UnGovr Words

Board of Supervisors — 2021-08-17

Board of Supervisors — 2021-08-17August 17, 2021

Switch meeting
BodyBoard of Supervisors
MeetingRegular Meeting
Date📅 August 17, 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: 5-Lavagnino, 4-Nelson, Williams, 3-Hartmann

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

Agenda Amendment and Procurement Authorization

  • The Board amended Administrative Agenda Item A-9 to strike language regarding cooperative purchasing guidelines.
  • The amendment authorizes the procurement of imagery and software without a competitive bid process.
  • This action relies on a prior competitive process conducted by Los Angeles County.

Speed Limit Ordinance

  • The Board considered an ordinance amending speed limits in specific sections of the County Code for the First and Third Districts.
  • Supervisor Williams requested a separate vote citing concerns about state policy regarding speed limit determinations.
  • The motion to approve the ordinance passed with a 4-1 vote.

National Health Center Week Resolution

  • The Board reviewed a resolution sponsored by Supervisor Hart to proclaim August 8–14, 2021, as National Health Center Week.
  • The resolution highlights the role of five Federally Qualified Health Centers in the county.
  • Representatives from these organizations provided brief remarks acknowledging the resolution.
  • The motion to approve the resolution passed unanimously.

Food Insecurity Commendation Resolution

  • The Board considered a resolution recognizing community volunteers and organizations that addressed food insecurity during the pandemic.
  • A list of recognized individuals and organizations was read into the record.
  • Representatives from partner organizations expressed gratitude for the recognition.
  • The motion to approve the resolution passed unanimously.

Balance of Administrative Agenda

  • The Board moved to approve the remaining items on the administrative agenda.
  • The motion to approve the balance of the agenda passed unanimously.

COVID-19 Update and Public Health Briefing

  • The County Health Officer presented data showing cases were nearly 3.7 times more likely among unvaccinated individuals.
  • Presenters reported that the Delta variant comprised over 95% of sequenced samples and noted hospital capacity was near the red zone.
  • Staff discussed vaccine efficacy, breakthrough infections, and the CDC recommendation for booster doses for immunocompromised individuals.
  • The Board unanimously passed a motion to recommend actions A through C as listed on the agenda.

ERP Software Project Update and RFP

  • Staff presented an update on the transition to the Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) phase, noting the completion of Phase Zero.
  • The project involves assessing 134 county applications and is estimated to cost over $10 million.
  • Staff outlined a timeline to issue the Request for Proposal in the summer and return to the Board for contract approval in early 2022.
  • The Board unanimously adopted the staff recommendation to receive and file the update and authorize the RFP release.

CDBG Action Plan Amendment and Grant Agreements

  • Staff proposed amendments to the CDBG Action Plan to address reallocations due to program discontinuations and a HUD recalculation.
  • The Board approved the execution of Human Services Grant agreements for senior meal programs and the Freedom Warming Center.
  • The Board directed staff to include per-meal cost analysis in future presentations.
  • The motion to adopt the staff recommendations passed unanimously.

Community Workforce Agreement Ordinance

  • Staff presented options for developing a Countywide Community Workforce Agreement (CWA) and requested direction on negotiation scope.
  • Public comment was received from both supporters and opponents regarding local hiring rates, costs, and union requirements.
  • The Board directed staff to negotiate a CWA using the City of Santa Barbara’s templates as a base for the county ordinance.
  • The motion to direct staff to negotiate the agreement passed with a 3-2 vote.

Closed Session

  • The Board recessed to discuss potential civil litigation and a conference with real property negotiators.
  • Staff reported that the Board took no reportable action during the closed session.

Full summary

Meeting Overview

  • The Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors held a meeting on August 17, 2021, in the Santa Maria hearing room. Chair Hartmann presided, with Supervisors Lavinino, Nelson, and Williams present; Supervisors Lavinino and Nelson participated virtually. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited. The Clerk noted that Vice Chair Hartmann was serving as Acting Chair and posted an addendum to the agenda regarding a closed session conference with real property negotiators for APN 00508006 (Temple Street, Summerlin). Administrative Agenda Item A-9 was amended to strike language regarding cooperative purchasing guidelines and authorize procurement of imagery and software without a competitive bid process, based on a prior competitive process by Los Angeles County. Technical difficulties with Spanish interpretation were noted and later resolved.

Approval of Minutes

  • Item: Approval of minutes from July 13, 2021.
  • Action: A motion was made and seconded to approve the minutes.
  • Vote: Passed unanimously.

CEO’s Report

  • No report was provided by the CEO’s office.

Administrative Agenda Items

  • Item A-12: Sub Recipient Agreement for Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG) CB2 Funding for Homeless Response
  • Discussion: The item was read into the record. Public comment was requested by Jeffrey Schwartz, who was initially not logged into Zoom. The Board deferred the item to allow the speaker to join. Later, Schwartz provided comments via Zoom regarding pandemic testing and public health policies. Chair Hartmann noted that his comments pertained more to Departmental Item D-1 and would be considered in that context. Supervisor Hart stated that medical experts would address scientific questions during the Departmental Item D-1 presentation.
  • Action: No motion was taken on this item in this section of the transcript; it was deferred to allow for public comment.
  • Item A-20: Alan Hancock College Foundation Agreement
  • Discussion: The item was read into the record. Amy Smith provided public comment via Zoom, expressing concerns regarding county messaging on vaccination and public health data. Chair Hartmann noted that the comments appeared to relate to Departmental Item D-1 rather than A-20. Supervisor Nelson spoke in support of the item, thanking Alan Hancock College for its partnership during the pandemic.
  • Action: No specific motion or vote outcome is recorded for this item in this section of the transcript prior to the move to the next item.
  • Item A-24: Ordinance Amending Speed Limits
  • Discussion: The item, from Public Works, was read into the record. It concerns amending speed limits in County Code sections 23-15.4, 23-15.5, 23-15.6, 23-15.7, and 23-15.8 in the First and Third Districts. Supervisor Williams requested a separate vote, stating he would vote against the item due to concerns about state policy regarding speed limit determinations.
  • Action: A motion was made by Supervisor Hart and seconded by Chair Hartmann to approve the item.
  • Vote: Passed 4 to 1.
  • Item A-34: Resolution Proclaiming National Health Center Week
  • Discussion: The item, sponsored by Supervisor Hart, was read into the record. It proclaims August 8–14, 2021, as National Health Center Week in Santa Barbara County. The resolution highlights the role of five Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHCs) in the county, including American Indian Health and Services, Community Health Centers of the Central Coast, Santa Barbara County Public Health Department, Santa Barbara Neighborhood Clinics, and the San Ynez Tribal Health Clinic. Representatives from these organizations provided brief remarks acknowledging the resolution.
  • Action: A motion was made by Supervisor Nelson and seconded by Chair Hartmann to approve the resolution.
  • Vote: Passed unanimously.
  • Item A-36: Resolution of Commendation for Food Insecurity Response
  • Discussion: The item, sponsored by Supervisors Hartmann and Lavinino, was read into the record. It recognizes community volunteers and organizations that mobilized to address food insecurity during the COVID-19 public health emergency. A list of recognized individuals and organizations was read. Magdalena Serrano from Community Health Centers of the Central Coast spoke on behalf of the partners, expressing gratitude. Enrique Batista also provided brief comments thanking the partners.
  • Action: A motion was made by Supervisor Lavinino and seconded by Chair Hartmann to approve the resolution.
  • Vote: Passed unanimously.
  • Balance of Administrative Agenda
  • Action: A motion was made to approve the balance of the administrative agenda.
  • Vote: Passed unanimously.

General Public Comment

  • Seven requests to speak were noted. 1. Tracy Baird, Allison Wales, and Suzanne Peck (Santa Barbara County Women’s Commission): Presented a national award received for the "Pass the Mic" program, which addresses sexual harassment, discrimination, and assault among teens. They discussed the program’s development, collaboration with public health and education, and plans to expand its use in schools and community organizations. 2. Leslie Weinstock: Spoke regarding cell phone radiation, citing studies and a DC Court of Appeals decision regarding FCC regulations. She urged the Board to reverse 2019 ordinance cross-outs and pass an urgency ordinance to protect residents from wireless radiation, particularly in light of state bills SB556 and AB537. 3. Odile Thomas: Spoke on behalf of Safe Technology for Santa Barbara, urging the Board to reinstate protections against small cell tower installations in residential neighborhoods and to act before state bills deregulating the industry are passed. 4. Joyce Ellen Lipman: Was listed as a speaker but did not provide comments as she stepped away from her computer.

Departmental Agenda

  • Item D-1: Update on Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19)
  • Discussion: Dr. Henning Ansorg, County Health Officer, presented data on case rates by vaccination status, noting that cases were nearly 3.7 times more likely to be among unvaccinated individuals. He presented seven-day rolling case sums by area, highlighting increases in Santa Maria, Santa Barbara, Lompoc, and Ojai. Current statistics included 800 active cases, 56 hospitalizations (12 in ICU), and a total case count of 37,454. Hospital capacity was noted to be at the cusp of the red zone. Dr. Ansorg discussed the FDA approval of booster shots for immunocompromised individuals.
  • Dr. Ansorg then presented on the Delta variant, noting its higher contagiousness (R0 estimated between 6 and 7) and shorter incubation period. He reported that Delta comprised over 95% of sequenced samples in the county as of July. He noted that while vaccines remain effective at preventing severe disease and death, breakthrough infections are occurring.
  • Dr. Chuck Merriff, Chief Medical Officer at Marion Hospital, provided hospital-specific data, reporting 44 inpatients (13 in ICU) and emphasizing the importance of vaccination and masking.
  • The Public Health Department presented a briefing on the current status of the Delta variant, vaccine efficacy, and hospitalization data. Key points included:
  • Vaccine Efficacy and Breakthrough Cases: Presenters noted that while vaccines continue to prevent severe disease, hospitalization, and death, breakthrough infections occur with the Delta variant. Data from the Provincetown MMWR study indicated that vaccinated individuals with breakthrough infections may have high initial viral loads, comparable to unvaccinated individuals. However, newer data from Singapore suggests that vaccinated individuals clear the virus and become less infectious more quickly than unvaccinated individuals.
  • Hospital Data: Cottage Health reported that 80–90% of recent COVID-positive admissions were unvaccinated. A correlation analysis showed that during the Delta surge, the ratio of positive tests to hospital admissions was lower than during the winter surge, suggesting fewer hospitalizations per case, potentially due to increased testing, younger demographics, or vaccine protection.
  • Pediatric Cases: Presenters confirmed that pediatric cases, including those under age 12, have been observed. They noted a national trend of increased pediatric hospitalizations and emphasized the importance of vaccination for eligible adolescents and masking in schools to protect unvaccinated children.
  • Long COVID: Presenters stated that data on long COVID associated with the Delta variant is still emerging. They noted that a small percentage of pediatric patients have experienced long-term symptoms such as fatigue and difficulty concentrating.
  • Booster Vaccines: The briefing referenced the CDC’s ACIP recommendation for booster doses for immunocompromised individuals and noted ongoing national discussions regarding broader booster eligibility.
  • Board Questions and Responses:
  • Transmission and R-naught: A board member asked about the transmissibility of the virus in vaccinated versus unvaccinated individuals. The Health Officer clarified that R-naught is a measure of the virus's contagiousness, not individual vaccination status, and is not differentiated by vaccination status in epidemiological reporting.
  • Mask Efficacy: In response to questions about mask effectiveness, the Health Officer stated that while early evidence was limited, current research supports the efficacy of masks, particularly N95 and surgical masks, in reducing transmission, especially indoors.
  • Pediatric Data: A board member inquired about unvaccinated pediatric cases. Presenters confirmed that both Marion Hospital and Cottage Health have seen pediatric cases, including those under 12, and are preparing for potential increases in pediatric admissions.
  • Public Comment: Nine members of the public provided comments. Topics included:
  • Legal and Scientific Challenges: Several speakers raised concerns regarding the legal basis of state emergency declarations, the accuracy of PCR testing (citing potential false positives), and the classification of deaths (PIC deaths). One speaker argued that vaccine mandates contradict federal law regarding the option to refuse administration.
  • Data Methodology: One speaker questioned the denominator used in case rate statistics, suggesting that case rates should be calculated based on the number of tests administered to vaccinated versus unvaccinated populations rather than the general population.
  • Vaccine Mandates and Workforce: A county employee (firefighter) expressed concern that mandatory vaccine or testing policies for county employees could lead to workforce exodus and viewed the mandates as discriminatory. Another speaker, representing a small business, expressed concern about the burden of verifying vaccination status for customers and requested that if such policies are implemented, they be applied uniformly across all businesses.
  • Natural Immunity and Variants: Speakers cited studies and medical professionals (including Dr. Byram Bridle and the Great Barrington Declaration) arguing that natural immunity offers broader protection than vaccine-induced immunity and that vaccines may drive variant evolution.
  • Mask Hygiene and Policy: Speakers discussed the practical challenges of mask hygiene, the politicization of mask mandates, and the impact of mandates on public trust and vaccination rates. One speaker noted that the county is one of the few in the region with a universal indoor mask mandate.
  • Board Response to Public Comment:
  • Health Officer: Reiterated that vaccines prevent 65–80% of Delta infections and that vaccinated individuals clear the virus faster. Corrected the notion that masks do not work, citing accumulated research over 1.5 years.
  • Supervisor Williams: Shared a personal perspective on the severity of the pandemic in developing nations and emphasized the importance of vaccination for healthy individuals to reduce hospitalization risk.
  • County Counsel (Ms. Van Molen): Clarified that the universal indoor mask mandate is a local health officer order, not a Board of Supervisors policy. The Board does not vote on this specific order.
  • Supervisor Nelson: Expressed disagreement with the mask mandate policy, citing concerns about unintended consequences, such as reduced trust and lower vaccination rates among hesitant populations. Noted that the state has not mandated universal masking and that neighboring counties have different approaches. Emphasized the importance of respecting individual autonomy and avoiding coercive language.
  • Chair Hartmann: Acknowledged the need to adapt messaging to the Delta variant, emphasizing the combination of vaccines and masks. Highlighted the priority of keeping schools open and safe, citing a Duke University study on the effectiveness of masking in schools.
  • Supervisor Hart: Urged the Public Health Department to create a regularly updated FAQ section on their website to address recurring public questions and improve communication.
  • Action: Supervisor Hart moved to recommend actions A through C as listed on the board agenda. The motion was seconded.
  • Vote: Passed unanimously.
  • Item D-2: Business Application Needs Assessment Project Update and RFP for County ERP Software
  • Discussion: Staff presented an update on the transition from the Business Application Needs Assessment (Banner) phase to the Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) phase. The presentation outlined the completion of Phase Zero (planning and preparation), which began in 2019 and involved a county-wide stakeholder team of over 90 individuals. Staff detailed the scope of services, including the assessment of 134 county business applications, the identification of eight indicators necessitating system replacement, and the development of a plan of action. The proposed timeline includes issuing the Request for Proposal (RFP) in the current summer, evaluating proposals in the fall, conducting contract negotiations in the winter, and returning to the Board in early 2022 for contract approval. Staff noted that the project is estimated to cost over $10 million, initially funded by the General Fund and recouped through the Cost Allocation Plan (CAP) across all departments and funds. Staff also outlined the vendor evaluation process, which will involve a nine-member evaluation committee, software demonstrations, and interviews with implementers.
  • Supervisor Nelson inquired about the financing structure, and staff confirmed that while initially funded by the General Fund, costs are allocated to all departments via the CAP, with reimbursements returning to the General Fund as discretionary revenue. Supervisor Williams expressed confidence in the project leadership. Supervisor Lavagnino and Chair Hartman discussed the importance of change management and the complexity of the implementation.
  • Action: A motion was made to adopt the staff recommendation to receive and file the project update, authorize the release of the RFP, and make the appropriate CEQA finding. The motion was seconded.
  • Vote: Passed unanimously. No public comments were received on this item.
  • Closed Session
  • The Board recessed to closed session to discuss two items: significant exposure to civil litigation under Government Code Section 54956.9 and a conference with real property negotiators regarding APN 00508006 Temple Street in Summerland. Upon reconvening, staff reported that the Board took no reportable action in closed session.
  • Item D-3: CDBG Action Plan Amendment and Human Services Grant Agreements
  • Discussion: Staff presented recommendations to approve a substantial amendment to the first fiscal year 2021–2022 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Action Plan and to execute Human Services Grant (HSG) agreements. The amendments address reallocations due to the discontinuation of the senior nutrition program by Communify and a recalculation by HUD that increased the county’s CDBG allocation by $2,911. The Human Services Commission recommended awarding $4,251 to Meals on Wheels of Santa Maria Valley and $13,660 to the Santa Ynez Valley Senior Citizens Foundation’s Meals on Wheels program. Additionally, staff proposed reallocating $30,000 in county Human Services funds previously awarded to Communify to the Central Coast Commission for Senior Citizens for a senior meal program, and $30,000 previously awarded to the Unitarian Society to Good Samaritan Shelter to continue the Freedom Warming Center program. Staff noted that a 30-day public comment period for the CDBG amendment commenced on July 16 and concluded with this hearing; no public comments had been received by the county as of that date.
  • Supervisor Williams asked about the per-meal cost of the reallocations and whether drivers were volunteers or paid, noting concerns about high costs. Staff indicated they did not have the specific per-meal costs available but committed to providing that information. Supervisor Lavagnino expressed support for the immediate actions but raised broader concerns about the efficiency and business model of the senior nutrition program, suggesting a need for a streamlined process. Staff indicated that a fuller review of the senior nutrition program could be presented to the Board in the spring.
  • Action: A motion was made to adopt the staff recommendations (A through D) with an additional directive to include per-meal cost analysis in future presentations. The motion was seconded.
  • Vote: Passed unanimously. No public comments were received on this item.
  • Item D-4: Countywide Community Workforce Agreement (CWA) Ordinance and Project Template
  • Discussion: Staff presented the development of a Countywide Community Workforce Agreement (CWA) ordinance and project template. The presentation reviewed the definition of a CWA, noting that it is a contractually binding agreement between a project owner and building trades that requires contractors to adhere to collective bargaining agreements. Staff outlined the county’s 2014 conceptually approved Project Stabilization Agreement (PSA), which was negotiated with the Tri-County Buildings and Trades Council (TCBT) but not finalized due to lack of full union approval. Staff also reviewed the City of Santa Barbara’s CWA approved in July 2021.
  • Staff presented five options for the Board’s consideration:
  • 1. Utilize the finalized City of Santa Barbara CWA with modifications. 2. Utilize the City’s CWA as a base and negotiate terms to maximize bidders. 3. Utilize the Board’s 2014 conceptually approved PSA. 4. Renegotiate an entirely new CWA with TCBT. 5. Provide other direction.
  • Staff requested direction on stakeholder outreach, the project threshold for applicability (noting the City uses a $5 million threshold), and whether to pilot the agreement on a single project or apply it countywide. Staff also noted that if options 2, 4, or 5 are selected, the Board would need to provide guidance on specific negotiation points such as core workforce, local participation, and benefit plans.
  • Supervisor Lavagnino asked for clarification on the "window fee" and the rationale for the local hire requirement percentage. Staff explained the window fee as a cost to maintain a worker’s name on a union dispatch list. Supervisor Lavagnino questioned why the local hire requirement is not higher and asked if different rules for local versus non-local non-union contractors are legally defensible. Staff noted that as a general law county, the county is governed by different statutes than charter cities and would need to review the legal defensibility of such distinctions. Supervisor Nelson asked about local labor statistics on recent projects. Staff reported that local labor on the jail project was tracking at 43.3%, while other projects from 2008 to 2021 tracked at approximately 88% local labor within the tri-county area. Staff attributed the lower percentage on the jail project to the specialized nature of the work and the importation of labor for specific trades. Supervisor Williams observed that large specialized projects often result in out-of-region general contractors and subcontractors.
  • Public Comment: Public comment was received from both supporters and opponents of the proposed Community Workforce Agreement (CWA).
  • Opposition: Speakers representing non-union contractors and industry associations (including Les Cushman, Lee Cushman, Elias Garcia, Andy Caldwell, Danny Devereaux, Eric Christensen, Russell Johnson, Bill Baker, Rudy Bachman, Richard Markeson, Kelly Perez, and Jim Danning) argued that the CWA is unnecessary because the county already achieves high local hiring rates (citing figures between 85% and 90%). They contended that the CWA would increase costs for taxpayers, disadvantage non-union contractors by forcing them to pay into union trust funds for benefits they do not use, and restrict the ability of local, non-union businesses to bid on projects. Several speakers cited specific instances of wage theft or misclassification by contractors as evidence that existing enforcement mechanisms, rather than a CWA, are the appropriate solution. Others argued that the CWA would displace local non-union workers in favor of out-of-area union workers and that apprenticeship programs already exist without the need for a CWA.
  • Support: Speakers representing union locals, the Tri-County Building and Construction Trades Council, and individual union members (including Bob Nelson, Alex Perez, Jonathan Duran, Armando Delgado, Joshua Medrano, Lori Bennett, Spencer Brown, and others) argued that the CWA is necessary to ensure local hiring on large, complex projects where local participation has historically been low (citing a 43% local hire rate on the North County Jail project). They stated that CWAs prevent wage theft, ensure safety standards, provide apprenticeship opportunities, and keep tax dollars within the local economy. Supporters emphasized that CWAs do not prohibit non-union contractors from bidding but require them to pay prevailing wages and use local labor. They urged the board to move forward with negotiations using the City of Santa Barbara’s recently adopted CWA as a template.
  • Board Discussion:
  • Supervisor Williams expressed support for moving forward with the CWA, citing the successful template developed by the City of Santa Barbara. He noted that the county’s previous attempt in 2014 did not result in a successful conclusion and advocated for expediting the implementation process.
  • Supervisor Nielsen supported the concept of setting a "bar" for worker benefits and local hiring to protect the middle class. He suggested using the City of Santa Barbara’s ordinance as a template but argued for a lower project cost threshold than the city’s, given the county’s larger jurisdiction and the nature of its projects. He emphasized the need to negotiate with workers directly.
  • Supervisor Lavagnino expressed a desire to bring all stakeholders, including non-union contractors, to the table to reach a consensus, rather than adopting a pre-negotiated agreement that excludes them. He questioned the necessity of the CWA given that prevailing wages are already required on public works and noted that he did not see a clear "broken" system requiring intervention. He stated he would not support moving forward unless all stakeholders were included in the negotiation process.
  • Supervisor Nelson inquired about the number of local union halls and apprenticeship programs in the county. He expressed support for apprenticeship programs and local hiring, suggesting a local hire target of 70% rather than the 30% or 43% figures mentioned. He proposed using the 2014 agreement as a foundation, as it was nearly signed by all parties, and suggested a mechanism to rebid projects if bids exceeded engineer estimates.
  • Chair Hartman stated her general support for unions and collective bargaining. She noted that CWAs are typically for complex, high-value projects and cited the Port Hueneme workforce agreement as a positive example of local hiring. She supported using the City of Santa Barbara’s model as a base for negotiation, acknowledging that the 2014 agreement is outdated. She proposed including a term limit (3–5 years) to allow for review and adjustment of the agreement’s effectiveness.
  • Staff Input: Scott McLaughlin, Public Works Director, confirmed that staff could use the City of Santa Barbara’s CWA as a base for negotiation with the Tri-County Building and Construction Trades Council (TCBT). He noted that the county, as a general law county, must ensure legal compliance distinct from the charter city of Santa Barbara. He indicated that staff would focus on key areas raised by the board and public, including core workforce provisions, union dues for non-union contractors, and local participation. He suggested that stakeholder input, as used in 2014, would be valuable in understanding the business impact of specific terms.
  • Further Discussion: The board discussed the process for negotiating a community workforce agreement. Staff indicated they were prepared to discuss individual provisions if desired by the board. One supervisor suggested that the board provide direction to negotiators regarding taxpayer protection, specifically proposing that if project costs exceed engineer estimates by approximately 10%, the project should be rebid. Another supervisor noted that rejecting bids significantly above engineer estimates is standard operating procedure for public works directors, but agreed that codifying this requirement in the ordinance would be beneficial. Staff confirmed they could incorporate this language into the draft ordinance.
  • The board also debated the scope of negotiations. One supervisor argued that the time for classic stakeholder negotiations had passed and that staff should work directly with business and building trades to move the process forward quickly. Other supervisors expressed support for involving stakeholders, noting that a previous attempt in 2014 was close to completion and that the county should not simply adopt the City of Santa Barbara’s template without ensuring the agreement represents the entire county. One supervisor stated they would not support a motion that excluded stakeholder involvement. The chair clarified that the City of Santa Barbara’s template would serve as a base but would be adapted.
  • Action: A motion was made to direct staff to negotiate a community workforce agreement using the City of Santa Barbara’s templates to draft the county ordinance. The motion was seconded.
  • Vote: Passed 3 to 2.

Adjournment

  • The meeting was adjourned, with the next meeting scheduled for Tuesday, August 24, in Santa Barbara.