Board of Supervisors — 2023-06-06

Good morning. I'd like to call to order the meeting of June 6th, 2023. Madam Clerk, please call the roll.

Move approval.

Second. There's a motion and a second, all those in favor please say aye. Aye. Opposed? Thank you. The executive director's report.

Good morning, Chair Williams and board members. A couple of announcements this morning's and it's just recognition of some of the excellent work by our staff. This morning I'm excited to announce that the county is a 2023 National Association of Counties Achievement Award winner. NACo announced the award recipients at the end of May and the awards honors innovative effective county governmental programs and so the county received its award Really for the work of Public Works, for the Montecito Debris Basin Construction and Modification Program. And as you know after the Thomas Fire and 1-9 debris flow, the County Public Works Department implemented a long term program to build two new debris basins and modify three others. The program enhances safety, allows more sediment to reach the ocean, reduces maintenance costs, and improves fish passage, and you'll see some of that on your admin agenda so let's congratulate and thank Public Works.

The very shy person sitting in the back is a division head, so thank you Public Works. In addition this past week the county was recognized by the United Way at its 100th anniversary recognition and our chair was there to represent us, do you want to say a few words?

Sure. The partnership with the United Way has gone back many, many years. In fact it was first started I believe in the 70s over a child care initiative so it's very interesting maybe full circle that we are again partnered to expand infant care slots and they gave us the next century of service award For that partnership and for the, I think of the accomplishment of the rental assistance. It's $36 million worth of rental assistance that we distributed during COVID.

The average award was 10,000 so that do the math it means almost 3700 people were helped or 3700 individual families were helped And so, and while that was an easier time because we had ARPA funds it still was a statement of the priorities of the county that our largest chunk of money went to rental assistance. Madam Clerk are there any announcements or changes to our agenda today?

Chair Williams and members of the board, I do have a few announcements this morning. We posted an addendum on Friday June 2nd amending today's closed session agenda. The closed session agenda was amended to add an additional public employee performance evaluation information technology. This addendum was posted online and made available to the board and the public.

Additionally, staff is requesting to trail administrative item number 18 till after departmental item number two. Administrative item number 18 is from the County Executive Office. It is to consider an amendment to the 2023 Board of Supervisors schedule meeting dates and locations to include a regular meeting on June 20th, 2023 in Santa Barbara. And we are requesting this item be trailed and heard after departmental item number two from the Public Health Department regarding an ordinance to repeal and replace Chapter 5 ambulances of the Santa Barbara County Code. Should departmental item number two be approved by your board today, the board will act on administrative item number 18 which will add a regular meeting to the board schedule on Tuesday June 20th at 9 AM.

Additionally I have a brief announcement on administrative item number 42. Administrative item number 42 is from the Social Services Department. It is regarding an agreement with Martha Ypez for contract on payroll, Kuyama Family Resource Center coordinator. Prior to the board prior to the board taking action, the department has requested that Ypez's salary information be summarized orally in accordance with government code section 54953 subdivision C3 as follows Martha Ypez is total contract compensation for the period of July 1st 2023 to June 30th, 2024 is in an amount not to exceed 95,062.

And lastly for the Board of Supervisors methods of public participation and to provide public comment on general public comment or an item on the board's agenda please see page two of the agenda. Individuals that would like to provide verbal public comment may do so via Zoom by registering in advance via the link available on page two. If you have any questions please contact the clerk at the board's office At area code 805-568-2240. Again, that's 805-568-2240 and that concludes my announcements for today.

We have a lot of items to be pulled today so I'm going to do things little differently. I'm going to start with the ones that are just pulled for highlighting so that we can take a broad vote and those items are A23 and A33 In reverse order, A33. Why don't you start, Laura?

And Chair Williams, members of the board, administrative item number 33 is from the Public Health Department and it's to consider recommendations regarding a report from the Homeless Death Review Team.

Supervisor Kaps.

Thank you, Chair Williams. I just was hoping that our Director of Public Health might just speak to this item for a minute or so because I just believe when we are reviewing this agenda that this report is so pertinent to the work that we're trying to do as a county to tackle homelessness and the fact that deaths have increased so dramatically in the last few years that we have data for. I thought it would be helpful the context of the conversations that we're having with community members, with neighbors about how imperative this work is. Thank you Director.

Good morning Mr. Chair, Supervisors, thank you. Attached in your packet is the Homeless Death Report for the years 2019 and 2020 and as you can see in the findings we have seen an increase in those two years from the previous year of 2018 in the homeless death. Most of the majority of the cases were due to either substance abuse or alcohol, and that was the majority almost of all the causes of death followed by cardiovascular disease.

We didn't see any of the seasonal variations so there weren't any weather-related deaths i.e., hypothermia or hyperthermia And one unique thing that we also have seen is that most of the homeless or that were deceased were frequent users of the county different departments, whether it's public health or be well or the sheriff's department and all that. Which some of the findings and the recommendations that we include in the report should have better coordination. And some of the things that we are doing as the continuum of care and coordination of care, but also having a concerted effort in identifying the homeless and identifying the causes and also a database that we can all share to identify who are those frequent users? And how can we make sure And there is no public comment on this item.

Chair Williams and members of the board, we have no request to speak on this item.

Supervisor Katz.

Thank you, Dr. Hammami. I just wanted to underscore because I've received so many letters and conversations with constituents about homelessness in general but one in particular stood out to me which was from Laura Cooper and she wrote the last line of her email to me was this is literally a matter of life and death providing shelter and I just wanted to underscore that with this report and thank you for the work of this team that does this assessment and it's important information for us to have.

Thank

you. Supervisor Lavendier?

Thank you, thank you for highlighting those supervisor caps. I thought the most shocking statistic in that was that the average age of death for a homeless person was 54 years old.

So

the

distribution in the last two years shifted and became mostly between the ages of 40 and under 60. Yeah

unreal so yeah we got a lot of work to do

thank you And then I pulled a 23, this item as the final steps of the acquisition. Well go ahead and read it.

Chair Williams and members of the Board, Administrative Item number 23 is from the General Services Department. It's to consider recommendations regarding the donation of approximately 77 acres of land in an unincorporated area of the County of Santa Barbara. APN 059-020-059, 041-042, 039 and 058, an acquisition of approximately 24 acres of land in an unincorporated area of the County of Santa Barbara.

APN 059, 020, 040, 049, 050, 051, and 052. And this is in the first district.

I only highlighted this because it is along with a theme of the fiscal priorities that we've had the last couple years We participated in this acquisition and it's also relevant to our discussion of housing because the, it is important to have recreation space for housing. And Santa Barbara continues to lead in per capita acreage of parkland to individuals thanks to some of the investments like this.

So let's go to public comment on this item.

Chair Williams and members of the board, we do have two requests to speak on A23. We are going to begin with Ken Owen to be followed by Mark Shatillo.

Good morning Chair Williams and the Board of Supervisors.

Supervisor Nelson.

Yes, thank you Chair Williams. I admittedly was ignorant to what was going on with this. I had to do my research yesterday and try to figure out the story behind how we got into this law at the state level. And at first glance, I'm always supportive of more transparency and communication to the public. The one thing that does give me pause though when I look at this is the example that I think it's called the Clean Campaigns movement here in California is that a lot of the listed supporters and opposers, it becomes very partisan in some ways. You know there are these what you might call Republican groups or Democrat groups.

And I think one of the reasons why we work so well is we kind of move. We're post-partisan on this, this board and when I see partisanship being pushed more into ballot measures and you know elected officials or whatnot. I don't think we should have R's or D's next to our names that's one things I love about local government it's really our name that means something And so that's where I have some hesitation. I would love to have some additional debate on this and so I'm happy if we want to move this to our greater discussion on trying to do better governance up here, but that's where my heartburn comes from.

is I think it potentially becomes more of a team sport sometimes with this instead of actually the merits of the legislation that's being voted upon. And that's what I want to get away from on this board, and I want to get towards just better governance. And sometimes that does mean the voters have to be a little bit more educated on their selves. They can't be lazy and they have to go and do the research that's going to be in the ballot book So that they can kind of pull those things down and not necessarily take the, I would say maybe potentially easy out by just looking at who opposes this and who supports this and see if that's an organization they like or not. And I think that's also potentially to be manipulated as well. A lot of people come up with really interesting sounding organizations So those are the kind of concerns I think we should think through before we jump both feet in.

Let's move this forward right now as proposed by staff or to have a further discussion in June on it.

I pulled this item because I do think that this is a question on transparency versus practical effect on the ballot. And I think this would be a good idea as long as the state legislature is willing to discipline itself in terms of how many ballot measures it qualifies. Right now there's 26 ACAs, SCAs and bonds that they proposed some legislators have done more than one.

I do have some worry that the ballot will be so long and that this will make it even longer. But, I do have to have some faith in our legislators to call that number. I've heard the rumor that leadership wants to get down under 12 or 10 which would be good. It could be better but that would be good And I would say that we should err on the side of transparency. I would be prepared to vote to reverse this recommendation and opt in, if we are disclosing it would be an opt-in today but out of respect for Supervisor Nelson, I'm happy to put this on a later agenda if that's

better.

Supervisor Katz?

Oh, if you wanted to speak first Supervisor,

I'll wait to be called

on. Maybe you can answer this actually because from my understanding, I really appreciate what Supervisor Nelson is indicating and the fact that our Constitution makes these positions nonpartisan is extremely important. That being said not all ballot measures are and I think we don't have control over what's on the ballot absolutely but this law as I understand it includes rules to avoid political parties being listed, as well as quote-unquote newly created sham organizations from being listed. So maybe that would address your concerns we can learn more about it I'm all for understanding what we're doing up here but I agree with the spirit of your point absolutely but I do believe that the laws its written intends to address that.

Supervisor

Nelson? Well I was just gonna respond that that would be helpful for me to understand that again I was looking at this fresh yesterday It's my prep on this item and so more time would be helpful for me, but because I want to know what the details are on that. But that's I think it's important for us to understand.

Supervisor 11 yeah thank you Mr Chair. So personally, I think there's a lot of reform that could be done on the ballot one of those is not having 26. I mean we're trying to get more people to vote and now we're making the ballot longer yes And generally when people come and ask me, do you support this measure or that measure? I tell them hey read it. If you think you could agree with it vote against it on the state ballot because they write them backwards basically almost right so you read it and you think that sounds good but it's totally against what you... It's just and you don't know if your voting yes means no and no means yes and I'm somebody that does this for a living so it's super complicated doesn't need to be and there's a lot of reform that should go on in this area Yeah, I'm ambivalent one way or the other about whether to list the supporters and opponents.

Whatever you guys want to do it. I just like to drive more people to polls and I think this probably goes against it and it costs us more money

so. Well, I would propose especially since we haven't many much other business that we cut this short and just put this on a future agenda since we still have Michael, how much time?

The next primary is March 5th but I believe it needs to be done well before that. Yes. So ideally in the next couple of months would be helpful for us and

plan. We will not leave you hanging. Okay thank you.

Supervisor Hartman? So I would move that we put this as a D item on our June 27th agenda.

All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed? Thank you. A 16. Thank you.

Chair Williams and members of the Board, Administrative Item Number 16 is from the County Executive Office. It is to approve budget revision request numbers 8847 and 8873 which require a majority vote And budget revision request numbers 4846, 8820, 8834, 8835, 8837, 8852 and 8872 that require a four-fifths vote.

Yes, thank you. Supervisor Nelson? Yes, thank you Chair Williams. I pulled this item. You know one of the most boring parts of our agenda is looking at the budget revisions and seeing if those are things that can be supported or not and for those of us that this is a profession we get to dive into these and it's important that these aren't just rubber stamps and so I had some questions about one of the expenditures that just seemed a little bit excessive and so Mr. Leckerquist is here from General Services if you could come up. I'd like to get explanation on BJE 8873, it's the budget revision request for signage, interior signage in this building.

So would you go into what that expense is? How much and what it's for?

Absolutely. Supervisor Nelson through the chair. So the project's the removal of the non-compliant signs throughout the administration building. These are non ADA compliant. So it's patching painting damaged walls from all the sign removal on all five floors Fabrication, installation of new ADA compliance signs that also contain county seal. There's about 150 of them as well as general overhead and administration of the contract.

I believe part of the question yesterday had to do with the signed contractor itself so that was a competitively bid contract and then we have them now on retainer as our signed contractor. Does that answer the question?

So part of this is paid for the repair of the take a sign off it pulls a little the drywall off but we actually just had two floors that we'd completely redone so that wasn't, we weren't doing that. So there's only half the building that the signs needed to be replaced all right?

Well we still have about 150 though throughout the

building. Well, I think it's something that's common in government is that things are just more expensive. And I think that sometimes our contractors get a little lazy with that and charge us more for things because we usually don't question it. I think 150 signs for $150,000 is excessive. And I do think that we should be pushing back on our vendors when we have something like that. I don't think that the taxpayers want us to be spending our money in that way. We're gonna go out to potentially some ballot measures as a county asking people for more money But the first thing I think the voters are going to ask us is how we spend the money that we already give them. And so this is my frustration, as I think sometimes we just you know in the interest of expediency that will accept some these bids that are totally outlandish and totally unresponsive and that nobody would do in their own household.

I mean Kirk you and I would never spend $1,000 on a sign this small. These are just like less than one foot by one foot signs in our own household. And I just don't think that that is a good use of our taxpayer dollars and that were stewards And so it may just be symbolic, but I'm going to vote against this budget revision today. And it's also just a word out there for other departments that are contracting for services and supplies that you need to get your pencil out and really make sure you think about those dollars as if they were your own.

when you approve these expenditures, so I would like to make a I'm going to vote no on that specific budget revision. If it's helpful and expediency we can go ahead and take them all at once but that is where I was landing on this one today.

Well, I definitely appreciate your looking at the details and I don't think fiscal vigilance should be symbolic so let's Ask whether it's too late to push back on this item or not. I think there are whether you think there would be some

I Actually saw it. I walked in the building. I actually think all those signs are up for most of them already so, I don't know if this is a We're just proving something that we've already done or not. It seems like it is

So where it's it's too late to do much about it as am I I

Supervisors to the chair, I think what it's not that we spent money and are asking for the board. This is a transfer of money so it's transferred the appropriation from a project to a different project and that's why it's before your board We understand what you're saying supervisor Nelson. I think it's a fair comment. I you know anything that we do is most of we do competitively bid so that looks at the marketplace.

We can put the word out to our vendors that we're taking a closer look just for the public's awareness, you know, the signage if you look at it there's braille, it's metal. It's not just a paper sign that were hanging on the doors this is required by law and so it's trying to do the whole building in that respect which we haven't and so it since you are ADA compliant but we understand your perspective on Supervisor Hartman.

So in deference to supervisor Nelson who'd like a separate vote I would move that we approve the transfer Is

there a second? I will second, but I will also say I think it's good to Council push back sometimes in certain bidding environments and occasionally putting Some blood on the floor about matters like this shows contractors that were paying attention. So I would also join Supervisor Nelson in encouraging that. Supervisor

Labanino? No, I was just getting ready to vote. I'm assuming well question so this is this let's just go okay

I don't want to keep going we got a long day All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed? No.

I'd like to abstain. Okay. Thank

you. A22.

Supervisors, I'm sorry but because so the way we do the budget revisions some of them are required three-fifths and some call require four-fifths. And Mr. Clementi this one just required three votes? It would be three-fifths vote to approve. The other ones that are listed, they are requiring a four-fifths vote so there's several budget revisions.

So an abstention would halt the other requests that there is not any disagreement?

I believe the motion was just on that one item. And so you, I would recommend another motion for the remainder of the items and then this might be resolved.

So then can we get a motion on the balance of the revision requests in A-16? I'll make a motion to approve the balance of the A- 16. Second. All those in favor please say aye. Aye. Opposed? Okay we're going to have to keep on going a little faster. A22.

Chair Williams, I was the one that pulled this one. I'm okay with going ahead and just making this part of the general motion at the end instead of pulling it separately?

We already did the general motion so is there a motion on A22? So moved.

Second.

All those in favor?

Aye.

Opposed? Okay A22 is passed. A38 was pulled by the public

Chair Williams and members of the board, administrative item number 38 is from the Public Works Department. It is to consider recommendations regarding the Public Works Director's report on emergency response actions from impacts of flooding and storms in continuation of emergency actions, and there is a four-fifths vote required on this item, and we are going to Zoom with Sharon Byrne. Sharon?

Thank you. I don't want to hold you up on this, I just wanted to express my gratitude to Public Works for the incredible response post the 1-9 storm. Thank you.

And that concludes public comment on this item.

Can I get a motion on 838?

Move approval.

Second.

Second.

All those in favor please say aye. Aye. Opposed? Thank you.

Chair Williams and members of the board, administrative item number 41 is from the Sheriff Coroner's Office. It is to consider recommendations regarding a third amendment to the contract law enforcement services agreements between the County of Santa Barbara and the cities of Buelton, Carpinteria, Goleta, and Solvang.

Mr. Nelson?

Yes, thank you Chair Williams. Under Sheriff Bonner is here. The question that I think a lot of people have is if we don't renew this contract will there still be law enforcement services in these contract cities while an agreement is still being worked out?

Supervisor Nelson through the chair, that is correct. We are required to provide a certain level of service irrespective of the contracts. We simply would not have a mechanism to be compensated for providing that certain level of service.

Correct. So minimal service you might see in other places in the county that exist now?