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 – 0:0610 turns
Welcome to our October 18, 2022 meeting of the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors here in the Santa Barbara Hearing Room. Madam Clerk will you call the roll please? Supervisor
Roll call, called by Moni DeWitt
Show transcript
Please let the record reflect that Supervisor Hart is not with us yet.
The next item of business is approval of the October 11, 2022 minutes. And may I have a motion? And Supervisor Hart has joined us. May I have a motion to approve the minutes?
So moved.
A second? Second. Any discussion? All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed pass unanimously. Supervisor Lavanino did you have a comment? Okay. You're wearing it.
I think he has a comment, but he doesn't need to say it. Congratulations to the San Diego. That's why
Supervisor Hart was late. He didn't want to come out on the dining
room. CEO Miyasato do you have a report for us today? No report this morning. And Supervisor Lavanino, you do have an update for us.
I do. It has nothing to do The demise of the Los Angeles Dodgers. It Saturday, no Saturday yes. I'm always in the minority right? So Saturday we held our 10th annual veteran stand down and although it takes us a while to get all the numbers put together and everything 390 veterans, an uptick of over 50 veterans from last year. 44 of those were women, over 100 of those were homeless, eight homeless women.
And we actually put out a big push to bring veterans more from San Luis Obispo as well. We provided them transportation, so we got 10 vets and one dog in our van that we brought down. And so as we move forward, we'll have a committee meeting and we'll bring all those numbers together but just wanted to give a big shout-out to all the county employees that were involved. A lot of them donated their time and so I just wanted to give a big thank you to all
Well, congratulations. That was a great success. Madam Clerk, do you have some announcements for us today?
0:06 – 0:082 turns
Chair Hartman and members of the board, I do have one quick announcement this morning. I would like to remind the public who are participating in our meeting today of the Board's updated methods of public participation for the Board of Supervisors methods of public participation and to provide public comment on general public comment or on an item on the board's agenda. Please see page two of the agenda Members of the public can attend meetings in person, both in the Santa Barbara Board Hearing Room Chambers as well as the Santa Maria Board Hearing Room Chambers. Please note that the board is following all local and state guidelines and are no longer requiring face coverings indoors.
If you attend the board meetings in person, you will no longer be required to wear a face covering but please be advised that the Public Health Department is strongly encouraging all county staff and members of the public to mask and socially distance themselves in crowded areas I would also like to remind the public that if you require any special accommodations, please contact the Clerk of the Board to make that request, preferably the Friday prior to the board meeting.
Individuals that would like to provide verbal public comment virtually may do so via Zoom by registering in advance via the link available on page 2. After registering, you will receive a confirmation email containing important information about joining the virtual meeting. Once the chair has announced the item you want to comment on, please join the meeting with the information provided and the registration confirmation email.
You will be placed on mute until it is your turn to speak. The clerk will call you by name. 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. Each person may address the Board for up to three minutes at the discretion of the Chair. If you have any questions, please contact the Clerk of the Board's Office at 805-568-2240. That concludes my announcements for today.
Thank you Madam Clerk. Do any board members have items that they would like pulled for separate discussion from the A agenda? I would like to pull A9 and Madam Clerk are there any members of the public who would like to pull any of the A items?
Agenda Discussionitems moved / continued / pulled, click to expand
Chair Hartman, we have no requests from the public to pull items from the administrative agenda this
morning. Would you read A9 into the record please?
Chair Hartman and members of the board, administrative item nine is from the county executive office. It is to consider recommendations regarding the Santa Barbara County and operational area disaster care and shelter plan.
Thank you I just wanted to note that I think this is an extraordinarily well done report it's really comprehensive and it deals with new items including extreme heat and PSPS events It's clear that there was an enormous amount of work that went into that and can't let it go unremarked. And, you know, failing to plan is planning to fail. When emergencies happen, you really have to have good plans. Then things happen but at least you have a baseline to make changes from.
I really just want to let you know how much that's appreciated. It's a lot of hard work and it can go unremarked Until there is an emergency, so I just wanted to point it out before there was one Thank You Okay So may I have a motion to approve the administrative agenda so moved second All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Passes unanimously. So Madam Clerk, would you read administrative item number 21 into the record please?
Chair Hartman and members of the board, Administrative Item 21 is sponsored by Supervisor Williams. It is to adopt a resolution in support of the women of Iran as they stand against the government of Iran and its persecution of women and violation of human rights. Joining us in person we have Guilherme Macron and Dr. Fayez. If you will now join us at the podium I will read the resolution into the record.
Whereas on September 16, 2022, 22-year-old Masa Amini died in the custody of the Iranian Morality Police following a three day coma due to wounds which included bone fractures, hemorrhage and cerebral edema that were consistent with a severe beating inflicted by the morality police for purportedly wearing a hijab improperly. And whereas on September 17th, Iranians gathered in the streets of Tehran to protest the killing of Masha Amini. And whereas demonstrations have since spread to more than 80 cities and 20 universities in Iran Where women are removing or burning hijabs, cutting their hair, dancing in front of the Iranian security forces joined by their fellow Iranian citizens. And whereas at least 1,200 Iranians have been arrested across Iran according to official sources and thousands more have been detained and remain in police custody.
And whereas the government of Iran has a long history of structural and legal discrimination against women, including barriers for women seeking justice against domestic violence and criminal prohibitions against women singing or showing hair in public and studying certain technical subjects. And whereas the government of Iran approved of depriving one's social right or more for any woman who posts an unveiled photo of herself on social media, and in August 2022 approved of enforcing mandatory hijab laws through facial recognition.
And whereas through misogynistic criminal statutes, the Iranian regime for decades has detained and engaged in ongoing persecution of women. And has consistently engaged in various human rights abuses including unlawful killings, torture, interfering with the freedom of speech and peaceful assembly. And whereas the County of Santa Barbara condemns the death and detention of Massa Amini by the Morality Police, and condemns the Iranian government for their grave violation of fundamental human rights.
And whereas the County of Santa Barbara encourages continued efforts by the Biden administration to respond to the protests including the recent sanctioning of the Iranian Morality Police and urges the international community to continue to stand and show solidarity with the ongoing protests in Iran. And whereas, the County of Santa Barbara confirms its unwavering support for the Iranian people's desire for a democratic, secular, and non-nuclear Republic of Iran where every individual has the right to practice their religion as they see fit and condemns human rights violations and state sponsored terrorism by the Iranian government.
Now therefore it is hereby ordered and resolved that this Board of Supervisors commends the bravery, courage and resolve of the women and men of Iran demonstrating in more than 80 cities and risking their safety to speak out against the Iranian government human rights abuses. And pays tribute to the many women including Masa Amini who gave their lives in the pursuit of freedom and human rights passed and adopted today.
Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Azam Faiz. I am a faculty at University of California Santa Barbara. I really appreciate your kind efforts and your initiative act in issuing this resolution. It is very important and very meaningful to us. The widespread protests for women's rights and human rights have erupted across Iran, instigated by the death of Mahsa Jina Amini, a 22-year Iranian woman who died while in custody of Iranian morality police for wearing her hijab loosely.
While protests have spread in Iran, the government has shut down the internet to prevent the documentation of these protests and the brutality the protesters have been facing in return. The government has also ruthlessly cracked down on anti-government protests all throughout the country. Security forces have been using the shotguns, assault rifles and handguns against peaceful protesters and in some cases they have even shot at people who were running away.
Hundreds of people, including children have been killed so far. Amnesty International has released the name of 23 kids who have been murdered during September 20 to 30. Security forces beat, shot and detained students at the highest ranking university of Iran, Sharif University while a student continued their anti-government protest in many other universities.
Brave women of Iran with Iranian men besides them are currently fighting for freedom, human rights and women's rights. It was demonstration now it is a resolution. What the Iranian people ask for is one no to Islamic regime anymore. Two the United States we want them not to sign any deal with the Islamic Republic of Iran And three, for all countries to end any relationship with the regime in Iran and fire the regime's ambassadors.
And four, we want every person to be our voice and support for the Iranian people in the fight for women's rights, human rights, and freedom. I appreciate your kindness. Fabio Rombelli, head of Religious Studies Department and also Janet Afari the head of Iranian Initiative. And we would like to have this resolution in the website of University of California Santa Barbara. Thank you so much.
Thank you for being here.
Supervisor Williams?
I just want to thank you and your compatriots for being here today. It's inspirational given that the oppression of the regime has been ever present for decades, but yet sometimes all it takes is the injustice against one person to wake up millions and that to me is inspirational. It is especially inspirational given I'd like to start by thanking you all for coming.
But of the idea that there is a good and evil that transcends power. That there is a justice that is inherent, that manifests whether or not you are weaker or stronger. And to see that unfold in the streets is tremendously inspirational.
You are absolutely right.
0:18 – 0:244 turns
Many people these days, when I interview with different press they ask me why you have waited for 43 years? But you may have seen after Islamic revolution exactly one month after women were in the streets They were telling that we don't want restriction, we want to be free. We don't want compulsory hijab but every demonstration, every action was just demolished by the regime and they were beaten, they were arrested, they were raped in their prisons And so people, they have had several actions. In some occasions they were thinking if they have a reformist government maybe it will be a solution. They clinched to every solution, to every option that they had but then after all these years they have come to this decision, they have come to this point that reformists and extremist, they are both sides of the same coin.
So they don't have any hope for a reform in this regime. There is only one option and that is the change of the regime and revolution. And here I Again, I appreciate your kindness and your kind and your good action. And I want to tell that Islamic Republic in Iran it is a cancer for the whole world. It is not only the problem of people in Iran. 43 years ago with Khomeini he started this Islamic regime after that we have many Islamic and many Jihadi actions around the world Iran is a very rich country, and it has a lot of resources. But all these resources are used for malactions, for terrorist actions around the world. The government in Iran, the regime in Iran, they do not use the resources of people for the people.
You may have seen that the currency of the people, the value has come so down. People are living in very poor conditions. It is so difficult for them to have a very basic life. So we don't have any other option just to have free Iran again. We were just like other people and the problem is during these 43 years, people in the world they have seen Iran through media And what they have seen is Islamic Republic. They have seen the Islamic regime, not the people of Iran and everywhere that I go, everywhere that I have interview, I would like them to differentiate between the people of Iran and Islamic Republic of Iran.
I want you to know and to be the voice of us, to tell everybody that this problem is not only the problem of Iran. Islamic regime is a cancer for the whole humanity. As you know Saadi says It's a poem from 800 years ago by Saadi and it has written at United Nations office. It means human beings are members of one body Different members, different organs of this one body. If one organ is in pain the other organs and the whole body cannot be in peace, cannot enjoy life. So I would like every human being to hear our voice and be our voice The killing of one girl, it is the killing of human beings. It is the killing of humanity. They have killed at least we have the name 23 kids and they arrest girls last a few days ago they have killed a student in high school and they have arrested some of them and taken them into prison So the stories are full of these things.
And just I want you to continue and be our voice. Thank you so much. Thank you,
Supervisor Hart.
Yeah, I just want to thank Supervisor Williams for bringing this resolution forward and for you coming today and speaking such beautiful truth. And I think it's really obvious that Masha Amini represented more than Then herself in this struggle that she really represents every mother and every daughter and every sister. in Iran and what happened to her obviously galvanized people in a different way because they realized the threat could occur to anybody. She was not a political activist, she was a victim and as you said the country has awoken and I think the world is waking up too as we see on the news that the drones that are being used in Ukraine against civilians are being supplied by the Iranian regime The connection of all of us and all of humanity to the struggle in Iran and Ukraine are our responsibility as well as Americans.
Thank you for being here to share your part in the struggle, and for us to show our solidarity with that with you.
Thank you so much.
0:24 – 0:304 turns
Madam Clerk would you read item 22 into the record please?
Chair Hartman and members of the board, Administrative Item 22 is sponsored by Supervisor Williams. It is to adopt a resolution proclaiming the month of October 2022 as Dyslexia Awareness Month in Santa Barbara County. Joining us in person we have Senator Monique Limon. I will now read the resolution into the record if you would join us at the podium. Whereas dyslexia is defined as an unexpected difficulty in reading for an individual who has the intelligence to be a much better reader and is most commonly caused by difficulty in phonological processing, which affects the ability of an individual to read, write, spell, and often the ability to learn a second language.
And whereas, dyslexia is the most common learning difference that affects 80 to 90% of all individuals with a learning difference. And it is persistent and highly prevalent affecting as many as one out of every five individuals. And whereas when dyslexic was not identified far too many students experience unnecessary struggles in school which has long-term consequences, including academic difficulties, poor self esteem and a wide range of negative outcomes for individuals and our communities.
Whereas early screening for an early diagnosis of dyslexia is crucial for ensuring that individuals with dyslexia receive focus evidence based intervention that leads to fluent reading the promotion of self awareness and self empowerment and the provision of necessary accommodations to ensure success in school and life And whereas, Senator Monique Limon has for many years shown a passion for learning about dyslexia and supporting greater awareness. Starting back in her days as a trustee for the Santa Barbara Unified School District where she showed leadership and compassion by helping lead the district's early attempts to address dyslexic positively.
And whereas, Senator Limon has distinguished herself by seeking expert help from constituents whose children's experienced learning difficulties. And has continuously worked to address the needs of dyslexic students in Sacramento as an assembly member and now in her current role as state senator. And whereas she recently co-authored SB 237, a bold effort to ensure students at risk of dyslexia would be screened, identified and adequately accommodated in California's public schools.
SB 237 passed unanimously in the Senate but was stalled in the Assembly generating a great deal of interest and support from the dyslexic community throughout California. And whereas the County of Santa Barbara and its residents support Senator Monique Limon for her leadership, initiative and passion in addressing dyslexia at the state level and continuing to raise awareness.
Now therefore be it and it is hereby ordered and resolved that this Board of Supervisors declares October 2022 as Dyslexia Awareness Month in Santa Barbara County and thanks Senator Limon for her work passed and adopted today
Welcome, Senator.
Thank you. Thank you, Supervisor Williams. Thank you to all of our Board of Supervisors for Santa Barbara County. As has been mentioned, dyslexia impacts one in five people. That's a lot. And what we know is that the earlier that you're able to identify dyslexia, the earlier you're able to get support and function in a way that we want to function. Literacy is absolutely important and key And is a key to success here in our community, not just in the schools but also in the labor force.
In the state legislature, I joined co-authors in co-authoring, quote, I joined legislators in co-authoring Senate Bill 237 which would have allowed for schools to assess and screen students between the ages of kindergarten and second grade for dyslexia. This continues to be something that is important. We were not able to get it to the finish line this year but it is communities like Santa Barbara County We are only one of ten states that doesn't have an early screening process. So when we talk about California needing to step up, this is certainly a place Having been a school board member, I know how difficult it is but also how important. As a mom of a two-year-old, I have to tell you that just in the last three days, I was online and saw a mother post anonymously that she believes that her daughter has dyslexia and despite her going and saying please test This first grader is still not tested and she sees that she struggles in a way to put the words and letters together in order.
So these are the everyday lived experiences, whether it's by an educator, a community advocate, a parent or a student that is struggling. We must do more. And today's resolution is about signifying that Santa Barbara County wants to raise the awareness, wants to work with community partners to do more for the one in five individuals who have dyslexia in our community. So thank you so much for this moment, thank you for raising the awareness and I hope that if you know individuals you ask them to be leaders and step up in creating the awareness and we also support projects like the Dyslexia Project led by Sherry Ray who continue to do so much to raise awareness and to push for early screening which is key to success.
0:30 – 0:357 turns
Keep fighting for that bill. Supervisor Williams?
Well, I want to thank the Senator for her work as well as Sherry Ray and Monique DeWitt who have been tireless in their local advocacy. And I also want to make the connection that it's you know fortuitous in a sad way that we are doing this on the same day that we're looking at so many criminal justice issues because we know that when we don't have early screening and treatment That it becomes, especially for kids of working class background a point of desperation. And unfortunately we find a lot of those kids later on in our criminal justice system and so early screening the proper kind of services they cost money but not anything compared to the money that it takes to incarcerate them later on in life. And so it's an investment in our community safety and our communities future as well.
Supervisor
Hart?
Yeah, I just wanted to thank Supervisor Williams for bringing this item forward and for Senator Lamont for her leadership. And then Moni DeWitt and Sherry Ray also for their community activism and their determination on this issue for many, many years. I noted that SB 237 passed unanimously out of the Senate but didn't quite make it out of the Assembly so I'm hopeful that in a short while I'll be able to add a vote on the Assembly to that cause.
Hear hear. Okay, turning to item number 23. Madam Clerk would you read that into the record please?
Chair Hartman and members of the board, Administrative Item 23 is sponsored by Supervisor Williams and Supervisor Hart. It is to adopt a resolution proclaiming the month of October 2022 as AIDS Awareness Month in Santa Barbara County. Joining us here in person we have Keith and Neil Kaufmann-Gray. If you will join us at the podium I will now read the resolution into the record Whereas HIV and AIDS has impacted the health and lives of millions of people, including many residents of the Santa Barbara County.
And whereas October is recognized internationally as AIDS Awareness Month. And whereas California and Santa Barbara County are at the forefront of battling both the stigma and the disease of HIV and AIDS. And whereas pre-exposure prophylaxis is an effective medical tool for preventing HIV infections among community members at higher risk. And whereas the County of Santa Barbara works through its public health and other departments to raise awareness about HIV and AIDS with the goal of reducing new infection.
And whereas, the County of Santa Barbara works with local agencies and non-profits to stop the spread of AIDS. And whereas, The National AIDS Memorial Quilt is the largest public artwork in the world, representing hundreds of thousands of people lost to AIDS. And locally, Quilt Project Gold Coast makes memorial quilt panels for those lost to AIDS in the Gold Coast.
And whereas people in the communities most impacted by HIV and AIDS, including LGBTQ+, people of color and migrants are still infected and dying. And many have dedicated themselves to educating and raising awareness about the disease. Now therefore be it, and it is hereby ordered and resolved that this Board of Supervisors hereby proclaims October 2022 as AIDS Awareness Month in Santa Barbara County with the hopes to reach zero new infections and that there will one day be a cure passed and adopted today.
Thank you. I want to thank Santa Barbara County for proclaiming this month of October as AIDS Awareness Month My name is Keith Kaufman Gray, and I am president of Quilt Project Gold Coast. We are a nonprofit in Santa Barbara and Ventura counties that make AIDS memorial quilts to remember those who have died from AIDS and to educate that HIV-AIDS is still in our community.
Even with all of the advancement in medication, residents in Santa Barbara County are still being infected and dying with HIV-AIDS. There is still no vaccine or cure for the disease. Last year, 28 people were diagnosed with HIV-AIDS in Santa Barbara County. And in 2020, the latest statistics, 11 people died from AIDS. That is 28 people last year that will now have to take medication for the rest of their lives to keep the virus in check and to live a healthy life. The CDC goal is to get to zero new infections. We have a long ways to go.
This Saturday, October 22nd at 4 p.m., Quilt Project Gold Coast will be having a quilt memorial march down State Street, our first ever for October AIDS Awareness Month. From the county courthouse to Santa Barbara City Hall, quilts like the one you see here of Mitch Kincannon who was a local AIDS activist will be carried down State Street. We invite you in the community to help us carry the quilts. The more people who show up for the more quilts we'll be able to show.
Let's get to zero new infections, and thank you so much for this resolution. Appreciate it.
0:35 – 0:379 turns
Supervisor Hart?
Yeah, I just want to thank Neil and Keith Coffman Gray for being determined advocates for a really, really long time. And the Project Gold Coast is really such an amazing effort. It's a personal effort that has been expanded over these years to really include a lot of people. And your first ever march happening this weekend is another milestone. And just through your determination you're keeping this issue alive in the public consciousness and making people aware what they could do to protect themselves and protect others. So thank you for your work on this important issue.
And it's a stunningly beautiful quilt.
Thank you, this is a COVID-19 production here. This person is a designer and he was at home and everything you see there that is all pieces of fabric and it's all hand stitched. He didn't use a machine at all.
Oh
gracious!
I also want to thank both of you, both Keith and Neil. And I was just struck, cut to the heart when you see the dates that Mitch was only 40 years old. Out there right now is somebody in their 20s or 30s whose life could be cut off short like that. And I just so appreciate you wanting to make sure that the public continues to understand that this disease is still a risk and that we still can do something about it.
And that's why we decided to bring back the quilts, because there was a big increase in Ventura County about six years ago of HIV AIDS. And we thought well what worked in the 90s to educate and it was the quilts? You don't have to say anything you just look at the quilt and it tells the story so thank you very much.
Thank you Madam Clerk item number 24 please
0:37 – 0:434 turns
Chair Hartman and members of the board, Administrative Item 24 is sponsored by Supervisor Hartman. It is to adopt a resolution proclaiming the month of October 2022 as National Arts and Humanities Month in Santa Barbara County. Joining us here in person we have Scott Koh and Denise Belfoy. If you'll please join us at the podium I will now read the resolution into the record Whereas the month of October has been recognized as National Arts and Humanities Month by the White House and Congress for 38 years.
And whereas the Board of Supervisors formed the Community Arts Commission in 1977 to support, foster, and encourage participation in and access to arts and culture for all county residents. And whereas, the County Arts Commission established the Leadership in Arts Award in 2006 to honor leaders that have made a significant impact on arts and culture in our region through visionary thinking and exemplary commitment to promoting, sustaining, and advancing community through arts.
And whereas, for the 2022 Leadership in Arts Award, the Arts Commission has awarded Solvang Theatre Fest for its tremendous conservation and stewardship of the historic Solvang Festival Theater providing immersive outdoor theatrical experiences for over 40,000 patrons each year. And whereas, having recently completed an extensive $4.3 million restoration campaign, Solvang Theater Fest has ensured that many more generations to come will experience the magic of live theater under the stars of the San Ynez Valley.
And now therefore be it hereby ordered and resolved that this Board of Supervisors proclaims October as National Arts and Humanities Month, and encourages all community members to celebrate and explore Santa Barbara County's vibrant arts and cultural venues passed and adopted today.
On behalf of the Solvang Theatre Fest Board of Directors, I want to thank you for this Academy Award. That's what it feels like to us. Just want to make one correction. It was actually a $5.3 million project. I want to just briefly talk about the history of the Solvang Festival Theatre. Solvang, the people of Solvang. Having seen the fledgling company PCPA put on a production of Hamlet at I think Hans Christian Anderson Park they decided that they were gonna build a beautiful outdoor venue to provide PCPA with a summer spot and in 58 days they built the original theater with donated treasure materials and labor Now, almost 50 years later, it took us a little longer.
Five years to raise the money, 10 months to build it, $5.3 million in donations from 500 very generous donors. We have recreated the Solvang Festival Theater to last another 50, 100, 150 years. It's a beautiful venue. Having heard today about what's going on in the world The human condition continues to be of great concern. What's happening in Iran and Ukraine and elsewhere, heart-rending.
We realize that the arts have an important place for us, a place of refuge. Sometimes we need a good story even more than we need food. So we invite all of you to come see what we've done in Solvang. We have expanded our programs beyond PCPA, our garden series concerts are remarkable. There's one more chance for you to come to the theater before we close down for the winter. Mark your calendars November 12th Stunt Dog Extravaganza Rescue dogs trained to do amazing tricks, family fun. Please come join us and thank you so much for this honor we won't let you down. 50 years from now our descendants are still going to be enjoying those Danish blue chairs and listening to the music of the day. So thank you.
Thank you that was just tremendous. I just wanted to add, I happen to live in the Santa Ynez Valley and the Solvang Theater is really kind of the heart of entertainment. It has a wonderful picnic ground you can go early and have a picnic And then you get a blanket and a pillow, and you wrap up for the cool evening and a great performance. It's intimate, and there is something magical that happens between audience and performer in that theater. I had the opportunity to bring Supervisor Hart for his first visit at PCPA, and he was really astounded. It is a tremendous asset to the Valley, and I'm signing up to get my season tickets for next season. They've already come.
The quality of performances given how small our community is, it's Broadway quality and it's stunning to experience it in that setting so thank you for all your work to bring it back. It was very necessary work for safety And to draw good entertainers to come and perform for us. So it wouldn't have happened without your hard
work. Well, thank you so much. Thank you. Please do come and see it. And you don't need the blankets anymore. It's just so well done.
0:43 – 0:487 turns
Madam Clerk, item number 25 please.
Chair Hartman and members of the Board, Administrative Item 25 is sponsored by Supervisor Hartman. It is to adopt a resolution in recognition of the Great California Shakeout with the intent to participate on October 20th 2022 in Santa Barbara County. Joining us here in person we have Kelly Hubbard if you will join us at the podium I will now read the resolution into the record Whereas an earthquake is a sudden jolt of ground shaking which occurs when the Earth's tectonic plates shift or slip naturally due to volcanic or magmatic activity, or because of some other sudden change. People living visiting or working in the County of Santa Barbara must be aware of the ongoing and deadly hazards associated with earthquakes And whereas, the County of Santa Barbara promotes earthquake preparedness internally as well as with the public and plans for earthquake-related disasters to facilitate the continuity of government and assist the public following a major earthquake event.
And whereas earthquakes will occur with minimal advance warning, the public must be prepared to act and avoid earthquake-caused injuries. If you believe an earthquake is imminent or in process, you should drop, cover, and hold on. Safely, calmly, and quickly protect yourself under a sturdy object and hold that object over you until the shaking completely stops.
And whereas, public can improve their emergency preparedness by making emergency kits and registering for emergency alerts at www.readysbc.org. And whereas, by supporting the Great California Shakeout, Santa Barbara County can utilize the information available at www.shakeout.org slash california To educate its residents regarding actions to protect life and property, including mitigating structural and non-structural hazards.
And whereas the County of Santa Barbara encourages homeowners to make their homes more resistant to earthquake damage by applying for a grant from the California Earthquake Authority's 2022 Earthquake Brace and Bolt at www.earthquakebracebolt.com, and whereas all Santa Barbara County residents and guests are advised to participate to practice how to safely drop cover and hold on during this great California shakeout exercise at 1020 a.m. on October 20th, 2022 Now therefore, it is hereby ordered and resolved that the Board of Supervisors do hereby proclaim the day of October 20th 2022 as Earthquake Preparedness Day and approve participating in the Great California Shakeout passed and adopted today.
Ms.
Hubbard?
So I know we've had a lot of resolutions this morning, so I'll be quick. I just wanted to provide two items to the chair and board. First, we talk about drop cover and hold, and we don't often talk about those who may not have the physical ability to drop cover and hold. And so the other language we use is secure cover and hold. And so if a person may not be able to get down on the ground under protective cover if they are in a wheelchair or if they use a walker other device. They might want to secure those wheels, cover themselves their heads and neck and do the best that they can to protect themselves in the area that they're at. And so we want to make sure we continue to use that advice as well not just the drop cover-and-hold but the secure cover-and-hold.
Then I wanted to give Stacey Silva from my office an opportunity to just reinforce the concept of new eligibility within our county for the Brace and Bolt program
Good morning and thank you again for recognizing the great shakeout here in Santa Barbara County. I wanted to take a minute to highlight the Earthquake Grace and Bolt program, which offers up to $3,000 of reimbursement to homeowners to assist with seismic retrofitting. We know that we have a lot of homes within our area that could benefit from this and it is sponsored by the California Earthquake Authority and Cal OES. It is designated by zip code based on those that are most at risk, and the only qualifications are that you must be a homeowner and that must be your primary residence. In addition to the $3,000 there is supplemental grants for those who meet an income threshold which will actually cover the entire retrofitting of a home.
This grant period is open from October 18th through October 29th, so very fitting that it opens today and I'm sorry November 29 excuse me and you can find more information or homeowners can actually go to apply at www.earthquakebracebolt.com and we do have flyers available at the back of the room for those that are in attendance if they'd like to pick it up if you have any interest in having some of these flyers at your office as well.
Thank you very much for helping us keep that top-of-mind. All right, Madam Clerk turning to general public comment do we have any members of the public who've expressed a desire to speak to us today? Chair Hartman and members of the board we
do have two requests to speak for general public comment We will start with Jillian Anogos to be followed by Laura Dewey, both on Zoom.
0:49 – 0:521 turns
Hi there, thank you so much for allowing me the space to voice my concern over the building and safety permitting process. As a 32 year old first generation American and local business owner buying a home for my first time was a dream come true and my biggest accomplishment but this dream has quickly and unexpectedly turned into my greatest nightmare I purchased a home built in the 60s and like many homes of that era, there was asbestos on the ceilings and walls. I wanted to move in ASAP and rent out the other four rooms to people who I know were struggling to find rentals due to the housing crisis so I acted fast on asbestos remediation. While doing yard work, a neighbor called the county to complain about noise. An inspector came and posted a red stopwork sign on the front of my dream home.
My heart sank! The demolition needed to get rid of the asbestos is minor and non-structural, so I didn't know I needed a permit. I owned that mistake and immediately worked to abate the violation. The inspector told my boyfriend who was on site at the time that we could go to building and safety the next day Friday August 26th to get a same day over-the-counter permit but what we thought was going to be a same-day solution has turned into two months of honestly very little back and forth with the county It takes them about 14 to 20 days to respond to any email and anytime they asked us to make a modification to the application, they put us in the back of the line to wait all over again.
When trying to ask questions or attend Friday walk-in hours, the woman who I believe is the gatekeeper of the schedule denies our requests with unprofessional frustration. I'm actually afraid to speak up today in fear that this gatekeeper is going to retaliate against me but I think it's important for you to hear one personal example Good morning, everyone. My name is Barbara and I'm the board of Supervisors. I'd like to share with you a brief overview of how the inefficiencies in the permitting process are hurting your residents. I've wasted nearly $20,000 in holding costs while I waited for a minor non-structural demolition permit but I've heard that before How much money am I going to be losing in this process? Is just waiting on the permits going to force me to file for bankruptcy?
And then I realized that the inefficient and taunting permitting process in Santa Barbara must lead to inflated prices and directly contribute to the housing crisis. Currently, I'm still paying for rent while my five bedroom home sits vacant and unlivable. And there are far more vacant housing units than homeless people in Santa Barbara. How many other homeowners are in the same situation? My house and rental are equivalent to six one-bedroom apartment units. When I see how many large apartment complexes are being proposed, I can't help but think that my one house is one part of the solution to combating the housing crisis now versus when those complexes are built in 5 to 10 years if they're lucky. While I understand the county is understaffed and demand has been rising, I don't believe that's a valid excuse for this level of inefficiency that's costing homeowners, I would assume collectively hundreds of thousands each month if not millions in holding costs while just waiting for permits.
I strongly believe that it's time for the county to audit its permit process, identify its friction points, prioritize hiring more help both on the inspector and front counter level, and reassess the current team's qualifications to determine if they still possess skills needed to keep up with rising demand and technological advances. And if they're qualified to create more streamlined systems to greatly improve the permitting process. Thank you so much for your time.
0:52 – 0:5714 turns
Thank you. What district do you live in? What city? Santa
Barbara, but I'm technically in county.
Okay. Thank you very much. We appreciate you bringing that to our attention.
Maybe the public speaker could send both Mr. Hart and myself, since we both represent the City of Santa Barbara just an you don't need to repeat everything but just something that we know who you are really appreciate you saying something and I hope there is some solace in the fact that the department is in the middle Most of the suggestions that you made. But we know things are really bad so but we don't want to have you lost in the shuffle, so please email both myself and Mr Hart.
Thank you so much. I really appreciate that.
And now for our final speaker Laura Dewey.
I'm sorry
Miss Dewey? Can you hear me yet? Yes, we can. Please go ahead. I'm sorry
that's the second time I unmuted my apologies. I was just saying good morning nice to be back here talking to you about El Calejo Road in Isla Vista almost wish I was there in person. I would have loved to have seen Senator Limon and the former Judge DeVelfe in person both very lovely people Wanted to thank the board for their support of the resolutions that I was able to hear.
As you know, my... The thing that I'm really set on having happen is to have y'all take a really good look at El Colegio Road reducing the speed limit. My real motivation came when we had, of course, the tragic accident over Memorial Day weekend where the speed was estimated at 60 miles per hour for that accident I want to tell you that 60 miles per hour is not unusual for El Colegio Road. The traffic is entering the road via Stork Road and Los Carneros Road, where the speed limit is 45. And technically the speed limit on El Colegio Road is 35 but the signs are few and far between.
When you're coming off of Los Carneros there's a sign right there immediately In front of Friendship Manor at the senior facility, at the corner of El Colegio and Los Corneros. And people are so busy trying to get their speed back up on the turn that I don't think they see the 35 or if they do, they don't care. Their goal is to get to UCSB as quickly as possible where they're going to have to slow down to 25 miles anyway. You've got, El Colegio Road is unique in we've got an elementary school at one end where you've got a 25 mile per hour speed zone and the college at the other end.
And in between, you've got residential including of course our senior facility and the vehicle code mandates in a residential zone that it be 25 miles per hour. Then there's separate little sections that say that to be 25 miles per hour for school zone and 25 miles per hour for seniors zone. The Ivy Community Service District determined that there is a senior zone on El Colegio Road, and they determined it as being three blocks on El Colegio and that first block on Los Corneros so that we can slow the traffic down before we even get to the whole residential community that is Isla Vista.
The senior zone is an opportunity, as I said, to not only protect the seniors who live there and there are a lot of pedestrians. I know y'all have probably seen Gary Smart's email where he says basically there aren't seniors that are walking along there as pedestrians. And I beg to correct him. We don't only have seniors we've got a whole ton of students walking back and forth along there.
I haven't clocked how many there are per hour but Dozens of people who go by there every single hour.
Thank
you for bringing
that to our attention. That is your time, but we appreciate the detail that you've described for us.
My apologies I just say one last thing which is please have County Council look at this rather than a traffic engineer interpreting the law and please agenda
Okay, so that concludes public comment and turning to departmental item number one. Madam Clerk would you read that into the record please?
0:57 – 1:153 turns
Chair Hartman and members of the board departmental item number one is from the county executive office It is a hearing to consider recommendations regarding in a report on sheriff corner overtime usage and costs And a proposed budget development policy for overtime mitigation
Good morning, Chair Hartman and members of the Board. This item is a report on the Sheriff Coroner Office overtime costs and usage in a proposed budget development policy related to overtime mitigation. Here's what we will be covering today's report and in the following context. Back in May your board Back in May, your board requested further examination to share of overtime that was contributing to a budget deficit for the department at year-end. In clarity on the use of a set aside your board has established in previous years to address the overtime needs.
We did a deep dive into the various causes of overtime and identified some of the challenges that the department was facing to address them. The focus of the review is to ultimately achieve the ability to have a baseline overtime cost calculation that could be validated for accountability, and in the long term incorporated into the budget development process. In order to do that we identified that a more detailed tracking of overtime activities would be needed.
Therefore, we have provided a recommendation for the next budget development cycle that could get us to that point with the assistance of the department. Additionally, in an effort to help the department address some of the critical staffing needs identified in the report that are also contributing to overtime, we have provided three options for your board's consideration. The timing of this report is intended to coincide with the Prop 172 update you will be hearing later today, as that is the source of the funds being discussed for this item. We would like to thank the department leadership for their time and information incorporated into the report. We have allotted time at the end of our presentation for Sheriff Brown to provide further clarification or perspective on the issues impacting his department.
I would now like to introduce fiscal and policy analyst Nicole Promerly who will be making the presentation.
Thank you, Nancy. Good morning Chair Hartman and board members. So I'll start out with expanding a bit more on some of the background and context relating up to this report that Nancy touched on. The Sheriff's Office has ended most of the recent fiscal years with a negative NFI averaging 2.7 million per year over the past five years and this is primarily due to unbudgeted overtime in both the custody and law enforcement branches.
The department's overtime budget has not historically been based on or reflective of actual cost. The fiscal year 22-23 overtime budget is currently $4.1 million in comparison to last year's actual of more than $12 million. Currently, the department is trending to exceed $17 million in overtime by year end which would be by far the highest year on record although salary and benefit savings would offset much of this additional amount.
In fiscal year 18-19, your board set aside $2 million for the Sheriff's Overtime Reduction Plan which at the time was planned to be released once vacancies were reduced so that additional positions could be added. However this funding was not released as vacancies continued and the one exception to this was the $438,000 that was released at the end of last fiscal year to close the department's remaining budget gap.
In May of this year, when that funding was released your board directed the CEO's office to develop a longer term policy recommendation as Nancy mentioned. Since then in preparation for today's report we've worked together with the Sheriff to take a close look at these issues to identify key challenges and factors contributing to staffing issues and overtime usage.
And our report findings have resulted in a recommendation to provide clarity on how and when the $2 million that was previously set aside can be accessed by the sheriff. And with that, the need for additional data to better track individual cost drivers and to ultimately develop an annual overtime baseline that can be validated to ensure transparency and accountability.
Beyond the recommended budget policy, we've also identified some additional options for your board's consideration to support and address the staffing challenges that continue to exist. Here you can see the Sheriff's actual overtime cost over the past five years. In any given year, much of this cost while unbudgeted in overtime is offset by salary and benefit savings from position vacancies.
So the average actual NFI over this time period and also last year's NFI was $2.7 million. And this was resolved last year through a combination of ARPA funding and the Prop 172 set-aside funds. But you can see the notable increase from fiscal year 2021 to 21-22 due to a combination of pandemic factors impacting the jail population, as well as the opening of the Northern Branch Jail in early 2022 among other factors.
Several factors have historically driven overtime costs including the need to backfill for required training of new hires, as well as mandatory annual training for existing sworn staff Vacation, sick time and other leaves of absence. Occurrence of emergency and seasonal events requiring extra staffing. And position vacancies due to retirements and other separations.
And we found that while some data does exist additional time tracking detail is needed in order to break down the specific impact of various cost drivers and to develop an annual baseline of reasonably anticipated costs in a given year. And for the purposes of this baseline, we want to exclude overtime costs that stem from backfilling behind position vacancies.
Both because there's a certain level of departmental control over the number of vacant positions and also because of the associated salary and benefit savings that can help offset this type of overtime use. So taking a look at the key issues contributing to overtime usage, a major driver is, of course, The number of vacancies at any given time is due to a variety of internal and external factors.
The chart here on the slide shows the number of annualized vacancies, which is essentially the difference between the number of budgeted positions and the actual hours worked over a full year. As you'll see, these numbers have fluctuated but over the past five years there have been an average of 26.6 vacant sworn positions of which about 60% were in the custody branch and 40% were in the law enforcement branch.
Vacancies have recently increased. However, the Sheriff's vacancy rate for sworn staff is still quite a bit lower than some other local agencies and across the country almost all law enforcement agencies are similarly struggling to recruit and retain qualified personnel. The Sheriff's HR team in partnership with CountyHR are incorporating new strategies to address recruitment challenges and expand the capacity to hire qualified candidates.
Looking specifically at recruitment, the challenges facing the department include a significantly reduced applicant pool over the past several years with traditional methods of recruiting proving less effective. This is amplified by the long and intensive hiring process inherent to law enforcement, the high cost of living as compared to other competitor agencies And also some external and uncontrollable factors including recruiting incentives from other agencies, and the broader public sentiment surrounding policing which may impact a candidate's desire to pursue a law enforcement career.
The department is employing new strategies to combat these challenges, including among others listed here on the slide. Implementation of new technology platforms to streamline hiring process and reduce staff time on time intensive stages such as the background investigations phase. Hosting the department's first ever First Responder Career Fair and increasing their presence at other local community events.
And evaluating digital platforms to improve communication with applicants in various stages of the hiring process, to really keep them informed and engaged throughout that lengthy process. Additionally, the CEO's office is recommending that the department consider utilizing the county's new hire incentive program which allows for housing or relocation costs, education loan repayment, or other hiring incentives which have not previously been utilized due to budgetary constraints.
The department's costs for this hiring incentive and other recruitment efforts would be reimbursed through Prop 172 funds as we'll discuss in the recommendations. On the other side of the vacancies coin, we have retention with challenges including lingering pandemic impacts on working conditions. Increased use of mandatory overtime to fill behind position vacancies particularly in the custody branch.
External factors including other agency incentives for lateral hires and again the broader public sentiment and legislative climate which can also impact individuals desire to remain in a law enforcement career. All of the above factors may be contributing to increased retirements, perhaps earlier than planned and other separations. To address these challenges, the department recently authorized staff to work overtime shifts. Excuse me, authorized management staff to work overtime shifts while receiving sergeant pay as well as offering overtime shifts to other sworn personnel in the county such as investigators in the DA's office and requesting to implement a temporary overhire program for SSTs to fill the critical staffing need in the custody branch in particular.
So now moving into ways to mitigate overtime usage, we first need to look at relief factor. In addition to the department's actual vacant positions at any given time there are also soft vacancies which is when a position is filled but that individual is unavailable to staff a post either because they're in the academy on training or on vacation or sick time or another form of leave and this also requires overtime in order to backfill for these posts that can't go unfilled Looking at academies as one example of this, an average of $3.1 million over the past five years has been spent on costs for deputies in the academy or on field or custody training which equates to approximately 50,000 training hours per year for this eight-to-ten month training process.
Staffing for a relief factor would account for soft vacancies and minimize overtime use as demonstrated in a couple of specific instances First, with the Santa Maria experiment during fiscal year 17-18 where the department upstaffed the Santa Maria Patrol Station to account for a full relief factor. And more recently when additional custody positions were added prior to the opening and staffing of the Northern Branch Jail.
In both scenarios overtime costs were decreased significantly. In order to calculate the relief factor, we take all of this academy time and training and vacation and sick time and account for all of that lost time when determining the amount of positions actually needed to staff a post. Relief factor comes into play when you have security posts that need to be staffed 24-7.
It usually isn't necessary for most civilian positions that don't require 24- 7 coverage. An external staffing review conducted in 2019 by the Justice Planners recommended adding several custody positions to address shift relief needs. At this time, adding more funding for sworn positions is not recommended due to the number of existing vacancies. However, addition of sheriff service technician positions could help address shift relief needs for custody sworn staff and we'll talk about that in more detail here in a minute.
Completed in late 2020, KPMG's Operational Performance Review of the Sheriff's Office included several recommendations pertaining to overtime usage and overall operational efficiency. In particular those listed here on the slide and discussed in more detail in the accompanying report. Since then, the department has implemented some recommendations and made progress in multiple areas with more work yet to be done.
As mentioned earlier, additional sheriff service technicians could support staffing needs for the department. In fiscal year 18-19, the Sheriff's Office created the SST position to perform certain duties that did not require a sworn staff member. This entry level non-sworn position assists deputies with certain duties that don't involve interaction with inmates and can thereby reduce deputy overtime.
While the estimated overtime saved nearly offsets the position cost, the added staff would also improve working conditions and morale by reducing overtime requirements on deputies. This position supports hiring and retention objectives through the ability to hire candidates in this capacity and create a promotion pipeline into a sworn position after an individual gains experience and departmental knowledge.
To date, 10 individuals hired into an SST role have been promoted to another position within the department typically in a sworn capacity. Increasing the use of SSTs is specifically supported by the Justice Planners Report, KPMG recommendations and the Renew 22 initiative of civilianizing positions. During the fiscal year 22-23 budget cycle, the Sheriff's Office submitted an expansion request for six SSTs specific to the custody branch to staff the control room at the Northern Branch Jail.
So in conclusion, retention and recruitment challenges have resulted in increased and prolonged position vacancies for sworn positions in particular leading to higher overtime costs and budget overruns. Additional data is needed in order to better track drivers of overtime usage, determine and assess staffing needs once positions are filled. The CEO's office will work with the department to help establish a data tracking and reporting methodology to achieve this over the coming months so that it can be analyzed in sufficient detail beginning next fiscal year.
Staff is recommending a budget development policy for fiscal year 23-24 that would maintain a $2 million set aside in general county programs proposition 172 fund balance only to be released upon review and recommendation of the CEO and approval by your board. For the purposes of mitigating baseline overtime usage, that includes a detailed accounting of the actual cost of overtime related to shift relief backfill including academy and training time, vacation, sick and other lost time, and special events and emergencies that are not reimbursed through other resources.
And reimbursement for costs incurred for the county's new higher incentive program or other recruitment efforts preauthorized by the CEO. And for clarity, this $2 million set aside is not new funding. It is simply more clearly defining the parameters around the existing set-aside that has been available but unused for a few years now. Additionally we've outlined a few other options that your board may consider which could be taken individually or all together.
Option one, which could be immediate would be to assist the sheriff with filling vacancies by employing existing tools and evaluating other opportunities within the current labor agreements. Some of which may require one time or ongoing costs, which could be funded from Prop 172. Option two would augment the custody branch staff by adding SSTs, and this is something that would provide relief not immediately but certainly in the near future.
And staff suggestion would be to add six SSTs at a cost of $648,000 funded from Prop 172 to alleviate the current critical jail staffing shortage. And additional positions could be evaluated within the 23-24 budget development process. Finally, option three would assess other staffing levels once data is available. And this is a longer term solution to develop a multi-year plan with additional data that identifies priority funding areas and compares tradeoffs with other needs across general fund departments.
And that brings us to our recommended actions A through D as you'll see here on the slide. And before we conclude I believe Sheriff Brown would like to make some comments regarding this item.
1:15 – 1:2614 turns
Can we get some questions based on the presentation?
Why don't we wait and then, oh thank you.
Well thank you Chair Harmon and members of the board. Thank you Nicole for that presentation and I want to thank the CEO's office in particular Nicole Parmalee. Paul Clemente and Nancy Anderson for putting this report together as well as CEO Miyasato, and I want to thank the board for holding this hearing today. I also want to recognize and thank the Sheriff's Office Financial, Custody Patrol and Admin staff who provided data for today's report The report emphasizes some of the significant challenges that The Sheriff's Office, like virtually all criminal justice agencies across our nation are having at present attracting and hiring sufficient numbers of qualified candidates to fill our vacancies. And that is due to a variety of socioeconomic and financial factors.
As far as the report goes, I commend the CEO's office for putting a very detailed report together and to consolidate that information. The only comments that I actually have in terms of the report presentation Um, is I would just call your attention to the chart that looked at the historic use of overtime and point that there was a downward trend up until 2021 in that overtime. And that was despite the fact that much of the overtime in those preceding years was driven by the pandemic and was ultimately reimbursed.
has been a particularly challenging year because we have seen a significantly higher number of retirements and separations from the organization that have occurred. And again, this is not existing in a vacuum with us. This is something that law enforcement agencies across the country are dealing with. In spite of these ongoing challenges Our Human Resources Bureau personnel continue to do an outstanding job recruiting and attracting personnel to apply with us, and I want to commend them for not only the traditional methods that they've used but also the innovative approaches that they have adopted as well. And I want to recognize and thank them for their efforts as well.
But the fact of the matter is that due to a variety of factors we have an unusually large number of vacancies at the moment And due to the requirements and the length of our comprehensive hiring process, it's going to take us time before we can fill all of those existing vacancies. In the interim, the use of sheriff service technicians is, we believe, the quickest way to leverage our limited custody staff and provide them with some relief from the burdens of mandatory overtime shifts. So I encourage you to approve the CEO's recommendation on the hiring of the SSTs outside of our traditional budget process, because I think it's going to result in some much needed light at the end of the tunnel for some of the people who are burdened in our custody branch with working a tremendous amount of overtime to make up for the gaps that we have in staffing.
And as we look to the future It will be important for the county to remain competitive with the market for sworn staff. It's becoming a much more competitive environment out there for law enforcement and corrections classifications. I know that you are aware of that, I thank you for your efforts to see that our staff are appropriately compensated for the important work that they do.
And lastly, in closing I want to remind our viewing public that the Sheriff's Office is looking for good men and women to fill our ranks and to protect and serve the people of Santa Barbara County. If you are in search of a rewarding profession that is driven by our five core values of service, integrity, caring, courage and fairness, I encourage you to give us a call or visit our website at www.SBSheriff.org.
A noble career awaits you. And with that, I thank you and if you have any questions now or later we'd be happy to respond to
them.
Yes, while the Sheriff's up I've got a quick question for you. Sheriff Brown thank you for being here. Thank you Chair Hartman. Not only do we fill some of these spots with overtime but do we also have a service level reduction when some of these spots maybe go unfilled in a shift? Do we have spots that are potentially unfilled on shifts that we actually don't have anybody in those spots? That's correct there are times when some of the shifts do go unfilled. So not only do we have an overtime issue We have a service level reduction on the service to our constituents.
That's my last question for Sheriff Bowne right now, but then I also have some questions for Ms. Parmalee. Actually, I'll shoot those real quick while I have the mic. If we can go back to slide three on the $17 million of overtime anticipation, you said that most of that should be covered through salary savings? Do we know what that number is that we anticipate?
Supervisor Nelson, through the chair we don't have a number currently since we're just at the first quarter. It's very preliminary and that would assume that the department continues on the trend that's been going through the first quarter but we can certainly look at that and report back to you with that information.
Yeah, it seems if this is a forecast at 17 we could also forecast salary savings and come up with something. I just wanted to better understand is it 15 million that we're potentially covering or is it 12? Those are all big numbers in moving forward with this so that would be helpful for myself because it does seem that overtime is always going to naturally be part of the budget within a department like this.
My next question's on slide 9 if you can click over there real quick. And maybe this is a better question for the sheriff, but going down the relief factor calculated by combining average training hours and other lost time. You mentioned that some relief factors needed in some posts but not others. Can you go a little bit further into that? You said... You mentioned in your presentation that relief factors needed in some posts but not others.
Supervisor Nelson through the chair, that was to say that the relief factor is calculated for sworn positions. There are certain non-sworn positions within the Sheriff's Office that relief factor is also recommended but not all of them and not the majority of non-sworn positions.
Okay
thank you that helps.
Supervisor Lavenino.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Well thank you. I want to thank the CEO's office and the Sheriff's Department for bringing this forward. And I want every member of the sheriff's team whether you're working in custody or out on patrol that you have, I want them to know that this is top of our mind. The Board of Supervisors is top of the mind and We all know you guys are going, men and women are going through a very tough time. And we're trying to figure out a way to tackle this so Mike I had one question for the sheriff and that was about incentives. And we've had authority given before and it's active right now about new higher incentives and just want to get your take on that. Why it hasn't been
used? Traditionally, we have not used the county's incentive plan for hiring sheriff's deputies or custody deputies. It's really not a plan that was conceived or designed for the hiring of line-level personnel. It has really typically been more for the use of hiring Either senior, executive or management level employees or people that have highly specialized in technical skills. We have utilized it for example to hire our pathologist. We utilized it in that difficult position to fill and we did utilize it there.
We haven't used it for a variety of reasons. Number one is that we've always viewed it as being that more specialized type incentive for that specialized type position, but there's an ability to use it but there's no funding behind it so typically if you use it you have to make it up in your budget somehow and our budgets have typically been really strained and we haven't had that ability to do that. Now, we've had conversations with the CEO's office about looking at this and the possibility of using 172 monies to cover incentives in some ways.
I still have concerns about the use of incentive for a couple reasons. Number one, we've seen a local agency in particular and many throughout the state utilize hiring bonuses and incentives. And they haven't really worked very well, which is counterintuitive perhaps but there's a variety of reasons for that. There are also challenges and issues with the policy with respect to the repayment of that if someone leaves employment early on in their career before a couple And perhaps most importantly, I am concerned about the potential for it having a negative effect on morale of those loyal employees who have remained with us and been here through thick and thin.
And all of a sudden now if we hire people from the outside they're coming in being compensated more than they are and working shoulder to shoulder with them so those are the reasons however I do think we can look and should look at exploring some other ways to incentivize either recruitment or retention. And in particular, the retention element would probably be something for the DSA and the Sheriff's managers to talk to you about during their negotiations. But the one area that we can look at I think that holds potential promise would be to essentially Perhaps have like a recruitment bounty for someone that brings us someone who becomes a successful candidate. And really our best recruiters in the Sheriff's Office are our existing personnel, the people who know what the job is like, who have family members or friends You know, they think would be suited who they'd like to work alongside.
And so if we could incentivize that perhaps by having a bonus that would reward the employee who goes out and actually recruits that person, we'd be certainly very interested in looking at
that. I think we were interested in that as well. It is tough too when we say that they are our number one recruiters but they're so burned out right? That they're like hey you know it's kind of counterintuitive too because we're hearing Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
1:27 – 1:3616 turns
But I also want there to be, again, light at the end of the tunnel for the people who recognize that hey we're going to fill those positions and once we fill those positions we're gonna start incrementally to get back some of the many positions that we've lost in the wake of The Great Recession and what have you. So I am optimistic that one way or the other we're going to fill those vacancies. We're going to get back to where we need to be in terms of our staffing and we'll continue have that discussion about trying to incrementally increase our staffing to get back to somewhere. We'll probably never get back to where we were at the Zenith in 2007 and we know that, but we hope to bridge the gap that's in between there at some point.
Thank you for that. Another question you probably would weigh in on it too is I'm curious how we came up with a number of six for SSTs? It seems like that's a really good bridge. People are moving from that into a sworn position So. Is that a number you've requested, or is it a number you guys came up with together?
I think it's a number. It's a rounded number. Typically we use for a fixed post position, we use the number of 5.5. So in other words if you have a 24-hour post typically there's four shifts that make up the 24 hours but you also have this factor, the relief factor has to cover illness, training, vacation, court testimony whatever. And we used the 5.5 number and to fill the post in the control room, I think it was just rounded up to six is what it was.
Okay thank
you. Question to maybe it's Nicole or HR, I don't know. Just on the recruitment side of things. Well first off, on SSTs if we increase the number of those is that a meet and confer type item or is it? Okay I'm getting that shake of the head no from Mr. Pisano okay you know I'm looking at just our local community college you know Allan Hancock they graduate almost 12,000 people a year Cuesta 13,000 Santa Barbara City College almost 18,000 that would seem like a hotbed of people that would be Primed and ready to want to go start a career in law enforcement. A lot of these people are taking criminal justice classes.
What I would like, maybe not in this, I thought we were going to get a little bit more about what we are doing as far as recruiting goes. It would be nice to maybe hear something about what our outreach? I know the Sheriff's Department is doing more. Affair. What are we doing? And how are we breaking through the status quo of this is the way we've always done it that isn't working and how do we move forward with something new?
Yeah, well and would be happy to give you a presentation or give you a list of that I can take a moment here to do a shameless plug We actually are planning to do A special edition of the sheriff's roundup our video news magazine that we do for cable television And we're going to be filming our next one exclusively on our recruitment issues and to highlight and focus on positions within the organization that we're recruiting for, and try to get that on.
Widespread viewing on cable television across our county as well.
Do we do any outreach at all with Vandenberg, with people
leaving? We do and we actually are very close in communication with them and the naval base at Port Hueneme. As you heard have been making efforts to get to universities and even as far south of San Diego to recruit people as well. We've typically had very good luck recruiting people who, particularly who were stationed at Vandenberg. They move here from out of the area, they live here, they finish their military career there, they like the area, they want to stay here. Many of them have a large security forces squadron, some of them have a law enforcement background as well so they're typically very good candidates for us to look at.
Supervisor Williams?
Well, I would just want to thank you for being here. And I appreciate your optimism and looking at the bright side of this but I think it's just from the perspective of what I hear from rank-and-file, it's an existential crisis so it's good for us to be working together to address it. It sounds to me like you are already attempting to schedule the factor in the relief factor.
Was I getting that right from your comments?
Well, Supervisor Williams to the Chair. What the addition of the SSTs would do would essentially allow us to leverage the existing number of custody deputies so that we could put custody deputies on the floor working in the jail rather than having this assignment of working in the control room and where you don't have inmate contact and there's not a requirement really for someone to be a full-fledged custody deputy The shift relief factor is really something that we look for, and it's that number that we have to have over and above our positions divided or multiplied by whatever the hours are to fill that position. And so we have to have a relief factor—we have to have sufficient people to be able provide the minimum staffing levels in view of the training requirements, the absences, the soft losses that we have and the lost time that we have.
And that is really what we need by adding positions that basically helps with the relief factor. As mentioned in the report, we did our own experiment With a patrol station where we actually staffed it with an additional amount of people over and beyond the minimum. And put the relief factor in there, and we did prove that reduced the need for overtime. It doesn't eliminate it completely Because you still have deputies that have to go to court, you still have deputies that will have specialized training that they have to go to and so forth. But it really put a major dent in the overtime use for that particular station. And we believe that if we can staff to the level with sufficient relief time, we will see our overtime actually plummet.
So the answer
is we still don't have quite enough positions to staff to their relief factor. Correct, but
the SSTs would certainly be a step in the right direction.
And then you're working on implementing the rest of the KPMG recommendations on I think The demand-based, workload driven processes to optimize staffing and service levels is the buzzwords. Is that something that's still in progress?
We are looking at all of the recommendations. We've implemented some. We're in the process of implementing others. At the budget this time you authorized us to hire and develop a data unit that we have up and running now but It's kind of a fledgling unit. We've got people that are in it who came in from outside our organization and they're just getting to kind of get their feet wet with the law enforcement aspects of data collection and analysis, but they're doing a good job and we hope to see the use of data to help us make You know, informed management level decisions and drive the process more than it does. And as mentioned in this report we want to look at with the CEO's office to look at what data elements we need to capture in our overtime usage in particular so that it can be on a much more granular basis analyzed and see what you know where are the shortcomings?
What is driving the use of overtime? We think we have a feel for most of that, but CEO's office would like to present you with more concrete data that's more granular than what we're able to provide at the moment. While
we're making shameless plugs, can you or Joe, one of you just tell us what the entry level salary and benefits are for sworn officers. It would be great also for SSTs so we can get these positions filled as quickly as
possible.
1:36 – 1:5122 turns
Thank you, Chair Fong. Supervisor Williams through the chair thanks for the opportunity to plug the values of working for the county we're talking about sheriff service technicians entry-level salaries range from $61,000 to $73,000 a year. For custody deputies $76,000 to $92,000 dollars a year. For Sheriff's deputy trainees $76 thousand to ninety two thousand dollars a year We haven't talked much about them. We also need dispatchers in the sheriff's office starting salaries between 66 and $80,000 a year All these positions are eligible for 12 sick days annually Vacation accruals between 12 and 15 days a year 13 holidays there are Thank you very much.
You know, the conversation here today sounds like we're going to incrementally keep doing the same thing we're doing more or less. And yet what we heard during the budget from the Sheriff's deputies is that overtime demands are a major morale problem and a real crisis. We heard some incredibly plaintive stories from folks who were making tough choices in their lives. So I'm not getting a sense of urgency in this.
The staff report talked about some of the reasons being that morale generally across the country in regards to law enforcement as a profession, but there are other agencies that are doing better about recruiting. There's also reference in the report about how that's a source of tension for your recruiting efforts is that people are offering differing incentives and so the whole package to me doesn't sound compelling and it doesn't have the kind of urgency you know, the board's looking for. We're hearing from constituents that rural crime is up and we wanna be able to respond to that and yet we have this, we have the highest number of vacancies I think recorded. We've got the highest use of overtime recorded and so I don't see progress. I don' see a reason for optimism.
I appreciate that leadership is being optimistic and looking at the glass half full and telling us it's gonna work But I don't see a plan that will work. It sounds to me like we're doing the same thing we've been doing for five years and getting the same results, and that, I donno, I don't think that's acceptable to the folks that work for you and for the community.
Supervisor Hart, through the Chair, I would draw your attention back to what was mentioned in the report, and that is the fact that yes, we have a significant number of vacancies but we're actually doing a lot better job than our local agencies are In our county, our other local agencies as a percentage of the vacancy factor that they have. Our vacancy factor is less than 10% for our sworn staff right now and it is 20% to 25%.
for three of the four police agencies that work in this county as well. So it's not just a problem that we have, our people are working doing yeoman work to attract and hire people where we are dealing with more departures and more retirements than we've ever had to deal with in our history. And they are doing the best job that they can. There's only so much we can do. We're not gonna lower our standards. We're not gonna hire people who don't meet our background qualifications We are looking now at, and we're here today to talk to you about looking at the use of this new position to leverage some of the existing positions that we have.
But you know, we do the work and we are addressing the challenges the best way that we possibly can. There is no magic wand that can be waved to all of a sudden just create a number of people to come and we have seen a national narrative, a false narrative that's emerged in the wake of the George Floyd tragedy driven by elements of the media and by people who are agenda-driven to create this false notion that American policing is somehow overtly brutal, inherently racist and that it is hopelessly broken. And that is a false narrative and most people understand that.
The loud are not the majority in this country. We are still getting very good quality people but we're having to work much harder to get them. So that is the challenge that we have You know, there is no magic solution to this. It's gonna require hard work. It's gonna require incentivizing the retention of our employees. That needs to be on you when it comes to, as I mentioned, salaries and benefits.
And it is something that we all have to work together rather than sit there. We need to fix the problem and not try to fix blame.
Well, I appreciate the political speech that you just made. And I think that actually adds to the problem that you're trying to solve by putting that rhetoric out into the world. Nobody else is using that language and so I don't know how that helps
this conversation. I didn't say that you were. I'm saying that's the national narrative that has been driving the fact that we all in our profession are having trouble attracting or retaining people because this false narrative has been put out. I'm not blaming you for that. That's the problem we are dealing with. My
point
is it
doesn't help to add to that. You know, I was surprised to hear that for the first time you're doing a career fair. That seems like something that's low hanging
fruit It's not the first time that we've done a career fair. It was the first time that we did a combined career fair, where we invited other law enforcement and public safety agencies to come with us and put it. We participated in career fairs for decades probably.
Well, again everybody understands the problem. You need to hire people and doing the same thing hasn't been working and so I think it's time for innovation and creativity. And you know I was surprised to hear that you had concerns about the incentive structure. You know I get it that there's tension with that but not using that tool means that's a tool not available might make a difference. And it's different than what we've been doing, so I appreciate that the SST solution is a really good idea. Is that
coming from your department or is that from the CEO's office? We've been requesting those positions. We requested those six positions in the last budget cycle.
Well, that's good news. I appreciate that we're going to be able to fulfill that and encourage creativity, collaboration. You know, I would think working with your other local law enforcement agency partners that maybe aren't doing as well as you are. We don't have that information in the staff report so I don't know what the numbers are but if it's a global problem then it should be tackled as a global solution and should be working collaboratively with everybody because the only answer to this is hiring more deputies We're in
complete agreement.
Supervisor Nielsen then Williams.
Thank you, Chair Hartman. Just a quick question for the CEO if we the board makes a motion for the recommended actions we can take advantage of all three of the options right? It's not just one option we could pick we actually could choose all three options
Supervisor Nielsen through the chair so one is the what we have before you the recommended action is B on the two million dollars but go to their side Nicole. But if the board wants to be more proactive, we're giving you option 1 2 & 3 you could tell us to do Any of these all of these together, but option three we would not really come back until we get the data Option two or saying if you want to give us direction We could come back next month with a budget revision request which will take four votes at the board because it is an appropriation of money and there are option when we can work with the sheriff's option to see how the incentive program can work But we wouldn't do anything beyond Anything that would require more costs beyond the incentive program, we'd come back to the board.
If it required some kind of labor action, we would come back to you in that format as
well. So the motion that will be made at some point should include either option one, two and three or a combination of them? Correct. And the other question or comment that's brought up I think by the sheriff and briefly Supervisor Lavagnino, is a hiring bonus that would be given to existing employees who can recruit for us. And that's really important in part because we have 4300 employees in the county and they're not all just Sheriff's Department employees. They're making that available across the board. People's sons and daughters or cousins or something that may want unemployment I think it's a really untapped resource. What kind of direction does The CEO need from the board to start pursuing a program such as that That seems to be another piece of low-hanging fruit something that we haven't been doing in the past that we should be moving forward with
Supervisors you can always give us that direction. I know labor Joe Pisano labor have been looking at that and trying to put some parameters around that but if you have any more Direction on that and parameters, but we would like to come back to the board and formulate a program and come back to the board But we
hear
you on that.
Yeah, thank you CAO Miyasato and I think we're hoping that that program is broad enough for some of the other hard to fill positions from social workers to nurses and clinicians and whatnot that were struggling to fill in the county so I hope that that is something that comes soon for us. I agree with the sheriff that I do hear that the false narrative about law enforcement is impacting not only morale for existing employees but encouraging people to choose a career in a field that has been disparaged significantly over the last couple of years.
It's really sad too, that the exception becomes a rule for in some people's minds and I want to make sure those people understand that that's not my view and I don't think it's the view of the board. And so I hope that that's heard. But I also agree with Supervisor Hart that you know the building is on fire and some things we're talking about is installing sprinklers We need to throw, we need to douse this thing with water. We need to throw everything at it. I think we should be fully maximizing the incentives. We talked about relocation and education. Cash incentives are fine too. You know, we need to do whatever it takes to get more bodies there.
I know that that might have ripple effects in the organization but right now you know we're a crisis mode. You know I've gotten the letters from the family members of our corrections deputies You know, at some point here in the future we may have to pull people from the streets which means unmanned positions. To backfill our jail, and that to me is untenable as well. So I think we need to be throwing everything at it if possible. I'm definitely an advocate for all option one, two, and three, maximizing hiring incentives and maximizing bonus incentives for existing employees to bring people. And if there's anything else out there from the public or from the DSA that you guys have out there that we can help assist you in bringing to the board, I'm open to it.
What other creativity? It's all the above as far as I'm concerned.
Supervisor Nelson through the chair, we're with you on that and we encourage You know, any ideas that are there and we're constantly looking at what is being done. What other agencies are doing? How we can further throw the net and the reality is we're capturing smaller groups of potential recruits but we're making that work too. And so instead of testing 500 people at a time, we're testing 50 people at And but remember that we typically historically only hire the top one or two percent of the people that we. That we test for a variety of reasons, that they don't pass one or one part of the process. So we you know, we are looking for a very, very limited number of people and many of those people have been with the economy having you know, having been in a growth mode and private industry, you know offering positions that are have been quite lucrative.
We've had people for really the first time in my career starting to leave our profession not for another law enforcement agency but to do something else to go into a business or some unrelated profession we started to see some of that occur but we've also seen The impact that that false narrative that you mentioned has had on our people who have put a career in with the organization and have made a decision to retire perhaps a little bit earlier than they might have. But we also have a cyclic situation that we deal with, with our retirements.
Retirements in any given year have a direct correlation to what happened 25 or 30 years before that, in terms of the number of hiring. And there were times where there were dry spells where people weren't hired. There were times when significant numbers of people were hired and then when it's that kind of a spell, we start to see significant numbers of retirements that occur as well. So it's not a steady you know completely fluid process.
It has ups and downs that are inherently built into it as well, and I just want to mention that the reality is we have to look at long-term strategies to solve this problem, one of which has to be—and you've heard me say this ad nauseum—but the reality is even if we were fully staffed today with every vacant position filled We would simply not have enough people to do the job that we have to do.
The staffing levels to the point where we're not at minimum staffing, where we have that relief factor that we talked about built in so that we're not putting the strain on the overtime. And I really have to give an incredible amount of credit to the men and women For the last 15 years, almost 16 years that I've been sheriff. And coming from a time when we were at the height of our staffing in 2007 to now where we're the lowest we've been in the modern era and yet they still step up and still do the job and get the job done that has to be done.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the board.
1:52 – 1:573 turns
Well if you were fully staffed, you'd instantly have two million more dollars to continue upstaffing. I mean, our intention by having that money around is for you to not stop staffing and we want—and the very fact that we protected that and not used it for other purposes for a number of years, the very fact that Supervisor Nelson and I in this budget tried to highlight it, tried to make it very clear that this is what it's for, you know, we want you to be able to use You know, I in step with Supervisor Hart and Supervisor Nelson's comments that we need to do some things fundamentally different.
You and I yesterday did talk about one of those things was the need to fully utilize Northern Branch particularly for special needs inmates, those with health and mental health issues, you felt like it was fully utilized. There was apparently a tour on Friday that went to Northern Branch and I don't know if things changed between Friday and now but there were only five people in the Mental Health Unit And your staff gave them the impression that that reason is because, well, WellPath is down in South County and we only have the people down in South County.
And so, you know, I just want to highlight that for you. To me it's not a gotcha. It's like we have a much better facility that causes us to have less staffing costs in Northern Branch where we could be, you know, have better services for those inmates while spending less money. You know, I've asked County Council to give way in on whether we have the flexibility and the contract to move the WellPath employees. But because we've got to utilize that, to me that's an imperative. And I heard from you that you agreed that was really important so let's do that. Let's figure this one out on how we can utilize fully those units up in Northern Branch.
I agree with you, Supervisor Williams. And one other thing just for your information and the Board's information is that we do in our South County, in the main jail campus, we do have our restoration—our in-house Restoration to Competency program that has 10 people that go through that at any given time. And historically it's proven that we can restore people to competency much quicker than they are in the state system.
And there's reasons for that, oftentimes the people who go to the state hospitals are more seriously ill than the ones who are more quickly being restored to competency. But so far we've restored 98 people to competency Through that program, on an average of 59 days that each goes through. That is an acceleration of getting those people through the criminal justice system because they can't go through the system until they are competent to understand what the system is all about.
And it's been very successful. So we do have a number of people who struggle with mental illness, who are in our main jail by design because they are in that program. And I'm not familiar with why we only had five people in there but we'll look into that. But it may well be that was the issue is that there's not enough specialized nursing staff at the moment for whatever reason to staff both facilities.
You know, and for my part I'm very worried about this. You know, I think we all need to be more willing to look at individual cases and see whether they're appropriate for diversion, whether they're appropriate for ankle braceleting or whether they're appropriate for the different options that are out there. And for me, it's not because I'm a fundamental believer in the goodness of humankind. It's because I actually am a fundamental believer in the darkness of humankind but it's because I continue to worry about what is now being contemplated that we would draw personnel from patrol because we're in such crisis and need so much staffing in the jail.
I think we need to do all we can to make sure that the population and configuration is sustainable, so that we don't cannibalize our patrol in order to... And proactive policing, the kind of policing that can keep us safe on the front end instead of punishment on the back end, in order to staff the jail. And to me it's whether you believe one narrative or the other, to me the solution is up staffing, right? That having more people because from the perspective of people who want better community relationships with law enforcement Some of them may say they want less law enforcement, but the reality is to have law enforcement closer to the people requires having enough staffing to be close to the people. To have relationships, to not be under siege and so I firmly believe that we've gotta work together to do that.
1:57 – 2:079 turns
As I said we're in complete agreement on that Supervisor Williams and the reality is that I think the notion about the patrol versus custody probably came out of the legal advice that was given, that I'm constitutionally mandated to staff and run the jail. I'm not constitutionally mandated to staff and run a patrol function. And so people oftentimes quote that as well. The sheriff has to provide the jail. He doesn't have to provide patrol. The reality is we're not interested in cannibalizing anything. We want to get to the point where we have sufficient staff that we can We're going to do all of the myriad of responsibilities and functions that the Sheriff's Office is engaged in. And that's our, I think our mutual effort and hopefully this again your approval of this SST request will be the first step in us working together to do that in the short term to make the situation better.
Supervisor Lavanino?
Thank you Madam Chair. Sheriff, I just want to talk about the, you know, you mentioned about the standards And I mean, I think there was a headline not too long ago from Alameda County where they had close to 50 deputies that hadn't passed their psych evals. And we all know how that's gonna end for Alameda County. It's not gonna be good. So I don't wanna talk about those extreme cases but a 1% or 2% acceptance rate is I'm just curious how do our, it's tougher to get into your department than it is like Harvard or Yale. So how do we compare to other agencies?
And have we looked at updating those requirements in
the near past? Supervisor Leveninger through the chair with respect to our local agencies, I would say that we're all pretty similar, that we're all really looking for the cream of the crop that apply and It is a product oftentimes of the fact that we get people applying that are really not interested in a job. They're applying because they're on some kind of relief and they need to show that they're looking for work, they put an application in, we hold a testing, we invite them to come for a physical agility and a written test and they don't show up so you know often times we lose a significant chunk of people just in that first stage Then we have the written, which some people don't pass. We have the physical agility that some people don't pass.
Then we have the oral interview that some people don'y pass. Then we have the psychological exam that some people don't pass then we have a background investigation that delves into their backgrounds and some people don't pass So all of these stages were losing certain number of people. That's how come we end up with this very small group at the top What history has shown us is that if we can hire good people, particularly in positions like the SST position and get them, you know, people that are interested in a career in law enforcement. They have an entry level position to come in as you mentioned or someone mentioned they may want to be completing school at Allan Hancock or City College. And they can work while they do that. They get to the point where they get their degree.
They get experience then decide hey I want to become a custody deputy and our department Unlike many in that we have these two branches, right? You choose to either do a patrol career or a law enforcement career or to do a custody career, a career in corrections. And you know, we have people that choose. They get to see it. They get to experience it. The SST position is the perfect position to allow them to be able to do that, to experience What it is and then they become good solid employees, and we've had a lot of success You know with that with our Explorer program with all these kinds of programs They introduce people to what we do and plant the seed for them to finish their career
Supervisor Hart and then I'm going to jump in.
Yeah, I just want to go back to something I thought I heard you said which is really encouraging when Supervisor Williams was talking about the off-ramps to the criminal justice system in the jail and the collaboration that we're doing with the other criminal justice partners. It sounded to me like you were on board for that. That's really good news. And why don't you say more about that? Because it does seem systemically like a huge part of the solution to this problem is that if we can temper the jail population as your staffing report showed, that solves a lot of this problem by not requiring additional custody deputies. So tell us more about what you're doing to work collaboratively With probation and the public defender in the district attorney's office to be together on those many strategies that we had the consultant talk to us about.
Well, Supervisor Hart through the chair I think I want to preface this by saying that since I've been sheriff We have seen a reduction in the jail population from when I first came on board not uncommon to have 11, 12, 1,250 people in that jail And we saw that reduced significantly over time. Little ups and downs when things like criminal justice realignment and Prop 47 and others had an influence as well, obviously. But we have seen a steady decline. I believe in holding people accountable for crimes that they commit against others. But I also believe in giving them a second chance. I also believe in looking to see if there is a program, an alternative to custody that has Some teeth in it that has some accountability to really hold people accountable.
I'm all for that, and we have a history of working in that respect to get people there. The problem that we've had historically is as the jail population has boiled down Those that we are left with are predominantly the more serious offenders. We have a situation now and we have had for the last three, four years, five years where about 90% of the people that are in our jail are facing or convicted of felony charges not misdemeanor charges. It used to be about 50-50 and now we've seen it boil down to the more serious population so there are limited numbers We have a number of alternative programs that can be provided for, certainly for the most serious offenders, those who commit violent offenses and so forth. But there's other serious offenders that may not be appropriate at any given time for an alternative release.
of programs in our jail. The Sheriff's Treatment Program, which helps people conquer their addictions and understand the destruction that that causes to them, to their loved ones and to the community. We have educational programs that we offer that afford inmates the ability to get a GED or to get some specialized training in food service or other vocations or plant seeds with them to see what their opportunities are In other locations as well so we want to make sure that we're looking at ways to avoid people coming into jail if we can do that safely and protect the public at the same time. We also want to make sure that everybody that comes into jail doesn't stay in jail or go on to go to prison. That they get an opportunity to control their substance abuse issues, or to get on the right path and to get a job.
And oftentimes there's the ability to get them high-paying jobs, you know, that are in the trades and other professions that they can live a life that's crime free, drug free And that they can be productive members of the community. And my staff work diligently every day to try to make that happen, both in the jail and now in partnership with probation where we partnered with them to look at the alternative sentencing bureau, to look at the alternatives to bringing people into jail as well.
There's the possibility of an expansion of that, but it is going to require that the resources be there for the probation department as well to provide the level of supervision. It has to be there otherwise we're setting ourselves up for failure if we don't like I say have those programs that have some teeth and hold people accountable.
I appreciate you reiterating your support for those important programs and keeping your eye focused on that. That's a big part of this problem or the solution to this problem, and then just one little dumb picky thing couldn't let it go is You know, using the Sheriff's Roundup on public access television is not 21st century cutting edge marketing to the generation that you're trying to talk to. I'm just, as an old guy, I can tell ya, I don't watch public access television either and you'd probably be better spent focusing on digital media and other things like that to get to the audience that you're trying to aim for.
Heard and understood but what I didn't mention is You know, the footage that we will get can be spliced and cut into small video that will be used on our social media. And it will be sent out to people that are more attuned to that type of media and looking at that type. So I think there's still value in showing someone that wants to sit and watch the whole thing. But there's also value in being able to film people, get these snippets and use them in our recruitment process.
2:07 – 2:1315 turns
So I have a few observations and questions. I think we're really struggling up here because we received the letters from the officers and the kinds of trade-offs that this overtime situation is forcing them to make in their personal lives, and it was really heartbreaking. And so are we—are the measures that we're exploring and trying to put into place commensurate with—and that's what we're struggling with?
The first question I have is this more granular data that is somehow supposed to get us to a point where we can do a better analysis of Workflow and where staff is needed And that still remains a very abstract Concept in my mind something. We've been talking about for several years now, so could somebody help me understand that a little better?
Chair Hartman So in particular for this review that we did for overtime, they track a certain amount of data but the granularity that we would need to get to a base cost because there's going to be costs associated with OT regardless. We know that. But for example, last year they had $12.1 million in OT. We can't break that down to exactly how much was vacancies because a portion of that will be offset with salary savings. How much exactly of that is associated to lost time? We can get it to I think pretty well on academies but we really need to get down You know, the detail of how they're spending their time and it's just not there yet. I think that once you have that information, you can use it for a variety of indicators. This is breaking down cost and how much time they're having to use this OT but you're right, once you have that level of information, you can establish it for other parameters and measures.
And so do we have the technological systems in place to do that, and it's just how they report? Would they need to report more?
So we're going to talk about that with their staff. I know that the chair was talking about well, do they need software? Those types of things certainly are out there. I know that they were looking at something as part of a KPMG recommendation as well. I don't necessarily think that maybe we even need to go that far. Some of it is training your staff to time code to specific things, they have a very large organization so that's an effort in and of itself but I think that you know with the tools available now we can get predominantly there but we'll have that conversation with this staff and see what would be best for their organization
I can't emphasize enough from my perspective how important that is. It seems we've been talking about it for a long time, and that would go a long way to assure us of the accountability and that we have some visibility because otherwise we hear the same argument year after year, and to give us more visibility into how the time is allocated Would give us a greater appreciation of the challenges that you're facing.
So that was my first question. My second has to do with SSTs and this may go to Joe, but do we have to redefine their work job description at all or would that be beneficial? Or are they just going to be the same job description that they have now? Could they take on more responsibility with an altered job description? Is that a strategy?
Supervisor Hartman, I think I already answered that for you. The reality is the job descriptions that we have cover them in a variety of situations including the patrol side of the organization as well as the custody branch and so it we don't think there'd be any need to change the job description whatsoever
Then I would further ask, I mean, I think they were being asked to do things or they thought they were that were a little outside of their job description and that was corrected. Is it good for them to do those things? Or, I mean, would it be helpful to the organization?
I think there might be a confusion of classifications. Okay.
Chair Harbin, I did have some ongoing discussions with the Sheriff's Management staff with SAU Local 620 which represents SSTs. They also represent utility workers which was the source of the majority of the concerns that you just expressed.
So talk about utility workers.
I think we probably do need to have some conversations about what their appropriate role is. In fact, a group of management employee relations and union staff are going to tour the jail actually get a better idea you know what the breakdown is it's a long-standing classification that's used in other departments as well but I think you know through all they play in this sheriff's office is somewhat unique and we probably will want to update those job descriptions
And so will that be coming back to us within a certain period of time?
It really depends on what the changes are. We have the ability to update our job descriptions without coming back to the board. Now, if the union argues that because of the change in duties we need to increase salaries or there's some other change something like that would have to come back to the board. If we changed the title it would have to come back to the board. My
question is just broader. Are there civilian job classifications that can take on and shoulder some of the work to relieve the custody deputies? What more can we do there? And so that's the question.
I may need to point back to the Sheriff on that, but that was the idea behind the sheriff service technician classification and again at first we envisioned them as separate both custody and law enforcement then they were combined so that they could use them flexibly so if there were a need in the field they could take people and put them in the field and if they were needed in custody as they are now they could be redirected and redeployed
2:14 – 2:218 turns
And I'd just add that our existing SSTs are being deployed in the custody branch and working in functions other than in the control rooms that we're earmarking for these additional
ones. Great, and the final, I guess we don't really have time today to go into The innovative methods of recruitment, although I support what Supervisor Nelson said about recruitment bonuses through the county organization. But they would need tools. I think of the video that you did on co-response and how effective that was. I think of some of the recent retirees who've talked about what their career has meant to them, and how profoundly moving that was.
It is a noble profession, and I think a day in a life of, and tapping some of these resources So I'm going to turn it over to you, Mr. Chairman. We need to have law enforcement at a certain basic level. That's our primary responsibility in public safety and if you don't, things creep in and you're helpless to be able to deal with it and it's gonna cost more in the long run so I'm very supportive of working this out but again, I think trying to understand how we can really be more innovative and use data better Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
You know, again I have to just commend our current Human Resources Bureau staff. We have a tremendous manager and a great supervisor who are both relatively new in those positions who have come up with thinking outside the box and doing things differently And, you know, we have tried some things that have worked. We've tried some things that haven't worked but that's okay. You know, we need to try these different approaches and, you know, we are doing that.
It is just a process unfortunately that's much slower than any of us would like it to be but we are doing the best we can and, you know, we're in complete agreement that I think you capture people We learned long ago that the traditional people who came into the profession when I came into the profession, or there were a lot of Vietnam veterans that came back. They were looking for adventure and action. And really what we're seeing now is that we're trying to attract the type of people who want to come into our profession, Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Again, I'm optimistic from the standpoint that even though we have to go through a lot more potential employees to get the ones that we have. We are hiring some of the best men and women that are out there right now.
That is exciting. That is really a good note perhaps to end on. Public comment?
Chair Hartman and members of the board, we do have two requests to speak on this item. We will begin with Andy Caldwell via Zoom and then followed by our final speaker Justin Schroeder here in Santa Barbara.
Madam Chair, Members of the Board, Andy Caldwell representing COLAB. I do want to thank you for having this hearing. I do like what I'm hearing such as Supervisor Hartman, Chair Hartman saying that this is a noble profession But I do have to say that I do believe that, that national narrative that the sheriff mentioned has been here. And there's an issue of obviously with recruitment and retention. And I would just offer this why did Joyce Dudley publicly say she retired?
Why did Joyce because this is not just with cops It's also with prosecutors that they feel that the so-called criminal justice reform movement is a euphemism for defunding the police and eliminating incarceration as much as possible as a deterrent to criminal behavior. So, the point is and we have a relationship with a lot of people both in police forces and in the Sheriff's Department They have to arrest people over and over and over again, and nothing happens.
They're cited, they fail to appear in court, and nothing happens. So there's this futility factor that they're out there to try to keep people safe. They're out there trying to enforce the laws but the way the system is set up right now virtually none of these people are going to jail. And if they do go to jail, virtually none of them are serving up their full sentence.
Moreover, one of the biggest issues of fear of this is how many cops are getting shot on the streets these days in America, ambushed? It's almost at least every couple of weeks cops are getting ambushed. And then the third one is the cops end up using force, something goes wrong and they themselves get prosecuted. So you have a recruitment, retainment, them being murdered on the street and then fourth fear of them being prosecuted themselves. Look at your D3 item. A couple of the illegal aliens on there three of them were arrested over 20 times Can you imagine if you're a cop and he arrested somebody 20 times?
You get tempted to start standing back, standing down and say screw it. Why bother? He's just gonna come back out on the street. This is a fundamental philosophy that your criminal justice reform and a lot of the other things are feeding into that narrative. And that's what I believe has to be reversed here locally and nationally. Instead of trying to reduce jail population, I think these people that are career criminals need to stay in there as long as possible. Now I know some of that's
on the court. Thank you. That is your time Mr. Caldwell.
All right thank you.
2:21 – 2:269 turns
Our final speaker Justin Schroeder
Good morning, Chair Hartman, members of the board. Thanks for having me. I'm here today representing the men and women of the DSA. I appreciate the dialogue here. It seems like you guys understand the urgency our members are going through divorces, child custody issues seeking mental health counseling because of this overtime issue. And so we need to find some solutions. I think one of the difficulties with hiring as we just heard there's a very low applicant pool right now. I think that's because our job has changed a lot in the last few years We've added age requirements, education requirements, additional training, body cameras, oversight, various Senate bills coming from the state, crisis intervention training, mental health training. Our job classification has changed a lot in the last couple years but our pay has not reflected that.
We've only gotten our standard cost of living adjustments every year maybe in the 3-3.5% range. For this year, we got a 3% raise. Next year it's 2.5%. If we just go on the Social Security COLA, they're getting 8.7%, 8. 7%. That means our members are feeling an 11.9% pay cut over two years. It's not sustainable. Going to solutions, I have some—I just have one easy solution for you guys today.
Let me set it up. Going into this past contract negotiation, Joe correct me if I'm wrong but our patrol guys were about 5% under market value compared to our allied agencies. Five percent under value in a county that's more expensive to live in than Ventura or San Luis or Kern or other comparison counties. Recently those counties have signed massive contracts And at the end of our contract, I think we'll be 15 to 20% under. 15 to 20% under market in a county that's more expensive than any of those to live in.
We're wondering why we're losing people, why we can't draw candidates and that's it right there. And so if you guys make a motion today, I can write it for you if you'd like. If we can get 5% over market, I guarantee we'll fill all those ranks by the end of next year. 5% over market and I got you guys. Thank you.
Thank you.
I just have a question that are a little more detailed than that for you, Justin. So the question of both bounty incentives and new hire incentives. So the incentives for people who bring somebody in and incentives for a new hire. Do you and the union think that's a good idea or not?
It is a good idea with caveats of course. The bonuses for current employees to bring in new people, it is great but it gets complicated right? Two of us might know the same person and are recruiting them at the same time and now you're creating an animosity between two co-workers so we need to put some boundaries and some barriers on that but yes I would support that.
The new hiring incentives, it was mentioned before It's a tough one because of course we want to incentivize that, but we got to incentivize our folks to stay too. And so I think if we're going to add new hiring incentives, we have to do some retention incentives as well.
And then the more SSTs, that's something that you guys support this many or do you ideally think that more are called for in either the custody or patrol side?
So I wish I had a custody board member here to talk to you today. There are some issues with the SSTs in the jail, I don't think it's a silver bullet. I'd like to talk more with our management staff on what they're actually going to be used for. Of course more positions are going to help in the long run but I don't want to over put support behind an SST when I think it should be filled with a custody deputy or patrol deputy.
Yeah, I understand there's a balance there. And I just appreciate the unions willing to look at a certain amount of civilianization. Usually that's not something that unions are super thrilled about but you understand the depth of the problem because your folks are suffering and want to entertain all solutions and I think the board is willing to look at also all solutions. Thank you.
So the board, we need to come up with a motion here. It sounds to me like on the previous slide recommended budget development policy, the $2 million set aside that we're eager to continue that and it would be And in addition, there would be more analysis of what the shift relief backfill would be. And and then it also says reimbursement for costs incurred for the county new higher incentive program. I think there's some question and we need clarity from the board about whether that's a good idea to pursue and incorporate as part of our budget policy direction or not.
The new higher incentive program
2:26 – 2:3222 turns
I personally think the new hire incentive is worth pursuing. The worst thing it could do is nobody take advantage of it and then we don't spend any money, you know? And maybe because of what Justin mentioned that if we pair it with a bounty hunter, we should allow for two employees to share the bounty as opposed
to... I think CEO Miyasato has a clarification.
Can you go back to the actual recommended slide? Thank you. So the recommendation on that, just to be clear, the sheriff has the ability to use a new and higher incentive policy up to whatever he deems appropriate. By policy we allow up to $20,000 but it could be any amount. Not all departments use the full amount. This is just saying If he does that, if the department does that we would reimburse from the $2 million just to be clear.
So again but is that something we favor? We want to explore further? Go ahead Supervisor Nelson.
Yeah Chairman I'm comfortable with that. Again we've been told it may not work but if it works then we have more bodies and I was looking at positions that we have right now between patrol and custody, and that's about 30 positions. That's $600,000. And that would be fully staffed which would be the first time that's happened in my lifetime. So I think this is a small investment worth doing if somehow we have to come back and look at other funding sources in the future because we need these dollars then we have that conversation on a later date but if this is the funding source it's available now why don't we just go ahead and move forward with that?
Okay Supervisor Lavanino.
All of the above answer so yes
Okay, so could we go back to option 1, 2 and 3 that slide? So I think that deals with option one but we'd also like included in that the hiring bonus analysis. Is that?
I'm sorry, couldn't hear you. I was having a quick conversation with County Council. I'm sorry. Could you repeat that?
We're looking at option one and the new higher incentive program is something we would be happy to reimburse out of the two million and encourage the sheriff to try that, to see if it does help. In addition, we're very interested in the hiring bonus exploring how that could work and bringing that back to the board.
When you said hiring bonus, you mean the referral program
exactly And I think everyone has expressed support for option two and Yes. And then I think option three is the analysis that we've talked about, more granular and understanding so I believe there's general support for that too. So would the motion then be?
So your motion is when it says other direction it would be to pursue options one two and three as you expressed today.
Okay, and then the recruitment bonus is not in there but you've got that. We'll come back we'll explore that as per board's direction Okay, I've got a lot of lights up here. Supervisor Hart, I'll start on your side.
I'll move the staff recommendations. I'll second with the understanding that that's one through three in addition to this slide. I would just request something and probably doesn't need to be in the motion but just that we get some help to the Sheriff's Office to figure out Why we aren't fully utilizing our capacity for mental health beds in the Northern Branch Jail. I mean, if it's a contract issue with WellPath then we need to be looking at that because This is going to start to add up.
If in the north we can have one person supervise what, 30-something people and in the south we require one officer to escort one prisoner out for outdoor time on a 1 to 1 ratio for part of the day then the cost differential is going to be huge so you know. I
think you're gonna get an answer right now. Hi how
are you?
Supervisor Williams through the chair The contract amendment that we just put through authorized hiring of additional mental health people, and those were earmarked to go to the Northern Ranch House. So the reason they haven't is because they're having the hiring problems that everyone's having also.
So in your analysis there is no issue with the contract it's just a timing?
It's not the contract. They can't hire people either.
And we can we shift personnel from the South.
Well, we have the JBCT program like the Sheriff mentioned in the South. Also the EASS program which just started is in the South where we are using step-downs and early access to stabilization services. That's also in the South so right now that's why we have all our eggs in that basket but we are expected to expand North as soon as they have the ability to be able
2:32 – 2:5212 turns
I would like to understand what our costs per bed in the south are and costs per bed in the north are. And if there's a significant difference, you know, to me having a South County program and not a North County program is irrational in that case but you guys could just provide us the information
Or is that something Ms. Anderson would have in the analysis? Would that be part of it? No, okay. Okay so that's separate you said it doesn't have to be part of the motion we have a motion and a second. I mean we could
ask add the request for that information to the motion from the Sheriff's Department.
I just want to make sure so I would appreciate to be clear on that so the sheriff knows what to come back with so I think it's you're trying to figure out what's the cost You said cost per beds, but I don't know if that's... Cost
per occupied bed, I suppose is the way to put it.
For any jail bed or are you talking about the specialty mental health beds?
Specialty mental health or for medical beds in the north versus the south.
I'm looking at the Sheriff's Office. That clears the information that Supervisor Williams has requested. I think Chief Wasilewski is saying yes. Can't tell.
Chair Hartman and Supervisor Williams, through the chair. We hear you and we'll do what we can. I'm not sure that we can break it down to that level in terms of the actual cost for a particular type of bed in South County. We will do our best to try to address that but one thing that we will do that I think will address your underlying concerns too is to really take a look at are we maximizing the utilization of the Northern Branch Jail because Certainly, the facility that we would like to have people in there.
And again, as I've told you before, we need a balance. We don't want to operate it at completely full capacity because particularly that jail is a booking jail where people are going to be brought in from the outside. We do not want to have no beds in that jail but we want to try and find the sweet spot in terms of what's the maximum number A facility that's better designed and better equipped to deal with a myriad of issues, including the mental health issues.
And we certainly will look at that and we'll get back to you with that information. Thank you.
So I guess that's part of the motion, so I just want to check with the motion maker that you accept that basically amendment into your motion.
Yes.
All right. All in favor of that motion say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Passes unanimously. How about a ten-minute break? We're back at quarter till. After a short break, we're reconvening the October 18th meeting of the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors here in Santa Maria. We're turning to departmental item number two. Madam Clerk would you read that into the record please?
Chair
2:52 – 3:054 turns
Hartman and members of the board, departmental item number two is from the county executive office. It is a hearing to consider recommendations regarding the Proposition 172 funding update.
Ms. Anderson, a long day for you.
Good morning again, Chair Hartman and members of the Board. At the June budget hearings your board requested an update on the status of Proposition 172 funding after final 21-22 allocations were received in July and August this year and after determinations were made on outstanding items related to jail medical services And share of city contract negotiations that were likely going to require additional funding.
We've reconciled the estimates and we'll go over the remaining ongoing and one-time funds available, and any outstanding items we are tracking associated to these funds. I would now like to introduce Budget Division Chief Paul McLinty who will be making the presentation.
Thanks Nancy. Good morning Chair Hartman, members of the Board. In today's presentation I'll give some background on Proposition 172 funding and how we got to where we are today. I'll cover some potential future uses and go over timing options and recommended actions for your board. As a reminder, Prop 172 is a half percent statewide sales tax that has to be used on local public safety services and being sales tax based is susceptible to fluctuations in the economy.
In 2019, your board revised the annual allocation methodology which until that point had allocated out based on a 2012 agreement between the receiving departments and instead gave CEO discretion to make allocation recommendations during budget development each year based on greatest needs and board priorities. Here we have a five-year look at adopted and actual revenues with Adopted in Blue And actuals in orange.
In fiscal year 2019-20, we can see the impacts of the pandemic shutdown which occurred in the final three and a half months of that fiscal year. Prop 172 came in $2.5 million under budget that year. With the uncertainty around COVID impacts on all sales tax based revenues in the following fiscal year 2021, a further dip in revenues was assumed in the budget.
However, sales tax revenues rebounded quicker than expected and $40.2 million of Prop 172 was received in 2021. In fiscal year 21-22, we budgeted revenues around $40 million but like all jurisdictions experienced an even more pronounced spike in sales tax based revenues. That year ended with actual receipts over $48 million and that was the prior fiscal year that just ended.
In Fiscal Year 22-23, this early in the fiscal year and with current economic uncertainties it is unclear where actual Prop. 172 receipts will end but if we assume around $48 million dollars in line with last year's actuals that will be $5.6 million above budgeted amounts. Unanticipated unallocated revenues go into a restricted fund balance in general county programs which we'll discuss more on later slides This table is a look at the change in budgeted 172 allocations by department over a five-year period.
And I just want to draw attention on this slide to the growth in DA, probation, public defender and sheriff all fairly close to 20% growth over the period. On the next slide we'll discuss drivers of that growth. Fire was being gradually phased out over time as the fire tax shift moved growing amounts of property tax revenue to the district, and they were phased out completely in fiscal year 2021.
CSD only ever received a small amount to offset some lifeguard costs, and in 21-22 that small amount was swapped for GFC just so they wouldn't have to be part of the 172 calculations going forward. This is another look at the same numbers for the four departments currently receiving $172, starting with their 18-19 base funding and then looking at the drivers over the past few years that get them to their current allocations.
Of the six and a half million dollar growth in these departments about three and a half million was for general operating cost increases such as liability insurance, IT charges, and workers' compensation increases. The remainder of increases were for specific items. Prop 172 is funding the East GARS coordinator and DA, positions for pre-trial services function that probation took over from courts and two probation officers for pre-trial supervision.
It's also funding IT fiscal and misdemeanor attorney staff in public defender as well as the ongoing cost of body worn camera software and a tech position to manage the program in the Sheriff's Department. Additionally, Prop 172 is being used to fund a significant portion of the jail medical contract increases approved by your board earlier this year. The one-time balance that is built up due to the surpluses discussed on slide four have been released from time to time to fund expenses that otherwise would've required general fund dollars.
These uses were about 940,000 in 18-19 towards upgrading handheld radio equipment in the Sheriff's Department. About 1.3 million in 19-20 backfilling departments when 172 came in short. Just over 400,000 at the end of last fiscal year To mitigate overtime usage in the Sheriff's Department. And then 600,000 in 21-22 as well for the Sheriff's Data Center replacement. The department also kicked in 300,000 of their asset forfeiture fund balance for that replacement cost.
Those ins and outs of the Prop 172 Fund Balance have led to this fiscal year beginning with a balance of about $15.5 million. There are two budgeted uses this fiscal year totaling just over $900,000 for Year 1 of the Alternate Workers' Compensation Pilot in Sheriff and covering the revenue shortfall from the contract cities after the agreement that was approved last week.
There are additional uses recommended and earmarked by our office, including the $2 million overtime mitigation pool discussed in the previous item today. Some other outstanding claims related to outstanding litigation issues and equipment needs at the jail totaling about 1.5 million. And the remaining years of the alternate workers compensation pilot for 430,000.
Additionally we recommend a prudent reserve of about $4 million which is around 8% of the total estimated revenue this year to be used in the event of economic downturns when 172 may come in short of budget like we saw in 1920. This leaves a remaining balance of 6.7 million dollars So that's how we've arrived at 6.7 of one time and an estimated 5.6 million unallocated ongoing revenue.
Staff recommends that usage of these amounts be considered as part of the 23-24 budget development process to the greatest extent possible rather than making significant current year adjustments for the following reasons. We're developing the five year forecast now, it will have a better picture by December of the county's outlook but we do know that salary and benefit costs will be increasing substantially We also know there will be continuing increases in liability insurance, workers' compensation and IT services. The operating costs that in the past we have had to use 172 growth to help balance these departments.
The existing board priorities that we reported in last year's forecast and will be updating again this December will already strain available general fund resources limiting what can be allocated to our public safety departments if they are struggling to balance their operating costs in the coming years. For these reasons, we feel Prop 172 will likely be an important revenue source for maintaining existing public safety services in the coming years.
With all that being said on the next two slides, we'll recap the 22-23 public safety expansion request that did not receive funding in the final adopted budget as well as other potential Prop 172 needs that our office has identified. Many of last year's remaining expansion requests were from the Sheriff's Department with both co-response and narcotics team expansions, community resource deputies in Orcutt and Montecito, sheriff service technicians in custody which the item before your board has approved moving forward as well as they requested two to assist with criminal investigations.
And then a supervising accountant for their fiscal team. And I do want to note here that the Orcutt Community Resources Deputy is listed here at only 25% of the full cost because the Sheriff's Department has determined they can cover 75% of the costs of that position using existing Orcut community facilities district funds. There are also two outstanding requests from DA for a cyber crimes investigator as well as a half-time legal office professional to assist in their post conviction review unit.
For other potential needs, our office has identified. We've put the annual Northern Branch Jail operating cost increases which I'll discuss more on the following slide are listed here as $2.2 million and to note these costs already exist. I'll cover it more in the next slide but we feel this would be a priority over other items because these costs are here now and need to be addressed one way or another.
We also have the Sheriff's Overtime Mitigation Pool, which would vary year by year but could need replenishment annually of up to $2 million if the full amount had been utilized in the prior year. But we've got other items here without cost estimates yet, such as the conflict council contract going through the RFP process now. Implementation of policy levers from Michael Wilson's jail population study which the criminal justice partners are currently reviewing and developing strategies to address.
And main jail rehabilitation costs which is planned to be paid with debt issuance but if there's any unexpected cost increases during that project this could be a potential source. I mentioned the Northern Branch Jail funding plan as a potential need on the previous slide. As we've discussed with your board in the past, fiscal year 22-23 is the final year of the adopted funding plan which incrementally set aside growing amounts of GFC each year reaching $19.3 million this year.
When the plan was adopted 12 years ago it was assumed 22- 23 would be the year that funding matched operating costs. However, due to cost increases that weren't anticipated at the time the plan was developed including in pensions and liability insurance and IT charges and contracted medical services. Budgeted operations and maintenance costs this year are over 23.5 million which is a gap of over $4 million from the ongoing set aside.
There is fund balance in the operating fund that offsets that gap, but unless the ongoing funding continues to grow to close that gap, the balance will be quickly depleted and there will be multi-million dollar structural deficit in the department. Proposition 172 is a potential source to continue incremental increases in the coming years. Staff will return to the board each December with recommended increases at a recommended source.
Your board has several timing options for Prop 172 allocations. If there is direction today on allocations to make in the current 22-23 budget, we can take direction to come back with a budget revision which will require a four fifths vote to adjust the adopted budget as just discussed on the previous item. We will be bringing one back for these six SST's. Your board could provide us direction today on priorities to include in the 23-24 budget as we develop it in the coming months, which we would incorporate and bring back as part of overall budget adoption in the spring with a three-fifths vote.
And finally your board could take no action today besides receiving and filing this report. We'll be returning again with the five year forecast and budget development policies in December and seeking input on board priorities at that time. And here we have the recommended actions, which is to receive and file. Provide any other direction as appropriate and make the CEQA findings that this is not a project.
3:05 – 3:107 turns
And that concludes your report for now. Okay questions from the board? Supervisor Nelson?
I'll wait for guest public comment and then I'll jump in with my comments.
All right Madam Clerk do we have any public comment?
Chair Hartman and members of the board, we have no request to speak on this item.
Supervisor
Nielsen?
Yes, thank you, Chair Hartman. You know what, just in light of this last discussion last time we had, this is kind of difficult looking at these expansions or what might be on the horizon. I think sometimes Supervisor Williams' comments about The money's already there, has come across as a lack of support for our Sheriff's Department. And that's not how I take it. I take it is that there's a frustration that exists out here among the board members that we want to do more within the law enforcement space but we don't even have the bodies to do what our current charge is and it's really difficult to add additional load with additional positions And so I acknowledge that and I appreciate that on one hand. On the other hand though, when I looked at this budget this last year, the reason why I didn't vote for it was for two specific requests that I had that we weren't able to get full support to move forward with as a budget.
The first was additional co-response team in North County which I thought was a huge priority for me. And I wanted to assure that happened in the part of the budgeting process. You know, I did get a lot of support from my colleagues but it was just that hey maybe later maybe at this meeting here today. I continue to advocate as well as others for that position and it sounds like we're going to be able to get that funded through the CCP potentially so I feel satisfied that that's moving forward in the right direction. I think that's a really important tool that we need to have in North County It is an expansion of additional deputies that will need to be in that position. So again, it's that difficulty where we're having to struggle with hiring staff members but also adding positions at the same time.
The other request I had during the budget hearings was for an Orchid Community Resource Deputy or North County Community Resource Deputy. We are the municipal services for a large swath of unincorporated residents. They have a lot of needs that sometimes patrol deputies just can't satisfy. The proactive policing, the neighborhood watch work, the ongoing relationships with businesses, schools and other parties.
And it's probably one of the biggest things I hear from my residents in Orkut and now a new part of my district Los Alamos. And so what I was really hoping for is to have a community resource deputy that could do that. I've sat down with the sheriff and we looked at some creative ways to potentially pay for that, and I believe we found funding for 75% of it through the Orchid Community Facilities District which is a mitigation measure for the growth that's happened in Orchid. So we're looking to tap into that.
I still have a lot of needs in Los Alamos community You know, it's a somewhat remote community there in that they have some of the similar concerns and neighborhood issues. And so I haven't been able to find another funding source to fill that hole. It's a rather small request in the scheme of things to be able to fill that hole and make that position full and have a Los Alamos and Orchid Community Resource Deputy. And so I'm gonna ask that we add that as part of a mid-year adjustment today, so that's part of what my asks. Moving forward and looking at these Prop 172 dollars and the other needs that we're having in our county, I just wanna put a marker out there. Rural crime is something we're gonna hear about in the coming months. I think we need to be thinking about that as a board and maybe looking at Prop 172 dollars to help supplement not only Sheriff's Department but other law enforcement entities that might be touching that, the DA's office.
Maybe probation and others that, what's the comprehensive approach that we'll take? I think we're gonna hopefully move to a task force model to really tackle these things. So I wanna make sure that we're thinking about our Prop 172 dollars with that in mind, that this is an emerging issue. Agriculture is our number one industry in Santa Barbara County. And I do think we need to make sure that we're protecting that not just for the growers and the producers but also for the employees out there that are often some of the most vulnerable.
Members of our community. So I want to put that on the horizon as well as looking at some of the other expansions like the narcotics expansion, we know what the ongoing crisis that we have with fentanyl and other drugs that are coming into our communities and so a lot of those positions were unfunded in 2007-2008 Great Recession. get back to full staffing, but I do want to make sure that those are things that are on the radar for the entire board and knowing that those are things I'm going to be advocating for in future budgets to try to help solve some of these problems.
3:10 – 3:1524 turns
So let me understand, how much is the match that is being offered? And so how
much
money are
you asking for? I'm asking for an additional $50,000 ongoing. It's on slide 10 actually if we pop it up there. It's the third item down. It's the Orchid Resource Deputy, or Community Resource Deputy, Orchit. So that $49,850 is actually the portion that would be used for things that are outside the Orchic community plan, or community area plan area. So essentially, the other $150,000 that'd be necessary for that deputy will be funded through the Orchid Community Facilities District. I would need Prop 172, ongoing as little as $21,250. One time to pay for some of the equipment necessary to staff that deputy.
May I ask a question about that? So could it cover Los Alamos too?
That's the portion that would cover Los Alamos. Okay. Because the Orchid Community Facilities District is a Quimby, or not Quimby, it's a Melrose district, there's a district that exists there and so it needs to be a nexus to that and so Los Alamos would be too far of that nexus so we need some additional funding to service that community and that's actually the money you're looking at there at the $49,000.
I just while I'm talking, I pledged that I would support that at the meeting last time. And so you have my support this time for that midyear. Thank
you. Can I ask another clarifying question? Because we are partway through the fiscal year, that means more like you're asking for $25,000 for the first six months and then $50,000 after that. Correct. Is that
what we're
really talking about? I
believe so and I think the budget staff can confirm that.
Sounds pretty reasonable. I hope we hope and pray that we could actually hire it.
And I acknowledge that too, and I understand that there are higher priorities in the department. I want to get this in the budget now because I think it's really important. It also sends a signal to those communities that help is on the way, and so I'm not going to be pushing Craig or the sheriff for you fill in this position immediately. I know there's some other needs that we have that are higher priorities but I would like
And I would contend that this is an easier one to fill. It's what people get into policing for, many of them.
I think that it's innovative to get the matching funds from another agency and while I would normally oppose this just out of the fact that we can't seem to hire any of our existing positions, I think that Supervisor Nielsen should be rewarded for going out and getting the rest of the money. If some of our other partners were willing to do that, that would encourage me too. So yeah I think I can support that, appreciate
that. Supervisor Hart and then Labanino.
Yeah I want to support that as well too because I do think the you know the current concerns and calls for help that we've heard from farmers in the north about rural crime is, we need to respond to that. And I hope the department can hire this position.
Would the community resources deputy be yeah not probably not working? I think
it's separate than the rural crime issue but I do think these since these are semi-rural communities You know, there's going to be some nexus there and some assistance that having a community resource deputy would be important. A lot of these people that commit some of these crimes go from the urban area to the fields and back. And so I think more is better here, and so I think it would have help. But I am interested in working with Stakeholders to really beef that up in the future and look at state funding. Some counties actually receive a state allocation in the state budget towards rural and ag crime, something I want to work with RCRC and our Ledge Committee to advocate for with our legislators to get that in the budget like they have in San Joaquin Valley.
I think the Central Coast and the amount of production we have here it's warranted as well. So again, I'm trying to be creative if I can't get it done in the budget hearings I'm going to keep coming back to you guys and try to find ways to solve some
Supervisor Lovenino.
Thank you, Madam Chair. So I want to applaud Supervisor Nelson. I mean, I think that was as you said a very innovative way to go about tackling this. I don't have any problem with this. I think this is a great thing and since you've already figured out the funding for it, I fully expect Supervisor Nelson to go out and do his own recruiting, find his own- And
get a
bonus. Get your bonus, get your uniform on and I'll help you in Los Alamos on the weekends only.
Thank you.
3:15 – 3:2120 turns
Two funds that we described and the rest coming from the Orchid CFD And you know, it's those orchid residents who've been paying into that metal roof So again, this is for the benefit of the orchid residents, but I do want to mention to your board Something that mr. Clemente highlighted and I want to point it out to you because it is something that keeps us up at night and That is go back to the slide before one more on what the revenue is for 72 So if you saw the future uses, we have 5.6 million estimated and ongoing Prop 172 which is good.
That amount could go up or down but that's 5. 6 million but I want to show you the chart on that he mentioned Annual Northern Branch Jail operating costs. Everything else on these slides, the one before that is really discretionary at your board's discretion on expanding services. That though is a cost we have to pay. It's no additional positions in the jail, that is what it is. But it's not 2.2 just one time, that's increasing 2.1 every year.
So unless Prop 172 increases even more, that means that cost if we're right It's gonna take all our Prop 172 ongoing in two years. And so the rest would be funded by the general fund. So there is seriousness to this, and so we show all the other 172 needs but this gets first take on your board unless you're gonna make dramatic changes to the jail and we've tried but just in the conversation that we just had, we had a discussion about that. So I hate to be the one to pour cold water over everybody but my staff is very detailed but I'm pointing out what's really most important for you to understand on these slides.
Supervisor Nielsen.
Yes, thank you Chair Hartman. Sorry I got so caught up in my own priorities that was actually a question I had what is our typical annual year-over-year ongoing increase in the Prop 172 funds? What's that number or what has it been? I know you had that chart but I couldn't quite figure out from the chart what was it this last year year over here
Supervisor Nielsen through the Chair, are you talking percentage wise
growth? I'm actually looking at dollar numbers. We're looking at that 2.2 and that is a big nut. So what's the difference between that blue line and that orange line?
Right. The gap between if we look at, say, 21-22 between budgeted and actual is about $8 million. If we're looking at growth year over year in the actual that's the orange column growth from the low in 19-20 of 35 million it grew up to 40 million so it's 5 million dollar growth and the next year was 8 million dollar But we see how those lines
are getting closer together and
that's
the scary part,
right? Yes. That's what the budgeted amount is going to reach and that's where you get into why we need to keep say the prudent reserve if you're budgeting right at where you think you're gonna get it and then there's a downturn in the mid-year or something like that. Those revenues go away pretty quickly.
So is there already a formulaic increase that goes to some of the different departments or different, okay it's all that goes into general county programs and then the board works through some of these challenges as part of the process?
So the way it used to work was the formulaic growth. Excuse me. Formulaic policy, where the departments had come to an agreement where sheriff gets 50.1%, you know each got a percent so any time there was growth that growth was allocated out by that same percentage wise. That's what went away in 1920 so anytime there is growth that's what our department is making recommendations for where that growth should go. The departments don't get an automatic increase.
Everything has been allocated to date goes to the departments thereafter. They have a baseline each year. Thank
you. Are there any other questions or comments? So it sounds, Supervisor Nelson, you're an ad hoc committee on rural crime and I just wonder when we'll hear more as a whole board what you're learning about that.
Well, I think all of us are diving in. I know Supervisor Hart is, I know Supervisor Lavinino and others. But I think we may ask for some direction at the last meeting to have an item come back from our Sheriff's Department. And I've talked to Chief Hunter's Sheriff Bonner and understands that that's coming forth in the next couple months. Okay.
Next couple months. Supervisor Lavinino?
I'd just like to point something out that 99% of the charts you look at in government The expenditure, actually the JAWS chart is the opposite of that. Okay? So I want to give props to everybody that handles 172 funding. Usually the adopted somehow is more than what the actual revenues are so while yes, I appreciate the yellow cautionary flag. This has shown that this program is working so that our adopted is actually less than what the actual revenues are, which rarely happens. So good stewardship.
Well we have a conservative budgeting process I think. Okay public comment? We didn't have any and so I think we're ready for a motion A through C in staff recommendation
I would like to make that motion with the additional staff direction to bring back a media adjustment on the community resource deputy for ORCA and Los Alamos. Back to the board for a fourth of his vote on that expansion.
Second.
All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Passes unanimously. So County Council, what is in for us closed session today?
3:21 – 4:303 turns
Thank you Madam Chair, members of the board. In closed session today we have one item of existing litigation Cruz versus Tyler and County of Santa Barbara that's San Benito County Superior Court and we have labor negotiators employee organizations all bargaining units unrepresented employees managers and executives agency representatives CEO Mia Sato and Human Resources Director Maria Elena de Guevara I believe we could do this in less than an hour and be back a little bit after one.
All right, well we'll say 115 because it's
the next item is one that people have a keen interest in so I'd like to give the time certain and we'll do our best for you then. Thank you Good afternoon. After closed session, we're reconvening the October 18th 2022 meeting of the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors. County Council would you report out from
4:30 – 4:334 turns
closed session? Thank you Madam Chair and members of the board. The board met in closed session on two items one item of existing litigation Cruz versus Tyler and County of Santa Barbara and conference with labor negotiators for all bargaining units underrepresented employees managers and executives and the board took no reportable action
Thank you. Madam Clerk, before you read departmental item number three into the record would you make an announcement about translation interpretation?
Chair Hartman and members of the board I would like to introduce Carlos and he can go over that process for you.
Thank you, Chair. Members of the Board, good afternoon. My name is Carlos Cerecedo, Judicial Council Certification 300249. I'm a course certified interpreter translator. I'll be here present today and I will make this bilingual announcement first in English and then in Spanish. These proceedings are being interpreted via Zoom simultaneously as we speak Not only via Zoom but they're also going on North County and Comcast, ZAP.
Also Cotes Cable South County, ZAP. But they told me that today there was a possibility that we would have in-person individuals that may want to be here and express themselves in Spanish and probably understand what's going on in Spanish Therefore, I have brought 25 headsets which the people as they arrive if they want to hear everything that is happening in person here today. They will be able to have their headsets on and I will do the individual personal interpretation to them and then if they decide to express themselves at the podium, I will come and when they express themselves in Spanish, I will be interpreting for them in Spanish for the board also If anybody in Zoom wishes to express themselves in Spanish, I will be hearing them in the chambers and I will do the consecutive interpretation.
Meaning they will speak in Spanish. I will stop them then I will do the interpretation and then they will speak again so that nothing will be lost in the interpretation. So, now I'm going to say all of this in Spanish for those ones who are listening at home and they're planning to come. Estos procedimientos están siendo interpretados simultaneamente en español en via Zoom y también para Cox Cable en el Condado Sur y también para Comcast en el Condado Norte.
In other words, you can hear the simultaneous interpretation from home via Zoom or television. If you come to this venue personally, there will be headphones available in the back of the table and when you arrive they can be placed on it. I'll do the simultaneous interpretation of all the procedures. Thank you very much. I appreciate it. Thank you. Madam Clerk, would you read item number three into the record please?
4:33 – 4:394 turns
Chair Hartman and members of the board, departmental item number three is from the Sheriff Horner's office. It is a hearing to consider recommendations regarding the annual Truth Act report and community forum.
Sheriff Brown?
Thank you Madam Chair and members of the board good afternoon we're here today to conduct the 2021 Truth Act Forum as required by California Government Code section 7283.1D Just as a way of walking you back and reminding you of how we got here through the various state laws that have been passed, we're here addressing essentially three pieces of legislation. The California Trust Act, the Truth Act and the Values Act.
The Trust Act was effective January the 1st of 2014. The Truth Act, effective January the 1st of 2017 and then the Values Act which was effective January the first of 2018. The Sheriff's Office has adopted a policy our policy number is 210 in response to the Truth Act requirements The purpose of which is to set guidelines for compliance with Assembly Bill number 2792, the Truth Act.
That as I said became effective July, I'm sorry January the 1st of 2017. A policy that is adhered to within the county sheriff's office jail facilities for those persons having legitimate business within the custody operations branch. The policy is this, that the sheriff's office prohibits discrimination against persons due to immigration status. The Santa Barbara County Sheriff's Office adheres to applicable federal and state laws, regulations and guidelines by providing notification to inmates of communications between the Department of Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, ICE and the county jail staff For the purpose of deportation and or detention of persons held in our jail by ICE agents upon completion of their commitments of incarceration within our facility.
When all of this is done pursuant to the regulations of the Trust, the Truth and the Values Act. ICE access to information in 2021, a note here on data collection. Historically the Sheriff's Office has not maintained public records on aggregate ICE access data. All of the data that we have compiled for today's report and for our preceding reports has been the result of manual staff search on individual booking packets And in 2018, the Values Act which was SB 54 became the law of the state of California and it changed certain aspects of the Truth Act.
We've developed an ICE notification process and I am going to turn this over. By the way, I'm remiss, I should have said that I'm joined here today by Under Sheriff Craig Bonner, by Custody Chief Deputy Vincent Waslewski, and by Custody Sergeant Eric Alexander. Chief Waslewski will now take over the next portion of the presentation to walk you through the notification process.
As people get arrested, they get booked and fingerprinted. Everyone gets booked and fingerprinted. The fingerprints are then sent to the DOJ, the Department of Justice, to identify them Those fingerprints are then from the state DOJ sent into the FBI who then shares it with the rest of the US Department of Justice and ICE. As ICE reviews who we booked, they then select folks to request notifications and they send those notifications to us via fax.
Request from ice. Then our custody records staff review the records of each individual that they're requesting and to see if there are any of the exceptions that were outlined in the Truth Act. If yes, then we make a notification to the inmate in person and we flag their record in our JMS. And If the release date is known or pending, ICE is notified by email of that.
If there are no exceptions then we just file the request and we do not respond to ICE. So from 2020 to 2021 as you can see the numbers of the requests from ICE has decreased it went from Uh, 132 down to 39. And as far as the pickups by ice after their release from our custody, they actually went down from 12 to 6 this in year 2021. These are those six, the identifiers have been removed. But these are the charges that were qualifying and that ICE actually did pick them up when they were released from our custody.
The next five slides actually show folks that were not picked up by ICE. And if there's any questions on specific ones here, I would turn it over to Sergeant Alexander.
4:40 – 4:459 turns
Okay. If there's no specific questions regarding any of the data I do,
I'm sorry.
Please. Sorry. Just on, um, Are we talking about the individual cases or did you move forward so we can talk about these? All right, so I'm trying to figure out what's the difference because it seems like some of them that were actually referred to ICE and then picked up by ICE. For example, like number... Well, I'm just saying it seems like some of the charges are the same between somebody that was picked up by ICE and somebody that ICE decided not to pick up.
One of them's, you know, lewd acts with a child under 14. So is it based on the charge or is it just based on circumstance? Or what drives it?
In many respects it's, Supervisor Lavigno through the chair, in many respects it is based on ICE's availability to respond and pick the person up. We adhere to the letter, to the law which means that we will notify them of the date and time of the release. But if they for some reason can't make that, we don't adjust the time of release. You know, we just basically inform them and if they come, they come. And if they don't, they don't.
They've determined that person is no longer of interest to them for whatever reason. I don't know, but we don't communicate with them on the specifics other than to know that they typically are not staffed to the point where they come and pick up everyone. And even if you look historically, you'll see that there's always been a significantly higher number of notifications than there have been actual pickups.
And then on that release date and time for the folks that weren't picked up by ICE That's somebody that's just going back into the community, or is that somebody that could be then being transferred to prison?
Now typically if they're transferred to prison, the ICE notification doesn't come into effect. It would be the CDCR that would notify them once they had finished their prison sentence. So we would only be notifying them if they're gonna be released from our facility and if we do notify them and they don't come and pick them up then typically yes, they are released back into the community and in some cases ICE may If they really want that person, they go and hunt for that person in the community and find them. And others, they may not. They may do kind of a triage situation.
But we've found that their focus is on people, the more serious criminals that they are really targeting more so than people who are here just strictly for an immigration violation.
Okay, seeing no more lights and questions. Oh Supervisor Williams?
So I'm still trying to get around what are the different terminology so they made a request on for 39 that means that some type of information was shared on 39 but they only picked up six Correct. Okay, and then I know you explained this last year but why does then the AG's website say zero? That I'm just trying
to understand that. Yeah there has been a contention that well you're released in our case now with last year six people but you reported when the AG requested how many people did you transfer to ICE custody we reported zero And the difference is in the definition of what is a transfer and what is a release, picked up by ICE after our release. A transfer would be where a person doesn't leave our custody or that person is still in custody, is still in the jail. We're finished with them, they've finished their sentence with us but another agency Another sheriff's office that has a warrant, or a federal agency that has a warrant. Or ICE if they were to come and take that person where that person would be transferred to the custody of the other agency within the confines of our jail.
That person would have never left custody, would have never been dressed down given their property. All of that would have been handed off to the agency and they would have transferred their custody to that new agency. Since we are releasing people from our custody, we don't call that a transfer. We call that a release. And ICE is notified of the date and time of the release, and they choose to come or not come according to their schedule. So it's not—the difference is that we don't consider those to be transfers. We consider them to be releases of people from custody who are then picked up by ICE.
4:45 – 4:5018 turns
Your that you release them, but you know that ice is
picking them up. Ice notifies us that they're there at the facility what we do do. We've had problems in the past where we have released people into the public lobby and ice has been waiting there for altercations, confrontations, foot pursuits. And it's a danger to the person being released, danger to the public, danger to everybody that's involved. And so what we do is we allow ICE to come into the back of our facility into The area at the backside of the jail. We release the person through that exit, they go through that exit and ICE is waiting there where it's not in a public area where there can be as I say these confrontations where there's potential for use of force or people to get hurt.
And is that why you know it's six and not more pickups? Like why would we know that it's only
six? Because ICE notifies us that they're there to, you know, they're going to pick somebody up upon their release. So we know that they have contacted us and let us know that. And if they don't contact us and let us know that we released them, they go back into the community. And as I say, they may end up picking them up at some other location later but they're not there at the jail telling us that hey, we're here to pick up someone
soon. I think I finally understand that. That was still gray to me after last year.
So that raises a question for me, and that is if we have six releases how many transfers? Zero transfers and that's the DOJ report. Okay.
The undersheriff just pointed out to me just to clarify I'd like to ask you a question.
Notify of the release and you just notify anybody who qualifies under SB 54 is that kind of Yeah,
I'm gonna flip that to let them answer the specifics of that but I'll start it just by saying that the ICE sends us the request to be notified of when that person's being released. We vet that request to make sure that that person meets the criteria and that there is an exception to the Trust Act that allows us to provide that information to ICE, then if that is vetted properly and it is there, then we will notify them. And I'll leave it to Sergeant Alexander to explain how they notify the release date
So ICE can contact the main jail and they can speak with custody records. Also, we have a public website that has inmate information on it so we know that they can do that in both ways. They can call up and say is this person still in custody? If they are, they have approximate release time and that's when ICE would come to the facility.
Supervisor Lavinino.
Thank you. I don't know if this is a question you can answer, but how do the charges and the amount of times that people have entered the jail compared to the overall jail population?
Supervisor Lavendino, I don't know that I can answer that. The recidivism rate of people who are in our jail is certainly all over the map. We have some people that are first time offenders and many others that are career criminals that have significant numbers of arrests but I don' t know that we are doing a comparison to this.
I think it's something we're going to hear about, so I was just kind of curious. Any time you read somebody who has been through our system.
When you look at these lists and see the number of times people have been in custody, many of them are not debutantes. These are people who have a lengthy history with being booked in our facility as well as perhaps others.
Madame Clerk? How many public comments do we have?
Chair Hartman and members of the board, we currently have 21 requests to speak.
Okay so with that I'll close the queue for additional public comment and let's get started.
4:50 – 4:575 turns
We will begin with Frank Rodriguez to be followed by Roy Moore here in Santa Barbara.
Thank you Chair Hartman, Supervisors and the Sheriff's Office for having this conversation today. My name is Frank Rodriguez with CAWS and 805 Immigrant. I'm honored to be here today because of the organizing of immigrants and advocates here locally and across the state for the Truth in Values Act. Moving our state towards the necessary steps to stop the violence of separating families via deportation through ICE.
Pain that my family still deals with through the deportation of my uncle who went through the county jail and just hearing about someone who has to pay double jeopardy when they're being released and still being detained by ICE, the same way as any other individual who leaves our county jail and paid for their time is we should be building to them being part of our community again I'm honored that the necessary infrastructure and safety nets are being provided here locally for immigrant communities, by organizations and the experts that we follow such as the Immigrant Legal Defense Center, INPORTA, Immigrant HOPE, MECOP, and the Public Defender's Office especially.
Yet our Sheriff Department continues to voluntarily collaborate with unlike several other California counties that have ended that collaboration such as Los Angeles This process was not set up to simply be a checkbox, but to ensure transparency and accountability especially from the Truth Act and then re-emphasized with the Values Act. Not for the sake of advocacy organizations, not for my sake, not for cause's sake, but for the immigrant communities that are front and center of this conversation CAUSE will continue to build in coalition with community partners, but the expertise needed to ensure compliance to these complicated laws and policies that make up the criminal and immigrant justice system.
We need to follow the lead of the legal experts including our Santa Barbara County Public Defender's Office, but also those lawyers from ILDC, Mika Pimporta, and those that are working directly with individuals that are being detained and deported and separated through violence in our community. We follow the lead of the call that the sheriff share the necessary information to ensure our county is complying with the California Valleys Act and to limit its collaboration with ICE because we need transparency and accountability.
I think right now, we're barely getting more clarity on what is the difference between pickup and a transfer something that we should have had in prior Truth Act forums And that makes us think that there's a proactive collaboration in trying to work with ICE and the idea that we should be deciding the fate of individuals and handing them over to ICE. We advocate for a follow-up meeting as well with the Board of Supervisors looking at that information because what we need to make sure is that we are complying with state law, thank you.
Roy Moore to be followed by Brooke Lotz
Madam Chair, members of the board. My name is Rory Moore. I'm speaking as an individual although I have represented a number of groups in town with which I'm involved. As the last speaker said one of the purposes of today's hearing is to provide transparency but I think it falls short in a number of ways. This does not provide an opportunity for the community To address the sheriff, the undersheriff and the others here we are addressing you.
And as a result. The public's questions are left unanswered unless they individually seek out the members of the Sheriff's Department. I know for example, I learned very late about the about this hearing and went to look to see where it had been published That it had been published on a Saturday afternoon, or a Saturday in the Santa Maria Times. And I'm assuming that one was published in the news press but it was in the legal notices where one would not expect to be perusing to find notice of hearings.
I would recommend that the board ask the sheriff To hold a true community forum. The legislature knew what a community forum was, as distinguished from a hearing at the Board of Supervisors. Those are different things and I believe this does not fulfill the requirements of the Truth Act. I think there is an argument to be made that the board oughta direct the sheriff no longer Turn over people to ice directly and not cooperate.
It appears that in last year there was only 15% I showed up 15% of the time when they had originally expressed interest in someone in the year before it was 9%. You know, the numbers are minuscule and it involves a certain amount of work for the Sheriff's Department to try to accommodate ice And the Sheriff's Department is overburdened as it is. They're constantly seeking additional funding and additional personnel. This is an area where they could economize.
It's a voluntary participation I would be, I'd be interested in knowing if The sheriff is still using the manual search process that generated the statistics that were in their presentation. That's all I have, thank you.
Thank you.
4:57 – 5:024 turns
Brooke Lotz to be followed by Barbara Parmet
Good afternoon, thank you. My name is Brooke Lotz. I'm an immigration staff attorney with the Meeks-Tuckerland-Dakota Community Organizing Project. We have a presence in Santa Maria and this county and also in Ventura. I am here today and I apologize because as the last speaker had mentioned I would have loved to be able to present on behalf of the community that I represent. But given the short notice, I was unable to prepare a more detailed presentation. I think it's important for non-immigration attorneys to be aware and people who don't regularly advocate in this area that the majority of immigration violations are considered civil. They're not criminal. And this is key because that is why immigrants are not afforded an attorney So I'm going to start by saying that this is a very important issue.
in that jurisdiction, but this is not the case with the majority of folks who for example enter the United States without inspection or are here working and paying taxes and so on. And this becomes incredibly important because for me as an immigration attorney I it's most immigrants have to pay for an attorney to advise them on their status So I'm going to start by saying that this is a very important issue.
That many of my clients would probably tell you that they cannot imagine a fate more painful or difficult than being separated from their families, deported from a country where many of them have lived for years and years. And where they truly are members of the community and they're necessary to our economy, to our sense of self, and to contributing to the values that we have.
I think that another, when I speak with my clients about their lives in Santa Barbara County, I will tell you that there is a perception that it's difficult for some people including, I think, American citizens. to differentiate between local law enforcement and federal law enforcement. And this becomes an issue especially for immigrants because when they see that folks are picked up by the sheriff and then transferred to ICE, that separation is not clear. And having trust with our local law enforcement is so key to the safety of our community. I've researched this issue extensively and I can tell you that there's research, the majority, the overwhelming majority of research supports the notion that communities that do not voluntarily cooperate with ICE are actually just as safe if not safer than those that And I would love to continue speaking, but that is your time.
Thank you.
Barbara Parmet and then we will head over to zoom with Julissa Pena. Hello thank
you County Board my name is Barbara Parmet. I've lived in the county over 40 years And first I want to say, I'm grateful to Frank Rodriguez for the long-term fight of the specifics of these laws. I'm going to be making some general comments. Beneath the annual disclosure of numbers by the Sheriff's Department is a claim I would like to counter. Sheriff Brown says he wants to keep us safe.
I disagree. Targeting immigrants is a reprehensible way of making white supremacists feel safe. ICE is a federal deportation machine. Local law enforcement must disentangle themselves from the federal agency. This deportation machine creates fear and anxiety in our immigrant communities, and I want to make clear that it is the Sheriff's Department and its deputies who are feared in our community affecting relatives, friends, loved ones, and children.
When the immigrant community is afraid, the white community is complicit in that fear-mongering narrative. Without regard for the whole fabric of our civil society, the Sheriff's Department is supporting the unjust and racist letter of the law that harms us all. Immigrants are the targets of ICE. However, it is the white supremacy philosophy that affects our whole society.
White people who are afraid of anyone who does not look like them feel comfort with these false narratives. The county must fight against these racist laws that result in continued incarceration, segregation, erasure and deportation. Do not cooperate with ICE. The only acceptable number that should be reported in the Annual Truth Act is zero. Thank you.
5:02 – 5:078 turns
Julissa Pena to be followed by Nadia Abushanab.
Good afternoon, County Board of Supervisors. My name is Julissa Pena and I'm here to provide public comment on behalf of the Immigrant Legal Defense Center and as a member of the 805 Coalition. Immigrants who come into contact with the criminal legal system should not be punished twice or denied due process altogether. Instead of being released to their families and communities at the end of their criminal sentence, and sometimes before their criminal proceedings are even complete, immigrants continue to be transferred to immigration and customs enforcement detention and put on a fast track to deportation due to local law enforcement cooperation with ICE.
Law enforcement leaders and police chiefs throughout the state have recognized that community trust is key to community policing. People are less likely to report crime when victims and witnesses fear they may be deported when they encounter local law enforcement. I highly encourage the Santa Barbara County Sheriff's Office to adopt a policy in which it will not respond to any requests from ICE, for notification of an inmate's release or transfer of an inmate to its custody. This action will demonstrate that the Santa Barbara County Sheriff's Office is fulfilling its mission to protect the safety of all Santa Barbara County residents and prioritize this community trust. Lastly, Immigration and Customs Enforcement has the tools it needs to do its job without relying on the limited and already strained local resources of this county.
I want to emphasize again that the Sheriff's Office cooperation with ICE is entirely voluntary and not required by law. Therefore, I encourage the Sheriff's Office to stop all collaboration with ICE including 1.) Stop notifying ICE of release dates Nadia Abushanab to be followed by Marlene Flores.
Hello, Chair Hartman and Supervisors. My name is Nadia Abushanab. I'm with SBCAN, the Santa Barbara County Action Network. I echo what has been shared and I urge you to formally end the county's and the Sheriff Office's relationship to ICE. And I hope that you will cease all transfers and notifications to ICE Incarceration and deportation are not real solutions to any of the struggles that we face today in Santa Barbara County.
And, in fact, they can exacerbate problems of poverty and violence by destabilizing communities and separating families. As you all know, ICE is especially notorious for perpetuating unreasonable harm against our immigrant community and communities of color Also, as we've heard today, ICE is extremely inconsistent in whether or not they pick up a person after they've completed their time in the jail. And it seems to be entirely arbitrary and not based on whether they believe the person is a real threat to the community which it just shows that there's no...
It shows that it's not a necessary thing and like others have said, it's a completely voluntary choice and we urge you to please cease all formal relationship with ICE. Thank you so much. Thank you.
Marlene Flores to be followed by Sarah McDonald. Marlene, you may need to press star six to unmute yourself.
Yes, good afternoon County Board of Supervisors. My name is Marlene Flores. I'm the Executive Director of Importa Santa Barbara. We're one of the largest providers of immigrant legal services in our state of River County. Our immigrant legal services are supported by our grant from the State of California and most of our legal services are offered without charge.
Importa strongly supports the Trust Act, the Truth Act, the Values Act and joins with many other organizations and individuals in asking our supervisors to thoroughly investigate these actions of the Santa Barbara Sheriff's Department, which appears to violate the state law. We have sent you by email a brief report outlining our concerns and also providing recent statistics on the very large numbers of local immigrants being arrested by ICE and placed in a removal proceedings where they face deportation. Thank you for your work in assuring that our large immigrant population so vital to our economic and cultural lives enjoys the full protection of our state laws. Once again thank you.
Thank
you.
Sarah McDonald to be followed by Cliff Solomon
5:07 – 5:1512 turns
Good afternoon supervisors and all who are in attending I'm Sarah MacDonald, I'm a community member And I'd like to echo what has already been said. And I also feel it's because I put together for my networks, a weekly governmental calendar and all the information and we really have to do better about letting people know about the True Path Forum. It is important that we have a town hall start getting people ready for it not 24 hours, not 72 hours. 30 days at least and also we need to give all of our immigrants who are being released prior to their Being incarcerated in jail are immigrant people, brothers and sisters that know your rights cards. It is so important that their rights are protected when they are released because they have rights after they're released.
And I thank you for this opportunity to speak to you today. Thank you.
Thank you.
Cliff Solomon to be followed by Fernando Martinez
Hello, Supervisors. My name is Cliff Solomon and I'm a resident of Orchid. Like many of my colleagues, I urge the Sheriff's Office and the Board of Supervisors to formalize a policy to end all transfers and notifications to ICE. I am happy to see the low numbers of transfers in the past few years but even with these low numbers even one illegal transfer is one too many.
Santa Barbara County is liking behind other counties for holding onto a backwards and cruel policy of colluding with ICE. Cooperating with ICE subjects, subjects residents to having families broken apart by way of immigration detention and deportation. If our county truly wants to end racist practices we need to end collaboration with ICE now ICE is notorious for perpetuating intense harm against communities of color and immigrant survivors of domestic violence.
I urge the Sheriff's Office and the Board of Supervisors to take whatever steps are necessary that they can take to get ICE out of Santa Barbara County. Thank you.
Thank you,
Fernando Martinez, to be followed by Benito Camarillo
Thank you, good afternoon Board of Supervisors. My name is Fernando Martinez and I am son of indigenous farm working family in Santa Maria California and I also serve as a community organizer with the Mixteco Indigenous Community Organizing Project in Santa Barbara County and I'm here today to strongly urge the Sheriff's Office and the Board of Supervisors to formalize a policy to end all transfers and notifications to the ICE With the very low ICE transfer numbers in the past few years, the county has already demonstrated that we don't need to collaborate with ICE.
The Santa Barbara County families and communities should be reunited with their loved ones and not doubly punished and subject to ICE abusive detention and deportation practices today. We need to at least take a step to ensure transparency and accountability by asking the sheriffs to share the necessary information to ensure that our county is complying with the California Values Act SB 54. And its limits on collaboration with ICE. Thank you for your time.
Thank
you
Benito Camarillo to be followed by David Moore
Hello, this is Benito Camarillo. I am an accredited DOJ legal representative with MICOPS Immigration Legal Services in Santa Barbara County. In my five years working for the migrant indigenous community, I have seen and heard many victims of crimes not reporting their crimes to law enforcement because they are afraid of law enforcement and or sheriffs They would not report crimes or accidents or incidents because they think that the police and ICE are working together.
And instead of helping them as residents of Santa Barbara County, they would think that law enforcement would turn them over to ICE for deportation. They are not entirely wrong though. Sheriffs and ICE do collaborate together when people finish their time sentence, they are turned over to ICE for deportation even while they're waiting for a bail bond opportunity Most can't afford a beltline anyway. And they don't know how to navigate the legal system. They usually end up with the worst consequences and double punishment. We hear many of these stories, and take all on these cases in our office in Santa Maria. Victims of crimes don't trust law enforcement and cherish to give out details and much more worse if they're not provided with proper interpretation services.
We have a big monolingual mistaken population in Santa Barbara Estimated over 30,000 people and neither our public representatives nor our legal system offers them with proper interpretation services to get a fair treatment or legal trial. The court thinks this is as simple as assigning a Spanish interpreter to the defendants. It is not as simple as asking them what Mixteco do you speak? Is it Mixteco Alto or is it Mixteco Bajo?
There are many variations of the Mixteco language. In fact, the police department or sheriff's department don't even have an official interpreter in-house. They rely on call interpreters and they hardly use those. I personally have requested hundreds of police reports and the Mixteco interpreters used on those scene or crime incidents are usually family members, neighbors, or witnesses. We hear the same exact stories about ICE detention centers, sheriffs in prison and in prison treatment. Many of these so-called criminals end up pleading their sentence not having a full understanding of the legal system and what they plead for. They usually sign agree or plea to leave the room or detention places without understanding the real consequences of their decision.
I urge the Sheriff's Office and Board of Supervisors to formalize a policy to end all transfers and notifications to ICE. With very low ICE transfer numbers in the past few years, the county has already demonstrated we don't need to collude with ICE.
Thank you Mr. Camarillo. David Moore to be followed by Athena Paradise
5:15 – 5:216 turns
Hi, thank you Board of Supervisors for hearing me and hearing all of us. And I really am proud of all of the voices that have come already. I want to echo what the gentleman said earlier about recommending a community forum. I think it would be a beautiful thing for us to have a conversation May we all be reminded that we are all humans and our only differences have to do with the accident of the birth that we had, and we are all the same.
We are here to be for one another and not against one another. And even though there may be some visible differences among us Our beginnings, our origins lead us to migrate. Humans have always migrated, have always moved from one place to another it's not a strange thing and so I want to bless the people who are trying to make a better life for themselves at the same time I want to bless the Sheriff's Department as they seek out a humane way to deal with what can be admittedly complicated for For them and for the community, and for the nuances of politics that are part of this conversation.
But I just wanted to celebrate everybody, all of the folks who've been standing in line to be advocates. Some of them are friends, people that I know but some of them I have never seen before. So it really warms my heart to hear you speak in advocacy Of people who are trying to make a better life for themselves. And so I'm with you, everybody who says get ice out of Santa Barbara. Thank you very much.
Thank you Mr. Moore. Althea Paradise to be followed by Willie Lobka
Hi, my name is Alethea Tyner Paradis. I am a professor of history at Santa Barbara City College and I'm also a recovering public interest lawyer. I am here to say that Santa Barbara County law enforcement apparatus in its entirety should not be cooperating with ICE, period. The foundational legislative architecture of ICE's work hunting, capturing, imprisoning and exiling undocumented people has its origins in the Fugitive Slave Acts of 1793 and 1850.
The ostensible purpose of criminal law and imprisonment what we teach our students is the three R's Retribution, satisfying society's needs to quote punish a crime committed and prevent vigilante justice. The second R is reform, to reform the individual, to provide opportunities for that person to grow. And lastly is to restrict or limit the likelihood of that crime being committed again.
You will notice that not on that list is the word removal Deportation as a punishment for crime is cruel, it should be unusual and it violates the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution. Our sheriff should not be cooperating with the modern equivalent of slave catchers. It's immoral and it's cruel. These people are parents of our students, they're members of our workforce, neighbors in our community I respectfully request on behalf of many others who agree with me in the educated communities, in the working communities and the student and family communities that the sheriff and the board use their discretion to deny ICE any access to our community members in custody of law enforcement or otherwise.
Thank you very much. Thank you.
Willie Lobka to be followed by Chelsea Lancaster
Thank you for unmuting me. My name is Willie Luca, I'm with a grassroots organization called Buen Decino. I just have two quick points to make as a citizen if I served a sentence in jail when the time of my release arrived I would go home to my family but an immigrant neighbor might be referred to ICE and subjected to a cruel double punishment And the only difference between that person and me is where we were born.
This is discriminatory, unfair and wrong. It should be ended. Secondly, holding this event which is of great public interest in the middle of a Tuesday afternoon precludes working-class people who are very interested in this subject from being here. I strongly urge you in the future to hold these in the evening so that people who are at their jobs now but who care very much about this issue are able to attend. Thank You.
Thank you Mr. Lupka. Chelsea Lancaster to be followed by Christina Awodola
5:21 – 5:275 turns
Hello, Santa Barbara Board of Supervisors community. I just want to amplify what has already been said here today especially by those on the front lines trying to fight the deportation crisis that exists both in our community in the state of California and Again, I want to amplify that this is something that we choose. We are choosing family separation as a county.
My students at Santa Barbara City College many of whom are parenting students have lost their partners have had their families torn apart by the Sheriff's Department and ICE Colluding together over very minor offenses. This has left mothers and other caretakers in our community with no safety net, with no support for their children. As a previous caller stated these are our neighbors, these are our family members, these are our friends, these are our workers.
These are people that we should deeply care about. I want to also name the irony of this hearing happening on the tail end of quote-unquote Hispanic Heritage Month at a time when the Board of Supervisors has declared racism a public health emergency and when we know that the Sheriff's Department has bankrupted our county, not only financially but morally. I implore you to demand that the Santa Barbara Sheriff's Department complies with the Truth Act, the Trust Act and the Values Act and stops being willing participants in the deportation and separation of our communities and families. Thank you.
Christina Awodola to be followed by our last speaker, Joan Vinocci.
Good afternoon, my name is Christina Owodola. I'm a doctoral candidate at UC Santa Barbara. I myself am a first-generation student who comes from a mixed status family that has been system impacted. I also have the honor to support the Immigrant Legal Defense Center's community education efforts and through this work I've gotten to know amazing youth who have entrusted me with their stories hopes and goals and fears And I'd like to add that they've taught me a lot about resiliency despite the numerous forms of structural violence and inequalities they've overcome, and continue to confront now in our community.
Today, I urge the Board of Supervisors and the Sheriff's Office to formalize a policy to end all transfers and notifications to ICE. As long as the Sheriff's Department's entanglement with DHS continues, the county is complicit in the separation of families and deportation of our community members. As many have said today, public safety is dependent on community trust and this current entanglement erodes community trust. It makes everyone feel less safe and runs counter to the spirit of the California Values Act Truth Act and Trust Act.
And so just to end I'd like to again reiterate that I encourage the Sheriff's Office and Board of Supervisors who are beholden to all community members to end these practices immediately. Thank you.
And now for our final speaker, Joan Vignocchi.
Hello, thank you so much for hearing from me today. My name is Joan Vignocchi. I grew up here. I'm 43 years old and I'm currently my first job as a lawyer as an eviction defense attorney with legal aid. I actually work closely with my cop and cause because I help tenants and I'd like to echo what everyone else has said as a citizen and as a fellow human but I have a little bit more of a professional lens somewhat similar to what Benito Camarillo from my cop said In my little tiny area of the law of doing eviction defense, I see that landlords sometimes will be able to threaten their tenants with retaliatory action.
And because a lot of immigrants come from places where criminals are embedded with police we have a complete trust crisis where The landlord will say something like, I'm going to call the sheriff if you don't get out because I gave you this bogus three day notice or 30 day notice. And they come to us somebody's told them come to legal aid get some advice and what happens is that they We tell them the advice, I use often a translator from my COP or Spanish translator from within my own office and I explain.
A thousand years of Anglo-Saxon jurisprudence on eviction and they will still be so scared that they will just leave the keys and walk away from their rights. And this includes maybe even getting to stay, getting to have housing that they can afford, getting relocation assistance based on the Tenant Protection Act and if they're in the city, the local protection ordinances This does not build trust with immigrant tenants. Most of my clients are seniors on social security, but when I do have immigrant clients this is what I see and I believe that Santa Barbara County needs to reject cooperating with ICE like other counties in California and Sheriff Brown and I have talked about this at the last public forum that we did in pre-pandemic so maybe three years ago or so and I echo this absolute need for community education because One-on-one with me and my tenants, it's not enough.
And the fear out there is palpable and it doesn't just include things like people not reporting domestic violence or other crimes. It also includes basic things like housing and being able to say hey this notice seems off but people are so scared because all the landlord has to do is tell them you're out. And I it's in all of our interest In public safety to have trust in our police and especially our sheriff because they have the jail, they have the evictions. They serve people court papers and it just erodes trust and I know that you know the law enforcement thinks that it's says it's always just you know the quote-unquote big crimes but people don't know that The trust, there is no trust there. And so if and I again even from today hearing from Sheriff Brown where he's saying that we don't want ice in the parking lot anymore so now they're in the back parking lot it's really unclear to me how people can know their rights to avoid double serving.
Thank you.
5:27 – 5:368 turns
Chair Hartman that concludes public comment for this item. Thank You Madam Clerk.
Sheriff Brown did you have any comments to anything you've heard?
Thank you, Madam Chair. I do just wanted to say some things that I've mentioned before at these hearings but I think they bear repeating and that is that myself and the members of the Sheriff's Office are keenly aware that the vast majority of undocumented people in our county are hardworking community members who are not interested in seeing field workers, service workers, others who may be undocumented and have no serious criminal history facing deportation But the other reality is that the people who are ultimately notified, who ICE is notified of and who ICE picks up as you can see from the record here have lengthy criminal histories for very serious crimes.
And the vast majority of those crimes are committed against other Hispanic people. And so it is important for us to achieve a balance to try to recognize and protect the rights of individuals And at the same time to protect the community. In this particular case, those members of the Hispanic community who if these career criminal type people who commit these repeat offenses and others who commit very serious offenses do not get removed from the community, the likelihood is that there will be a re-offense.
So I think it's important that we recognize that this issue is fraught With a political agenda and with emotion on both sides of it. And the reality is we're, you know I've said this before, we're going to be here having this conversation again and again and again until the federal government steps up and really in my mind does what it needs to do and achieve a bipartisan approach to comprehensive immigration reform. And instead we are working through this convoluted, difficult situation that we're left to achieve trying to recognize the sentiments and the feelings of people on both sides of the issue.
Upholding our mission, our primary mission of protecting and serving the people of Santa Barbara County. And I think we try very hard to achieve that balance and I think you can see from the low numbers and the seriousness of the offenses, I believe we have achieved that balance. But again, I'd like to see this more comprehensive approach take place at the federal level and maybe after the election. Let's hope that we can see some real attempts to try to address them. Thank you.
Supervisor Williams?
I think judging from the public comment, first of all, I really appreciate everyone being here especially in the afternoon. Such a vigorous public comment. It's good. I just want to clarify the Board of Supervisors role. We because the sheriff is separately elected, the sheriff runs his department we do not formulate We have a policy for the Sheriff's Department. We have the power over budget, but our role here I believe because I've seen these laws in action is an oversight one which is to help make sure that the county sheriff's office is adhering to the law and hopefully maybe a little bit to the spirit of the law as well as the letter. And so, you know, I've got a lot of questions that I did have answered.
Thank you. But one is still, I guess two is still out there. I guess the more obvious one is if we are transferring or we are releasing individuals Why aren't we just calling it a transfer? I mean, the AG has a website that's supposed to provide transparency to the public. Why aren't we just being transparent to the AG and doing it as a transfer instead of as a pickup?
Supervisor Williams, through the Chair. As I mentioned previously to us a transfer is a transfer within the custody process where the person never leaves custody. Where he is released from our custody into the direct custody of another law enforcement entity without being released, without having their property returned, without having their civilian clothes returned and so forth. And I think part of the problem on this, and it has caused confusion is the fact that you know it's interpreted differently by different. There is no state definition of what constitutes a transfer or what constitutes a release. We have sought and obtained legal advice in terms of are we on the right track here? Is our definition belief logical in what we think it is and we've been told that it But the reality is that until and unless that occurs, there may be differences.
And we looked at of the 58 counties, I believe it was 12 that are reporting the transfer of people under this act and there are the remaining 46 counties, one of which is ours, that is not reporting these as transfers. We are in the majority of sheriff's offices in the state, in terms of not believing that this is a custody transfer. And yet we recognize that there is some confusion sometimes that occurs. So really the best approach would probably be to You know, ask the state for some kind of clarification as to what is what. What they see as what and what should be reported. There's also been times in the past where we are asked by the federal government for summary information about how many prisoners have been transferred to the federal government or held by the federal government.
Completely separate data sets have also been the focus of some confusion, but there are limited occasions where for example the U.S. Marshals may be transporting a fugitive that they've apprehended and are going from, you know, Northern California to San Diego. And they have come to the point where it's the end of the day and they need to stop and rest. They will on occasion book those inmates in our jail for an overnight stay, for example, then we will release them to the U.S. Marshals the next day. And if we report that as a transfer, federal prisoner who was transferred back to the Federal Law Enforcement Agency. That can sometimes be interpreted as well you only reported one but at the hearing you reported 20, 30, 50 whatever the previous numbers have been.
So there is, you know we recognize that the potential is there for some confusion and I think we're trying to be as open and transparent and direct with what our interpretation is and what we are reporting.
And so to your knowledge there's not a Attorney General definition of what constitutes a transfer versus a pickup? Correct my knowledge there is not. And then, so the other thing is trying to understand if you are notifying their attorneys. Part of the law that I've been provided with is that a local law enforcement agency provides ICE with notification that an individual is being or will be released on a certain date. The local law enforcement agency shall promptly provide the same notification in writing and to his or her attorney, is that taking place?
It is. I'd like...I can certainly ask Chief Waslewski or Sergeant Alexander to give you the particulars on how that's done.
5:36 – 5:4915 turns
Pardon me. On our ICE forms that go around to inmates before they are released it does give an option to provide their attorneys information I have never seen one of those returned to us with any type of attorney information on it. In fact, most inmates will just flat out refuse to sign it.
Got it. So you're not informing them because they're not putting down their attorney's information? They aren't even signing the form.
I just had a question about this chart. So 39, I said there's 39 people we're interested in but they only picked up six. Are the first six on that list? Yeah what strikes me is how random it seems if you look at the charges and the number of times they've been in custody the first six aren't the worst And so that arbitrariness of it isn't necessarily, it doesn't rest with us.
It seems to rest with ICE but it doesn't make sense.
Why these six were picked up and the others weren't. But I would encourage you to take a separate look, there are some pretty serious charges in there. Attempted murder, robbery in the first degree. These are not lightweight charges, they're significant. And then if you also look at the column of how many times people have been in custody, it's number them repeats up until six times.
Right but you see a lot more further down the list so it just seems again arbitrary. Supervisor Lavenino?
I don't have any questions for the Sheriff, but are we in deliberation or closing?
Yeah. Any questions or observations and then-
Observation for me is while I think I've heard about comprehensive immigration reform for 20 something years now. We're not going to get it because both political parties are to blame for... It works for both of them right? Unless there's some dramatic change somewhere, that's just a pipe dream. It's just perpetuated so that every election cycle each political party uses it as a weapon or a tool to motivate their base to get them either scare them or motivate them into getting out and voting for their candidates. So it's been used as a tool I've seen it the whole time Three years now, and I do not see any way that that's ever going to get fixed. So we're gonna be dealing with this for as long as I think I'm gonna be around You know, I just wanted to say I really appreciated public comment I didn't agree with all of it, but I really appreciated the tone.
I actually supported Much almost all of what was said there was a few that got a little bit outside my comfort zone, but But for me When you're advocating for something, at some point you have to find a balance. At some point you have to say, you know what? Otherwise you lose credibility on the issue. So for me, yes there's absolutely no way I want to be going around rounding up people like it was done before and breaking up families and dragging people out of homes and sending them back when they're just simply working here or they were caught here for some minor infraction.
When you look at this report, that is absolutely not what's happening on this report with ICE. I think it's a disservice to the community that I represent that if we didn't do anything... How do you tell somebody when you say that we're losing credibility with the community or we're losing trust with the community? You lose trust when you ignore somebody that's committing Looting lascivious acts with a kid and you just, yes you arrest them. But for me that person needs to be deported. That person needs to go. And if I had the ability to deport American citizens that were convicted of some of these crimes, I would support that as well.
Go knock on some doors. This is not What I heard at public comment is not what I hear when I go knock on doors in the Hispanic community in Santa Maria. What I hear there when we asked about defunding the police or removing police in the neighborhood, absolutely not. There, I didn't hear one person say they were afraid of the sheriff's office or the Santa Maria PD. I heard that they're afraid of the gang members that are in the park. They're afraid of the guy that's on the corner.
So, I think you gotta find balance. There's no way you can go and defend 10 times, 14 times, 22 times, 28 times going through our jail. I don't care if the person's white, black, Hispanic, Asian, whatever they are. That's a serious problem and that person has got some serious issues that need to be dealt with. So I think at that point you forfeit your ability to at least if you're in the country illegally You forfeit the ability to stay in this country when you've done something like that. At some point, there has to be repercussions. So again, I think it's all about balance.
If you look at the crimes that these six people have committed, it's not jaywalking. It's attempted murder, first-degree burglary. They're significant. And so I would hope that immigrant advocates Which I think we all should be, this is a country built on immigration. And the idea of legal immigration versus illegal immigration at this point like I said it's not gonna get fixed so people are gonna come to this country to chase the American dream.
But when you commit violent offenses and like Sheriff said they're not going to the Country Club and committing these offenses. They're in their neighborhood preying on other immigrants that are in their neighborhood It got to be dealt with, unfortunately. And I wish that wasn't the case but human nature and as much as I wish we all had the outlook that Dr. Moore has. You know it was all about love.
Human nature is that there are some people, a small segment of our population that are going to prey on others. And unfortunately, thank God the number's as low as it is. But and I'm not, and that was the question I had for the sheriff was, I'm not saying that this segment of the population commits more violent crimes than the other segment of the population. I don't think that's the case. I think these charges are indicative of everybody that's in our jail but when you're When you have that ability and you know there is that possibility that you might run afoul of ICE, and you still go ahead and commit that offense.
That's on you, not on the sheriff, not on the rest of society, that's on you. So I think the sheriff has found a balance point where we only have six at this point even 39 that were even referred so this isn't some epidemic. I think we're on the right path, and I do agree with the folks that say hey what are we talking about this a Tuesday afternoon for? This should be a town hall. This should be because go out and get the entire community. Go out and bring everybody in not just because I think today what we heard from was just the people that are really working in that space that are advocates and I'm glad you were here. You need to be here, and thank you for being here so we could hear your voice. But let's hear from everybody.
Let's hear from the entire community. And I think we would have got maybe a more mix of different input at that point.
Supervisor Nelson? Yes,
thank you Chair Hartman. A couple thoughts and comments. One thing about calling what we do a transfer, I think a transfer would require more coordination between And I think that's something that people don't want us to do, and so it's kind of a mixed message there on the terminology. And so I can be okay that we don't have any transfers but we do have six pickups and I can see that distinction in difference there.
Also getting into the arbitrary number of those six Arrestees, Caldwell versus the rest of them. I just think that tells you probably how busy ICE is. They have a lot of work out there and I popped on their website from October 1st 2020 to September 30th 2021 they seized 2.1 million pounds in narcotics. They seized $973 million of illicit currency and assets. They also assisted 728 human trafficking victims And so where I struggle here is, I don't think that any of these institutions are inherently racist. That's not how I view it. I see the people that choose these careers are people that want to serve their community. We just had that discussion when we were talking about law enforcement here. Whatever agents you have.
You know, I also think that you know we have the supremacy clause in the Constitution where we have the federal government and that can trump state law. And so, you know, we've worked together and for us not to work together with the federal agency is about as absurd as our public health department during COVID not working with the CDC. Okay, these are federal and state or local agencies. And I may not agree with everything that CDC puts out there but I understand that there's a proper process in relationship there and there's ways for us to advocate and we can advocate but to ask our law enforcement just to ignore another agency that is a partner To me is absurd.
And you know, so I appreciate the work that the Sheriff's Department is doing. I do appreciate the work that ICE is doing. I think we're out there. There's a false narrative about what they are doing in our communities that they aren't going out there and shoving people into vans. They've gone, they're going after some of the people that victimize people in our community, especially immigrants.
I've got the chance to spend time with ICE and I actually invite any of you guys that have some concerns to go on a ride along with them. They will provide that or a tour to go through that. The other interesting thing that you're going to see is that most of them are Hispanic themselves. Most of the ICE officers in the Santa Maria Valley are all—most of them are Hispanic And so they have a duty, and they feel that duty to protect the community that they live in.
So I guess it's some different worldviews, and that's why we all get up here and represent different constituencies. But there is another perspective out there, and I don't think it's one that's as sinister as others might suspect. Again, these people, they get up every morning not to try to hurt people but to protect and serve people. You know, on the ICE website their mission is to protect America from the cross-border crime and illegal immigration that threatens national security and public safety.
So you know I think that's something I can support and so whenever there's opportunity to collaborate with any partner on the federal government side with our local agencies I think it should be something we should encourage.
Supervisor Hart.
I just want to join my colleagues in thanking the folks who took time to participate in this hearing and the folks who are presenting the information. I think Dr. Moore had it exactly right, you know this is complex and deserves respectful conversation and that's once again we're having that up here It does sound as though there is a definitional issue at the state level about what the transfers should be defined as being and maybe that's something we can work on together to clarify.
All right, I guess we're ready for our motion A through C. Receive and file first after sure. I'll
go ahead make that motion second
all in favor say aye Any opposed passes unanimously? So with that we are adjourned to November 1st here in Santa Barbara