school plans. Chair Nelson, you had asked us to provide an update on school reopening plans. So currently we have six. We are working with six schools, the Lompoc Unified School District, Builton Unified School District, Santa Barbara Unified School District, Goleta Unified School District, Vista Del Mar Union School District and Orchard Union School District.
They we have been reviewing their applications and pending Corrections that all the school needs to submit to us is a COVID safety plan and a COVID prevention plan. And that goes to the, uh, the COVID prevention plan goes to Cal OSHA. We don't review, um, the COVID prevention plan. We review the COVID safety plan. Um, we review them and offer We're going to provide the technical assistance, the guidance if needed.
And within this new framework we reviewed the COVID safety plan in conjunction with CDPH and we have seven business days to address any issues so we are all assisting our school districts to have Should our case rate fall to below 25 per 100,000? That is the point that is the lever in which we can reopen schools in the purple tier. So that is our update. What's
that level again?
It is 25 new cases per 100,000. That's our case rate that we need to get below.
Right, thank you. I'm going to go to the board here for questions on this part of the presentation and we still have another portion to be presented by Community Development Department but do I have any other questions from my colleagues? Supervisor Hartman.
Go ahead.
I would just like you, Vaughn if you would Dr. Del Reynoso explain in big picture terms the vaccine is coming from the federal government some is coming directly to certain entities some is going to the state and coming to us. The big story is that there's far too little vaccine coming but could you explain kind of the route that it's traveling and how we get an allocation?
Yes, so the you've actually described it perfectly. The we in Santa Barbara County up till now we receive our weekly allocation which is done based on our population and the demographics. So with the first series of allocation it was based upon our population and the number of health care workers that we have And the percent of 65 and above. And other demographics that I don't have information on. So, the state issues an allocation to all of the jurisdictions on a weekly basis. And we typically, that letter goes out on Tuesdays. And we have until Thursday, typically around noon, to submit our order. So part of that conversation is us doing vaccine management. We monitor the vaccines, the number of inventory that all of our partners have and it's a dialogue.
It's co-planning for lack of a better word About the their outreach effort and the community member population that they are reaching. And so we take into account, we're also obligated by CDPH to ensure that vaccination of received allocation occurs within 96 hours. And so as a matter of fact yesterday. On a statewide call, the state had communicated with some jurisdictions that they were at risk of a take back of some of their allocations and luckily because we have maintained our high rate. Santa Barbara County did not receive such a take back letter. So that in essence is the flow of vaccines into our county, it is via allocation by CDPH which we do not have any control over. We can put ourselves on a waiting list for additional vaccines and we have done that.
The other piece is that this is the framework that has been in place since middle of December. However, as you are aware, the state changed the framework To a third party administrator framework, in which case blue shield instead of the public health department receiving the allocation and parsing out to our local partners. In a few weeks the state will ask Blue Shield to be that Administrator, so the state will be giving the state's allocation to Blue Shields and Blue Shields will be distributing or allocating it to a network throughout California and throughout all the counties.
I hope that answers your question, Supervisor Hartman.
That was very comprehensive and thank you so just a quick follow on. We are getting in Santa Barbara County all the vaccine that we possibly can. I guess that's the takeaway from what you've said and the new system with the third party administrator, the state is doing that to have more consistency, I gather across counties. It's not that Santa Barbara County hasn't done well. In fact, we've done very well. Is that correct?
That is correct.
The state struggles for efficiency in distributing the allocated vaccine and also some jurisdictions are not reporting the administered doses within the 24 hour requirement, and so that is another reason why the state is moving towards a third party administrator.
All right, Supervisor Lavenino and then Supervisor Williams.
1:27 – 1:3213 turns
Thank you. So I was basically asking the same question as Supervisor Hartman but who is the point person? Because at some point, I mean I think we vaccinate if we look at the numbers probably 10% of our population at this point. And I keep hearing from the federal government that there's going to be this ramp up and, you know, there's gonna be more production of vaccine and we're gonna get it out faster.
So who inside the county is the person that's either attending these meetings or hearing about this information? Or when do we get the dose? How does that work? Is that inside public health? Who's the point person on that?
So, Dr and and I are the testers for vaccine receipt. So we both signed agreements that we will receive the vaccines and distribute them according to the. To the agreed upon tier system by the state and so it comes, and then we meet as a allocation committee with our immunization coordinator or immunization nurse and our leadership to go through. The allocation and to support our partners. So when we look at the allocation that we receive on a weekly basis, part of what CDPH requires that we do is looking at it from an equity lens. So we have to distribute the vaccines to different providers throughout our county to ensure that every member of our community who is eligible gets access to that vaccine.
Okay, so just drilling down into the minutiae. So how often is that meeting with CDPH when they talk about when the next dose doses are coming or how often do you? Is that daily weekly?
Um, it depends. It's at their whim basically but we have 2 standing meetings with the state and its addition as a need on an as need basis for example yesterday there was an impromptu. California is getting less than 600,000 doses a week to distribute. So that's a pretty finite very limited number. That they are then distributing to the counties. And so we're feeling it, all counties are feeling the scarcity of vaccines.
Okay thank you. Thank you Supervisor Lavender. We're gonna go to Supervisor
Williams then to Supervisor Hart. So just doing the math of 51,000 vaccines over six weeks. You would agree that means we're getting on average 8,500 a week somewhere thereabouts?
About 6,000 because the earlier infusion, the first few allocations were quite significantly higher. So we've been getting right around 6,00.
So let me change my math to 6,000. If it's 6,00 and we have 450,000 residents in the county that means we receive enough to vaccinate 1.4% of our population every week. Is that fair to say?
Including
children which obviously don't get vaccinated yet Just as comparison because a lot of people go all in LA, they're doing people who are 65 and plus. LA is receiving enough by the same calculation to vaccinate 1.3% of their population a week so it doesn't sound like we're actually getting less per capita than LA. Is that true?
That is true.
And so the difference may be that we, number one, we have more people 75 and older which I think is as a percentage which is true. And that they may have a larger pool of people all wrestling to get appointments. Are both of those true?
That is correct, I am on calls regularly with my Southern California colleagues and all jurisdictions are struggling with appointments. There is at least in Southern California some of the smaller Northern California counties may feel less of a pinch but at least in our Southern California jurisdictions we're all Struggling with the scarcity of vaccines and having enough to provide appointments to our community members.
1:32 – 1:4117 turns
Thank you, Dr. So a supervisor heart.
Yeah, I just want to really appreciate Dr. Doronis's presentation and the kind of questions from my colleagues this is really illuminated very clearly the challenge that we have which is fundamentally based on the fact that there aren't enough vaccines that have been produced if they were more vaccines. produced, we would be getting a greater share in California and our county would also be able to do that. We'd be able to vaccinate more people but the fundamental problem is is that the supply is nowhere near the demand and that you know it's probably fundamentally a production issue that's going to just take time to sort out and unfortunately there's been tremendous Communication errors at the national level with the previous administration.
At the state level on suggesting that people over 65 and under 75 would be able to get vaccinated. Other counties have totally bungled the effort by advancing folks who are 65 to 75 prematurely, and that has created tremendous uncertainty and anxiety in our public. It's completely understandable Folks reading the paper that other counties, folks who are 65 can get a vaccine. And in Santa Barbara County we understand that we don't have enough vaccines to do that and we're being very deliberate and careful to manage the very limited vaccine supply that we have in a fair and equitable manner. And then the decision properly I think has been made to focus on folks who are over 75. There are people who are 90 years old in our county who haven't been vaccinated yet.
So this is the challenge and, and I appreciate Dr governor so being so clear all of the questions from my colleagues I think have clarified this fact. We need people to understand that we are not going to go be able to go as fast as everyone would like. My goal personally, and I'm sure Dr. Derbinosa's goal would be to have 100% of the vaccines that we get and receive physically in our county in people's arms within a week. And I think we were gearing up to be able to do that certainly at the levels of the vaccine delivery that we were seeing.
But now the state's going to change the allocation system completely and we're going to be in a very different role. The public health will not be in the primary role of organizing and collaborating with all of our health community partners to administer vaccines, we're gonna have this third-party administrator and I can see pluses to that system you know the centralization of that the ability to look at all the scheduling and make sure people aren't making duplicate appointments, you know that an equity measurement that's consistent and clear so we make sure that everyone in that particular tier has an opportunity to get a vaccine. That's that's a troubling concern of the decentralized system that we're working through now but they're also going to be problems because this giant So there's tremendous challenges ahead.
I'm very Pleased to know that we've been performing extraordinarily well in a really difficult and volatile, ever-changing environment. And I think it's really important for the public to understand how this fits together and what we're doing to make sure that we get the most number of vaccines into people's arms in Santa Barbara County of the group 75 and older that are eligible today.
Thank you, Supervisor Hart. I've got a couple of questions for Dr. de Reynoso. You mentioned that 11,000 at Cottage are on waiting lists and 8,000 at Samsung. Do we know for sure if those are 75 and above or is that just their total wait list?
I believe that that is their total wait list but I can clarify with our partners and report back.
That would be helpful because there's a juxtaposition going on when we hear numbers like that. Meanwhile, currently at Marion and their allocation there are spots available I hate to create a run on that if there's a lot of people watching but there are a couple hundred spots still available at Marion Hospital with vaccines available as early as tomorrow morning for those 75 and older it's been I think a benefit to our community have the dignity system here And that's kind of one of the heroes and unsung stories about what's going on with vaccination distribution is Marianne is not just serving the North County, they're serving the entire county.
Some people need to drive to take advantage of that but it's an asset that I'm proud to have in our county so again if we can clarify because if you know for running out of steam in the 75 plus Should make sure that we know that so that we're ready to hit go especially with 65 and older with comorbidities if we can Get those people before we go to that third party administrator. I think they would have a lot of benefits to our community in general, so That would be my two cents on that Back to the schools for a moment. I was really encouraged to see this list that we have on the screen that represents a large portion of our kids in this county, you know mental health issues tend to be a concern as especially among our youth going through this period of pandemic and getting back to in-person instruction and relationships with mentors and adults who care about kids is really important and I'm a big advocate This list that we have on school reopenings, are we still just talking about elementary schools at 25 and below or would high schools also be available?
No this is for K-6.
So is
there
no metrics at this point for high schools to be in person?
That is correct.
Okay so that's not even on the table right now?
That is correct
Okay, thank you that isn't unfortunate. I am happy to report that this week many of our sports or high school sports have been able to get a chance to start to practice that have been allowed in the purple tier rumor has it we'll have our first cross-country meet and work it between Pioneer and Rigetti on Saturday no public will be in attendance but it's the first chance for competition since March 11th of 2020.
And so I understand that some of the health order and all the eyes are dotted in teaser cross, It's a good first step. I'm a big fan of Let Them Play, which is a movement locally and nationally to try to get our kids back in athletics. I think there's been study after study and examples from professional sports have shown us that being outdoors is important not only for mental health but also that the transmission of the disease is less likely to happen in those circumstances. And so as we're weighing I'm hopeful that we're finding ways to do things such as athletics or any other type of outdoor activity that promotes better mental health for our youth. So with that, I think we're going to go ahead and go to another question. Yes,
Mr Chair.
Supervisor, please.
Thank you. Something was brought to my attention and it's interesting concept, I'm just curious if this has been discussed is with the rationing, well not rationing but I guess it is somewhat age rationing. Has any thought been given to... Well first off, I guess the biggest question is if somebody's already had COVID and they have antibodies Do they need the vaccine immediately? So I guess what I'm trying to get to is if people test and finally have antibodies, do they really need to be vaccinated at this point or would that free up vaccine for others that are more in need.
Uh, yes. So that question has come up to our county health officer and we per CDC guidelines are also encouraging people if you have had a coded 19 if you've been sick from it that you can delay getting the vaccine so that others who may have not been exposed can get their vaccine.
1:41 – 1:5010 turns
Okay, I don't think that message has gotten out. But as we get out of the 75 and plus maybe that message is broadened. I also just want the positive on this too is that in reading national news and listening to CDC even though we're concentrating right now on February 2nd and I understand we're in the early stages of this but all estimates are that sometime in the early summer Maybe by the end of June, they're predicting 80 to 90% of our country will be vaccinated or at least have the opportunity to be vaccinated. So I don't want people to think this is going to go on for another year and a half or so.
We're slowly making progress but as things ramp up and production increases and efficiencies are found, I think that we're going to get to critical mass at some point. And I don't think it's that far off.
Thank you, Supervisor Levin. You know what? Supervisor Hart has a comment as well. Supervisor Hart or question? Yeah
I actually have a question for Dr. DeBernesto. I wonder if she could comment on the risk of the new variants of the virus. The fact that they are so much more contagious than the original strains, really represents an increase in the threat of public gatherings. And I don't know that that has integrated deeply enough in the public's mind. We have recently, the governor recently listed the stay at home order and understandably there was tremendous pent up demand for people to get out and gather and connect with other people and dine And everything and just I'm very concerned about this, the increased contagiousness of these new variants. And what that would mean if people treat it the same way that they have in the past. We're making progress, the case reduction that you've clearly demonstrated with that chart is fabulous news.
And I think people should be hopeful but the Super Bowl super spreading events that you described a concern about. You know, this change in behavior from folks coupled with you know which is a significantly more contagious variant. That's almost worse than a more fatal variant because the numbers can exponentially explode you know if we if there was a variety or variants That was more lethal, that's scary and horrible. And the personal consequences of that are tragic but it's a limited situation if there is less transmission. If you have more transmission, you will inevitably have more fatalities because just the sheer number and the exponential threat of this. So anyway I'm going on too long, why don't you comment Dr. Garrett?
I second everything you've said, Supervisor Hart. I am too worried about the new variants especially because it has been connected to super spreader events in L.A.. We just read something this morning that it's been detected in a small a small increment, but it is in Ventura. And so we're seeing the variance throughout our state. So we are worried because from what we have read they are more infectious and ultimately as you mentioned leading to an exponential growth in cases which will impact hospitalizations and poor outcomes and even death. So I think that until we have reached that 80-85% herd immunity, we really need to adhere to the masking, the social distancing and the limit gatherings. And so when we talk about gatherings yes we are balancing that with with the need to connect with other We are still recommending that the safest is not to gather, but the less risky gathering will be outside short and with less people possible.
So we are limiting that to three household or less. Within two hours or less, and definitely outside while you are masking and social distance. I think the tools have not changed. It's now that the landscape has changed so we can't ease up.
Thank you. Thank you, Dr. Dover and also
Supervisor Hart. Supervisor Williams? So just one note right these numbers do not include the federal allocation that pharmacies received for their contracts with assisted living facilities. Do we have any idea how many of those are You know, I'm sure it's frustrating for you to have a significant number of vaccines in the county not tremendously visible. But do we have any estimate on how many that would be?
Unfortunately, that is something that we've been pressuring the state to give us insight to. And I am sorry to report that I do not know. I don't have insight on even the magnitude of vaccines available through the federal partnership with the skilled nursing and long term facilities. So in our county, that is through CVS and Walgreens. I don't have that information.
And so, but let's also then keep that in mind when we try to ballpark how much of our population as a county is vaccinated. It means that maybe your estimate of last week was optimistic, but it means that more than 10% We do not know how many have been vaccinated in the county, correct? Because we don't know how much more because we don't know how many have been vaccinated through that federal allocation.
But we do know that it exceeds the amount that's right here on paper You know, The Economist magazine reports that last week the average population in Europe that was vaccinated thus far was 2%. That's how many we are vaccinating in a week and a half. So you know it is... And that the average in the United States was 7%, And so I mean, we can be frustrated.
We can be angry but let's also put it in the context of the rest of the world there is really only two places doing better which is Israel which I think is hardly of the scale to be comparable and Great Britain I'm kind of curious what Great Britain did since they mucked up so much of the response to the pandemic for most of last year, but suddenly seem to be doing a great job at this.
So, but you know let's...I think it's important to put it in context Santa Barbara County is doing better than the nation on average, much better than the world on average and we will strive to do better than that.
So thank you, Supervisor Whelan. Before we go to Supervisor Hartman I've got a quick clarification on that and maybe a suggestion that we might be able to back out from the population that we know they're at the convalescent centers and ones that got vaccinated. Maybe we won't get the exact number from this source but i think we can do some in the back of the napkin math on the censuses that we have in those identified locations so maybe that's something we can look at. Supervisor Hartman then Supervisor Lavagnino?
Yeah, I appreciate that context from Supervisor Williams. Quick question about the variants in Ventura. I believe they're monitoring the waste water and is that occurring at all in Santa Barbara County or is there any effort in the future to do that?
1:50 – 2:029 turns
Supervisor Hartman through the chair. I am aware of some efforts by UCSB and by another private group monitoring some of our wastewater, but it is not an effort currently that public health is involved in.
Thank you. Supervisor Lavinino?
Yeah curious about so I know you're notified, public health is notified every time somebody has a positive COVID test. So we're not notified at all on the other end when somebody gets a vaccine?
So technically, technically when a provider administers the vaccine they enter within 24 hours that information into care And so we can run a report in care that shows approximately how many people that are in care. And so, we can attest. So what? We did back of the napkin sort of methodology. We called all of our providers and say, This is the state's requirement. How are you doing in entering your data in and our major, our big partners?
The volume partners are saying are attesting that they are entering their immunization data into the care which is the California. I'm not sure if the skilled nursing facilities, the long-term care facilities are doing that or they are entering it on paper, faxing it to the state. The state acknowledges that there's a gap in the data so they are creating mechanisms for those who Who are not be who aren't able to enter into care to use the paper method, to use a fax method. So we're hoping that within the next few weeks that the data will be more plentiful for us to do this sort of analysis.
All right. Thank you, Supervisor Lavinino and Dr. De Reno. So just to piggyback one last thing on something that Supervisor Lavinino mentioned about the antibodies. I'm embarrassed to say that I was not a blood donor before the pandemic began but for those of you who don't know when you give blood locally through Vitalent they actually do an antibody test for you so you can find out if you have had COVID or at least the antibodies exist in your blood which has two benefits, of course. One you know that maybe you don't necessarily want to be on the front line for the vaccine but also that your blood can also be used as treatment for those who are suffering from the virus and so it's something that I've taken advantage of and I recommend anybody out there in the community to consider that it's free and since we know a lot of people have had COVID and it's been asymptomatic It's a it's a way to also confirm that if that was a concern that you may or may not have had.
So just little infomercial on that before we move on so with that, I believe we have Mr. Chaptian with community services that is going to do a small presentation on state emergency rental assistance.
Good morning Chair Nelson and members of the board. Today we want to give you some information on the State Emergency Rental Assistance Program, and potentially submission of expression of intent to avail ourselves with that program. As you know, on January 28th the state approved COVID-19 Tenant Relief Act that was SB 91. It extends the residential eviction protection through June 30th it creates a unified statewide mechanism to deploy the 2.6 million dollars in federal emergency rental assistance program should the county accept the state's offer it would receive 14 million dollars set aside of rental assistance program Funds in addition to the 13 million that we've already have from the US Treasury allocation. So, we did get $13 million directly from the U.S.
Treasury. This provides for additional tenant protection. However, it requires landlords to forgive 20% of the accumulated rental arrears in exchange for 80% of payments through state ERAP. Landlords pay for unpaid rent from 4-120 to 3-3121. And landlords must accept as payment in full for all rental debt for that period. Next slide, please. Here's just the state and federal program. They very much mirror each other. I think the big difference is the state programs a little bit more onerous.
The federal program in that bucket we have been dealing with tenants. In the state program it's mostly dealing with The landlords and the state obligation deadlines for expenditure of this money. 65% by June 1st, 21 and all expended by August. However, the federal deadline is all the way to 123121. Next is our some of the options for the board to consider and we're going to be bringing this to you on February 9th as well in a more In a board letter that really spells these out but option one be consolidated programs to give our $13 million from the Treasury to the state and have the state administer all $27 million or $27.6 million.
And they would, they would all that the 13 million would be lumped in with the 14 million criteria so it would be the state's criteria and not the US Treasury's. Option two would be to consolidate a program that we administer both programs. This one would be, you know, a lot more work for us and I can tell you, well give you the reasons why I think some of the concern is we don't quite have the infrastructure to do this.
It would take about 20 or 30 additional staff on housing authorities part to get this money out. That's not including issuing checks. A lot of the work in getting this money out really is with the small owners, the mom and pops, not the big landlords that the ones that own multiple units and we found that to be true with United Way and Housing Authority trying to get the money out to landlords it's just they don't keep the paperwork, don't know how to deal with government And then, lastly I think you know Dinah who's on the line spoke with the larger Landlord Association and they really haven't found the need for what the state money is calling for in terms of paying landlords and arrears. I think most landlords have been getting paid And the third one would be a hybrid program, the hybrid program.
The state would administer their 14 million we would administer our 13 million in the county. You know, we would be able to implement more rapidly and get this 13 million out I think with 27 million there's just no guarantee that we're going to be able to get all that money out. And I don't think we need to miss out on 13 million we can actually get out to the renters.
And so with the hybrid program I think the onus is really on the state wants us to make sure that we don't duplicate their efforts and we can certainly set a set structure in place to, to make sure that we're not duplicating what they're doing. Those are kind of the option for this program. Really need some direction from the board in terms of what you'd like us to do, there is a deadline February 3rd to submit an interest or we're calling it just a submission of expression of intent and we can always back out of that intent if we decide to change our mind on February 9th when we bring this full report to you.
And that's it for our report just looking for direction from the board And we'll take any questions that you may have. I think Dinah is on the line too if I can't answer the questions, Dinah can answer them. Thank You Mr. Chaplain. Supervisor Williams?
Well, I don't mind if both of you answer this. So it's a question for both or either. I admire the reluctance to not want to do a program that you think you won't be able to do well without 20 additional staff but Do you really think the state's going to hire 20 staff for Santa Barbara County to administer the program? I mean, I guess I'm asking for an assessment not just whether you think you are ready for such a program but whether the state is going to do a better job and how that would be possible.
Supervisor Williams to the chair. This is just my opinion I know the state has had problems with other programs, they've tried to administer. I don't know if there'll be able to get this money out all 14 million. I know they are creating a statewide structure to do this. We would end up having to create our own structure here. I mean, not that it couldn't be done.
But my fear is it you know we of course if we did this we, we would spend on the 14 million first and then worry about the other 13 million but tying or 13 million to that other 14 million really It can be an issue in terms of getting this money out sooner to the folks who really need it. So that's our concern was just tying that the state insists on time, their requirements to the 13 million as well and I don't think they have a legal authority to do that but if you accept their money.
That's what you have to accept.
Well, I mean, I would ask us to consider at least to look at keeping the program separate but engaging in administering it. Both of us administering both efforts. I suppose the federal, I mean the state programs So I guess does the agreement, if the county accepts the program, does that mean that we no longer can give a portion of the federal funds for direct rental relief to the tenants? And so that's the major drawback of accepting this. Got it.
Okay, I kind of understand this a little bit better. How the state would reach local landlords, especially if the association isn't really psyched about the program. I know there's many individual landlords who would like to take care of take part in such a program that haven't received a whole lot of rent that 80% is better than 25% but I guess, I would like to understand if we do go with the staff recommendation what we would be doing to try to encourage and help the state actually pull it off.
2:02 – 2:0910 turns
Supervisor Williams to the Chair. Given that this was a rush issue for us to get before you, we are coming back on the 9th. We can certainly answer those questions on the 9th will be touching base with the state on all aspects of this program and see how it's laid out right now it's just the intent to apply for the money is what we need Again, can always reverse course. We still have some time and they just want to know how we want to receive this money if we want to receive it. So it's a submission of expression of intent.
Supervisor supervisor This is, this is Dinah through the chair. I just wanted to echo George's Endorsement of option C, which is the three
turn Nelson and members of the board. Sorry to interrupt Dinah if you can just step away by like two inches from your microphone that would be greatly appreciated. Okay, I'll try again perfect
option. Option C allows the state to operate its state program in Santa Barbara County and the county would administer the US Treasury portion So we would still have the ability to do the boots on the ground marketing to small mom and pop landlords. They could still apply to United Way on behalf of tenants. The state has just provided information yesterday on their partnership with LISC, which is the Local Initiatives Support Corporation, a national affordable housing, community development finance institution CDFI who will be partnering with the state in their rollout.
So Santa Barbara County will probably be marketed with not only the states program but also the United Way Program.
Thank you Miss Lockhart any other comments from my colleagues? I was just going to wait for public comment. Thank you. I want to express that, you know, I'm in initially supportive of the option three. You know, I understand that not only the potential need for additional staff for that department, that department also has a lot of other tasks right now that they're wrestling with and I'm hesitant to put more on them and if we can just maybe mark, we can work on our marketing to send people towards the state and facilitate that but not necessarily administer it.
Sounds like with no other further comments, we're going to go ahead and move to public comment. Supervisor Hart please.
Yeah I'll reserve my final judgment until when we get this back next week but I share some of the concerns that Supervisor Williams expressed. I just don't honestly have any confidence that the state's gonna be able to do this. They have a lot on their plate and I know this is a daunting idea that we would staff up and handle this ourselves.
We'll certainly take a look at some of the details of this program as well. I don't know what happens if we take this money and not spend it all, do they take our $13 million? Can we bifurcate that, keep it in separate buckets? So we'll take a look at all of that, as well as checking with United Way and the other nonprofits to see how much they can help in terms of ramping up. Can they do it? I mean, I know they were already stretched thin with the current program that we ran, the CARES money. You know, they've got over a million out the door.
They still have a waiting list we kind of put them on hold because the 13 million was coming but again we're going to need those partners too and we'll see you know how much they can ramp up as well in a week, week and a half coming. Thank you. Thank you.
This isn't really an issue about staffing up. I know that Mr. Chapman is worried about that and the federal funding, but if this is a board direction we know it's a good thing to get all this rental assistance money. We would figure out a way to do it. It really is contradictory. If we want our program of our $14 million from the federal government, if we want our program to go forward in the way they described, we have to do hybrid program number three That's it.
If you want us to have complete control, then we have to go of the state's money, we have to go with program option two Which is that means we are then required to do the state's program even for our federal direct application. So that's really it, I don't want to get the staffing issue mixed up in this. That's really the choice. Thank you.
All right thank you.
That helps. Supervisor Williams? Well I usually find the expression think outside of the box as being talking very inside the box because it's so conventional but I would just ask you think about what other partnership we could do with the state on this. Meaning, could we pursue your recommendation but actually assist the state from not failing at this? Whether we have some of our call center for example working on helping local landlords Go through the state program.
Because, you know, I get that you guys don't want to touch this with 10 foot pole because it feels like a sale failure from the beginning. But to me, you have to assess whether it's going to be more of a failure in the state's hands or in our hands that matters. Or more potential for disaster in one or the other. I think that matters and Because people's lives and livelihoods are at stake, their ability to remain in their apartments is at stake.
I do think that it's important that we even assess this as a choice of evils as opposed to just not wanting
2:09 – 2:1518 turns
Supervisor Williams, through the chair. I just want to say it's not so much we don't want to touch it because it's going to fail. I think part of it is the control as Mona said is it also puts our bucket, you know, the Treasury money, the federal direct money that we received from the Treasury into that same bucket as a state and same requirements if we could bifurcate that and I think it would be a lot easier to handle.
But yeah, we certainly wanna partner with the state and make sure that this money is rolled out. It's a lot of money not to roll it out and help people
I agree. Thank you, Mr Chapman. So Supervisor Williamson could you clarify for me because I want to make sure understand where you're going so based on the idea that we don't want to necessarily commingle our federal funds with our state funds but we want to still help which option is
that? Yeah, I mean I would say that I tentatively if from what we know would go with the staff recommended hybrid program delivery model but I do think we should ask some questions I.e., do we really have to co-mingle all of the funds to qualify? And say, we ask this because we think we'd have to hire 20 people to do this right. We know you're not going to hire 20 people to do this in Santa Barbara County so how are you going to succeed if we don't co-mingle?
And if the answer is insufficient, which I would expect that it would be. That we would say can we basically make an investment in people to help landlords and tenants navigate this for you? So if the state administers the state system but we basically have a certain number of ombudspersons to help people navigate
I know that the state does want to work with local partners, but we've tried to get details from them and will continue trying. We just haven't been able they don't have the details at this point. And that's our frustration as well. But we'll get it as soon as we can and bring it back to the board on the night. All right. Thank you Mr. Chaplain.
Supervisor Lavinino,
please. I think this legislation was signed yesterday or the day before so I mean, I know we're all trying to roll this money out as fast as possible but I agree that trying to figure out the most efficient way to do it is very confusing. So I'm very interested to see how we're going to proceed but you know, I like to blame the state for a lot of things but And the feds, but you know this thing just barely is in its origin state so.
Well thank you it's good that we passed it so now we can read it. So go ahead and move on to public comment if that's okay?
Chair Nelson and members of the board we have four requests to speak on this item.
Okay we'll go ahead and give three minutes
And we will begin with Jamie diamond to be followed by Andy Caldwell. I would also like to take a moment before we proceed with public comment to let those who are participating in today's board meeting for departmental item number 3, as mentioned this morning by our chair that will be 1st up after our closed session. So please monitor that. Departmental item number three will be first up after closed session this afternoon and our best guess estimate at this time is around one o'clock, thank you.
Thank you Madam Clerk.
And again we will begin with Jamie Diamond to be followed by Andy Caldwell.
Jamie when you're ready.
Please
proceed. Okay, good morning Chairman and Supervisors. My name is Jamie Diamond I'm a parent and resident here in Carpinteria as well as on the school board trustee. I'm writing to you as a parent first and foremost on behalf of all of our teachers especially those currently teaching in person we need to do more to protect these essential vital workers I'm asking that teachers and staff, especially those already teaching in person be allowed to receive the COVID vaccine now. Not in March or April but now we asked them to step up in these unprecedented times and they did as I said earlier they are vital to our communities more than teaching their advocates for children's well being addressing socio emotional needs physical needs and for some students the only safe people in their lives.
On top of educating classrooms of these tiny humans, teachers also have to ensure students, staff and themselves are distancing, masked, washing hands, noting possible symptoms. And although we know if all protocols are followed, classrooms can be the safest spaces. Many teachers are still concerned for their health and safety. This is where the rubber meets the road. We have to get these teachers vaccinated now.
Long Beach Unified School District began vaccinating their teachers over a week ago Colorado Governor Polis announced starting February 8th, they are going to vaccinate all teachers including preschool through 12th grade classroom teachers. Childcare workers, paraprofessionals, bus drivers, food service workers, safety workers and others who provide services in public schools. We must do this now we need to send a clear message of how much we need rely and respect our educators. We must care for and prioritize their health by getting them vaccinated now. Thank you. And I'd like to amend it that I did listen to the earlier presentation by Dr. Delranoso and I appreciate that this is being gone through a new process, but I still want these comments on record because we especially the teachers that have been teaching in hybrid in person, we need them to understand how much we value and appreciate them and respect them.
And we see the sacrifice that they've been putting themselves in by coming to school and showing up for our students. Thank you.
Thank you, Ms. Diamond.
We will now go to Andy Caldwell to be followed by Thomas Becker.
Mr. Caldwell when you're ready.
2:15 – 2:217 turns
Chair Nelson members of the board Andy Caldwell representing COLAB. Last week I asked the board to ask their staff for a plan, a plan and the supply to administer second doses We still don't have that plan. The reason this is so important is that these vaccines, the first vaccine is supposedly only 50% effective and whereas there's some people saying let's just give everybody the first vaccine, that's better than nothing. There's other health experts are saying that that's the same thing as taking only five days of a 10 day supply of antibiotics IE the vaccine could mutate and render the vaccination worthless.
Well, so that was on the 26th. On the 28th Dr. Vando Renoso, all of the local elected officials, Bennett, Lamone, Carbajal had a town hall with Ventura County in Santa Barbara County and a guy from Ventura saying he was speaking for both counties said It's impractical to set up appointments for second vaccines. We're not gonna do it because we don't have the information or the guarantee of future supplies and he said, he was speaking for both counties.
We're not going to set up a system to schedule the second doses. The very next day Friday January 29th Santa Barbara County Public Health Director stated publicly They were going to halt administration of first doses for the next four weeks due to low vaccine supplies from the states. None of these things got shared with your board today, all of these are in local newspapers.
Where's that plan? Where is the supply? Are they not gonna do second doses or are they not even doing first doses? And in this one particular story it seemed like long poke once again was going to be the one that was left out in the cold. Because Dignity and Cottage seem to be doing quite well, but Lompoc I'm not sure what's going on there. But again folks somebody has got to make heads or tails out of this and unfortunately that falls on your board.
What is the story and the plan now on first and second notices? Thank
you. Thank you, Mr. Caldwell.
We will now go to Thomas Becker to be followed by Lee Heller.
Mr. Becker when you're ready.
Thank you can you hear me?
We can thank you.
Thank you I have been raising the issue of impacts a government housing policies for at least 20 years plus this is nothing new. I've been raising this issue especially with how density spreads disease. I've been raising that issue for 20 years Density does spread disease. That's just a historical fact, it's a scientific fact, can't argue with it. Congregate care facilities have been very hard hit as far as death rate. 80% of congregate care population is white, 80%, because they're the ones who could afford it.
But yet the Hispanic population has 58% of deaths Why is the Hispanic population so hard hit? If there are only 10 to 20% of the congregate care population, why are they 58% of the deaths? Are government housing policies that encourage the Hispanic population to live in high density housing responsible for the high Hispanic death rate. I think that's a perfectly reasonable question to ask.
It's a scientific question to ask Now I just want to say that all these different agencies, whether it's Air Resources Board, US EPA, Coastal Commission, local and state policies. They all dovetail together. You can't separate one out from the other and that's the reason why DAS, I raise these issues All together, and I dovetail these issues together. I can put all of this together. I know how it all links together. You think I'm just talking about this issue all the time? I talk about a myriad of issues but I connect the dots and I connect all these policies and agencies together. And you could talk about a policy like this across the spectrum of government agencies and policies because they're all linked together I think it's perfectly reasonable for all people, but especially people of disadvantaged groups to challenge their leadership.
I don't think I'm a bully boss or asking my representative Mrs Hartman to listen to what I have to say when I'm talking about an issue of civil rights and environmental justice that's not being a bully. Being as polite as I can be. I think I am being polite, I don't think I'm being rude and I can address my elected representative Mrs Hartman right now directly. I have a right to do that Doss.
Mrs Hartman please listen to what people have to say when they're discussing civil rights and environmental justice issues. Sit there calmly, don't walk around the room and don't leave the room. Thank you thank you Doss
2:21 – 2:2614 turns
Supervisor Williams.
I think it is very clear that when a supervisor is here for six, seven, eight hour meetings that it is possible that a supervisor, for instance last week might have to turn around and put something in the trash And to be berated by someone in public comment because she turned around to put something in the trash is wholly inappropriate and is, in my view it is only being charitable about your character to call you a bully because the alternatives are worse.
Thank You Mr. Becker moving on to Miss Heller
Yes, thank you chair Nelson and members of the board. Our next speaker is Lee Heller who is our final speaker
seller when you're ready
here Nelson and members of the board this is my first time zooming in I hope I wanted to start by quickly correcting a misstatement by Mr. Caldwell, the new variants of the coronaviruses do not make the vaccines useless some concern that a few of the variants may reduce their efficacy but I would encourage anybody to avoid trusting Missing nation that might lead them not to get the vaccine.
But the real reason I wanted to speak this morning was to follow up on the issue of mask wearing, a form of mitigation with these much pages variants. There's increasing awareness in the media and in the scientific community that a lot of the masks that people are using are insufficient as you know. I was a co-founder of the Santa Barbara County Mask Network and we were very early advocates for masking up. And at the time, we didn't care as long as you got something on your face that reduces likelihood of spreading or becoming infected by the virus, we were kind of happy. But the science has evolved and so the community practice to evolve for greater safety.
So, for example, Supervisor Williams' wife makes excellent masks, the highest quality cloth masks you can wear. And that's good in outdoor settings or limited indoor settings but people inside all day need better protection than that So the experts are, including Dr. Fauci, are now encouraging people to double down on masks. If you have N95s left over from Thomas Fire or if you're a hoarder like me from a previous pandemic, wear them. We don't want to deprive medical professionals of them but if you have them use them and again be aware that masking is our best cheapest non-medical intervention to prevent the spread of these increasingly transmissible variants. Thank you
Thank you Ms. Hiller, now back to the board. Is there any further discussion or can I get a motion for staff's recommended actions?
I will move option three. I just want to say this is a lot of money and we're very fortunate to have it, and we want to get it out to the people as soon as we can. I believe that the federal money is more flexible and can go to the tenants. The state money goes to the landlord and I think perhaps an agreement with the tenant. So it's a much more cumbersome process, but I think if we want to get it out quickly, we certainly don't want to have the same rules apply to the federal money that apply to the state money so unless we can sort out the marketing or some of the things that were suggested, I fully endorse hybrid option three.
So thank you Supervisor Hartman. Do we actually need a motion on direction at this point or help me out with
supervisors? It would be helpful for us to know we will bring back formalized actions, but we do have to submit something to the state tomorrow. That's just a general indication which way we may go and we can change our mind so it'd be helpful so we can get that so CSD can submit that form
All right, with that then I will take that as a motion from Supervisor Hartman along with the other recommended actions. I'm sure that's what we're doing here. Can I get a second to that motion or?
I'll second that with the addendum of the information that was requested by all the supervisors.
Thank you is there any further discussion among my colleagues? Supervisor Hart? Supervisor Hart you're muted.
I just like to add that I'm supporting the motion as general direction of staff but definitely want the additional information before committing to a firm decision next week.
2:26 – 2:297 turns
Thank you, Supervisor Hart. Supervisor Leavenworth do you have any comments?
I'm all good except that, you know, I know it's really premature. But whenever we get around to if we do live with the hybrid model and we do any part of this obviously most of the people that we're going to be dealing with there at least in my district are Spanish speaking so you know we're going to have to make the portal bilingual like we do with most of our stuff but i just want to remind us
Thank you. Supervisor Levin, you know and you know just I want to make a point that as we have these monies come to our county from the federal and state government, you Our state government is preventing commerce in some ways and I think that there is a constitutional nexus to receive these funds for businesses and families that are going through this. I know there's sometimes, at least in circles more conservative circles, there's those who want to not necessarily accept Government programs like this, but I'd like to remind those people that it's not your fault that you're not able to open your business or go up to work right now.
And because the federal government and state government have intervened here in county government It is absolutely within your rights and your privileges to lean on the opportunities that are going to be given to you here. So, just that's my two cents moving forward so with that Madam Clerk will you call the roll?
Roll-call vote Passed 4–0
Show transcript
Motion passes unanimously
Right that brings us to item department I don't number two. I think we have.
Just a point of order. Do we need a motion to receive and file the whole report or are we done?
I was assuming when I said the other recommended actions that included that, so that's what you meant right? Thank You Supervisor Hartman. So department item number two Madam Clerk will you please read this item into the record it is 1130. We're gonna try to move through this quickly and get this done before lunch
2:29 – 2:376 turns
Chair Nelson and members of the board, departmental item number 2 is from the county executive office. It is a hearing to consider recommendations regarding chapter 50 licensing of commercial cannabis operations ordinance amendments.
Thank you so who am I kicking this off to?
Chair Nelson and members of the board, this is Barney Malakian from CEO's Office. And I'll be introducing this item to you today.
Thank you, Mr.
Malachy. I'm joined by my colleague Ms. Brittany Heaton who is the new principal analyst for cannabis in our office and I think you will enjoy working with her in the future. She's going to co-present this with me today. The amendments that are in front of you represent nearly 10 months of work from effective county departments, industry representatives and various community groups throughout the county who have been directly impacted by the cannabis industry.
Our overarching strategic goal is to bring the land use permitting process and the business process into closer alignment. As you may recall, there was some consideration about mandating concurrent processing. However after much review and analysis we came to the conclusion that doing that would likely create more problems than it solved and would likely slow down the process rather than speed it up.
We propose two significant steps towards that alignment goal. We moved the site plan and the site security plan into one review process, and the separation of those two plan review processes has been one of the most significant barriers in terms of moving applicants through the process All too often what would happen is the site plan would be approved by planning, then go into the business license process at some point. But when it got to the site security plan which has to be approved by the sheriff if there was a change, the applicant would be sent back to planning to revise their application and their plan and stretch out this process.
By moving these two things into one area, we think it's going to have a very positive and significant result. And we also mandated the submission of a business license application within 15 days receiving an approved set of plans from P&D and or the granting of a land use permit. This eliminates what has been a bit of a challenge And that applicants will receive their land use permit, but for a variety of reasons then delays submitting their business license application. We think this will help with that.
There is one area that these proposed set of amendments don't address and I think will have to be addressed in the future. That's the complicated relationship between corporate operating structures as the management team Who operate these cannabis operations and the financial structure that supports them. It's gonna require a coordinated sit down, I think with county departments and industry representatives to find a way to vet changes in financial structures that don't necessarily have any impact on the individuals who are actually operating the facility.
Allowing us to make sure that the funds are coming from a reputable source without stopping the entire operation or requiring a complete resubmission of business license plans. We did our best to address that part, but this issue is growing in complexity because of the nature, quite frankly, the complicated financial nature of this industry. And with that, I would now like to turn this over to Brittany who will walk you through the specific changes.
Thank you. Good morning Chair Nelson and Supervisors. It's a pleasure to be here this morning to present to you this proposed amendment. It consists of changes that as Mr. Malachian said are culmination of several months of work and seek to address feedback received from a variety of cannabis stakeholders. Next slide please. I'd like to go over some of the more significant changes that are summarized in the following three slides, as well as in your board letter.
The first is just the addition and revision of various definitions within the ordinance to be consistent with Chapter 35, the Land Use and Development Code. Under number two, as was mentioned by Mr. Mielecki in the changes in Section 50-3, Add a requirement that applicants submit business license applications within 15 days of approval of the land use permit. And this is meant to eliminate the long delays that have been occurring between obtaining a land use permit and applying for a business license.
Number three, we hope will help ameliorate the confusion around consistent submittals, actually I'm sorry that's number four. That will help to ameliorate the confusion around consistent submittals and keep applicants from having to go back and forth specifically regard to the premise diagram. And so we're requiring that applicants submit consistent information across all processes and in particular that they submit an approved premises diagram from P&D.
Next slide please. In the area of criminal history in the security plan, under number five we these changes were requested from the sheriff's office to clarify the responsibility of the employer to perform criminal history checks. Number six was a request from the industry to allow employees to work at multiple operations as seasonal or temporary with IDs and background checks that are transferable Number seven, this is similar to the approved premise diagram that applicants submit an approved site security plan which should minimize the need for revisions and resubmittals at the business licensing permit stage.
asserts that tax delinquency includes failure to file a report with the county in addition to the failure to pay required taxes on cannabis operations. We hope that provides a little more clarity to operators. Next slide, please. The change in Section 50-23 under Change in Ownership. This brings our regulations into alignment with state requirements and addresses changes in ownership, increasing the share from 10% to 20%, and states the required timeline for notification.
And finally number 10 in 50-27 is really just language to limit cannabis operations that are under appeal if the operator requests to continue the hearing beyond 60 days. Thank you, and I'll turn it back over to Mr. Malachian.
2:37 – 2:436 turns
Thanks, Brittany. Next slide please. This slide is... Can you put it back up please? There you go. On this slide we had worked with the Treasurer Tax Collector but their responses came in after we had docketed this board letter So this slide represents some language changes that we will make prior to the final reading. They're really fairly semantic in nature, they just clarify that for example, we indicated required quarterly tax reports which is how 50A is worded but in truth the treasurer or tax collector can set the frequency of those required reports And so we've changed the language accordingly.
And the rest of it is just some wording changes with clarifying that the treasurer tax collector is the county's agent for the collection of cannabis revenue. With that, we're open to questions from the board.
Before we go to questions from the board Mr. Gazzone?
Chair and Supervisors Springing off Assistant CEO Malekian's comments, if the board wants to include the comment shown on PowerPoint slide in the ordinance that can easily be done through a minor modification of the recommended actions to make clear that the board is moving recommended actions A through D. But with the recommended action, a amended to read as it currently reads and then adding at the end in incorporating the revised language shown in PowerPoint slide from staff's presentation. Because this is the first reading of an ordinance we just need that specificity and I can help you with that motion if that's the direction of the board.
Thank you. I'm sure we'll take advantage of that. Do we have any questions from my colleagues before we go to public comment? Mr. Hart?
Yeah, I want to thank Mr. Malachian and Ms. Heaton for their work on this these amendments. This is really helpful and we're making progress it's very encouraging. I do want to ask about the remarks that Mr. Malachian made about working with industry to figure out a better approach Disclosure of ownership, that complex evolving issue. What exactly are you proposing in relation to what we're doing here with this ordinance introduction? How are we gonna accommodate that dialogue going forward?
Supervisor Hart to the Chair. I think when we first drafted Chapter 50 and we were putting all this together, I think there was an essential assumption that each of these cannabis operations, the owners and operators were in effect the financial purse holders. And we built the regulations accordingly. One of the things that's become apparent over the last couple years is that very often the operating management team will stay the same but But money comes in from different sources.
We raised the 20, we're proposing to raise the threshold from 10% to 20%, to try to ease out some of this requirement that basically you have to notify us, you have to stop and resubmit your business license and start over again. I'm not sure that in the long term that's going to address the real issue anymore because The money that's coming in to uphold these operations, which are multi-million dollar operations seems to be fairly fluid.
And what we couldn't get into with this today but I think is gonna be the next and maybe the last real sort of long term regulatory challenge is to find a way to vet The financial sources, if the operating team is going to stay intact. But they're getting their money from different sources and we find a way I don't have an answer for that right now to differentiate between the operating team making sure that there are good character and people that we want etc.
And where the money's coming from. And even if it were the money's coming from changes if there was a way that we can ensure I think there is, that the money is coming from reputable sources. That vetting could take place separately from the business license process and that we can develop a certification process for that. And I'm not even sure I'm being as clear as I would like to be on it. It has come up at least twice in the last year and it's really complicated about trying to decide who's responsible And when should we sort of push the reset button and require a resubmission of the business license? Especially when the players haven't changed at all, just the money.
2:43 – 2:4910 turns
I appreciate your candor. It is complicated and it's very common in every other business, you know the people who operate restaurants are often not the investors that are funding the operation of the restaurant so it's something that we're going to have to resolve and fairly soon I think it probably is the highest next Challenge and I know that the industry folks are open to working collaboratively to try and figure out a solution. The state has its own requirements for notifying changes of ownership, and you know that's probably the first place to start is what's the state model? And could that serve as a proxy for what we're trying to do locally? And what's lost if we do There's certainly a lot gained.
I'm also interested in knowing about our ability to process all of this concurrently, it is very valuable to have the concurrent processing going that this proposes but you know we've got to make sure that we staff up properly to make sure that this can be done timely in a timely way and so I guess maybe Is it for Ms. Plowman or is it for you, Mr. Malachian? What is the administrative structure that we have to make sure that if we're gonna ask applicants in 15 days that we're gonna be able to actually process these applications in a timely manner?
Chair Hart and I'll let Ms. Plowman weigh in as well but I think in some ways this is gonna help us a great deal rather than I don't think the staffing is going to be an issue. The processes are in place, and especially by moving these two site plan review processes more closely together and getting them signed off at the same time that's going to be a very significant increase in our ability to be efficient in terms of how we process this.
And I know there's
another
excuse me, I'm sorry go ahead.
I was just checking to see whether Miss Plowman had anything she wanted to
add. Mr. Chair, Supervisor Hart, I think Mr. Malekian has clearly stated what we think the benefits are. This has been a snag in this process since we started and I think this change will allow us Be better coordinated for the benefit of the person seeking the business license and, and the permit. And staff as well because we've had these problems where there's been iterative plans that have had to go back around for review so I think what we're doing with this change will definitely make a improvement in the speed at which we can move.
I know one of the challenges that's been expressed to me is that the state licensing process itself takes four to six months, and that that process can't begin until after the county has issued its business license. And so when you start stacking all of these processes in a line, it can take a very long time to get to the finish line. I think everybody has an interest in making sure that everybody's licensed and operating according to the county ordinances and the state law as fast as possible so that they can be doing what they need to do safely and equitably. So is there any way? Has there been any kind of discussion about figuring out To let those two process happen concurrently so that we could theoretically, you know provide the state with documentation that we have an applicant has completed the land use process and is initiated the business license process and is, you know making progress on that I think I think that we retain the ability to withdraw.
That authorization to the state if there was something that went wrong in the business license process, but that way they could begin the state licensing process at the same time that they're going through the county licensing processes. That's something that came up in your discussions.
There are excuse me Supervisor Hart through the chair. We have discussed that at length and it is a little bit of a challenge I know a lot of the applicants would like to be able to proceed with their state license and assume that they're going to get their business license. And it was one or another reason for moving back, for creating that 15 day requirement to start the business license process.
We think that's smoothing out particularly of those plans are gonna eliminate some of that stress. It is a little bit problematic to allow someone, the state requires them to have a business license in hand and an approved business license. It is certainly possible for us to stay in contact with the state as somebody who can verify that the person is moving through the application process but I would want us to be very careful about approving someone for a state license who hasn't been Who hasn't completed the business license process.
However, one of the biggest hurdles to the business license process mentioned earlier was that old site security plan and the fact that it will be done before they open the business license application should eliminate the biggest barrier of that.
Well thank you for those comments appreciate them.
2:49 – 2:5919 turns
Thank you, Supervisor Hart. I've got a question and it was brought up by one of the attorneys for the industry and that had to do with the question on whether or not when there is a change of ownership how that affects their line or their position in line on the cap. There seemed It was not clear that when that change of ownership, I think it's a section 5023.
where it says there is sufficient space to allow the operation if the cannabis operation is subject to the limitations. So I was just trying to make sure that we were clear that, if you there's a change in ownership, you do not go back to the end of the line on the cap or that you retain your current position. It'd be helpful to make sure I understand that. I know there's some concern.
And looking at that question, that question comes up quite frequently. And quite honestly I would encourage anybody who is going through the business license application process to not be doing changes of ownership at the same time. It's not particularly a good strategy, I don't think. You would not necessarily lose your place in line but You would certainly, your application would be on hold and you don't get to keep your place in line. Others may pass you while you're waiting to get that confirmed.
And I recognize that's not necessarily a desirable place to be in. And again, that's why I would encourage industry representatives
So I guess my question is if we eventually fill our cap. And that's completely saturated and then there's a change in ownership. Meanwhile, there are applicants waiting if this somebody falls out of the capped space would the action Result in that operator losing their space in the cap and having another operator come in and filling that hole. And I think that's what is giving people heartburn.
Chair Nielsen, in all honesty, I don't know that we've specifically addressed that. And so if I could tell you what my sort of personal reaction would be, I suspect that that's one of those things If the cap was full and somebody was holding a current license and operating, and changing ownership. And there's that whole sort of suspension activity process while that is processed. My reaction is that should not cost them their place in line.
But I'd really have to sit down with county council and And work that out particularly as we get towards a place where we are filling the gap.
Mr. Chair?
Yes, real quick let me
finish- Yeah just to piggyback on that I mean to me that would be really detrimental to the county in our position otherwise we'd be rotating out people this person could have been a upstanding fine cultivator and because of a change in ownership they're going to get you know we shut them down and restart with somebody else so whatever we have to do to write that in or Or make sure as a policy decision that we just give staff direction that that's not what the intent is.
I think that would be really bad policy decision.
Thank you, Supervisor Lavinio and I think to continue on maybe it's not a part of this amendment but maybe in a future amendment that were able to clarify that especially as we get closer to the cap would be my thought but let me ask Mr. Gazzone
Chair and Supervisors, yes I think that the tension is that as currently written business licenses are not non-transferable and if there's a change in ownership greater than 20% then that is a change that would require starting afresh on that. We could fine tune that in a future amendment as we get closer to cap as you just indicated But I think the concept, the two concepts that are in tension are that the applicants want some certainty and the county is treating business licenses themselves as non-transferable.
Okay thank you maybe that's what the board needs to look at at some point is creating flexibility and transferability in the future maybe that's part of that solution but we will continue on. Supervisor Hartman sorry to start your light
Thank you. Well let me first say that, excuse me, I know a lot of work has gone into this and I'm particularly happy to see the changes for legal non-conforming that's memorialized here about what you have to do to keep that status. I am concerned though about a couple of things. One, it was always in my mind important that the business license and the land use permit be mutually dependent That we shouldn't be giving land use permits that go in perpetuity to people who can't get a business license.
And I know that, excuse me, the issues have to do with how complicated it is to process them but I would rather than see that the land use permit is delayed until they get the business license and they don't get one without the other I really think that that's a fault in our ordinance and that we can, I know that in land use you say it's the use and the business license is the user but I think in cannabis the two are very closely intertwined. And in my mind sort of mutually dependent on one another The second question I have really is probably for planning and development, but it's the definition of cultivation where it includes as well as grading. I don't know that grading is cultivation.
I know that people have made that claim that they had Legal nonconforming, they had a few acres or less in medical but they were grading for squash or something else and therefore it fits under the definition of cultivation. To me that is I'd like more feedback about that definition The next, I guess I'll put my questions out all together and then get answers later. We've had a number of comments about inspections. As I read the language, inspections no longer require advance notice that if you're within business hours that this basically the ordinance is noticed that you are open for inspection during those times but I'd like some clarification on that And the final thing is nuisance. We say that nuisance can be a basis for Withdrawing the business license and I'll probably, this will be written on my grave but Ag-2 properties without any odor control in especially in the Santa Ynez Valley where they're so concentrated almost over half our cap.
These will create a nuisance in common law if not by our ordinance And I still hope we will change our ordinance to address that because it's a hugely serious problem. But I'm just asking about the common law nuisance and if someone were able to bring that action successfully, would that mean then that the business license could be revoked on that basis? I think those are my questions for now.
Supervisor Hartman, so are you okay to defer those to a little bit later when we're in deliberations or would you like to hear those?
Well there are questions and I think they're also I lay them out in case there's public comment that might illustrate more about them as well.
I think that's helpful. Supervisor Williams do you want a couple comments before we go to public comment?
Yeah,
well I can wait for public comment. Yeah let's go ahead unless any of my colleagues need to get something in now let's go ahead and move to public comments so we can get those issues on the table as well in our discussions. So Madam Clerk are there requests to speak from the public?
Chair Nelson and members of the board yes we have five requests to speak on this item.
All right so before we begin I'm going to go ahead and close it for additional public speakers so go ahead and begin.
Chair Nelson and members of the board, our first speaker is Amy Steinfeld to be followed by Renee O'Neill.
2:59 – 3:056 turns
Steinfeld when you're ready.
Okay good afternoon honorable commissioners sorry supervisors I'm Amy Steinfeld and i'm here on behalf of the North County Farmers Guild so you've touched upon the changes in ownership section and that's really what we want to expand on today to explain why an amendment is really necessary and we need to get it right I also want to thank you and we support most of the changes, and we really appreciate all the work that's gone into this.
So with regards to this change in ownership, we understand the county needs to understand who is operating in the county. And we take no issue with notifying the county of a new owner. This is already required by state law. But we're concerned because it's written, it's really unclear as you mentioned whether an operator could both lose their spot during the transfer or the new owner would lose their spot. So the reason why it's so important to ensure that a new owner can save their spot is that the business license was really structured to allow the county and the landowners to remove bad operators.
If there's no ability to transfer because of the cap concern this could be a disincentive to keep bad operators on the land. Second, cannabis farmers like any other landowners need flexibility to sell their projects since land use permits run with the land and many applicants have spent immense resources going through not only the land use process but the business license process.
Most cannabis companies are gonna need also additional funds at some point to meet the stringent state and local requirements. In addition if there's no ability to transfer land what happens when you wanna give the farm to the next generation or there's a big life change such as a death? I also want to distinguish between a full change in ownership, which Mr. Melekian touched on versus a partial one. We don't believe that for example adding a partner to an existing operation should trigger an entirely new business license process with additional inspections especially because business licenses have to be renewed as you know annually.
So adding a new partner where at least one existing partner stays and the entity stays the same should only require notification plus a new live scan. So in short, the key is that a transfer or change in ownership should be processed as a renewal instead of a new application with regard to the cap. And for your convenience, we've provided some amendments in our letter that really address this issue.
Lastly, I just want to quickly request that a time period for the county to act on a submitted application be included. Many of these licenses are taking over nine months and to ensure that farmers are able to make business decisions, we would request that there would be a time period for the county to act. For example, an application should be deemed complete 60 days after submittal And then the applicant or the inspection should be actually, you know put into play within say 90 days. Thank you so much for your time happy to answer any questions.
Thank You Ms. Steinfeld.
We will now go to Renee O'Neill to be followed by Peter DuGray.
Ms. O'Neill when you're ready
Good afternoon, Supervisors Chair Nelson and the Board. I would like to suggest fine-tuning some of the revisions to Attachment 2 which I detailed in my letter. Throughout the document there are phrases that I believe are ambiguous like timely manner appropriate progress can we please specify time limits to complete each phase of these processes? Also, we need deadlines where growers can remedy corrections such as odor control.
I'm very pleased to rehear Supervisor Hartman report that there will no longer be prior notifications. This has been a huge issue in our community. Cannabis is considered a drug and must be treated as such when farms are inspected Today, we have at least two growers that are not complying with the ordinances growing pot indoors hauling fuel as of a few days ago to sites up at autumn road.
It's very disheartening to see the continual lack of compliance. I would also like to recommend requiring criminal history checks for all employees, regardless of their positions. And I would like to recommend that all cannabis workers be required to prove they carry a valid California driver's license if driving, that they have auto insurance and their vehicles are currently registered. We've had huge issues with that in Tapiskaya.
I'd like to prohibit growers that have continually failed to comply with the laws from the outset. To have their licenses revoked, period. It is my sincere hope that the section regarding grounds for denial will give our county the ultimate authority to remove the bad actors that have obtained licenses renewals under false pretenses and or continue to operate illegally.
On the other hand, I suggest that the county consider developing a reward system for the good actors by giving them an incentive for complying with requirements and getting through this process in a timely manner. And I think. Catching people being good is always a better standard. And by the same principle, I would like the county to adopt heavy penalties for failure to comply and immediately shut down operations.
Thank you so much for your time. Thank you everyone, Barney Jeff, Brittany Lisa and the board for I can't believe what a convoluted process this has been. And I really appreciate all the work you are doing and the progress we are making my best to all thank you for listening.
3:05 – 3:128 turns
Thank you Renee
We will now go to Peter DeGray to be followed by Jared Ficker.
Mr. DeGray, when you're ready?
Good afternoon Chair, Honorable Supervisors. My name is Peter DeGray representing Carp Growers that's big letters CARP C-A-R-P for Cannabis Association for Responsible Producers. We have 13 member farms in Carpinteria Valley who all work closely together to resolve issues and think big about things like sustainability and lead by example for other farmers across the state.
Over the past year we've been busier than ever, mainly in the community of Carpinteria and Santa Barbara, our group has invested in the new East Beach pavilion. So we hope to see that fully operational soon pandemic permitting. We've also recently partnered with Freedom Warming Centers of Santa Barbara County. And donating over $13,000 so the centers can operate. We do this in collaboration with our local brands and the pharmacy of Santa Barbara as part of the grassroots program. So when locals purchase local products at the pharmacy a portion of those proceeds support a local cause.
As an association, Carp Growers is just about three years old. Our members are still in the permitting process. We appreciate all the work that the county puts in to regulation and compliance. We believe over the last three years both the planning department and our member farms have been able to make progress and to learn more about what a functioning cannabis industry looks like in Santa Barbara County. We look forward to crossing that finish line soon and continuing to work with the county to get there.
We submitted a letter today that outlines suggestions for amendments to the Business License Ordinance. Timely and efficient processing of business licenses is imperative for our members who are seeking compliance. We support any efforts to streamline this process. A big focus of ours lately has been on the science and technology of odor control and monitoring. Our Odor Subcommittee works closely with SCS engineers just about every day developing systems that will wipe out intermittent odors that are still being reported.
The professionalism of our farms during COVID-19 has been noteworthy. We do have over 1,200 employees on cannabis farms in Carpinteria and really strict precautions and protocols have been in place at these farms for almost a year now just really to keep everyone safe so we're pleased to have executed that and operated safely and also to have some of the best cannabis brands in the state they're growing their product right here in Carpinteria Cannabis farming is clean agriculture and as this industry matures, I think you'll see that much of the innovative work being done in our area will be modeled as more counties and other states even permit cannabis farming. So just want to reiterate thanking all of you for the progress in this process and have a good day.
Thank You Mr. DeGray
We will now go to Jared Ficker to be followed by Sabrina Noah
Mister Ficker when you're ready.
I chair Nelson and members of the board. Thank you for taking the time to consider these amendments to the cannabis business license ordinance today. I'm with action advisers we represent a number of I'm going to talk a little bit about. You know, we've worked very closely with the County Executive's Office and Mr. Mielecki and his team providing some feedback about some ways to make a more efficient process related to processing business licenses. And I do think many of the amendments and changes here reflect those conversations and efforts to increase some Um, efficiency around them. So generally we're in strong support of the proposed amendments and I'll focus a few of my comments on some areas that I think could use some additional work as has been already outlined by previous speakers and members of the board In particular, this language related to changing from a 10% threshold to a 20% threshold.
What would trigger a new license application? We have some clients that are in the process of going through this now where significant investment is occurring in some of these operations sometimes at a holding copy level that would kind of constantly require New applications to be submitted comments were talked about, you know submitting some changes or updates.
I do think the best way to probably handle this particular requirement section is actually sort of mimicking what occurs at the state for example. Um, and there's different requirements with the different state agencies. As you know, there's three state agencies involves, but we have to update financial interest holders and owners within 10 to 14 days at the state anytime those changes occur. And I think that's the area that is in some cases triggering under the current ordinance language even if it's moved up to 20%.
You know, I think it makes sense for the state or for the county to have the same information we're providing in the state on a timely basis. If an owner changes or financial interest holder is added There should be a process for the county to receive that information without necessarily having to start from scratch with a whole new business license application. So I think this is an area that needs some additional work and discussion, I think the concept of raising the threshold to 20% is a good one but then you lose some of those small changes that were already reporting this information to the state. And I think it could be captured in talk through In a way that's more efficient. I think the intent, you know and I've been involved from the very beginning when we worked on the land use ordinances and business license ordinance ordinances related to cannabis.
I think the goal was to have some more simplicity or we thought it would be a little more simple process on the business license side. And so a lot of these amendments reflect that. Thank you. That's your time.
3:12 – 3:1713 turns
And we will now go to Sabrina Noah who is our final speaker on this item.
Miss Noah, welcome. Begin when you're ready.
Good afternoon chair and board thank you for the opportunity to speak today echoing some of the wonderful comments of my cannabis colleagues I join with them in appreciation to the CEO's office and staff for the additional changes made to the ordinance that are necessary for the county to continue to serve as the model for responsible cannabis regulator in the state of California Unfortunately, I think there are a few areas of unintended consequences that we look forward for the opportunity to continue to discuss and work out. To ensure that those operators who are diligently and expeditiously working their way through the land use entitlement process don't have unintentional consequences to their applications and ongoing permitting. We appreciate the significant amount of effort and work that have gone into this document thus far, and hope that there will be further opportunities to work collaboratively with the cannabis operators in this area.
To ensure that at the end of the day we share the same goal of having a sustainable regulated and. That the best industry available for the residents of Santa Barbara. So, thank you so much and I hope that there will be future discussions specifically around the definitions of cultivation and manufacturing.
Thank you miss Noah with that back to the board.
Mr chair
supervisor Avenue.
Thank you, I don't really want to wait too much. I think we've already said our, I've said my piece but I do want to give a shout out to Barney Malekian and I know this is our fourth go through on the amendment so We're down into the minutiae at this point, but I think it says a lot about Barney's leadership that we have five public speakers on this matter.
And I think all five or at least four and a half were very positive about the developments and where we are right now. So a lot of that rests at the feet of Barney. So I just really wanted to thank him for all of his energy, time and I know we've got something planned in the future for him but I didn't want to let this meeting go by without saying thank you.
Thank
you Supervisor Lavinio. Supervisor Williams? Well, I wholeheartedly concur. I think there's some real strength to the changes in terms of enforcement and accountability. And I guess one of those, I just wanted to check on is the question of whether we can inspect without prior notification? I couldn't find the language in the ordinance itself but I just wanted to ask if that is That's one of the outstanding issues that I want to make sure is clarified, because I did see it in some of the letters from the public.
Supervisor Williams to the chair. That issue has been kind of confusing to us because there's never been a requirement for notification prior to inspection. Some of the ordinance changes do clarify that simply entering the application process opens you up for inspections during normal business hours by county employees. And there's never been a requirement to view prior notification.
Of course, I would expect that normal business hours is quite large when you're a farmer So we're not just talking about nine to five, are we?
I'm not
sure how to answer that. Okay well maybe you could get back to me on that so and then the other sort of question have is for our attorneys and one of the other public comments that the grounds for denial of a license section D requires people to use the best available control technology and failure to do so as grounds for denial One public comment, one letter asked essentially brought up the question is does the word odor need to be in there or is it simply enforceable as-is for odor even without the word odor? So this might be a Mr. Gazzone question.
3:17 – 3:2410 turns
Chair if I could pass on that question just for a moment to go back and look at the language and come back to you with any of your questions.
And then the other. Back to the change in ownership question, I mean so it is staff basically saying that the changes that you drafted may not be in maybe change further changed but you want us still pass this because it's an improvement on what we already have a I mean is I'm sorry. Would
you repeat the question,
please? Sure. I'm sorry. I may not be being very clear today. So on the question of the change of ownership, the language that you have in the ordinance I've read and of course it doesn't get at this really this question is should it be triggered by Financial arrangements should it require a another application process does that potentially boot you out of the cap.
And would we be served by having the same information the state gets at more minor changes of ownership? Are those things that you are proposing that Ms. Heaton and us grapple with in a possible further change or to dispense with these changes today while we work on it? Which course of action would you suggest?
Supervisor Williams to the chair. I do think the discussion that Mr. Crapwell and Ms. Heaton should probably lead is this issue about how do we separate or how do we analyze the financial ownership, the financial control versus the operating management team The one thing that industry representatives have brought it up before, well the state has certain information and we should just rely on what we get from them.
But I will say that communication is not always completely predictable or timely. And I would not want to surrender what our county is looking for in information to be dependent on state documents. I recognize from the industry perspective, there's a certain duplication that probably seems very unnecessary. But from the county government perspective we don't always get everything that the state has in a timely way. I don't know if I answered your question or not.
No, I think you did. On the latter point though, I think their suggestion is to submit the same data not that we would depend on getting it from the state that they would submit it to us but the same information
Thank you. Supervisor Hartman had some questions before public comment and did you want to reiterate those?
Sure, I will but just on this point I guess it leaves the question how much would trigger a new application what's the you know from 10% 100% where are we going to draw the line or on what basis and I think we need to have some discussion of that to even give direction I don't know how to think about it.
Yeah, it seems to be there's a rub between non-transferable and change of ownership and so I think I'm struggling with that as well. I guess is that an open ended question or do we need staff?
If I understand the question Supervisor Hartman to the chair. I believe we landed at 20%. We changed that threshold from 10% to 20% to be in alignment with the state requirement, so that we did not have a different set of requirements. That's why we went to 20%. The question of whether or not Any sort of change of ownership should require a change in the license, something that might be worth considering for the future as we start to fill up the cap and we get more approved operators.
The next sort of bureaucratic challenge if you will will be the renewal process And that they come up, these applications or these operations are going to come up for licensed renewals every year. And it may be that when we're no longer processing brand new applications but we're looking at revisions to existing operations there might be a way to say okay, we're gonna incorporate this into the renewal process But I do think one of the challenges from the beginning with this, with the industry has been that the ownership of individual operations is never completely stable.
At least in many cases it's not stable. The partners change, the money changes and we're trying to match kind of a single business license model process To an entity that, you know, to a industry whose players change on a fairly regular basis. So that is a complicated issue.
3:24 – 3:3011 turns
Just a quick follow-up, Dr. Malecki and then what do you think about the recommendation that we simply be noticed? That is if there is a change triggered by the ordinance that we get notice directly from the operator owner as the state gets notice so we don't wait for the state. Is that adequate or do we need a whole new business license application?
I think, sorry Supervisor Hartman to the chair. I think that it might be worth considering looking at notification only for those operators who have already been approved or in the system and we can incorporate the review in the renewal process But I would not necessarily think that it would be a good idea to do that for people who are currently going through the process and don't have all of their land use and business license processes tied up.
Part of our goal is to create this sort of stable regulated industry, Ownership inconsistently changes is a continual challenge. We could look at absorbing that into the renewal process at some point in the future.
I think you had some other questions, did you feel like you've got those satisfactory responses or?
No, I guess they're Mr. Gazzone and we will continue disagreeing on the whether we can make them mutually dependent. I would much prefer that the land use permit not be issued until the business license is actually issued. We won't actually give the land-use permit until they go through these, what is it? 15 days or whatever that time frame is to get the business license because I think people are gaming this system and they ought to go hand in hand. That's my first and then the other is the nuisance.
Mr. Gazzone?
Chair and Supervisors, on the timing that was a subject that the board wrestled with at the beginning of regulating cannabis and the board has discretion in this area I just think it would be a major change and it may have some unintended policy consequences so It's something that could be changed, but I would recommend not doing that quickly today. I mean if you want to provide direction to look at that, I think there would be a top-to-bottom look at the sequencing of this and what are the impacts?
We are in litigation on a series of cases, but that doesn't actually deter me from saying that if you wanted to change the order, that's something we could look at. This is an area where people vest to a permit and not to an expectation, so the board has some choices in this area. I just think that it's a difficult sweater to unknit and then re-knit and wouldn't recommend doing that here today.
As to the nuisance question, I went back and looked at the code provision. And which the code revision I looked at was not being proposed for change today so that is the same language we have right now and common law nuisance. We tried to leave it as it is so that the hearing officer would have a little more discretion on it but really the elements of common law nuisance are what we're talking about.
And then going back if unless you had further questions
Just to clarify, so that if someone did bring that case and succeeded then this...that would be grounds for denial of a business license?
Yes. Although I would hope we could get there quicker than that. That if somebody had enough to make it through civil court on a nuisance case then you know that same information to the hearing officer would be sufficient for revocation.
And would that be true on AG-2 where we don't have explicit odor control?
Yes, I'm just thinking through that there's no I make no distinction on the nuisance. You know that I think the way that ag to would come in would be what's the context for your nuisance you're looking at this rounding neighborhood so I think that in different zoning regimes we might have a different denominator that we're looking at for how much is enough for nuisance, but I don't see any outright prohibition on finding a new triggering nuisance and add And then I had an open question from Supervisor Williams before, and that was whether the language would benefit.
Best available control technology would benefit from inserting the word odor. My recommendation is against that, primarily because the current definition of best available control technology links over to County Code Chapter 35 which uses just the term best available control technology and I'd be recommending against saying the same thing two different ways and having that somehow used to confuse later by an opponent.
And I appreciate that. So going back to that question about nuisance. Is there any value in adding something to Chapter 50 to be more specific on what we consider a nuisance or if the board wanted to tighten that up and help the hearing officer on what our criteria is, that is within our liberty to use Chapter 15 that way?
3:30 – 3:367 turns
Chair and Supervisors, the Board could. We have a list of things that are triggering right now. Nuisance is one of them. I think that we take comfort from how nuisance is used in other contexts. It's something we could look at in the future and if there was anything you wanted to tell us today to look at and bring back the next time this comes to the Board, we will be able to go through it.
We are working in a regime where we've got multiple ordinances regulating the same area, and that's part of what we want to make sure that as we pull on one string it doesn't affect the other one. But more direction on the things that concern you or something we could dial in there. And I think that this particular ordinance amendment is designed to make it quicker and clearer for hearing officers to move enforcement forward
Thank you. I can imagine Supervisor Hart is out there and has any questions for staff or comments?
I appreciate everybody's other comments. I think that this question of the transfer of ownership is remains outstanding and a challenge, and I don't exactly know whether consolidating the 10% shift to 20% shift is enough or if we need to take more time and have more Deliberation about the complexities of all this. I'm very troubled about hearing that folks would lose their place in line and that's new information to me today, so I'm trying to integrate all these things. I am curious what my colleagues think? I mean, I think it's significant that we would move the bar from the 10% change of ownership to the 20%, but requiring a whole new application for these kind And adding investors adding partners there are there are certainly benign things in that there are other, I think legitimate concerns about you know the change of operation change of ownership to bear scrutiny.
But, um, you know, there's not really a one size fits all here. That seems like it's, it's obvious. And there's a lot of good in what's been amended into Chapter 50 and I want to retain that and want to move forward on that so I'm sort of stuck here interested in what my colleagues think.
Well, I don't mind jumping in on that. It does seem like there is this rub between non-transferable and change in ownership I think maybe if we move forward with the chapter 50 amendments, but give staff direction that we expect prior to reaching the cap that we have a policy discussion here on what that looks like on either retaining your spot or. You know, I think this 20% number going higher is ultimately a decision for the five of us to make.
And I think we could probably have more robust discussion about what the consequences of that are while maintaining the desire and intention of this ordinance to not allow it to be something that can be flipped and moved on to other operators quickly. There are legitimate concerns. The state planning. I mean, I know this is a new industry but that is something that will happen in the future and we should be anticipating those things, but we should also not let those things be abuses to an ordinance that you know we're all you know had some intentions good policy intentions that were involved in it. So I mean at my thought would be to move forth what we have here but also to be looking at that and with the expectation that it comes back.
And I even further was thinking that you know I've described this whole process with cannabis And I'm sure it wasn't original to me, but was building the plane while we were flying it. And that might be probably a Mr. Gazzone actually. But I think it would have some value that we see Chapter 50 maybe on an annual basis like we do in planning with the general plan amendments things that are little issues that come up throughout the year that need small tweaks. I think there's some good policy that can be found from us just expecting to see tweaks every year on this as We move forward with this grand experiment. Mr. Gazzone?
Chair and supervisors, you may want to hear again from the CEO's office on this but at 10,000 feet the change one of the pieces that we've been talking about is this change of ownership from 10% to 20%, which really I'm thinking of as more generous to the entity not the other way around So we have a couple issues wrapped up in these thoughts. One is 10 to 20% is more generous to the entity matching this state, and then we've got the separate issue about what about the place in line? But I think those are two issues that are kind of tied together but the 10 to 20%, I just wanna make clear that that cut is benefiting the entity.
Yeah, yeah, I think I'm clear there, CEO Miyasato.
Chair Nelson, I like your idea of revisiting this on a regular basis. I think we will look at the change of ownership issue. We're not close to the cap but we can come back maybe in six months with an update to the board given on this particular issue because it is of concern and then we can figure out a regular schedule to come back for regular checkups on the board on the ordinance. Thank you.
3:36 – 3:4225 turns
Mister chair.
Well,
yeah, yes, just plowing then we'll get I think a surprise learning is ready to make emotion bigger go ahead.
Oh, I had a response to Supervisor Hartman's question about the definition of cultivation.
Yes, please
and yeah so Mr Chair supervisor Hartman the definition of cultivation that's now in the business license ordinance came straight from the from Article 3 the land use development code now called And it was developed when we were developing the original cannabis ordinance. And grading is just a functional part of agricultural operations, and that's why that language is used in the definition of cultivation.
So I just wanted to make sure that that was clear. And then one other thing in response to a question that came up about entering the premises There is some confusion sometimes about whether or not consent is required. And when we have cannabis applications, we require a permit compliance and consent is provided when they sign that application. But when we're doing investigations on zoning violations, we do have to get consent in advance. So that's probably why there's a little bit of confusion on that particular issue.
Thank you. Supervisor Hartman?
Would you just repeat that again because people ask me and I gotta make sure I understand that. Sure, so
when somebody submits an application for cannabis we also require a permit compliance application that goes along with that. So that our compliance staff can follow up on those permits. And when they sign those applications they sign a consent form to allow staff to enter the premises
But when I ask for clarification right there, so that's only getting the permit. They're not signing consent for ongoing monitoring or regulation? Is that correct?
That's my understanding of it and but if there is a zoning violation that comes up later down the line we do have in our code A requirement that we do obtain consent planning and development obtains consent before we enter a premises so that you know if 10 years down the road, somebody builds a barn on the side or something that's illegal. We have to get consent to enter.
And supervisor Harper into the chair just to add to that and you can see why people get confused about this as soon as you. Submit a business license application. You're also consenting to inspection anytime during During normal business hours, et cetera. And no notification is required about that.
And if I may ask, would that be all inclusive of violation complaints? If the business license says, I as an operator agree to inspections during regular business hours, can you inspect for complaints that are under the land use code
Yes, thank you.
So Suvrezal Avenue did you do you have a motion for us?
Yeah I think so. I think I'm ready to move staff's recommendation and also to incorporate Chair Nelson's request that we revisit the idea of the cap. I mean it's not my intention that anybody that would be approved Would be removed from the cap, but I won't make that as part of the motion because I think we need to discuss that in the future. But so my recommendation is staff recommendations A through double I and also Chair Nelson's input.
Mr. Gazzone, you want to add something to that? Help us along?
Chair, just for the first part of today's action and I see that CEO make me a sort of like to have something also. But if the board wants to include the language over my shoulder from PowerPoint slide PowerPoint slide number six. I would recommend that the motion be moving recommended actions A through D, but with recommended action A amended at its end to add the words quote and incorporating the revised language shown in PowerPoint slide number six from staff's presentation end quote. And that would include this language with specificity.
That was your motion. You took
the words right out of
my mouth?
Yep, that's good.
That was your motion okay. See me a set of
chair Nelson before you vote or get a second. I just wanted to clarify so Supervisor Lavanino's motion is that he said with the other input from Chair Nelson, and if you could help me articulate that again We are in a transfer of my staff and I want to be very clear what the motion is
right? So what I'm looking for is it we would come back and have a discussion about the cap What you know If whether or not a change in ownership would remove somebody from the cap space and would allow another operator then to take that person's cap space because apparently we're not supposed to decide that today. And also regular visitation to Chapter 50, which by the way I think we've had four visits to Chapter 50 in the last year. So this has been regularly visited anyway but if we would like to make that a yearly visit, I'm fine with that too. I have a feeling we'll be back here soon.
3:42 – 3:4417 turns
Thank you Supervisor Lavinia.
Can I get a second on that motion?
Second.
All right, is there any further discussion among my colleagues?
Yeah, Mr. Chair, I'll just add that my issue about the transferability issue regarding the cap can be addressed in a subsequent discussion and I think we will benefit from having some more collaborative discussions about this transferability issue. I think that Mr. Malachian's idea that we have a different process once an application has been I'm going to go ahead and get started.
the ordinance conception, there's going to be a dynamic process with the ownership and the operations of these businesses that have been trying to go through this process for multiple years. When we conceived of this, no one imagined that we'd be taking this long to get to this space and I think it's reasonable that there is gonna be change. That much time is a long time in a business operation let alone COVID years interceding during this time so it's something we're gonna have to address
I agree. So Madam Clerk, see no additional comments. Can you please call the roll?
Supervisor Hartman?
Aye.
Roll-call vote Passed 4–0
Show transcript
Motion passes unanimously
And just as chair, I'd like to make sure I get a chance to thank Mr. Malikian for his service to our county the last few years and he is greatly respected and we look forward to honoring him in the near future. So with that...
And we will miss him.
Greatly.
No one more than I though let me tell you.
It has been my privilege. Thank you.
I don't know if we're going to miss him that much, he's just moving two blocks over. And for those of us too whose districts include the City of Santa Barbara, we're hoping that we work with them just as closely.
Coming!
All right so we are now reconvening, oh sorry skipped my spot on line here. We will now recess to closed session. County Council will you please read the items for consideration today?
3:44 – 5:042 turns
Chair and supervisors, and first a quick thank you to Senior Deputy County Counsel Johanna Hartley who was with me electronically today throughout the proceeding on our last item. And for closed session today the board has one item which I estimated about one hour conference with labor negotiators concerning the following employee organizations, Civil Attorneys Association, Deputy District Attorneys Association, Deputy Sheriffs Association Engineers and Technicians Association, Firefighters Local 2046, Probation Peace Officers Association, SEIU Local 620, SEIU Local 721 and the Union of American Physicians and Dentists.
Thank you Mr. Gazzone to accommodate some social distancing lunches we will be back here at 2 o'clock Welcome back. We are now reconvening the meeting of February 2nd, 2021. Will County Council please report out from closed session?
5:04 – 5:257 turns
Chair and supervisors, today in closed session the board had one matter of conference with labor negotiators. The employee organizations involved were Civil Attorneys Association, Deputy District Attorney's Association, Deputy Sheriff's Association, Engineers and Technicians Association, Firefighters Local 2046, Probation Peace Officers Association, SEIU Local 620, SEIU Local 721, and Union of American Physicians and Dentists.
There are no reportable actions.
Thank you. The next item is departmental item number three, Madam Clerk will you please read that item into the record?
Chair Nelson and members of the board departmental item number three is from Public Works Board of Directors Flood Control and Water Conservation District. It is a hearing to consider recommendations regarding the request of the Central Coast Water Authority CCWA to approve two water supply contract amendments.
Thank you Ms. Alexander. Mr. McGaulpin
Yes, sir. Good afternoon Mr Chair and board members and as clerk mentioned Public Works is before you today at the request of the Central Coast Water Authority or CCWA to introduce two water supply amendments these recommendations contained on the various policy matters in your staff report were developed in consultation with the CEO and County Council's office Our presentation today will start with Tom Fairam, Deputy Director of Water Resources essentially setting the table for where we'll go with this item this afternoon. And then we'll turn it over to Mr. Ray Stokes, Executive Director of CCWA who will present their specific request to your board. And certainly throughout the presentation, we'll all be available for any questions you may have.
So at this point, Mr. Chair, I will now turn the presentation over to Mr Fairam. Thank you.
Thank you. Welcome, Mr Fairam. Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the board. As Mr. McGaulpin mentioned this is the request by the Central Coast Water Authority to approve two water supply contract amendments to the State Water Project. These items are Amendment 20 which would extend the contract of the State Water Project past the current term which would end in 2038.
The second amendment is Amendment 21 which is a water supply management amendment, which would allow for more flexibility and transfers and then purchase and sale of water through the State Water Project which was much more difficult or not even allowed under the existing contract requirements. Go to the next So Amendment 20, as I mentioned, extends the contract to 2085.
This allows for some additional financial advantages that Mr. Stokes will speak to shortly and then also this proposed amendment has a proposed amendment to the Transfer of Financial Responsibility Agreement or the TEFRA and that can be something that we can discuss at the end as well. Next slide please And then amendment 21 is the amendment that would allow for changes in how exchanges are done and then purchases and sale of water. And, uh, I think those two items, Mr. Stokes will cover in more detail as well as well. So I think with that, um, Mr chair, I would turn it over to Mr. Stokes and he has a presentation to talk about these items. Um, and then we'll all be back and available for questions.
Okay, thank you Tom. Good afternoon Chair Nelson and members of the board I do have a presentation that covers both amendment number 20 and number 21 to the State Water Project contract at the end of the presentation i'd like to update you with regard to the action that the Central Coast Water Authority Board of Directors has taken. I believe you received letters from our board chairperson on behalf of the entire Central Coast Water Authority Board So with that, we can go ahead and start with the presentation.
So the first one is amendment number 20. So this graph is basically talking about how we got to where we needed a contract extension amendment. And when I refer to Amendment Number 20 it's basically more commonly referred to as the Contract Extension Amendment. So currently, most of the State Water Project contracts expire in year 2035. The Santa Barbara County contract expires in the year 2038 and all costs right now are being amortized to the year 2035. All capital costs are being amortized to the year 2035 so there's a need to extend the contract beyond The current expiration of 2038 and it's in the instance of Santa Barbara County that basically will allow for DWR to finance capital expenditures beyond the current 2035 amortization period.
Next slide please. Again, the purpose of the contract amendment is to obtain commitment for continued service beyond 2035. Again, the ability to finance capital projects beyond 2035 and to ease the financial compression associated with having large capital expenditures which are just amortized right now to the year 2035 which is a 14-year period so we have this compression because large capital expenditures which would normally be financed over a longer period of time are being financed just over 14 years today.
Next slide, please. The main term of the contract is anticipated to be extended from the current expiration for a 50-year period to the year 2085. So it does extend all of the outstanding State Water Project contracts to the year 2085, next slide please. There are some direct financial benefits associated with this contract amendment, the Contract Extension Amendment. I'm just going to name three of them which will directly benefit Central Coast Water Authority and our project participants.
One of those benefits is the elimination of what's referred to as the project interest rate The effect of that is that we will not be having to pay for interest in the event that DWR under collects from us based on what their annual budgets. Let me give you an example. In 2018 and 19, you can see here, DWR did not charge us as much as they should have. They go back and they say well, we billed you a certain amount of money and we should have billed you this amount of money And those three years, it was quite a large sum that they miscalculated on the amount that they billed to us.
So they charged us over those three years interest at this project interest rate of 4.610%, which equated to $1.4 million that we had to pay over that three-year period just in interest alone because they had under collected from us. This contract amendment will eliminate that provision so that those types of payments are not necessary in the event that DWR under collects from us.
Next slide, please. There is another direct financial benefit from this amendment and that is the increase in some credits that are applied as a reduction in the payments that we make to the state of California Department of Water Resources These credits are called rate manager credits, and they are allocated roughly in proportion to the capital payments that are paid by all 29 of the State Water Project contractors.
Because CCWA pays a large share of DWR's outstanding capital expenditures we do receive a large portion of those rate manager credits. This amendment increases the total amount of rate manager credits And our estimated share between now and the year 2035, when they will stop is almost $8.5 million. So a direct financial benefit, a reduction in our bill for the next 14 years of about eight and a half million dollars. Next slide.
So moving on, I wanted to mention those benefits on amendment number 20, the increase in the rate manager credits that will be provided The elimination of the project interest rate as well as the ability to finance capital expenditures over a longer period of time, 30 years typically are only available through executing this contract amendment. There is a provision in the contract that it's referred to as an evergreen clause that says the contractors, State Water Project contractors can elect continued service at the expiration of their contract under the same terms and conditions as existed before the contract expired. These direct financial benefits would not be available utilizing the Evergreen Clause. So it's vitally important that this contract amendment number 20, the Contract Extension Amendment is executed on behalf of the Central Coast Water Authority.
And so moving on to the amendment number 21, this is more commonly referred to as a water manager contract amendment. It changes the way the State Water Project contractors Can buy and sell water among State Water Project contractors, how the water is actually utilized and managed among all the 29 State Water Project contractors. So the goals and benefits of Amendment 21 were basically supplement and clarify the terms of the state water contract So it provides all the 29 State Water Project contractors greater water management flexibility. It gives us the ability to facilitate transfers and exchanges, and I'm going to explain this a little bit more so that you understand the difference between transfers and exchanges. And the desired benefit is to create greater flexibility to manage the state water supplies and to provide additional water management tools for all the state water contractors.
Next slide please. So when I refer to exchanges and we see the word exchanges in this contract amendment, as well as in this presentation. It's basically one State Water Project contractor providing water to another State Water Project contractor but there is a return of a portion of that water to the one that provided the water Now you recall that during the drought Central Coast Water Authority was very active in the exchange market, which is the only way to obtain additional supplies from other state water contractors because under the existing contract there's a prohibition against outright buying and selling water.
But under the existing contract, we did exchanges. And so we were able to obtain additional water supplies to meet the needs of all of our project participants during the drought which quite frankly saved Santa Barbara County during the drought but there was also a corresponding water debt that still has to be repaid some of it's been repaid but there is still an outstanding water debt. That is what's meant by an exchange this contract amendment Retains the exchange provision.
But it does clarify the terms in the contract so that says it outlines the exchange ratios, basically it says based on the DWR allocation percentage for example if the current hydrology in a current year is let's say 25% this contract amendment Clarifies the amount of water that can be exchanged. It sets the maximum compensation that can be received by a State Water Project contractor that is providing water in an exchange, and it allows the exchange to be effectuated over a 10-year period. So the exchange provision is still going to be applicable in this contract amendment Although I believe it will probably be less utilized if it's utilized at all because there is a new provision that's going to be added, which is the ability of buy and sell water.
So next slide please. So when I refer to transfers, and you'll see that in this contract amendment, transfers are basically an outright sale of state water project water between two state water project contractors. So as I stated earlier, the existing contract has a prohibition on outright buying and selling water among state water contractors. This Water Management Contract Amendment will allow for the outright sale of water between State Water Project contractors.
So it creates new flexibility for non-permanent transfers. There can be transfers on a one year or multiyear basis without having to return water as would be the provision under an exchange. It allows the State Water Project contractor to set the compensation terms. Whereas an exchange says that they can only receive a certain amount of money for an exchange on a transfer or a sale, there is no limit. It's a willing buyer-willing seller compensation.
It requires conditions to avoid harm to the State Water Project operations or other State Water Project contractors And DWR still has to approve water transfers in the future. Next slide. Other provisions that allows for groundwater that's stored outside our contractor service area to be transferred or exchanged without first returning to the contractor service area. So what that means is that under the existing contract, there's a provision that says if you have state I just want to make a quick point about the project water stored in groundwater banks outside of Santa Barbara County, which we do. Some of our project participants have entered into groundwater banking operations that if they wanted to under the existing contract exchange that water that's banked or with this amendment sell it, they would have had to bring it back I'm going to start by saying that this amendment eliminates the provision to allow up to 50% of what's referred to as carryover water, which is stored in San Luis Reservoir The main source of storage that Central Coast Water Authority uses for water that's made available to us in a particular year, that's not used 100% in that year is storing that water and San Luis Reservoir.
And so water that it's not used one year and carried over the next calendar years referred to as carryover water. This provision allows for up to 50% of that carryover water to be sold or purchased from another contractor between two State Water Project contractors. That can be important Because if San Luis Reservoir physically fills, then we begin losing that carryover water. So we may be in a situation where we have water that's stored in San Luis Reservoir.
We expect that maybe San Luis Reservoir might fill and spill and place our carrier water at risk. So this would allow us to enter into a transaction with another State Water Project contractor for up to 50% of the carriage of water stored in San Luis. It adds provisions to provide transparency, so it makes sure that there is adequate notification that's provided to not only the local service area but also the other state water project contractors regarding proposed transfers or exchanges.
And it adds dispute resolution process if another contractor claims that a transfer exchange is going to cause them harm. Next slide please. So a summary of the benefits, it creates new tools and enhances the flexibility to respond to changes in hydrology that has increasing constraints on DWR's operation of the State Water Project. It increases certainty for water managers by clarifying existing practices and providing rules in implementing transfers and exchanges. So much of the rules that will be followed, be codified in the actual contract language itself which we believe is vitally important.
It ensures transparency of transfers and exchanges and the avoidance of harm. And it may increase opportunities for benefits associated with conjunctive management of surface and groundwater supplies in the state. Next slide. CEQA compliance, DWR certified its final EIR and adopted findings of fact and statement of overriding considerations and approved the amendment. CCWA Board of Directors independently reviewed the CEQRA record and made its own findings of fact and statement on the overriding conditions, considerations for those impacts and considerations within its jurisdiction.
And on November 3rd 2020 CCWA filed it's notice of determination. Next slide So before I conclude, I just want to convey a couple of issues that the Central Coast Water Authority Board of Directors has taken. Number one, you'll notice in the staff report from county staff to you that they are recommending adoption proposing two conditions on amendment number 20 a condition that the agreement between Central Coast Water Authority and Santa Barbara County which is referred to as the Transfer of Financial Responsibility Agreement That an amendment to the transfer financial responsibility agreement be executed mainly to match the term of the new contract, which we believe the existing contract already provides for. But then secondly adds a property taxing provision that CCWA would issue a property tax levy in the event of a payment default which has never occurred in the history of CCWA but nevertheless That CCWA would be responsible for reliving that property tax before Santa Barbara County would be responsible for that.
The Central Coast Water Authority Board of Directors has taken an action and opposes that amendment, and then number two on the water management contract amendment staff is proposing that it'd be executed upon successful negotiation of an additional contract that would basically The county staff is referring to it as a revenue sharing of water sales agreement. So, both of those provisions the Central Coast Water Authority Board of Directors has opposed.
Because we have not yet had the ability to discuss either one of these proposed conditions with your staff or county council, the Central Coast Water Authority Board of Directors is requesting that any action on this be continued until the March 2nd meeting of this board. So that would enable us CCWA staff to meet with your staff and fully understand exactly what their proposals are and determine what the appropriate responsibility is to be but Again, the Central Coast Water Authority Board has requested this continuous and is also opposing these two additional conditions. I'm happy to answer questions you may have.
5:25 – 5:3719 turns
Thank you Mr. Stokes. Mr. Fahyram is there anything else you wanted to add before questions from the board?
Mr. Chair, no question, nothing further to add. We'll staff available for questions from the board.
Right?
Chair and Supervisors, just a few context items. So the papers that were filed you know describe that we go back to 1963 with the water supply contract so those 58 years ago. A few things have changed since then. We have the water supply retention agreements in the 1980s the transfer of financial responsibility agreement in 1991. And then as CCWA described Amendment 20 to the water supply contract would extend that out from 2038 to 2085. That's an additional 47 years, so in talking with county staff on this we think that within the Transfer of Responsibility Agreement, what may have been good enough in 1991 may not be good enough 47 years from now. So that's part of the discussion of the value of maybe adding some terms that were not present in 1991.
The two terms that staff had proposed was making express what's implied which would be that the term is for the term of the State Water Project contract and then adding as may be amended or extended that's not there presently So that would be a belt and suspenders term. Useful, not required. Likewise in another section of the transfer of financial responsibility, another term expressly discussing as amended. And I am hearing rather late in the process that the term and imposing a tax within the Transfer Financial Responsibility Agreement is offensive. So I think there's ways to.
You know, get through this. I think that the board today is considering two separate agreements and I would like to make express what's probably implied in some of the documents and that is that the board has a policy decision whether to approve both none or one of those and there will be opportunity for staff-to-staff discussions on that and we're prepared for questions. And with me today electronically as well as in spirit is again Senior Deputy County Counsel Johanna Hartley
Okay, thank you Mr. Gazzone. Questions for staff?
Supervisor Williams. Well I'm just going to put this question out in general especially some of the public commenters I suppose would probably be Water Board members maybe among them and understand why it is in the short-term interest of a water district to be able to sell water outside of the county. What I do not understand is how it can be in the best interests of the people, in general, of the county.
So I understand the short-term fiscal interests, how that could I'm having trouble on the long-term interests. You know, Kachuma is far from full so don't we want there to be an incentive to have storage in county instead of storage out of county for sale out of county? Don't we want there to be an incentive to transfer to another member of CCWA instead of outside the county I guess those are permutations.
And, uh, I'm not closed-minded if there is an arrangement that you're worried that we would prohibit it with amendments to this. That could be important as a drought buffer. I mean, I will tell you when I was at the city of Santa Barbara, we did store some water out of county in order to be able to draw upon that and Other years, so I understand that some arrangements. But I guess I don't understand if that arrangement was already allowed back then it would still be allowed.
So why? Why would we need to facilitate that with this? So those are some of the questions kind of going around in my head
right? Thank you Supervisor Williams. Supervisor Hartman
Well, I just had a question about Amendment 20 and I understand what CCWA is saying about saving its costs short term. But what I am concerned about is what happens if DWR and the state propose a much larger project in the Bay Delta? And what kind of financial obligations could be imposed in that future time period that we're not anticipating at this time?
So I believe that's a question for CCWA. Mr. Stokes?
Yes, the Delta Conveyance Project, we, the State Water Project contractors in DWR have completed negotiations on another contract amendment for specifically the Delta Conveyance Project. That contract amendment allows for individual State Water Project contractors to opt out of the Delta Conveyance Project So the Central Coast Water Authority Board of Directors already took an action voting to not opt into the Delta Conveyance Project. We communicated that to county staff who also communicated that to DWR. So as it exists today, the Central Coast Water Authority's decision is not to participate in that project and we would be requesting at a future date when the Delta Conveyance Project contract amendment becomes effective that the county execute that and that we not be allocated any of the costs associated with that project.
In order for that to occur, we have to execute that amendment but that is the direction that Central Coast Water Authority took and that we would be requesting that your board also take by excluding us from that project. Supervisor Herman?
I'll come back later to this.
Right. Thank you, Mr Gazzone and then Mr Hart
chair and supervisors I just like to add to what Mr Stokes said that that you know we've we're certainly tracking this and I would consider that amendment that he just described as much crisper and clearer than the current terms of the 1963 water supply contract, which talk about project facilities in pretty broad terms. Project facilities that we're bound to in pretty broad terms and including if you connect enough sections of it, those facilities and programs that are in the state's determination engineeringly feasible and capable of producing project water So, it's a pretty open-ended 1963 agreement and that amendment that Mr. Stokes just described actually be a much better and crisper piece of language.
Thank you. Supervisor Hart?
I just wanted to ask Mr. Stokes or Mr. Farrum to speak directly to how the previous request from CCWA for assignment of the state water contract to CCWA from the board fits into this conversation. These are two separate Amendments to the State Water Contract that CCWA is seeking board approval of. And how do these pieces all fit together? I think the public could be confused about what we're talking about here today.
Mr. Fearon, you want to start with that?
Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair, Supervisor Hart. They are separate requests, keeping in mind that the request of CCWA to sign the State Water Project contract would be an exercise where the county would then release all involved in the state water project to CCWA. The amendments you have in front of you are amendments with the change the contract between The county flood control water conservation district and the state that would that would make changes to that contract those require your approval. And I would also note too, as mentioned in the staff report that in the absence of an assignment any exchange sale or purchase under amendment 21 would also come back to your board for consideration. And if there was an assignment those particular transactions would be through the CCWA board and would not come back to the county if the contract were assigned.
So those, though I hope that answers the question for Supervisor Hart and if Ray would have any additional comments he could he could add that as well. Mr Stokes? Thank you
Doug. Yeah I do it's in this staff report that was presented to you regarding amendment number 20 staff expressed a concern regarding whether or not the liability of these financial liability that the county has. And let me just briefly explain that in the event that Central Coast Water Authority defaults on our payment to the State of California Department of Water Resources, which has never happened in the 30 years of CCWA and we don't anticipate to happen in future however The county retains that obligation as the State Water Project contractor with Department of Water Resources.
There is a concern that was expressed in the staff report, there's a question whether or not your ability to do that under what's called a pre-Prop 13 tax exemption which basically means that state water costs Enjoy an exemption from prop 13 because they were in place before Prop 13 came into existence. There's a question about whether or not that pre-prop 13 exemption will apply to the extended contract. Our comment is, that is a good question and we Here, the county regarding your concern about the additional liability. And we believe the best way to address that is for the county to assign the contract to Central Coast Water Authority. We have the ability, DWR has provided their approval for us to accept assignment of the contract and that you would be, the county would be fully relieved of 100% of the obligations and liability of the state water contract if you assigned it to the Central Coast Water Authority so is our request.
Our request for contract assignment still stands, we would love to have the County Board of Supervisors consider that issue. We believe it is a way to address some of these outstanding liability concerns.
And does Mr. Gazzone have anything to add on this subject regarding the property tax liability?
5:37 – 5:4215 turns
Chair and supervisors, we've discussed this before. And I'm also mindful that there's a validation action still pending in the Sacramento Superior Court which has been there since 2018 and is certainly taking its time getting through to us. I think the, the taxability is an issue we've been tracking throughout the years and we've discussed this in open session before. And then I just want to go back for context you know having listened to the different pieces of this I think you know one thing that strikes me even hearing some disagreement between CCWA and the county is I think everyone is in favor of a system that delivers a reliable water supply to the residents of the county and that's really what we're talking about is how best
Thank you Mr. Gazzone. Supervisor Hart? That's the only question I have, thank you. All right. Supervisor Lavinino any questions from you down up in Santa Maria?
So originally, from what it sounded like at the beginning of this meeting there was some talk and it sounds like obviously that there needs to be more discussion before we. Is that what I'm anticipating? That there's going to be some sort of a we hear this but we're waiting because there's something I want to drop in here as well is if our staff, county council and CCWA get together.
One of the things that I'd like to see, and I think Ray talked to this as well or Tom did. That anytime if water went outside the county was sold outside the county it would come back to the Board of Supervisors anyway. What I'd like to see is, and that does worry me because I think there could be issues between different Portions of the county, if we got in a drought situation which it wasn't that long ago we were in one. But what I'd like to see is at least All county entities that are members of CCWA would be given the right of first refusal.
That they could be approached with, this is the sale we're looking at. If you want the water or need the water, you gotta speak up now otherwise it's going outside. I'll just let whoever's going to have that, going to be bringing that to me when I'm on a member of the Board of Supervisors. That will be a question I ask. So I'd rather just assume and have it put into whatever contract we negotiate.
Thank you Supervisor Lavinia. I've got a few questions for Mr. Stokes. Will the changes that we are being asked to approve today facilitate any underground storage of state water?
I'm sorry, I couldn't hear you.
What we're considering today would that facilitate any underground storage of state water?
It would, but the existing contract already provides for that. So in that respect it doesn't change the ability to store water in a groundwater bank. The only thing it does do with in that regard is I stated the ability to sell water that you have banked in a groundwater bank outside your agency without bringing up outside of your service area without bringing it back into your service area
So are you aware of any intentions by CCWA or its member agencies to store state water in our local basins?
No. Now Central Coast Water Authority is retaining, has retained a consultant to help us basically analyze the best ways we could meet, I mean utilize our state water supplies in light of this water manager contract amendment And that may entail water banking, not in Santa Barbara County but outside. So other potentially existing water banks or some that are in development but none in Santa Barbara County at this
point. And so we have storage currently in the San Luis Reservoir. How much water do we have banked there at this time?
I believe it's probably 20,000 acre feet or something like that. Montecito Water District participates in Semitropic Water Bank, Carpinteria participates in Irvine Ranch Water Bank. These are in Kern County and there may be others that occur in the future. I think there's probably a general realization that water banking so putting water away when we have an excess and it's not needed It's probably a good way to go. It's one of the tools in our toolbox to ensure that we have sufficient supplies to meet the demand when we get into a drought situation.
Thank you, Mr. Stokes. With that I'm going to go ahead and open up for public comment. Supervisor Williams do you have a question first? So Madam Clerk, do we have some public comment?
Chair Nelson and members of the board, that is correct. We have six requests to speak on this item
Okay, thank you. I'm going to allow three minutes per speaker and I'm going to close public comment. Madam Clerk please proceed with public comment.
Chair Nelson and members of the board we are going first to Robert McDonald to be followed by Shade Springer.
5:42 – 5:4810 turns
Mr. McDonald proceed when you're ready.
Yes can you hear me?
We can thank you.
All right good afternoon Chair Nelson and members of the Board of Supervisors I'm Bob McDonald, General Manager of the Carpinteria Valley Water District. We support pretty much what CCWA has said today because of the short time that CCWA's had to review and discuss with the county staff the conditions that have been attached to the approval of the amendments It's just not, it just hasn't been sufficient time so you know while the timely approval of the amendments is critical.
Particularly for amendment 21, I urge you to continue the item to the March 2 meeting in order for CCW and county staff to work towards a mutually agreeable path forward. I would like to try to address Supervisor Williams. question earlier about what benefit to the county as a whole does a sale to someone out, to an agency outside the county bring. And I'll remind Supervisor Williams that the primary beneficiaries of the State Water Project are those members and the rate payers of those members of CCWA.
And what it brings to those folks is efficiency and water management. And I'll give you an example of that in, I believe it was 2015 or 2016 there were a lot of agencies members of CCWA had stored a considerable amount of water both purchased water from other members of the State Water Project and allocation in San Luis Reservoir And that was done because we really had no idea when the drought would, whether it was gonna get worse when the drought would end.
We didn't know what the condition of Kachuma would be. There's a risk of moving water into Kachuma too early because it begins to evaporate very quickly if you don't use it when the reservoir is low. So it's a complex management exercise When you're particularly when you're in a drought situation, what to do with the water where to store it. And this just gives us another tool to convert water into money Until such a time when you're ready to use the water, then you simply can purchase water back.
And so I think it does bring efficiency to all of the members of CCWA and so that in my view brings benefit to the whole county. Thank you.
Thank you Mr McDonald.
We will now go to Shade Springer to be followed by Carolee Krieger.
Mr. Spring, when you're ready.
Good afternoon. Thank you for this opportunity to comment on this important issue for the city of Santa Maria. The mayor of Santa Maria also sent a letter regarding this issue. The city is requesting that the board approve this item without the conditions requested by staff. I understand there's been some discussion today of opportunities to discuss those recommendations of county staff.
However, some of those recommendations are of concern. The conditions recommended by staff unfortunately focus on control and money for the board and not on the constituents who will be left with increased costs and lost opportunities for flexibility in receiving water supply in a variable and evolving situation. The conditions recommended by staff are inappropriate As they would extend the authority of the county in water supply decisions while removing responsibility. This scenario puts the decision for water supplies and costs in the hands of the county, which does not have responsibility or accountability to rate payers for those decisions.
It is conditions such as these and considered actions such as this, which causes any water purveyor in Santa Barbara County to pause in considering any additional investment in the state water project, such as suspended table A. The amendments before you today have been in process for years and have been vetted by all the state water contractors and the Department of Water Resources.
Together, along with CCWA, these agencies are responsible for providing a safe and reliable water supply for millions of Californians. Those most familiar with and responsible for these water supplies recommend approval of these amendments as exemplified by CCWA's unanimous vote to recommend these amendments to the board for approval. The action of the CCWA board is a clear communication from the water purveyors in this county that these amendments are necessary and should be adopted.
In addition to providing critical flexibility to meet water demands, these amendments also provide a financial benefit to the water customers in Santa Barbara County. Approximately 85% of county residents would receive a financial benefit as described by Mr. Stokes by the approval of these amendments with the remaining 15% not being harmed. This is both good water policy and good business sense.
In light of these comments, and for the reasons further articulated in the letter sent by the Mayor Santa Maria, I implore the Board to approve these amendments without the conditions recommended by staff. Thank you. Thank You Mr. Springer
We will now go to Carolee Krieger to be followed by Nick Turner
Ms. Krieger when you're ready
5:48 – 5:5513 turns
Hello, my name is Carolee Krieger and I'm the executive director of the California Water Impact Network 501c3 nonprofit based here in California but with statewide reach. We are very opposed to both of these amendments and have been so since they first came on Under consideration by DWR. And the reason is that due to serious legal, financial and environmental risks approval of these amendments would must be denied that the financial risks are some of the things that Mr Stokes did not talk about if you extend the contract past its current 2038 deadline What you're doing is opening yourself up to ungodly amounts of debt.
If the state decides to build anything, we would have to pay our fair share of whatever price tag came with that. And we just don't think that given the fact that the current project cannot deliver during a drought as we all saw in 2014 when the State Water Project could only deliver 5% of our Table A allocations And it costs, I live in Montecito and an acre foot of water that we actually received from the State Water Project cost us $30,000 as opposed to the normal from Kachuma which is about $250.
State water is not reliable and there's just no way we believe that we should be spending our good rate payer or property taxpayer funds on something with such a small benefit or no benefit. We believe it's much wiser to spend our money on regional desal, on conservation and on reclaimed water The current contract is set to expire in 2038, but because of the Evergreen Clause Santa Barbara County as the contractor can extend that indefinitely. And once the debt is paid off in 2038, we have access to everything we've paid for all of the state water project pipelines and the state must deliver the amount of water that they always have delivered to us but now we don't have to pay huge capital costs so we can then spend The, the savings you know from not having to spend it on on the will have paid off the project.
We can spend that on getting real water. And there's another problem too, both of these contract amendments are being litigated right now. And if you sign on to them, we will have to pay our fair share of those litigation costs. Our attorney has sent you a letter laying out the problems and explaining why it's very dangerous for the county to adopt amendments at this time.
Thank you.
Thank you, Ms. Krueger.
We will now go to Nick Turner to be followed by Toe Plow.
Mr. Turner when you're ready.
Can you
hear me?
We can Nick but it's breaking up a little bit. Good
afternoon Chair Nelson
All right. You're fine, go ahead
and proceed. So good afternoon Chair Nielsen members of the board my name is Nick Turner I'm the general manager for the Montecito Water District. The Montecito Water District urges the Board of Supervisors to approve State Water Project contract amendments 20 and 21 without additional conditions. The Montecito Water District's comment letter dated January 28 2021 Outlines the actions it has taken over the last three to four years to significantly improve long-term water supply reliability for its customers.
This includes purchasing groundwater storage rights in the Central Valley in 2017, banking surplus state water project supplies in 2018 and 19, and more recently entering into a 50 year water supply agreement with the City of Santa Barbara in connection with the city's desalination facility in 2020. In addition to securing more reliable supplies of water for the future, it is also the district's mission to provide water to its customers at the most reasonable cost.
Transferring state water project supplies that are determined to be surplus to our needs is a critical component of the Montecito Water District's long-term water supply plan and it is essential to ensuring our water rates remain as low as reasonably possible. Amendment 20 and 21 will have significant financial and operational benefits for State Water Project participants. While the amendments will help to further Montecito Water District's implementation of its long-term water supply plan, whereby shoring up future water supply availability, the additional conditions proposed by county staff will undoubtedly hinder this effort County staff is recommending that the Board of Supervisors approval of the amendments be contingent upon several conditions, which include a requirement for CCWA to impose a tax in the event of a payment default and a revenue sharing concept for all transfers of water.
Both proposed conditions are unjustified unnecessary and or infeasible The proposed revenue sharing concept would impose a fee on every transfer of State Water Project water held by each water entity in the county. Such a fee would be levied directly upon CCWA participants, making the cost of State Water Project water even more expensive for our customers And possibly negating any potential financial benefits of a cell of surplus water. Again, the Montecito Water District urges the Board of Supervisors to approve State Water Project Contract Amendments 20 and 21 without additional conditions. That concludes my comment. Thank you.
Thank you Mr. Turner.
We will now go to Tobe Plough to be followed by Peder Garcia.
Welcome Mr. Plough.
5:55 – 6:0317 turns
Mr Nelson, can you hear me now?
Sure. Can't go
ahead. Okay,
great.
I want to chime in with some of the words that Nick Turner presented to you from our district. I'm representing Montecito water district and president. We've tried to clear up a lot of operational issues that we've had within our district, vis-a-vis the drought. And so we're trying to go for as diverse a supply water as we possibly can. We get water obviously from reservoirs with the tunnel that goes through the mountain. We get water from that. We have wells. We've signed this agreement with the City of Santa Barbara for desal We're pursuing recycling water at this point so that we're not dumping wastewater in the ocean and reusing that to offset potable.
I think as Nick pointed out to you, we've also taken a position in the water banks on times of surplus with state water, we can store that. We've stored 2,000 acre feet of water in the water bank. We're allowed to take out 1,500 acre feet per year State water was really a lifesaver to the whole South Coast. 80% of our water in Montecito came through the state water plumbing system and we were buying water on the spot market.
What we're looking at, at this point with these amendments is the ability to lease off some of our state water in times when we don't need Water here locally. And so we would have two avenues of doing that, we could do it through water that we banked or water that currently exists in the San Luis Reservoir. Right now, state water is looking very, very expensive this year.
We have to pay for it and take the water when it comes. To give you an idea, we have a 10% allocation this year which amounts to about $15,000 per acre foot for water that we receive. We understand the state may be cutting that back to only 5%, which then raises the price to $30,000 per acre foot. So it's really in our interest to try and smooth out some of these demands that we have on revenue, and be able to offset costs of desal but also pay down in years when state water is very expensive with the ability to sell water or lease water in a given year. So maximum flexibility that would be provided through Amendment 21 is very important to us And overall operational flexibility with Amendment 20 is of real interest. So we're looking for a continuance on this issue so that these issues can be further fleshed out and discussed, and then bring it back to the board on March 2nd hopefully with a greater definition of what we're looking at as far as operational and fees going forward.
Again I want to thank you for your time We're looking forward to an approval of 20 and 21 going forward. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr Plow.
And we will now go to our final speaker. Peter Garcia
Garcia welcome.
Good afternoon can you hear me now? We
can, thank you.
Please proceed. Thank you Chair Nelson, thank you members of the board my name is Peter Garcia I'm the General Manager of the San Ynez River Water Conservation District Improvement District number one often referred to as ID1 for those of you who don't know our district proudly serves potable water supplies for domestic agricultural commercial and institutional needs within the communities of San Ynez Los Olivos Ballard, the San Ynez Band of Chumash Indians and to the City of Solvang on a limited basis.
We are a member agency of CCWA and based thereon we hold contractual rights to State Water Project supplies. A portion of our supplies through ID-1 are subcontracted too and utilized by the City of Solvang. I just want to bring to the Board's attention that over the last 20 plus years, ID- 1 in Solvagng alone have invested in excess of $80 million in connection with our state water project supplies. In addition to countless hours and efforts invested by our respective elected officials and staffs, in the governance, water quality infrastructure financing conjunctive use rate setting all sorts of activities arising from our decisions to manage State Water Project supplies within our portfolios ID1 wants the full benefit of our investment, not a conditioned subset of those benefits.
In appearing today, ID1 joins the comments and letters submitted by CCWA, the City of Santa Barbara, Goleta Water District, Montecito Water District and other member agencies of CCWA as the actual purveyors of state project supplies in Santa Barbara County We have the legal authorities and responsibility to manage our own supplies, to meet existing and projected demands within our service areas.
I think it goes without question that we have a pretty incredible track record of fulfilling this role. And we do so in a way that helps carry out a multitude of countywide goals. Thus, we need the county to encourage and not entangle our management of state water project supplies As agreed among virtually all of the state water contractors throughout the State of California, and keep in mind State Water Project supplies are used to touch and fulfill and satisfy roughly two-thirds of the population of State of California and hundreds of thousands of acres of prime farmland. Amendments 20 and 21 to the state contract will enhance the ability of CCWA member agencies to manage water supplies for the benefit of our ratepayers and the communities we serve.
Based on the points being made by our agencies today, I respectfully urges the board to approve and execute amendments 20 and 21 to the state contract without conditions as the board already has done so many times in the past. Alternatively, we do request the board to continue the matter to provide a meaningful opportunity for CCWA reps to work with county staff and develop a productive path forward.
Thank you for the opportunity to submit these comments today.
Thank you Mr. Garcia. Does that conclude public comment?
Chair Nelson and members of the board, that was our final speaker.
All right back to the board.
Mr.
Chair. Supervisor Lavenino.
Thank you. You know I just want to address something I heard. The charge that the county is simply interested in the financial aspect of this and the money. When the virtuous, noble CCWA members have the best interests of county taxpayers at heart is ridiculous. I mean, the reason why we're talking about Amendment 21 is so you can sell water to other Californians whether that's in San Luis Obispo County or Victorville or wherever you want.
So for me, I agree with your position actually. All I'm asking for is that you write a first refusal inside the county but please do not try to grab some moral high ground that doesn't exist. Calling us greedy is not the way to get to consensus.
6:03 – 6:119 turns
Thank you Supervisor Lavenino. Supervisor Williams?
Yeah, if I could just echo that by saying if I had to do thumbs up or thumbs down on this right now, I'd just say forget about it. You know let's dispense with the whole matter and vote no. Now if the CCWA wants to talk it over with our staff then then I'm open minded about what could come out of that but You know, this kind of like water brinksmanship when we're just asking how this actually helps the drought buffer for the people of the county.
I'm not buying it.
Thank you Supervisor Williams. Supervisor Hartman?
Well, I agree with my colleagues and Supervisor Lavinino asked about the right of first refusal. I guess if that is further explored it's at what price and I'll mention I think Water is both a commodity and a public trust resource. And I think we're looking at it, the county is the one that has the broader perspective for the whole county in the various aspects of water.
That said, the county did invest a lot historically in this project and if the benefits serve the county residents that's one thing but if the benefits serve a district that's selling out of county to me that's another thing so I would, if we do explore this some more, I would like to add into it not only the right of first refusal for in-county State Water Project members but you know if it's sold outside then what does the county get for the investment that it made? Why should why should that be collected by an individual water district.
I think I'm where Supervisor Williams is. I'd be happy to just say this is, I could say not to the amendments but in the spirit of negotiation and can we work this out? I did have one question for Mr. Gazzone. This isn't litigation if we signed on to these amendments do we buy ourselves litigation
Chair and Supervisors, not presently or not presently in a meaningful way. There's a complaint for validation which I discussed and which is was filed by the California Department of Water Resources and it includes you know states and includes all the water suppliers who are out there. The county already has its project name in there we're watching this It's certainly conceivable that more amendments equals more resources, I wouldn't say that to guarantee. And I would say it for me it would be a small part of your decision, the litigation risk is neither either large or nor that troubling as to signing out of these amendments, and I would offer the board again What I had said at the beginning was the board has discretion to approve both, none or one moving forward.
And you may conclude when providing direction to staff that there's a value to focus on the extension first. That seems to be the one with the least issues and if you're going to direct staff in fact we already have some meetings that were trying to schedule With CCWA, it would help to know whether that was something you were amenable to focusing on Amendment 21st and 21 coming back. We don't have all that much time on 21 or 20 but I think that the world of disagreement on 20 is much smaller
I'll just try to finish out. So, a question that I still have is yes you opted out for the two tunnel project but I don't know what we're buying in terms of long-term liability And with the Prop 13 perhaps exempt, perhaps not. It sure leaves a lot of financial questions for ratepayers open and I don't know if we could get that addressed in more detail or if someone has a better sense of that than I but it seems to me a huge risk.
Thank you, Supervisor Hartman. I understand Supervisor Hart has some questions or comments as well. Supervisor Hart?
Yes thank you Mr. Chair. I just want to focus my comments on the very specific request of CCWA for a continuance. That is reasonable, and I accept it at face value. I'm not going to get charged up by the rhetoric as some of my colleagues have done because you know this is really an important deliberative process and the specific request from CCWA is for time to work with our staff collaboratively to find agreement and seek a resolution Of these issues and I want to encourage that in with every bit of my enthusiasm. I appreciate the dialogue, these are big issues and there's a lot of complex issues but having more time to work together to find a solution is in their interest at everybody in the county.
Thank you, Supervisor Hart. And my comments are a few things here. Obviously Mark Twain's quote, whiskey is for drinking water is for fighting for and I don't think that's any different with any of these discussions as far as water goes and the relationship between the county and CCWA. I'm not opposed to either these amendments in principle. I understand where they're coming from.
I'm actually opposed to the position that we'd actually take money for sales now. the county being paid back in the future if we ever did assign the full contract to CCWA. I believe that those funds, in part purchased our oversight and our ability to be a part of this process and I would expect that our district taxpayers be compensated for that if CCWA wanted to have the whole thing. I also support Supervisor Labanino's request that if this move forward That there be that first right of refusal. I believe that the Water Agency also has additional conditions that might be informative to CCWA in the future to know whether or not they should bring that purchase to the board if we can set those conditions in advance, that might be something that's workable all that to be said.
I am right now not in favor either one these amendments and it's in part because of the relationship that one of the CCWA's largest members have with the unincorporated area of Santa Maria Valley. Over the last eight years as staff, I've seen over and over how they've used state water to prevent growth and opportunities in my community, and they've acted in what I felt like a predatory way And if they can't be a good neighbor, I can't hear you. So I took the lecture that I got from one of the commenters personally here and I think my colleagues can see the attitude that I get to experience on a daily basis in my community especially concerning water.
6:11 – 6:1310 turns
So with that, Mr. Chair I'd like to take Supervisor Hart's. I think that was a motion Greg? Was it not? That we send our staff back to negotiate come back to us at a later time and obviously there is a clock running on these things so Greg if you've got a motion or if that was a motion I'm seconding your motion.
That was a motion and you seconded thank you very much Thank you both. CEO Miyasato.
Chair Nelson, I think staff had recommended returning on March 2nd.
Is that an acceptable date? We've talked briefly in agenda review about this possibility and I think there's some things we can move around to accommodate that so...
Yes there's a couple of things from my office we can move around.
I'm
fine with that date. I'll just note for our friends at CCWA that coming back on March 2nd means that we really would be docketing something 12 days before March 2nd, which is not all that much time.
So thank you and so I have a motion to continue this to to March 2. I have a second and I'm just going Again, float out there that there's going to need to be a posture change between now and then if CWA is hoping to have my support. So Madam Clerk can please call the roll.
Roll-call vote Passed 4–0
Show transcript
Motion passes unanimously
Thank you everybody That concludes our meeting. We are now adjourning to Tuesday, February 9th 2021. Thank you