UnGovr Words

Board of Supervisors — 2021-05-18

Board of Supervisors — 2021-05-18May 18, 2021

Switch meeting
BodyBoard of Supervisors
MeetingRegular Meeting
Date📅 May 18, 2021

Click any transcript line to jump the video there.

Meeting Summary

  1. PendingQueued for transcription.
  2. AIYou are hereAuto-transcribed and summarized; not yet human-verified.
  3. VerifiedReviewed and corrected by a person.

Present: Williams, 3-Hartmann, 5-Lavagnino, 4-Nelson

This summary was AI-generated to save you time. It may miss or misstate details, so verify against the official recording and the transcript.

At a glance

Release of Prior Years Impounded Property Tax Revenue

  • Staff clarified that the release of impounded funds is a one-time event to offset roll corrections and refunds, not new ongoing revenue.
  • The funds will be added to the general fund balance following the resolution of assessment appeals.
  • The board approved the release of the 2020–2021 tax year impounded property tax revenue.
Passed 4–0 · unanimous

FY 2020–2021 Third Quarter Budget and Financial Status Report

  • The report indicated a positive variance of $6.8 million for the general fund as of March 31, 2021.
  • Staff noted that final year-end balance determinations should occur after the June 30 close and audit corrections.
  • The board approved the third-quarter budget and financial status report.
Passed 4–0 · unanimous

Set Hearing for Countywide Community Workforce Agreement (CWA)

  • Public commenters raised concerns regarding the lack of non-union contractor participation and suggested moving the hearing to a later date.
  • Several speakers proposed expanding the scope to include pilot projects comparing bidding with and without a CWA.
  • The board approved the set hearing for June 22, 2021, while noting discretion to provide other direction as appropriate.
Passed 4–0 · unanimous

COVID-19 Update

  • The county was projected to move to the yellow tier on June 2, 2021, with 51% of the population receiving at least one vaccine dose.
  • Staff explained that state masking guidelines would remain in effect until June 15, 2021, despite CDC recommendations for vaccinated individuals.
  • The board approved the update after discussing the tension between state mandates and federal guidance.

Treasurer-Tax Collector / Westmont College Financing

  • Staff clarified that the County does not incur liability for the notes or their repayment, nor does the financing affect the County’s credit rating.
  • The item involved a refinance/reissuance of 2016 notes originally issued for $80 million on behalf of Westmont College.
  • The board approved staff recommendations A through C regarding the CMFA financing.

Behavioral Wellness / Fee Ordinance Amendment

  • Staff explained that published charges for mental health services must be updated annually based on actual costs incurred.
  • The recommendation included approving the first reading of the ordinance and continuing the item to June 15, 2021, for second reading.
  • The board approved the amendment to the fee ordinance for inpatient and outpatient mental health services.
Passed 4–0 · unanimous

Equity and Inclusion Policy Update

  • Staff reported on the completion of Phase 1 and progress in Phase 2 of the "JOIN" race equity and inclusion framework.
  • The board directed staff to use the Fund for Santa Barbara for the vetting and selection process while retaining final approval authority for grants.
  • A hybrid model was adopted where the Fund handles outreach and recommendations, and the Board makes final grant allocation decisions.
Passed 4–0 · unanimous

Juvenile Justice Planning and Realignment Implementation

  • The Probation Department reported a 56% reduction in youth on probation and an 89% reduction in out-of-home placements since 2017.
  • The Juvenile Justice Realignment Plan shifts responsibility for certain youth from the state to the county, including education and mental health supports.
  • The board received and filed the report and adopted staff recommendations A through C.
Passed 4–0 · unanimous

Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) and Junior ADU (JADU) Ordinance Amendments

  • Proposed amendments align local codes with state laws, including exempting certain ADUs from local development standards and eliminating replacement parking requirements.
  • Staff confirmed that ADUs and JADUs are allowed within legal non-conforming structures, provided the structure predates current zoning.
  • The board approved the item with amendments recommended by the Planning Commission, Montecito Planning Commission, and staff.
Passed 4–0 · unanimous

Animal Services Vision and Jurisdictional Contract Fees

  • The department presented a shift from a traditional shelter model to a community-based approach focused on prevention and partnerships.
  • Staff recommended a flat 2% increase in jurisdictional contract fees to provide stability while an external cost analysis is completed.
  • The board approved the budget and fees, adding a policy that the department will not turn away walk-in customers solely for lacking an appointment.
Passed 4–0 · unanimous

Conservation Easements at Scolari Ranch

  • The item involved an amendment and transfer of conservation easements from the county to the Land Trust for Santa Barbara County.
  • County Counsel confirmed that the action complies with the Brown Act and that electronic documents match previously docketed paper documents.
  • The board approved the staff recommendation for the transfer of the easements.
Passed 4–0 · unanimous

Closed Session

  • The board considered matters of existing litigation, including Gee v. Ameriprise Auto and Home Insurance and consolidated Southern California fire cases.
  • Discussions included significant exposure to civil litigation involving contract law enforcement services with several cities and one real property item concerning 630 Randall Road.
  • Labor negotiations for all bargaining units were also addressed, with no reportable actions taken.

Full summary

Meeting Start and Roll Call

  • The May 18, 2021, meeting of the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors was called to order. Roll call confirmed the presence of all five supervisors. The board pledged allegiance to the flag.

Approval of Minutes (May 11, 2021)

  • A motion was made and seconded to approve the minutes from the May 11, 2021, meeting. No further discussion was heard. The motion passed unanimously.
Passed 4–0 · unanimous

Announcements and Administrative Reports

  • The Clerk of the Board announced that meetings are now interpreted and broadcast live in Spanish via secondary audio programming (SAP) for Cox and Comcast cable subscribers. Procedures for public participation via Zoom, including registration requirements and time limits, were reviewed. The Clerk provided an oral report on Administrative Item 38 regarding the appointment of Rachel Van Molen as County Counsel with a four-year term beginning June 28, 2021, and an annual salary of $245,000 plus benefits. This item was to be approved as part of the balance of the administrative agenda.
  • The County Executive Officer reminded the public of a special meeting scheduled for June 1, 2021, to discuss federal funds and hear a report from the Sheriff’s Office regarding jail staffing.

Approval of Administrative Agenda

  • Supervisor Lavagnino requested that items A2 and A9 be pulled from the agenda for individual consideration. The Clerk noted that Administrative Item 12 (regarding conservation easements at Scolari Ranch) was requested to be trailed to the end of the day for additional information. The Clerk also noted that Administrative Item 29 is a set hearing for June 22, 2021, and public comment is limited to the scheduling of that hearing. A motion was made and seconded to approve the balance of the administrative agenda, excluding items A2, A9, and A29, with A12 to be considered at the end of the day. No further discussion was heard. The motion passed unanimously.
Passed 4–0 · unanimous
Passed 4–0 · unanimous

Administrative Item A2: Release of Prior Years Impounded Property Tax Revenue

  • The Auditor-Controller presented an item concerning the release of impounded property tax revenue for the 2020–2021 tax year. Supervisor Lavagnino inquired whether the funds were ongoing or one-time. Staff explained that the funds were impounded pending assessment appeals, which have now been resolved. The release is a one-time event intended to offset roll corrections and refunds to taxpayers, not new ongoing revenue. Staff clarified that the funds will add to the general fund balance. A motion was made and seconded to approve the item. No further discussion was heard. The motion passed unanimously.
Passed 4–0 · unanimous

Administrative Item A9: FY 2020–2021 Third Quarter Budget and Financial Status Report

  • The County Executive Office presented the third-quarter budget and financial status report as of March 31, 2021. Supervisor Lavagnino noted a positive variance of $6.8 million for the general fund and asked about the historical carryover balance, suggesting that some portion might be appropriate for emerging issues while the rest could be used for one-time needs. Staff indicated that the final determination of the year-end balance should occur after the June 30 close and audit corrections, and offered to provide historical carryover data for future budget discussions. A motion was made and seconded to approve the item. No further discussion was heard. The motion passed unanimously.
Passed 4–0 · unanimous

Administrative Item A29: Set Hearing for Countywide Community Workforce Agreement (CWA)

  • The County Executive Office and Public Works presented a set hearing to schedule a merits hearing for June 22, 2021, regarding the development of a countywide CWA ordinance and project template. The Clerk clarified that public comment was limited to the setting of the hearing date, not the merits of the CWA.
  • Public comment was received from nine individuals:
  • Russell Johnson (Associated Builders and Contractors) suggested expanding the scope to include pilot projects bidding with and without a CWA, citing Ventura County’s approach.
  • Richard Markeson (Western Electrical Contractors Association, et al.) argued that the county should not negotiate a collective bargaining agreement without contractor participation and suggested a full-day workshop instead of a one-hour hearing.
  • Eric Christian (Coalition for Fair Employment and Construction) expressed support for the hearing.
  • Lori Bennett (Fence Factory) suggested moving the hearing to December or January to allow workers to participate during their slower season.
  • Kevin Dayton (Labor Issues Solutions LLC) requested a vote on the item to gauge board support and suggested a five-hour hearing.
  • Jesse Bishop (Cal Portland Construction) echoed concerns about the lack of non-union contractor participation and suggested moving the hearing to a later date.
  • Nicole Goering (Associated Builders and Contractors) requested moving the hearing to a later date and allowing discussion of pilot programs.
  • Lee Cushman (General Contractor) supported moving the hearing to December/January and suggested pilot programs comparing open shop and PLA bids.
  • The Chair stated that the board has discretion to provide other direction as appropriate and would consider the timing concerns raised by the public. A motion was made and seconded to approve the set hearing for June 22, 2021. No further discussion was heard. The motion passed unanimously.
Passed 4–0 · unanimous

General Public Comment

  • Patricia Keelan (CEO, Communify) spoke regarding the senior nutrition program. She stated that Communify’s board voted to discontinue the program effective June 30, 2021, due to unsustainable deficits and stagnant reimbursement rates. She requested an additional $600,000–$700,000 in permanent annual funding to continue services.

Departmental Item 1: COVID-19 Update

  • The County Health Officer presented updates on case rates, vaccination efforts, and masking guidance.
  • Case Rates: The adjusted case rate was projected at 2.1, with a testing positivity rate of 1.0. The county was expected to move to the yellow tier on June 2, 2021, if trends continued.
  • Vaccination: As of May 16, 51% of the county population had received at least one dose, and 41% were fully vaccinated. Mobile clinics and school-based vaccination sites were highlighted, including upcoming sites at Regetti High School, Mary Byrne Elementary, and Carpinteria High School.
  • Masking Guidance: California would maintain current masking guidelines until June 15, 2021, when the state would move "beyond the blueprint," lifting capacity limits. CDPH was developing new guidance incorporating CDC recommendations. Cal OSHA standards still required face coverings for workers indoors.
  • Supervisor Hartman commented on the logistics of mobile clinics. The Chair asked about the discrepancy between CDC guidance allowing unmasked indoor activities for vaccinated individuals and California’s continued mandate. Staff explained that CDPH and Cal OSHA retained authority to maintain stricter standards based on local conditions and employer safety requirements. The Chair expressed concern that the state’s delay in updating guidance might undermine public trust in vaccination incentives. Staff noted that the county had advocated for alignment with CDC guidance to Cal OSHA.
  • Public comment was received from Jeffrey Schwartz, who raised claims regarding the validity of PCR tests and suggested legal action against public health officials. Dr. Ansorge responded, stating that PCR tests have high sensitivity and specificity, do not cross-react with common cold viruses, and that reputable health organizations support their use. He urged the public to rely on official health sources.
  • Board members discussed the impact of testing rates on the county’s ability to advance to the yellow tier, noting that a slightly higher positivity rate (2.1% vs. 2%) prevented advancement. Speakers emphasized the continued importance of testing, particularly among unvaccinated individuals, to reduce transmission and support state calculations. The discussion addressed the tension between CDC guidelines and state guidance, noting that 40% of the population remains unvaccinated. One member cited data from Texas following the removal of its mask mandate, including zero COVID deaths and low hospitalization rates, to argue for the state to act quickly on releasing mandates for vaccinated individuals.
  • A motion was made and seconded to approve Item D1. The motion passed unanimously.

Departmental Item 2: Treasurer-Tax Collector / Westmont College Financing

  • The Treasurer-Tax Collector presented a hearing regarding the California Municipal Finance Authority (CMFA) financing of tax-exempt private activity notes on behalf of Westmont College. This item involves a refinance/reissuance of 2016 notes originally issued for $80 million. Staff clarified that the County does not incur liability for the notes or their repayment, and the financing does not affect the County’s credit rating. Ben Barker (CMFA) and Doug Jones (Westmont College) were present to answer questions. No public comments were received.
  • A motion was made and seconded to approve staff recommendations A through C. The motion passed unanimously.

Departmental Item 3: Behavioral Wellness / Fee Ordinance Amendment

  • Dr. Blakehorn presented recommendations regarding the amendment of a fee ordinance for published charges for inpatient and outpatient mental health services. Staff explained that these published charges affect medical reimbursement rates and must be updated annually based on actual costs incurred in the prior fiscal year. Some charges may increase or decrease depending on service type and cost variations. The recommendation was to receive and file the presentation, approve the first reading of the ordinance, and continue the item to June 15, 2021, for second reading and adoption. No public comments were received.
  • A motion was made and seconded to approve the item. The motion passed unanimously.

Departmental Item 4: Community Services & Human Resources / Equity and Inclusion Policy Update

  • Maria Elena Deguevara (County Director of Human Resources) and George Chapin (Community Services Director) provided an update on the board-approved "JOIN" (Join Hands, Open Hearts and Minds, Ignite Action, Navigate Change) race equity and inclusion framework.
  • Phase 1 & 2 Update: Staff reported on the completion of Phase 1 (organizational equity assessment for executive leaders) and progress in Phase 2 (engaging managers). Leadership assessment findings indicated a high level of receptivity to equity work but also identified areas where practices fell short. Identified needs included equity education, dialogue, toolkits, and inclusive recruitment.
  • Phases 3 & 4 Preview: Staff outlined plans for the coming fiscal year to operationalize the board’s commitment to equity, organize for sustainable culture change, utilize equity toolkits for policy development, and disaggregate data to identify inequities.
  • Funding: Of the $135,000 approved for this effort, $43,000 has been expended, leaving a balance of $92,000.
  • Community Input: Presentations were given by Susana Vero Bondo (Arts & Culture intern), Michelle Sevilla (Chair of the Equity Advisory and Outreach Committee), and Sojourner Kincaid Roll (Poet Laureate Emeritus), highlighting the importance of community engagement, arts, and climate justice in equity efforts.
  • Equity Fund Distribution Options: Staff presented three options for distributing the remaining $270,800 in equity funds:
  • 1. Contract with the Fund for Santa Barbara to administer the program. 2. Develop an internal county process led by staff (requiring a new full-time position and 6–12 months for development). 3. A hybrid approach: Initial distribution via the Fund for Santa Barbara while developing internal capacity.
  • Board members asked about managing diverse opinions and avoiding "group thought" in the training process. Staff explained the use of "strategic questioning" and a focus on listening and understanding rather than imparting specific perspectives.
  • Public comment was received from four individuals:
  • One speaker criticized the initiative as "mission creep" and "critical race theory," arguing that funds should be directed toward STEM enrollment and hiring rather than training, and questioning the necessity of the expenditure.
  • Another speaker supported Option 1 (Fund for Santa Barbara), citing their experience and the organization's alignment with community values.
  • A third speaker expressed support for the county’s efforts and the Fund for Santa Barbara, noting their long-standing role in the community.
  • A final speaker expressed support for the approach to addressing diversity, equity, and inclusivity, citing the difficulty of the work and the importance of genuine effort.
  • Board discussion focused on the proposal to use economic development dollars to partner with the Fund for Santa Barbara for outreach and grant-making related to racial equity.
  • One Supervisor expressed concern that the Fund’s political positions (e.g., support for defunding police) might be perceived as partisan, potentially excluding community members who do not align with those views. This Supervisor argued that an inclusive process requires an organization perceived as non-partisan and suggested alternatives such as the Santa Barbara Foundation or United Way, or a future subcommittee of the Human Services Commission.
  • Another Supervisor supported using the Fund’s existing infrastructure to launch the program quickly, noting the Fund’s history of building capacity for organizations without such resources.
  • A third Supervisor emphasized the need for momentum and compartmentalization, arguing that working with a broad coalition is necessary and that the county can course-correct if needed.
  • A hybrid model was proposed where the Fund for Santa Barbara handles outreach, evaluation, and recommendations, while the Board of Supervisors retains final decision-making authority on grant allocations.
  • The Fund for Santa Barbara representative stated the organization is a nonpartisan 501(c)(3) that adheres to IRS lobbying guidelines, expressed excitement about the partnership, and offered to have supervisors sit in on grant-making committee deliberations. County counsel clarified that a former service on the Fund’s grant-making committee by a Supervisor did not constitute a prohibited conflict of interest under Government Code 1091.5. County staff and counsel discussed the contracting mechanism, suggesting a master contract with the Fund that includes a responsible delegation for sub-agreements with recipients to minimize overhead.
  • A motion was made and seconded to direct staff to use the Fund for Santa Barbara for the vetting and selection process, with the Board retaining final approval authority for grants (the hybrid approach). The motion passed unanimously.
Passed 4–0 · unanimous

Departmental Item 5: Juvenile Justice Planning and Realignment Implementation

  • The Probation Department presented an update on juvenile justice system reforms and the implementation plan for Senate Bill 823 (Realignment of the Division of Juvenile Justice).
  • Reforms and Data: Since 2018, the department implemented evidence-based practices focusing on positive youth development and trauma-informed care. Reported results include:
  • A 56% reduction in the number of youth on probation since 2017.
  • A 32% reduction in supervised misdemeanants.
  • A 56% reduction in technical violations.
  • An 89% reduction in out-of-home placements since 2017.
  • Implementation of the Youth Empowerment Services (YES) program for direct diversion of low-level offenses.
  • 97% of youth were successful (no new felony petition) one year after completing probation.
  • Realignment (SB 823): The presentation outlined the Juvenile Justice Realignment Plan (JJRP), which shifts responsibility for care, custody, and supervision of certain youth from the state Division of Juvenile Justice to the county.
  • The plan includes services such as education, vocational training, mental health supports, and reentry planning.
  • The county will take an individualized approach to secure track commitments rather than creating a single "cookie-cutter" program.
  • Discussions are ongoing with San Luis Obispo and Ventura counties regarding a tri-county solution for specific populations, including female youth and those over age 21.
  • The JJRP was approved by the Juvenile Justice Coordinating Council (JJCC) and reviewed by the Juvenile Court.
  • Supervisors expressed appreciation for the department’s data-driven approach, collaborative efforts, and initiative in securing technical assistance grants (e.g., Annie E. Casey Foundation).
  • A motion was made and seconded to receive and file the report and adopt staff recommendations A through C. The motion passed unanimously.

Closed Session Report

  • County counsel reported that the Board considered two matters of existing litigation (Gee v. Ameriprise Auto and Home Insurance and consolidated Southern California fire cases), one matter of significant exposure to civil litigation involving contract law enforcement services with the cities of Buellton, Carpinteria, Goleta, and Solvang, one decision regarding the initiation of civil litigation, one real property item concerning 630 Randall Road, and labor negotiations for all bargaining units. No reportable actions were taken.

Departmental Item 6: Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) and Junior ADU (JADU) Ordinance Amendments

  • Planning and Development staff presented proposed amendments to the Coastal Zoning Ordinance (CZO), County Land Use and Development Code (LUDC), Montecito Land Use and Development Code (MLUDC), and Uniform Rules for Agriculture Preserves to comply with recent state laws regarding ADUs and JADUs.
  • Key Changes:
  • Exempt ADUs: Four types of ADUs are exempt from local development standards (subject only to specific state standards and front setbacks): one ADU within an existing single-family dwelling/accessory structure; one small detached new construction ADU (up to 800 sq. ft.) on a single-family lot; multiple ADUs within non-livable portions of multi-family dwellings; and two large detached new construction ADUs on multi-family lots.
  • Non-Exempt ADUs: ADUs not meeting exempt criteria are subject to local development standards (design, parking, setbacks, etc.) but must be allowed in zones permitting single-family or multi-family dwellings.
  • Parking: Replacement parking requirements are eliminated for all ADUs. One parking space is required for new detached ADUs unless specific exceptions apply (e.g., near transit, historic district, car-share).
  • Size: Minimum floor area standards are set (e.g., 850 sq. ft. for studio/1-bedroom, 1,000 sq. ft. for 2+ bedrooms). New construction ADUs on lots >15,000 sq. ft. are limited to 1,200 sq. ft.
  • JADUs: Mandatory allowance of JADUs (max 500 sq. ft.) within existing or proposed single-family dwellings (including attached garages). JADUs are subject to owner-occupancy restrictions recorded in a declaration of restrictions.
  • Permitting: Processing timeframe reduced from 120 to 60 days. Inland areas require only building permits; coastal areas require Coastal Development Permits (CDPs) and building permits.
  • Agricultural Lands: JADUs are allowed as a compatible use on agricultural preserve contracted lands.
  • Revisions: Staff made revisions based on comments from the Montecito Planning Commission, County Planning Commission, and preliminary comments from the Coastal Commission. Changes included clarifying JADU definitions regarding attached garages, clarifying ADU conversion locations, and removing JADUs from Gaviota Coastline overlay clustering requirements.
  • Staff presented clarifications regarding the proposed amendments to the Multiple-Use Land Use Development Code (MLUDC). Staff confirmed that while the county does not prohibit Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) or Junior ADUs (JADUs) in high fire hazard zones, all applications remain subject to Fire Department review during the building permit process, where fire code restrictions (e.g., access, driveway widening) may be applied. Staff clarified that ADUs count toward the county’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA), whereas JADUs do not. Additionally, staff noted that no more than 25% of the RHNA can be accommodated through ADUs, and the county must demonstrate support for such development via past permit data.
  • Questions were raised regarding:
  • Whether exempt ADUs apply to agricultural zones; staff confirmed they apply only to residential or mixed-use zones.
  • How the county will distinguish ADUs from Residential Second Units (RSUs) regarding short-term rental restrictions; staff explained that permit descriptions specify the unit type and associated conditions.
  • If the parking requirement recommended by the Montecito Planning Commission for JADUs in attached garages is discretionary; staff confirmed it is allowed per the state ADU handbook.
  • The difference between a JADU and adding a bedroom; staff noted JADUs are limited to 500 sq. ft., can share a bathroom, and require only an efficiency kitchen.
  • Public comment was provided by Jonathan Alcock, who raised concerns regarding errors in the MLUDC, the treatment of legal non-conforming structures, and the fee-for-service model of the Planning and Development department. He requested that the board work with a consultant to review the code for consistency and that existing legal non-conforming structures not be required to become compliant to qualify for ADUs.
  • Board discussion focused on the status of legal non-conforming structures. Staff confirmed that the proposed amendments allow ADUs and JADUs within legal non-conforming structures, provided the structure predates current zoning or was permitted under an older ordinance. Staff explained that determining legal non-conforming status is a collaborative process between staff and the property owner, utilizing available records; if sufficient evidence is not provided, it may impact the permit decision. This determination is part of the formal application process and is appealable.
  • Staff also clarified the legislative context, noting that state law effective January 2020 nullified and voided the county’s existing provisions in this area. The proposed local ordinances are intended to align with state law, provide clearer implementation, and utilize the discretion available under the state’s 65,000 series of laws.
  • A motion was made and seconded to approve the item with the amendments recommended by the Planning Commission, the Montecito Planning Commission, and staff. The board confirmed that the Montecito Planning Commission’s recommendations were incorporated into the staff’s proposed amendments. The motion passed unanimously.
Passed 4–0 · unanimous

Departmental Item 7: Animal Services Vision and Jurisdictional Contract Fees

  • Angela Yates, Director of Animal Services, presented a new community-based vision for the department, aligned with the Haas model. The presentation outlined a shift from a traditional shelter-based model (central warehousing) to a countywide infrastructure focused on services, prevention, and partnerships. Key elements included:
  • Community-Based Approach: Emphasizing foster care, mobile veterinary services, and pet resource centers to reduce shelter intake and increase community access.
  • Facilities: Acknowledging that the Santa Barbara and Lompoc shelters are over 50 years old and in need of upgrades, while the Santa Maria shelter (built 2005) is more modern. The Lompoc dog kennels were temporarily closed in October 2020.
  • Metrics: Shifting success metrics from live release rates to the number of animals prevented from entering the shelter.
  • Budget and Fees: The recommended FY 2021-22 budget is $5.68 million. Staff presented two options for jurisdictional contract fees:
  • Option 1 (Recommended): A flat 2% increase across all eight contracts, approximating employee COLAs and providing stability while an external cost analysis is completed.
  • Option 2: Full cost recovery based on updated costs and populations, removing shared general fund and TSAC funding support for cities.
  • External Review: An external consultant (MGT) has been engaged to conduct a full cost analysis, with results expected to inform the FY 2022-23 budget.
  • Public comment was provided by Richard Marcusen, who expressed concern that the community-based approach might create barriers to essential shelter services, particularly regarding the intake of stray animals and the surrender of pets by owners in crisis. He cited potential liability issues with delaying impoundment of strays and advocated for maintaining the shelter as a safety net.
  • Board discussion addressed the balance between appointment-based services and walk-in access. Supervisor Williams emphasized the need to utilize every customer interaction for services like spay/neuter and vaccination, and opposed turning away animals or owners without appointments. Staff clarified that a temporary pandemic-related policy restricting intakes had been removed, and the department would remain flexible with walk-ins while encouraging appointments. Supervisor Hartman and Supervisor Lavagnino emphasized the importance of clear communication and education regarding the changes to the public and partners.
  • Chair Nelson inquired about the basis for the 2% fee increase in Option 1. Staff explained that it approximates employee COLAs and provides stability while the external cost analysis is completed. Staff noted that the external review is expected to provide a more accurate full-cost recovery model for the next budget cycle.
  • A motion was made and seconded to approve items A, B, and C, with an added expression of policy that the department will not turn away walk-in customers solely for lacking an appointment. Staff confirmed understanding of the policy request. The motion passed unanimously.
Passed 4–0 · unanimous

Administrative Item 12: Conservation Easements at Scolari Ranch

  • The item involved an amendment and transfer of conservation easements at the Scolari Ranch from the county to the Land Trust for Santa Barbara County. Skip Gray, representing the department, explained that the item was delayed due to the complexity of the board letter (involving four departments and ~6,000 pages) and the late receipt of original documents. Electronic copies of exhibits A and B for attachments 5, 6, and 7 were initially missing from the electronic docket but were included in the paper copies; the missing electronic exhibits have since been resubmitted and uploaded.
  • County Counsel confirmed that the action complies with the Brown Act and that the electronic documents match the previously docketed paper documents.
  • A motion was made and seconded to approve the staff recommendation. A member expressed gratitude to General Services, Planning, and County Council staff for their efforts in preparing the project for consideration. Chair Nelson called the roll to vote on the pending motion. The motion passed unanimously.
Passed 4–0 · unanimous

Closing Remarks and Adjournment

  • Chair Nelson requested a moment of silence in memory of Luca Benedetti of the San Luis Obispo Police Department, who was killed in the line of duty the previous week.
  • Chair Nelson adjourned the meeting of May 18, 2021. He announced that the next meeting would be a special meeting on June 1, 2021. He noted that the meeting would open immediately into closed session, and public items would not be heard until the afternoon.