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.0:00 – 0:0528 turns
Oh I see it now, okay. Good morning i'd like to call to order this March 12th 2024.
Here Supervisor Nelson
here
Supervisor Williams
here
Supervisor Capps here and Chair Lavinino
All right,
next item of business.
Seconded
by Supervisor Nelson, seconded by Supervisor Hartman. All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Passes unanimously.
Next item of business is our county CEO's report.
There's no report this morning Chair.
No report. Madam Clerk are there any announcements or changes to our agenda today?
Members of the board, I
do have a few. Thank you very much.
Next item of business is administrative agenda with any board.
Supervisor Capps?
Yes, Item A5 please.
A5. Supervisor Nelson, A5 is there any members of the public that wish to pull any items?
Chair Lavinino and members of the board we have requests from the public to So
I'll entertain a motion to approve the balancing administrative I think we have a one okay from the public. We also have a one so I'll now entertain a motion to put the balance of the administrative agenda except for a one and eight five. So moved
second.
Okay, we have a motion and a second all those in favor aye any opposed. Okay so we have next up are the items to be presented, the resolutions. We do have public comment on A1 so I'm assuming that's just somebody that wants to speak to that issue. So why don't we go ahead and read item A1 into the record?
Chair Lavinino and members of the board, administrative item number one is sponsored by Supervisor Nelson. It is to adopt a resolution of commendation honoring William A. Hero upon his retirement from the Public Works Department after over 24 years of faithful and distinguished service
To join him.
He keeps trying to bring more people up there.
And I'll go ahead and read the resolution. Whereas William Bill Herro began employment with the Santa Barbara County Public Works Department in the Transportation Division as a maintenance worker one in February 2000, and was promoted to a maintenance worker two shortly after in April 2001. And whereas Bill transferred to Laguna County Sanitation District in October 2004, and continued as a maintenance worker two He transformed the collection system maintenance program, thereby reducing and eliminating sewer system overflows and complying with the State Water Resources Control Board statewide waste discharge requirements general order for sanitary sewer systems. And whereas Bill was promoted to Maintenance Leader in July 2017 and continued to provide exceptional leadership and dedication Building up and training both collection, system and operator staff at the treatment plant.
And whereas Bill's exemplary 20 plus years as a board member at SEIU Local 620 where he served as both president and vice-president showcase his deep commitment to representing frontline employees with pride and dedication. His integral role in the bargaining team on multiple occasions demonstrates his advocacy for the well-being and improvement of conditions for all members of the union. And whereas Bill is respected by his staff, county leadership, local agency partners, community members and all whom he comes in contact with, his 24 years of commitment knowledge mentoring and experience as well as his welcoming humor will be greatly missed.
Now therefore be it hereby ordered and resolved that the board of
the Santa Barbara
0:06 – 0:106 turns
Hold on, your mic's not on. There you go.
Members this certainly is a special day as you heard we get to celebrate Bill Harrell just an absolute special
Chair Labagnino and other members of the board of directors
of Laguna County.
Wow, that's lots of words. Yeah. Getting all teary eyed. Thank you. That's all I could say.
Thank you and thank you for the opportunity.
0:12 – 0:167 turns
Thank you.
And we will now go to our speaker Darryl Sheck.
But wait, there's more. Good morning Chair Lavin.
Awesome. Well Bill, isn't it cool that you came full circle? Your retirement's back in this building so yeah right on. Congratulations!
Chair Lavinino and members of the board. Administrative item number two is
And I will go ahead and read the resolution. Whereas Trent Benedetti was appointed to serve as a trustee of the Santa Barbara County Employees Retirement System in 2017, where he was responsible for oversight of the system's four And whereas Trent has been a long term contributor to county boards and commissions including serving on the assessment appeals board.
Thank you, I really appreciate the opportunity.
0:17 – 0:216 turns
Yeah, that was by the way it was Supervisor Hartman and myself that were on the ad hoc subcommittee. All right, that takes us to item number three.
Chair Lavinino and members of the board. Matt Scrodato
and Bill Buelow And if you can please join us at the podium. And if I missed anyone, please have them join you as well. Now we'll go ahead and read to the resolution whereas without water life animal plant or human could not exist and whereas water is a scarce and valuable resource especially in the American West where low precipitation levels result Punctuated by extreme weather, events are expected to make rainfall more difficult to capture.
All the world's surface water and rivers and lakes and whereas in Santa Barbara County groundwater makes
I serve on the eastern management area, but also for the central and western.
Thank you, Chair Lavanino and members of the board. My name
is Bill Bulow.
0:22 – 0:298 turns
Just real quickly, thank you Mr. Chair and members of the board
for recognizing groundwater
Okay, we're now gonna take up administrative items that have been pulled in numerical order. Madam Clerk can you please read administrative item number five into the record?
I pulled this because it's a it's a sign of tangible commitment to workforce housing that the county owns on land. The county owns a ball that got started by Supervisor Williams for this study and then Supervisor Hartman and I worked on with the housing element
We will begin on Zoom with Jonathan Abood to be followed by Jay Freeman. Jonathan?
Hello, my name is Jonathan Abood I'm here speaking today as the General Manager of the Isla Vista Community Services District and thank you for hearing us today and what I would like to say is that we do appreciate what this study is working to do. The need for workforce housing in the county. One of the sites listed on here though, on number eight is the Isla Vista Community Center and we believe as the IBCSE we've been operating that facility as a vibrant public facility, the only public facility for community space in Isla Vista. We had 1400 events in 2023 alone And so we feel that it shouldn't be on this list at this time, because it has such a unique role to the Isla Vista community that we don't have in any other facility in Isla Vista.
Thank you.
We will now go to Jay Freeman and then we will go to Santa Maria for Carrie Topliff.
Thank you. Hello, this is Jay Freeman I'm on the board of the Isla Vista Community Service District though while I've discussed this as part of a subcommittee at IVCSD I'm technically here only representing myself as I was not directed to be here My simple goal is to call your attention that on the list of county-owned properties attached to the agenda that are to be studied for potential use as workforce housing, there's an entry number eight which I believe was added to the list in mistake. That entry consists of two parcels APN 075063017 and 075063016 as 976 Embarcadero Del Mar.
These properties are listed as being used for churches, parking lots 1.67 total acres which likely explains why they are on the short list as the staff report mentioned the list was narrowed down to places that have enough space for creative uses or located next to existing copious amounts of parking. What I want to bring to your attention is that while the assessor's database still lists 075-063-017 as being used for church's convent rectory, that parcel has received substantial investment as the Isla Vista Community Center including the existence of our government funding and staff. And 075-063-016 is even more interesting. That too good to be true 1.11 acre parcel that is mostly empty except for two parking lots isn't actually owned by the county, that is a park in Isla Vista called Perfect Park and it's actually owned by our local Isla Vista Recreation and Park District.
The convenient parking lots then next to and even attached to the county-owned lot are actually in that park, and there have been occasional discussions of removing them. They are in fact right now not generally available to the community center. You need to get permission from the Park District to access them even for temporary parking access. Despite how I have on occasion back a decade ago accidentally called them the Isla Vista Recreation and Parking District they are in fact not in the business of providing us parking.
Combined with how much of the parcel the county does own is currently open space attached to that park, I feel like there might have been a mistake including these properties and i'm glad um yeah and i'm hoping that uh that can be rectified. Thank you so much.
0:29 – 0:3310 turns
And we will now go to our final speaker here in Santa Maria, Kerry Topliff. Kerry?
Good
morning Chair Lovey, Board of Supervisors.
Okay Mike was not on
So could we ask the housing people about why that particular site is on the list and what would be involved in taking it off?
And members of the board, Jesus Armas, Community Services Director.
Supervisors, I think what Mr. Armas is saying is correct. My recommendation that you're not approving this list of housing sites. This is going to be studied and I think
Supervisor Nielsen?
Yes, thank you Chair Lavanino. I had polled this item as well because I had some concerns about some of the sites 14 through
19
0:34 – 0:3915 turns
I just wanted to say I'm persuaded by our CEO, but a community center in Isla Vista is essential.
Correct. Supervisor Katz? I just
want to double down on that fact too in terms of the community center.
I think we'll have a lot of discussions about that in the future. Absolutely,
absolutely. Okay. Go ahead. Good morning Chair and Board of Supervisors. I just wanted to point out also that just for the public understanding for this study
Yes, thank you. So I again just wanted to acknowledge Supervisor Williams role in getting this study initially launched and funded
Yes, thank you chair Lavigno. I just wanted to say that I think some of this work that's gonna be done in this study I was on the fence about
spending And
if we can get some workforce housing off the ground, even on sites that were not identified in the housing element. It will probably come in the nick of time
Can I get a motion on A5 please?
So moved. Second.
Roll-call vote Passed Moved by Bob Nelson · Seconded by Williams A1
Show transcript
I'll make a motion on A- 1.
Second. Moved by Supervisor Nelson, seconded by Supervisor Williams to approve item A- one. All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Passes unanimously. Thank you for that. Now it's the time for members of the public speak on items that are not on the agenda today. Madam Clerk are there any requests to speak from general public?
Chair Lavinino and members of the board, yes we have five
requests to speak.
0:39 – 0:446 turns
Good morning Chair Lavinino and Supervisors. Chuck Williams, Old Town Worker here today representing New California State. We the people of the great New
California State know
We will now go to Leanne Willever, to be followed by Sherry Foster. Leanne?
Good morning my name is Leanne Willever.
We will now go to Sherry Foster and please note for the record there was an ADA request from this speaker.
Good morning Chairman Lavanino on Board of Supervisors, I'm Sherry
0:45 – 0:504 turns
We are here to all. For us to be followed by
Karen Hauenstein who's our final speaker, George.
If the question of democracy
still exists in this country it
0:52 – 0:568 turns
We will now go to our final speaker Karen Hauenstein. Karen?
Good morning it's
hard for me to follow that speech because it was very And that concludes
general public comment for today.
All right, so that finishes up public comment. That takes us to department item number one. Madam Clerk can you please read it into the
district attorney's office? It is a hearing to consider recommendations regarding an extra help services and retirement waiver for the district attorney's office.
Thank
you. All right.
0:58 – 1:0215 turns
Number two, so is there
a way we can it's fine. You gave great argument for two. Can we read to into the record and then we'll vote on two and then we'll go back to one.
Chair Levin you know members of the board yes departmental item number two is from the district attorney's office. It is a hearing to consider recommendations regarding an extra help services in retirement waiver
As mentioned in two. So are we okay? Rachel County Council, we move forward with that. Okay. Supervisor Nelson.
Yes. Thank you, Chair Labadino. Thank you District Attorney Sabinac for being here. I usually start with these on a position of no and then I try to work my way into a yes. And so with
The chair, it is specifically to work on these two cases.
I was just going to say that I'll be happy to make a motion if it's agreeable. Let's do it. Oh, is there any
public comment on the matter?
Chair Lavagnino and members of the board we have no request to speak from the public.
Roll-call vote Moved by Williams
Show transcript
Second.
Second by Supervisor Hartman. That's recommended actions A B and C. All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Passes unanimously. Okay so now let's go to Board Item Number One And. It's already been read into the record is ever not.
Thank you and thank you for your flexibility
I did not anticipate
enough there. Go ahead.
Thank you, Chair Labadino and DA Stavridas. Will she be the lead in this process or is she just kind of a subject matter?
1:05 – 1:1015 turns
Yeah, I'll make a motion to approve A1
or D1.
Okay,
I'll second.
Supervisor Capps with second. Is there any public comment?
Chair Leveny no members of the board we have no request to speak on departmental item number one.
All those in favor aye. Aye. Any opposed? Passes unanimously thank you for being here. Thank You supervisor Nelson for the questions and that takes us to departmental item number three Madam Clerk
Chair Lavanino and members of the
board. Director Armas. Thank you, Chair Lavanino and members of the board. Last week I had the privilege of attending a meeting of the Commission for Women to meet its outstanding members
Thank you and thank you for attending our meeting. Chair Lavanino. She is
a small business owner,
Thank you so much for this recognition. It goes without saying that I'm just like one piece of a giant puzzle that makes up a community, but it feels very honored to represent Carpinteria in
Okay, next I have our second district awardee. I think she's on Zoom? Yeah
she's a student so she's on Zoom.
While we pull that up I do just want to give a shout out to my
1:10 – 1:168 turns
And if we can please have our broadcast team put up, is it Kevya? Kavya, excuse me. Thank you.
Great. Thank you, Kavya for being here. So she's not only a student, she's a high school student and so I'm so excited to present this award, the service award to Kavya Surech on behalf of- She has worked on behalf of mental health, ethnic studies, criminal justice reform, women's rights and other social justice issues in her short so far life And she's the second
ever student.
I'll just chime in. I want to thank my commissioners for women for choosing Cavia she is a powerhouse, she's an example to all women young and old for all that she does. I served with her on that
school
Thank you all so much. Can you hear me okay? Okay, I just want to say thank you so much for honoring me and for honoring the work of young folks. I'm sure y'all know that we're carrying it forward and it's just so important to recognize the impacts that are being made by young people. And I just wanna take this time to really thank Supervisor Capps for being such an inspiring role model for me, for being the woman that I aspire to be. You truly are somebody who makes this world such an incredible place to live in as a young person, as somebody who's going to inherit this planet. Your passion your dedication inspire me daily and I know that with leaders like you we're going to make so much progress and i'm going to be able to step right in and Keep the work going so I wanted to thank you so much and I just wanted to take this time to appreciate all the women out there who are working, who are toiling who are laboring with and without recognition.
The work truly does not get done without us and without our efforts and so A generational tale of the effort and the dedication, the commitment that women have to their communities. To be nurturers, to be caretakers and so I am just so appreciative for all the incredible women in my life. And if I can just give one message it's don't forget to take care of yourself too. You can't hope to grow a garden without watering your own plants first. So thank you all so much for this honor and I really hope to continue spreading love and being a positive energy for everyone around me. Thank you.
Okay, thank you.
Good morning, Chair and Supervisors. My name is Angie Swanson Curiaco and I proudly serve on the Santa Barbara County Commission for Women. I am delighted that we are honoring Ms. Yasmin Dawson with the 2024 Service Award. As many of you already know, Ms. Yasmin is a dynamic compassionate activist and leader in Lompoc. She's the president and co-founder of C4 Lompoc Collective Cultures Creating Change which is a coalition that's dedicated to creating systemic change in the community that addresses challenges and inequities and raises awareness surrounding marginalized populations In addition to her work with C4, Ms. Yasmine volunteers for several nonprofit organizations in our community such as Savvy Health and the North County Rape Crisis Center.
She is committed to creating a more just and equitable world for all through her visioning, strategic planning, and advocacy. Thank you Ms. Yasmin for all that you have done, that you will continue to do for the City of Lompoc, the 3rd District and beyond. We are so grateful for your vision work and leadership thank you.
1:16 – 1:196 turns
And I just want to say that Ms. Yasmin is a force of nature she's a
Well, good morning Distinguished
Good morning Board of Supervisors. I'm Suzanne Levy, 4th
District.
I just want to take the opportunity to recognize, first of all, Suzanne
Levy. They're right, I like to be in the background.
1:22 – 1:2816 turns
Well, we're not stopping now.
I just wanted to say just real quick a few years ago I was able to be here
and
talk about all the nominees and those that are awarded in. I spoke about the golden thread
So we all know with volunteers, well generally with most people there's two kinds of people. People that talk about doing things
First Okay, oh my
god. I didn't even know I think I got my experience because
I was
Madam Clerk, do we have any public comment on this item?
Chair Lavanino, members of the board. We have no request to speak on departmental item number three.
All right excellent well can we get a motion to move items A and B please?
I move items A and B. And I'll second
That seems fitting. Supervisor Caps and Supervisor Hartman, all those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Passes unanimously. Thank you. Congratulations to all of our very deserving winners. And with that we'll take a 15 minute break and we'll be back. All right, let's
reconvene this
meeting.
Members of the board, departmental item number four is from the Planning and Development Department. It is a hearing to consider recommendations regarding the Keysight H development agreement case number 23 ORD4
1:29 – 1:3912 turns
I'll make a motion
to accept that document into the record. Okay,
I'll second. All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Excellent okay so let's um did you read item four into the record hmm okay I missed that can we call for ex parte Supervisor Nelson let's start with you
yes before I go into expertise so it a development agreement isn't a typical quasi-judicial Hearing site. I don't have extensive detailed expertise, but I will generally say that I had multiple
community meetings
None for me.
I believe all my ex party were disclosed at the previous application and previous hearing, I have not had any since that time that I'm aware
of. Okay and none for me except public emails. So we will now go to our staff presentation
Good morning, Chair Lavagnino and members of the board. My name is Elise Dale. I'm an assistant director for the Planning and Development Department. The item before you today is the execution of a development agreement
Thank you, Miss Dale. Hello Chair Lavanino and members of the board. Shannon Reese here and I'll be
presenting
for some context here. The Planning Commission recommended 5-0 on January 10th that the board approve this agreement. Keysight H is located at the eastern end of Foster Road and this site is surrounded by St. Joseph's High School, the Knollwood Terrace Condos, the Knollwood Meadows Apartments, Highway 101 and the Edgewood Single Family Dwellings. It's currently developed with a single family dwelling in a school as Supervisor Nelson referenced And this slide shows the zoning in the immediate area. The subject parcel is zoned residentially for eight units per acre with residential zoning for 12.3 units per acre to the west and north, 4.6 units per acre to the south where the single family homes are.
And because this development specifies 100% affordable project, it's eligible for a 80% state density bonus. And the applicant has also requested that the board through this development agreement grant an additional 37 unit density bonus from the county. And that is allowed by the Land Use and Development Code you can grant in excess of what the state requires.
So this provides some background on the history of the site. In the early 80s, the county approved a single family dwelling and 100 student school on the site. In 2005, the size of the site increased through lot line adjustment and the abandonment of a frontage road by the county. And the county secured a trail easement on the eastern portion of the site adjacent to the 101.
And then more recently, applicant applied for a 100% affordable housing project pursuant to Senate Bill 35 for a 61 unit project and that was approved. The DA before the board now is a result of negotiations between the applicant team and planning and development for an alternative project with improved neighborhood compatibility. And as Supervisor Nelson referenced, it's a somewhat unconventional case type. It's essentially a contract that's entered into by the developer and the county to establish land uses and other negotiated terms for future development on the site.
So to just briefly go through what is included in this agreement, it sets the maximum number of units It specifies that along Foster Road, those two structures are only two stories instead of three. And instead of having one large building like in the 61 unit project you instead have four smaller structures. And there's a mandated setback from the homes along Hilltop Road to the west there.
The developer has agreed to construct and maintain an on-site trail segment within that existing easement. And there are some parking provisions included in the D. A as well so allows for some compact spaces and then along the frontage there where the two structures are located that they're having those residential There are also some specifications that an existing power pole in the rear of the site can remain as long as development doesn't encroach within 10 feet of it.
And if a noise study allows and complies with the housing, or sorry, the noise element provisions then a sound wall along the 101 would not need to be constructed. So these are some visuals for the proposed two- and three-story structures and the southern elevation is the view from Foster Road and then the view of the three stories from the 101. And then we also have some renderings of the site, these were docketed as well.
I mentioned the 61 unit that was previously approved already so this southern and eastern These are the southern and eastern project elevations for the future 99 unit development. And for comparison to the prior 61-unit project, for some context I'll just toggle between the two so you can see this is the view from Foster Road and then the view from the 101 of the two three story structures versus the L shaped structure that was approved as a 61-unit project.
As far as next steps go, if the DA is ultimately approved and adopted by the board, the developer won't develop the 61-unit project for so long as the county's in compliance with the agreement terms and processes the subsequent applications that are required accordingly. So those subsequent applications are a development plan that would go to the Planning Commission, as well as zoning clearance that would effectuate that development plan.
And then if the development agreement is denied by the board, then the applicant can apply for building permits for the approved 61 unit project and the 100 student school could continue to operate. So the DA sets forth terms and requirements for subsequent approval. And this staff report for the development agreement focuses on the provisions of the DA and how they're consistent with the applicable governing documents, whereas the development plan in the future will focus on the details of the project and their consistency with policy.
We prepared a notice of exemption that analyzes the 99 unit project as described. The project is subject to the development agreement and its provisions. As well as by the example project plans that are attached to that development agreement, and the project is exempt pursuant to sequel Guidelines section 15. 1994 the affordable housing exception exemption So based upon the development agreements consistency with all applicable regulations, policies and development standards. And the ability to make the required findings including CEQA findings.
The Planning Commission recommends that the board approve the introduction or first reading of Of the ordinance approving the key site age development agreement and set a hearing next week on March 19th for the second reading. I have the full set of recommendations here on this slide, and I should just note here on the record that The D A and other documents in the packet reference L U D C section 3532030A However, we recently amended the density bonus ordinance as you were all aware. And so we just need to revise the section that's referenced to remove the A but otherwise no issue.
And that completes my presentation. Staff's available for questions and we have the applicant team, Mr Ramos and Mr Broussard ready to present and available for questions. We also have Mr Robertson, Mr Smartt and Mr Sneddon from the Public Works Transportation Division here.
1:39 – 1:486 turns
If there are any questions from the members of the board or staff at this time? Okay.
Thank you. Good morning, good morning chair and members of the board. My name is Gene Broussard I'm with AMG & Associates and Shannon did a great job covering Next slide, please. Thank you. So just a little bit about AMG and Associates. We've been an affordable housing developer for over 25 plus years. We develop and own approximately 10,000 affordable housing units across the state of California exclusively I'd say 95% in California, a few in a couple other states like Alaska and Idaho.
We specialize a lot in tax credit developments, a lot of regulatory agreements with the state and have a lot of different fundings throughout the state. We specialize also in kind of community outreach. We have a proven asset management team that manages our professional third party property management firms and I think we'll get into that into the next slide please.
On this project, we have a partner called the Pacific Companies. The Pacific Companies is based out of Idaho and they have a large portfolio of affordable housing projects as well in the state of California. We collectively together Our focused 95% of what we do is still in the affordable housing space and they're consistently ranked. Together, us and Pacific companies are ranked usually in the top 10 in the United States for affordable housing developers and in the Western United States as you can see in the next slide please.
In the top five consistently over the past ten years. Next slide please. As I was mentioning earlier, we have a team of asset managers that manages professional third party management companies. A lot of affordable housing developers have their own in-house management teams. We hire third party management companies that specialize in affordable housing. They know the rules, they know the income restrictions, they know how to govern these properties because they are specific. There's a lot of regulations that go into The state and local funding sources as well as the state and local regulatory agreements.
This project will have two on-site managers, and we retain ownership in all of our projects. We're not going to develop and sell. We retain, and we stay involved in the project. I've been involved in the project since day one, and I plan to continue to be involved in the project throughout the life of it. Next slide please. Here's the kind of an overview site plan you can see I don't think we showed this earlier, but this.
Kind of shows how the previous project was done and I think staff's concerns about how it laid out how it was really loaded towards the front of Foster road. Yeah, that 3 story product there 61 units really kind of facing merits is currently approved as Shannon mentioned And yeah, the frontage as you come up Foster Road is just a different feel from the proposed project and development agreement in front of you today. Next slide please.
The proposed site plan went through many iterations with staff communication with everyone to try and make an improved This is an improved project. We really spread out the density as you could see throughout the whole project instead of bringing it right towards the front of the project in front of the school. Unfortunately, the school will no longer be part of this project but it is spread out over the four acre sites. You have the four buildings again as Shannon mentioned, the two buildings in front along Foster as a requirement and development agreement are required to be Next slide please.
Here's some of the major design considerations, the setback instead of having the parking along the front you've got a nice two-story kind of product that looks you know fits into the character of the community much better than the previous project set back 23 feet from Foster. The current side yard setback from And I think one of the key things that we tried to do in the revised design is step back those, the three-story structures, the 80 feet as well as have all those trees line the perimeter of the west side and the freeway side. To really kind of screen the buildings kind of give a lot of relief from the existing communities that are there. So really just kind of trying to focus how do we improve this project for the community's working in tandem with staff?
Um, the surface lot was moved internally as you can see. So it doesn't feel you know previously we heard that it kind of felt like a almost like a drive up motel before you kind of just drive up like I'm Motel eight and kind of park and now is kind of everything's kind of hidden and it just has a very different feel of the project from the community. The neighborhood of foster and frontage as well.
Next slide please. You saw this on Shannon's presentation as well. These are the previously approved elevations. Next slide, please. Here are the proposed elevations. This is the before and after. This is the corner view of Foster on the bottom of the new project. On front, this is the previous project from Foster. The corner view is Foster and frontage. The approved project is from Foster.
The development agreements after the 61 unit project was approved, the county as you know introduced new objective design standards. So the new project will be subject to those design standards and have to comply with every one of those regulations. We increased the parking ratio to 1.3 stalls per units. We have fewer trips generated. We did a trip generation count with the traffic engineer, and we have fewer trips generated than the currently approved project. We've dispersed the density.
And then we've also been kind of studying internally and talking about... If you can go back to the site plan, Shannon please? Thanks. We're kind we've been looking at adding a tandem version of tandem stalls along that portion there were Shannon's running the mouse. And that would add a significant number of stalls. We're estimating approximately 30 stalls added to the project, could be added by adding a tandem stall and provide additional relief even moving those three-story buildings further east and have a further setback from the homes at the west on Hilltop That concludes my presentation. I'm here to answer any questions that you may have, and thank you very much to staff for working with us. We've been working on this for quite some time, so we thank you everyone.
Supervisor
Hartman?
Just a quick question. You're adding more units but reducing the trips. Could you explain that in more detail?
Yes, yeah great question. It's due to the there's two operating schools currently out of
1:48 – 1:516 turns
What will happen to the schools or the children?
Yeah, I think it's um. Thank you, Mr Bizarre for being here. Um I think it's probably good for my colleagues understand when you
Questions for you, thank you
very much. Madam Clerk are there any requests to speak from the public?
Chair Lavanino and members of the board yes we have five requests to speak from the public on this item and we are going to remain in Santa Maria and begin with Rosie Rojo to be followed by James Brenneman.
Good morning, esteemed
1:54 – 1:5914 turns
We will now go to James Brenneman, to be followed by Miko Nieman. James?
Did you enter in my... I gave you some maps to enter
into it? Yes, Chair Lavinino and members of the board that is a great question we did not need to vote that into the record because it was under a page.
Pardon me, what?
It was under a page so we didn't need to vote it into
the record. Can you enter it into the record and get them... I
will distribute it now yes okay
thank you
We'll hold your time for just a second. Then you're going to need to bump that microphone up just a tad. Rosie's just a little bit shorter than you are, yeah? It is a little bit. OK Mr. Brenneman why don't we start?
Thank you Chair Lagunino and the board
members for allowing. The stroller
and he's got these cars speeding down through there. Yeah, they don't have a and they don't have a crosswalk We need to do that with that crosswalk. We also need a light at Union Valley Parkway and Morning Ridge Road, and we'd also like some speed pumps on Bridgeport because it becomes a street way. Thank you. Sorry.
Thank you. Thank you. We will now go to Miko Nieman to be followed by Constance Van Belegen. Good morning. I'm Miko Nieman. I am a resident
at Knollwood Terrace, and we've had plenty of
2:01 – 2:048 turns
Go to Constance Van Belegen, to be followed by Lisa Thompson who is our final speaker. Constance?
Hello I'm Constance Van Belegen and I'm a resident at
We will now go to Lisa Thompson who is our final speaker on this item. Lisa?
Good morning board, thank you for letting us speak. My name is Lisa Thompson I live in Noelwood
All right, thank you. We'll allow the applicants a five minute rebuttal if there was anything you heard
during public comment.
Members of the board I would just like to note for the record that applicant had two minutes remaining on their presentation time so
Yeah, thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you for your comments. I just wanted to speak briefly to a few of the comments and kind of go through them.
2:08 – 2:1312 turns
Supervisor Nielsen has a question.
Yes, so you Mr. Broussard thank you for your clarification on those. You talked about that you guys did a survey of
the people that live there
Mr. Chair, Supervisor Nelson that is correct.
Okay and I just think that's really important. You're
fine Gene.
Do you have any comments of anything that you've heard that needs to be addressed before we begin deliberations?
Chair, members of the board.
Open it up for
board deliberations then. Supervisor Nelson kind of kicked it off but I know we're going to come back to him in a few minutes anybody else supervisor question for Supervisor Hartman
So just why was the design, the original clustered
concentrated
2:14 – 2:1916 turns
Questions, deliberations? Supervisor Caps.
I'm certainly encouraged by all the affordable units that will be happening.
Yeah, thank you. We reached out to the county's housing office. I forgot his last name off the top of my head. It starts with Bob.
Does your company have other affordable housing projects in our county?
No, not currently.
This would be the first one.
Supervisor Williams. Just a couple questions. One just simple one what's the acreage of this?
Supervisor Williams through the chair it's 4.15 acres and then the
Supervisor Williams through the chair.
Supervisor Williams, we would be willing to work with the county on that. Everything is just subject to fair housing law so we will do our absolute best to ensure that local residents either through the county's waiting list or local residents are preferred to live there first it just subject to fair housing law
Thank you. Supervisor Hartman.
Just to follow on, so would that be appropriate to write into the development agreement?
Supervisor Hartman through the chair I think that we could
Our concern initially is just to make sure that we don't put anything in the agreement that's not enforceable or potentially conflicts with the fair housing law, though the applicant has. Our
county housing
authority is violating fair housing law to be fair so number one
2:19 – 2:2812 turns
Supervisor Nielsen.
Yeah, well we're talking about the occupancy I think I'm hoping that the developers hearing us loud and clear
on this
So, you know this kind of is an SP 35 son of I guess SP 35 where we were going to get a 61 unit.
You know, Miller
Street is already impacted. There's nowhere for these folks to go traffic wise the
parking super limited. Thank you,
Chair Lavagnino.
And
when this first came to us on our office's
radar I have a little additional discussion. Yeah,
I still had some questions.
2:28 – 2:3310 turns
Yes that's correct. I believe that there was a technical memorandum that was done that was part of the staff report maybe Travis is going to Okay, I can read to you.
Fewer than the other proposed projects. Hopefully that made sense. And what's there currently? Stairs at the north and so it connects there. There's a actually People living in more concentrated
All right, I think we're ready for our motion. Supervisor
Nelson? Yep, I will restate my motion to approve staff recommendation to approval of the
development
Roll-call vote Moved by Bob Nelson · Seconded by Joan Hartmann
Show transcript
Chair Lavagnino, members of the board yes could we get approval of A through D to also set the hearing on that administrative agenda March 19th?
So amended. Great
thank you.
And the seconder accepts.
Okay all those in favor aye any opposed? Passes unanimously Thank you, staff. And for those who came to speak, thank you very much and thanks to the applicant. So we are a little bit ahead of schedule and I don't believe lunch is here yet so we're gonna go on if staff is ready, we're gonna go ahead and go to item five.
2:33 – 2:3810 turns
Chair Lavinino and members of the board, departmental item number five
is.
Good morning, Brittany.
Good morning, Chair Lavagnino and members of the board. Brittany Oderman, Deputy CEO, and today I have with me Carmela Beck, our Cannabis Program Manager, and she will be presenting this item. Thank you.
Good morning.
Hello. All right.
I'll be presenting the fiscal year 23-24 Q2 cannabis status report. And on that report we'll be talking about tax receipts, land use permitting business license activity enforcement and will close with a couple emerging issues so it's going to be quick And easy. We collected 2.3 million in cannabis gross tax receipts in Q2. Our annual total to date is $2.8 million.
As you're aware, our ordinance requires that all operators with active state licenses file their tax reports. Three out of the 60 operators did not file reports because they are not currently in operation. 13 out of the 60 operators reported zero gross tax receipts, and the remaining 44 operators reported and paid their taxes. Land use permitting continues, and the submitted permit acreage continues to exceed the acreage cap. There are currently three cannabis projects that are still on appeal.
In Q2, four cannabis land use entitlements were approved. One of which is the Haven Retail Storefront in Los Alamos. The remaining three retail storefronts located in Goleta Valley, Toro Canyon and Orcutt are all in various stages of the building permit process. And we currently have 60 county business licenses that are pending The Sheriff's Department reported five enforcement activities in Q2.
They reported 303 pounds of dried product that was confiscated at an estimated value of over $304,000. We wanted to bring to your attention four emerging issues, one of which is to consider development of a fee schedule for code violations to allow the ability to issue citations to address compliance issues. The second issue are the implications of Senate Bill 833 and the Department of Cannabis Control allowance for cannabis operators to fallow ground and pause their state licenses for drastically reduced fees.
The third item which is on today's agenda are the potential changes to the local cannabis taxation method. And lastly, the odor abatement plan implementation successes and challenges presentation will be provided to the board in April. So our recommended actions today are to receive an update on the fiscal year 23-24 cannabis status report, provide direction to staff regarding the county's cannabis program and to make a CEQA determination.
So that concludes our brief report. And Ms. Oterman and I are available for questions. Thank you.
Supervisor Williams? I didn't have a question. Okay. Supervisor Hartman?
The enforcement piece with the sheriff.
Thank you Supervisor Hartman through the chair. We we don't have details specific details but generally enforcement is of the illegal
2:39 – 2:4110 turns
Thank you, thanks for the report. As we'll note in the next item I'm
very still
In my short time here, according to the last presentation and this one yes I think it's been much easier and I think people have been very receptive.
I'm glad to hear that it's working so well and again
So it's not in effect yet and so I think that the start date was supposed to be March 1st. Thank
you, that's it.
Supervisor Nielsen?
Yes, thank you Chair Lavinino. I'm curious about the retail and the hold up on some of those locations they've been allocated
a
There there is language in Chapter 50 that requires that they continue to make progress toward getting
2:45 – 2:5017 turns
So piggyback, Bob kind of stole my thunder on the retail.
Just want to
reinforce your comments, I think it's important.
Okay, Madam Clerk public comment please.
Chair Lavanino members of the board we do have three requests to speak on this item
and if you are
And if we can see Santa Barbara on the screens here in Santa Maria and we can't hear Santa Barbara yet. Patrick has left. Ah thank you very much. We will now go to zoom for Jack Motter jack And Jack, we have unmuted you. I see you've unmuted yourself now.
Yeah, I was hoping to talk about the tax structure change that's the next item?
Yes, that is. That is departmental item number six. We can move your request to department item number six.
Yeah please do that. I plan to be there in person as well for that item. Thank you.
Okay great thank you very much and That concludes all requests for public.
A motion? Okay, we're moving items A through C. All those in favor? Aye. Anybody opposed? Passes unanimously thank you very much to staff presentation and that moves us to Closed session. County Council, can we please read the items for consideration today?
Thank you Mr. Chair and members of the board. The board is scheduled to meet in closed session on one item of anticipated
All right, I'd like to reconvene this meeting of the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors. County Council, can we report out from closed session please?
Thank you Mr. Chair and members of the board. The board met in closed session on one item of anticipated litigation, significant exposure to litigation and the board took no reportable action.
Okay thank you very much
that takes us to
2:50 – 3:149 turns
Chair Lavinino and members of the board. Departmental item number six is from the county executive office it is a hearing to consider recommendations regarding cannabis taxation options.
Thank you
afternoon
good afternoon chair Lavinino, members of the board. Brittany Oderman again with deputy CEO I'm here to present an item on cannabis So I'll just go through an outline of the presentation today. Going to start with some background where we are going to talk about the goals for the potential revision of the tax structure and these goals were highlighted back in the fall of 2023, and they are important because we need to look at what goals we have for our tax structure or for our program in general to really choose the right tax structure. So we'll go over those goals and then we look at the current tax structure, our historical tax revenues and then I discuss various options for a tax structure including an area tax structure where we tax by square footage potentially A volume structure where we would tax by product weight and then our current structure, which is the tax on gross sales receipts.
I'll also cover the schedule to develop in place a new tax ordinance on the ballot for 2024 for the general election in November. So last year, almost a year ago at our budget workshops the board directed staff to return with options for an alternate tax structure. And we've been looking at this then for nearly a year but we did Come back in the fall with some thoughts and ideas, and we asked for some direction again to talk about what were the goals of really looking at this tax structure and whether we wanted to revisit it. And at that time, the board stated goals of creating greater predictability in forecasting our revenues, and that's on our side for county staff as we budget year-to-year with these additional revenues.
Provide some more certainty to the operators as well so that they know what they're getting into. They know what they're expecting to pay and they can plan accordingly. Third would be increased transparency, and I think this was reiterated by many board members as a goal Really for all of our residents in Santa Barbara County so that we, so people could look at our tax structure and understand how it worked. And with some level of confidence be able to understand how much each operator's paying based on their operation. And then fourthly, to maximize the revenue without a significant increase to the current tax rates. And that had to do with as we're exploring other tax structures not creating a greater undue burden on our operators. So is there a way to translate our gross sales receipts to another option that wouldn't result in potentially a loss, a significant loss in our business businesses around the county?
So I just want to give you a little bit of background. I know you all have heard this before, but just to set the stage our current tax structure was approved by the voters in June of 2018 and it is a general tax on all cannabis operations and we use a gross receipts model for of cannabis activities and it's computed as follows. We tax um all six of those operations starting with nursery at one percent Distributor at 1%. Manufacturing at 3%. Cultivation, which is the crux of the issue we're discussing today, at 4% of grocery seeds. Retail at 6%, and then microbusiness at 6%.
So the county really benefits from times when the market is high. But we've experienced some compliance challenges with this model, and those do persist. And that has to do with several items. I would say one being the varied landscape of cannabis cultivation around our county, right? We have greenhouses and some indoor operations in the south part of our county and large outdoor operations in the north part of the county. They produce different types of products and they get processed in different locations And so that has been a challenge. The pricing varies widely because of that, and the gross receipts model does require that operators self-report their gross receipts, and we to date have had some challenges in verifying some of those reports.
We are in the process of auditing. I can talk about that a little bit later. But those are just some of the challenges that we've seen with our current structure. I do want to highlight some of our historical tax revenues, so in your board letter I talk mainly about just Santa Barbara's revenues but on this slide which is in your packet and is available to the public We looked at the top six counties that hold the most cultivation licenses in California and their revenues over the last five years. A couple of these counties have collected revenue since 17-18 for recreational cannabis, and I didn't include that because we weren't collecting in 18 or I'm sorry in 17- 18 yet So this is just for the last five years so through last fiscal year 22 23 And you can see The pattern is similar in every county, right?
We know that we saw the market go up significantly at the latter part of 19-20 into the beginning of 20-21 and then things started to taper off and then there was a pretty big crash in 21-22. And in 22-23 I'm hearing from the industry experts that things are starting to come up and leveling off. We don't anticipate that they're necessarily going to get back to those heyday years, but the market is stabilizing.
And so what this... So that's one thing to recognize. The other thing is of all these counties Santa Barbara is the second top grossing county In fiscal year 22 23. I wasn't able to get final verified numbers for Humboldt and Mendocino, but these numbers are from last fall. And so I don't anticipate that they've gone up to the point where they surpassed our revenues. So as of last year we were collecting, Santa Barbara County was collecting the most tax of any county in the state at six million.
Supervisor Nelson has a question.
Yeah, I apologize for interrupting in the middle of the presentation but I think it's important while we're on this slide. It seems like you know this is some interesting data but it really should be scaled on a per production. I mean we produce more than all them the rest of them combined right so you know that it would be nice to see this number in comparison to actual production within our county or do you have that?
Thank you, Supervisor Nelson. I was going to mention that it's true that of all of the counties we have the most state licenses and so we can assume right the most production for example, Sonoma County has one and a half acres of indoor and you know in the tens to 20 to 30 acres of outdoor as opposed to where we have 70 acres of indoor mixed light and around 300 acres of outdoor that are licensed at this date. So there is, that is true However, I would say that part of that I think and what I heard from these counties when I spoke to them. And you can see under each of the county's names I've listed either SF or GR. That's their model. So three of the top counties have square foot model. Three of them have gross receipts so it's split.
When I spoke to them, the counties that have square footage models and gross receipts in fact because of the way the market went saw quite a few operators disappear or leave the market. And in particular with the square footage model without adjustments they were many of those counties were concerned that they were going to lose their businesses altogether and so I would say yes, certainly we have a lot more acreage in cultivation.
And part of that is because I believe that with the gross receipts model you know we were able to maintain some of those businesses and they were able to grow at a scalable level and not lose everything because they had some kind of tax burden owed. So we can get you that data where we compare with the acreage. I don't have that here today, but I do have it back in my office and we can put that together and that is a good point thank you.
Well Brittany if we're gonna look at that yeah then I also want as part of that acreage how many illegal acres are in Mendocino Humboldt because while we have more acreage legal acreage and grow. I would assume some of these that don't have the enforcement piece that we have, have considerably more acres than we do. So I think that's the, that would be more of the entire picture but that is a really good point.
Thank you Chair Labanino. I can attempt to get some of that information as well. Good luck. Okay, so now moving into our options. So option one today that I wanna discuss is develop the tax structure for area by square foot. For the next three slides, I go into each of these options. I'm just hitting some of the really high level benefits or challenges and on each slide you'll see a table to the left and underneath the title. What I tried to do here was Objectively review the goals that we stated those four goals and give a Give staff's Take on the ability to obtain attain the goal And I discussed this in the board letter for each of the options. I just wanted a visual that would be fairly easy to understand The plus sign is We think that this certainly would benefit or move toward that goal in a positive way.
The plus minus is mostly it will, there are some drawbacks, there's benefits and challenges and then if there's a minus we don't think that particular goal is met with the option. So you can see here develop tax structure for area by square foot. This is the most common method of tax collection for cultivation in California, or it was when everybody was rolling out.
It's still you know as I showed you the top six counties three of them use gross receipts three of them use square foot. As some counties are continuing to come online It's again a mixed bag. There's just so many benefits and challenges to all of the options that I'm not sure that it's the most common method being sought after now, but it was at the time when everyone was getting into the game, it was the most common method.
It does set different rates based on the license type for cultivation. So for that is to say we have indoor and mixed light. And mixed light is the term they use for greenhouse outdoor and then many counties also tax for a nursery. It's typically adjusted annually using some kind of index. The best index that most of our, you know, that we're most familiar with is the Consumer Price Index or CPI and so there are counties that rely on that and they've used that or by board action or some kind of resolution to adjust those taxes in every pretty much in every case and I believe this is due to legal requirements The board takes action to, they can lower the tax or they can keep it where it is but they are not allowed to raise the tax beyond what's listed in the ordinance.
And so that in many cases there's a max and so they're looking at adjusting the tax unless then they have the index which they can use to automatically update So in this case, we need to define the taxable area. We have the state-licensed cultivation areas where each state license has an area attributed to it by square footage or up to an acre for some. There are some challenges with this.
You'll see in attachment A where I did some math and I can bring up the spreadsheet if we want to take a look at that here. We had to assume that they were using the full or we didn't have to, but we assumed that they were using the full acreage. That's allowed in that license and speaking with operators. That's rarely how this works just based on how the land is situated and their premise diagrams. They're often using less than what's permitted under a specific license, so that would need to be verified.
And then we also have a taxable area we could use where we could look at the county-permitted area and that's the acreage held in the acreage cap. The challenge with that is that covers way a lot more than just the cultivation area. So for taxing cultivation, we'd also be looking at areas Of storage and office space and pathways in between, you know sidewalks things like that.
But it is a permitted to the 10th of an acre precise area that we could look at. We'd also have to at least discuss and consider inactivity. We mentioned Senate Bill 833 in our prior presentation, this bill was passed in the last legislative session and the Department of Cannabis Control is working on how to implement it but what the bill said The DCC has to allow for operators to take a pause, and upon renewal they can choose to apply for inactivity on their state licenses.
And then they pay a reduced fee. And the benefit for an operator here is that going through the state licensing process Similar to our business license processes is a big process and it costs money. And so when you go to renewal, it's much simpler. And so if you can put a pause at a renewal and then you wait a year and then potentially the next year you pick up again.
You have that continuity, and you don't have to start over. And then also we'd have to consider crop loss due to weather or pests or some other incident out of the operator's control. So when we looked at square foot rate calculations, we took into account these two different taxable areas And in your staff report, we included a table just for the county permitted area. But then as an attachment I we showed both and so just want to bring that up here my sorry let me do it.
There we go. Thank you very much. I'm left handed and so I got a little messed up sorry about that. Okay so let's take a look at this. So these and I just, I want to stress here that this is an example and this is just a place to start given the goal of trying to maximize revenue without raising the tax rate what we did was with the help of the treasurer tax collector's office I took the total amount of tax collected in fiscal year 22-23 because Again when we looked at those revenues that went up and down, 22-23 we've heard okay things are the market's coming up a little bit. It's leveled off so we're going to look at 22- 23 and we looked at the total licensed acreage currently under our licensing system. So this is the acreage that's in their land use entitlement And then we converted that to square footage.
So I'm looking here at these these rows here eight and nine, I'm sorry eight and ten. Um and so we have the square footage here equivalent of what's licensed right now right now in in the greenhouse and indoor space and that's mostly in Carpinteria. We have one indoor operation two sorry two indoor operations in uh North County Is 128 approximately 128 acres and then an outdoor we have 652 so we converted that to square footage.
One acre is equal to 43,560 square feet and then. We divided the total revenue that was brought in, in 22-23 by the amount of square footage and each of those types of cultivation. So that got us a rate that was paid for each of the operations. I can't show you the detail of each of the operations. What I'm showing you here is an average. The average when we did that for greenhouse and indoor was 99 cents.
I took, and the range was we had operators paying anywhere from $2.54 a square foot to 15 cents a square foot. The trimmed average that's shown here is I just took out the highest and the lowest for indoor and greenhouse. We almost, I think out of 30 operators, I think 29 had data that was good to use. One I think was claiming zero And so the trimmed average took out that zero and then that 2 54 came out just so we could kind of level the playing field a little bit.
In the outdoor space, We had a greater number of operators that were claiming zero gross receipts and didn't grow. And so we took out all of those zeros and anything that was less than four cents a square foot, I think, We went from six cents per square foot on average to a 13 cents per square foot average. So again this is the licensed acreage that's approved and permitted in their land use entitlement, and it's held in the acreage cap. This is using just the fiscal year 22-23 data. And so I just wanted to give you a sense of what that would look like given where we are today with the current licensed acreage We multiply that out for the square footage at these rates, and I'm looking at the trimmed average rates. You get a total of about $5.3 million of revenue in the greenhouse indoor space and about 3.7 outdoor.
And that's a total of nine million dollars. Okay I when I spoke about taxable area, I also mentioned that we could use the state licensed areas. And so in this case our rates are going to go up a little bit because of the state licensed areas are smaller than what we have permitted in our county in our acreage cap and so I had to again estimate the cultivation areas, assuming that it's the maximum for each of their licenses held.
So we used the same process, the same math I took out for the trimmed average. We took out the highs and lows but you can see the ranges. Using this model, the range in the greenhouse indoor is $7.14 all the way down to 22 cents and then outdoor it's 81 cents down to zero. So again, we trimmed that and have a rate of $1.75 and 22 cents. And this then yields about $8.1 million, 2.8 in the outdoor and 5.2 1⁄2 in the greenhouse indoor space.
I'm going to pause there and see if there are any questions. I know that's a lot of numbers, math. But I wanted to explain it was a fairly simple method. It's purely an example to give you a sense of what kind of rates we're looking at, what kind of ranges there is. In most of the counties where there are square footage tacks, the difference between outdoor and greenhouse indoor rates are about 2 to 1 or 3 to 1. They're not this divergent. We're using existing data so that's where these rates are coming from and again I had to apply the same formula or methodology to both areas Whether that's how we should do this if we decide to continue in this way is up for you know conversation We can certainly look at that. That would be something we would look at in more detail
3:14 – 3:189 turns
and Brittany, would you say that's? More indicative of maybe North County not I Don't know what would you how how would you characterize that?
I would say so our our ordinance doesn't have
Problem
since day one of the kind of a loophole there, but I was under the impression that we're close to closing that.
the industry is showing.
Okay and
I have been in discussions with Treasurer Tech's Thank
you, Chair Lavigneau. So those are like wide ranges I mean they're pretty alarming right because why would somebody
I do think that is a little bit of an outlier. We do one thing that is not factored in here either is
3:20 – 3:247 turns
This too, I think another helpful piece if we.
In the board letter, attachment B has just four I believe jurisdictions.
Our competitors are at
30, 20 and 10. I mean not competitors but other counties per square foot. Yeah
one of the competitors yeah Monterey is still uh so Monterey.
Yeah i mean
i've been intrigued by this um Not necessarily as the greatest method of taxation, but as an accountable method.
3:25 – 3:325 turns
I'm just going to suggest something else that might make this even more complicated.
I was just kind of curious if we continue to evaluate this to maybe pull apart those that are not selling.
Well, that prompted a
question that I had. Thank you for referencing the treasurer tax collector and I know you don't work in that department but I am curious one of my goals is to reduce the amount of staff time that it takes to administer
Certainly I can talk a little bit about that. Of those payments, and so in order to so eventually into the future once we know if this is the direction we go. And everyone is sort of adjusted. It may become more predictable but initially I think there would be some challenges with The plus is certainty for operators. I mean, it would be we would you know we'd set out the rate. We'd say this is how and when you're going to pay it and this is exactly how much you're gonna paid send out a bill there's there isn't a lot of holes in that.
As far as transparency, the minus just indicates that we still would have to verify unless we go with the county permitted acreage which is you know just straight whatever's in their land use entitlement. We would have to verify the cultivation areas. We'd have to work with we'd have to look at the state licensure or we'd have to go out and do some field verification and so on that end there would be some additional work And then maximizing revenue without significant increase as we saw those ranges are so great. There are operators who would under, you know just using those examples there half the operators are going to pay more than they paid last year if we went with those rates and they stayed in their current model and half would pay less.
So it's a little bit of a mixture there. And then for staff time If we switch, if we need to switch to a new model there's going to be just some initial time to adjust to that. I've gotten indications from the Treasurer Tax Sector's office the square footage tax you know is they would depending on how we are going to calculate that you know you'd put that together you'd send out a bill.
The staff time and resources really are on the side of collecting the tax, and then what do you do when someone isn't paying the tax? And that process of going through. We've seen this with the operators that we put that deadline on that were legal non-conforming they didn't have their business license in the North County. We said hey you got to stop operating We have a couple that still owe taxes technically from when they were operating before and so we've gone through, I mean we're moving forward with putting liens on the property. There has to be an appeal process for all of this and so that can be very labor intensive and so if we want to pursue all of that, that's just you know that could be but that but i think without that just administering a square footage tax once you get it set up and sending out the bills I think would be fairly straightforward
3:32 – 3:442 turns
Who pays for that staff time?
Other staff are funded with fees, right? But in the treasurer tax sector's office that's revenue. Okay if there aren't any more questions on the square footage I'm gonna move on Is again to develop a tax structure by weight of cannabis product. So as I mentioned, this would set different rates based on the type of product versus the cultivation style. So in this case it would be at least in the example that we've seen flower leaves and then fresh cannabis plant flour being the highest value and the plant the fresh cannabis plant being the lowest This is a proportional tax structure so similar to gross receipts, operators would pay on product produced and transferred for sale.
And so you know when the market is high we would benefit from that again it could be adjusted annually using that see the consumer price index or by board action similar to the square footage. It does continue to rely on operator inputs and self-reporting there's an added We value that this data is input into the state's track and trace system called metric.
The operators are required to put that in there, but those inputs are self-input and they're not verified. And this is where our CCA, the CCA, the California Cannabis Authority platform that we utilize comes That data, when we look at it, they use standards throughout the industry and they flag when weights look low or high for that matter. But they flag that and so we've been looking at that.
And so even though they're not verified there is some checking. We do have some insight into that but again we're relying on data that's self-reported So under the goals, the predictability of revenues. I think this one would be just We have some data of historically what's been going on, but we haven't really been collecting that. I mean, that's not what we've really been looking at right? We've been looking at the gross receipts and we've been looking Product, I mean we certainly we've been considering it to come up with our pricing index indices but um i would say that that's at this point a minus for us. The certainty for operators you know the operators that are out there in tune with their operations they know what they're um you know yielding um we think that there could be some benefit for them they would they would know to some extent And it's a model that they're familiar with, that the state used in the past.
Increased transparency. Again because we have insights into that data I think there'd be some but to the average person you can't look at a field of cannabis and necessarily It's hard to tell how we would get there. And so really, this just reflects that is the least utilized. It's the for our staff too and we're looking at it, it's just the least well known.
We there's one county in California that's using this model they just rolled it out in the last couple years It's Trinity County. We've talked to them, they couldn't tell us how it's going. They're like it's too early to tell if it's really working. Their pricing structure we asked how they came up with their pricing. They said they sat down with their operators and they developed the pricing structure with their industry and I think that's probably a reflection of the fact that they tried to do a square foot model and it didn't pass on the ballot and that was probably because they have a strong operator Alliance that, you know, came out against it. And so we don't have any more information really. You know, we have their ordinance. We have their tax reporting sheet.
It looks there has some promise to it but as far as being able to assess whether it's going to meet our goals, you know, it was tricky. And then finally, I just want to go back to and revisit what our current tax method is which is the gross sales receipts. Similar to the weight tax it is proportional so it's linked to the revenue generated by the cultivator And so in that way, it's a progressive tax structure. It doesn't require rate adjustments to account for market fluctuations because it's just set at 4% of whatever you make and so if you make zero, that's zero.
I mentioned earlier on in my presentation that there are some compliance challenges and they do persist, but our first round of audit findings are expected this year. Again we're doing a lot of work around that and so we hope that we'll be able to address a lot of those issues. And related to that we have a substantial amount of data to inform pricing for the compliance reviews We've seen a lot of progress. Um over the last now five years that the program's been going, um and there's a potential to minimize any loss of operators or the attrition during market lulls on that just That's something I mentioned before about the predictability with the Square footage tax for example, or even though the weight That's reflected in the chart there as far as ability to attain the goals.
We think that there is going to be more predictability as we move forward, but it's still not the predictability. Um that we might see from something that's a straight square footage tax. We're going to have a little bit of a different model now in our county. They know what they know, um, what to expect. Although you know with this new pricing data we will be coming out and, um you know, challenging some of these that reporting. And so there's going to be a little bit of plus and minus there.
This is the one I think our current model at the biggest concern It's hard to look at a operation and know how much money, how much gross sales receipts they're producing. And so there's just really not a lot of transparency there. And then maximizing revenue without significant increase is a plus just given that it's our current model, it would just be sort of a wash there.
That concludes the overview of the three options. I just want to summarize that as we were looking into this and we were talking to different counties and different operations, and Supervisor Capps was kind enough to set up a meeting with someone at the Brookings Institute who studied cannabis taxes throughout the country What everyone was saying is the best way to really establish your tax structure and to review it is to consider your goals. And so that's really what this presentation was meant to do, is to look at the goals that were stated last fall.
The program has evolved. The goals may have changed and if that's the case then we should talk about that and staff can review What those new goals or if the goals are slightly changed might be and they may differ from what's important today, you know on March 12th 2024. Each option has its benefits and challenges And I think I outlined those and as I went through each of each of those slides, there are ways that we can benefit from some of these options when the market's good.
We're having challenges with compliance. It just it's a mixed bag. This fourth bullet kind of just reiterates that as we talk to other taxing jurisdictions, everyone's like there's no right way. We can tell you that there's lessons learned and so we've talked to a lot of jurisdictions I think whichever structure we use, we can certainly incorporate best practices from all these others and our own experience to move forward to ensure that we're meeting the goals of our program.
Real quick, I just want to run through potential November 2024 ballot measures. So these dates are estimated based on past years. I don't have final dates from the elections office but changing the tax structure does require a ballot measure that would go on potentially a general ballot in November 2024. Four-fifths vote required by your board to place an ordinance on the ballot Our current tax is a general tax that we use for general county purposes. And so if we continue that, that only needs a simple majority of Santa Barbara County unincorporated voters to approve for passage.
The difference being if we decided we wanted to dedicate cannabis taxes for special use, we would need two-thirds voters to pass that but in this case, general tax just a simple majority. So their tentative schedule would be to take your direction today and then on May 7th Really dial that in and approve the option and the details around the tax structure that we want to move forward with.
We would come back on that May 7th date by June 18th, we'd have a first reading of the actual language in the ordinance. We need to have a second reading of that language. It has to be final for that second reading on July 9th. And again, the four fifths vote would be required at that time. So our recommended actions today were to consider all of these options. Just take a really good look at them, provide any other direction to staff on those taxation methods such as the option that Supervisor Hartman brought up with a hybrid option. Provide us direction if we want to move forward to create something in the documents for the November 2024 general election and then of course the secret determination.
So that concludes my presentation. Obviously I'm here for questions. I think we do have...
3:44 – 3:4914 turns
Yes thank you Chair Labadino. Going back to the weight, gross weight.
And that's correct. We honor the process because at that point, the state. Is no
longer
they still track? That number. Correct. Is there any movement for them to stop tracking that in the future? Is there any governmental purpose for them to continue to track is that I want to understand that because if we did move to something that was verified through the state process it'd be really important for us to have some reliability on that measuring tool and so you know one of the things that i'm very attracted to this whole
entire process
That was the whole reason we went to this one, was because the state was going to give us the numbers for metric that was going to tell us what the grocery
I didn't do the grocery
seat part, but they did do the metric of the weight part right? Yeah. I've got other issues
with
weight
the whole entire time. Hold on. I'm sorry CEO. I want to finish with Bob. I started with Bob will go with Bob and then I'll let you come
in. So that is the one thing they've been consistent at was really tracking
the weight
Finish that off is.
3:49 – 3:5410 turns
What is it you're weighing? Because you're going to have it. You're taxing all different types at all different levels,
everybody's gonna Chair Lavinino and members of the board, we currently have
12. We are going to begin on Zoom with Jared Ficker to be followed by David Van Wingerden.
And we're closing the roll for public comment at this time.
Great thank you and if you are a member of the public and you have signed up to speak on departmental item number six please log in now to do so. We will now go to Jared.
Hi chair members and of the Board of Supervisors, can you hear me?
Yes we can please proceed.
Okay great thank you very much I'll just keep my comments brief Jared Ficker with Axiom Advisers working with both North and South County operators a very good presentation I appreciate all the hard work that was put into analyzing all these different options. I think generally As I've testified previously, I think the concept of moving to a square footage tax is very attractive in many ways. I think getting at the actual rate and how it applies to what square footage is super important and needs further discussion.
Generally, I think most of my clients are supportive of ongoing discussions related to square footage however we would Certainly emphasize that the importance of applying that to more. The cultivation square footage at that's licensed at the state, and that's fairly easy to calculate because you just simply take the license type and access square footage and you could use that amount. I don't think it would require any field verification because you just do with what's at the state licensing.
Anyway, I would encourage ongoing discussions. But I think if we were to move from a grocery seats that's the most viable option to kind of consider further with the caveat that I think we really need to continue to work together and try and understand what is the right rate. And certainly from our perspective apply it to the state licensed acreage only appreciate your comments and discourse on this and will certainly participate in any ongoing discussion thank you.
We will now go to David Van Wingerden to be followed by Amy Steinfeld. David? David, I see you're unmuted but we do not hear you. Perhaps you're having issues with your microphone. You are unmuted but we cannot hear you. We will return to David if you, oh there you are. Yes we can please proceed.
All right technical difficulties sorry about that good afternoon Chair Lavinino and Supervisors thank you for the opportunity today to be able to speak I am David Van Wingerden co-owner and operator of Farm Lane in Carpinteria Many of you know who we are, but for those who don't, we are a self-funded family farm that my parents started over 50 years ago. And now my wife Cindy and I are carrying on that family tradition.
Over the years, our farm has met and overcome many challenges. And today we are faced with yet another potential challenge tax reform. The newly proposed square footage structure would increase our costs by over $100,000 per year based on the numbers that are being proposed. This change comes in an extremely inopportune time while it seems the cannabis market is on the rebound. We still have a ways to go this kind of increase in operating costs will make an extreme impact on our business. The 4% structure works because Excuse me, the 4% structure works because it brings the county great tax revenue and the cost burden on our company trends with the market fluctuations allowing us to meet tax payment deadlines. A square foot tax would likely cripple our ability to make those payments in the winter when yields and revenue are at their lowest Please work with our industry and help our companies thrive so that as the market recovers, the operators and the county benefit from the increasing market trends.
For these reasons we feel it is premature to modify the tax structure. Thanks for your time.
3:54 – 4:0014 turns
We will now go to Amy Steinfeld to be followed by Chris Bellamy. Amy?
Yes can you hear me?
Yes we can please proceed
Good afternoon, Honorable Supervisors. My name is Amy Steinfeld and I'm a local land-use attorney who represents cultivators both in North and South County. My clients have invested millions of dollars in obtaining land use permits to cultivate cannabis And they've worked diligently for many years with county staff and numerous regulatory agencies to ensure compliant operations.
I'm here to ask the county to continue to push for tax compliance, such as auditing operators within the county reviewing the data that was referenced in the staff presentation instead of changing the local tax rules. We urge the county to maintain the existing tax structure, which cultivators have based their business models on. The industry needs certainty and if the tax structure is changed at the 11th hour it will adversely impact these already struggling businesses.
Now is not the time for the county to change taxation from a progressive system to a regressive system as that will eliminate the industry and all of the associated high income jobs in safe cannabis. We ask you to please maintain the existing 4% tax structure on gross receipts, which provides these businesses with certainty and allows cultivators to account for market fluctuations in the price of cannabis.
The gross receipts methodology is working and the county should see an increase in revenue later this year as prices recover. In contrast, we are concerned that a square footage tax does not account for price fluctuations and will unfairly punish cultivators, especially those who may only grow one crop per year and produce raw product for biomass. There is a reason why some counties have reduced their cannabis taxes or abandoned their square footage cannabis tax after losing many of their cannabis licensees. Let's not make the same mistake. Thank you for your time.
We will now go to Chris Bellamy to be followed by Mike Palmer. Chris? And Chris we have unmuted you on our end if you can please unmute on your end.
Hi this is actually Bryce Nictor speaking on behalf of Chris Bellamy.
I'm sorry can you please restate your name?
Yes, this is Bryce Nichter speaking on behalf of Chris Bellamy.
I can either put him down to the bottom of the line so what's the relationship?
We are business partners on his farm he just entered his name into comment and I'll be giving comments today. It's up to Rachel.
Call Don Schmumpzer Yeah, I'm sorry with public okay go ahead Rachel.
Mr Chair members of the board it sounds like he wants to speak on behalf just on behalf of himself so i think we just need the record to reflect that.
Okay
Go ahead. I'm speaking in opposition To the per square foot taxation. It is become imperative in the low prices that were existing, particularly in outdoor farming that the taxation should be elastic to this success of the farm. We're finding that we would have to farm multiple harvests in our outdoor farms to be able to keep up with that amount of taxation that would be placed on and that burden on top of us, which could propose a bigger nuisance to neighbors.
Right now we're trying to be good stewards so we'd like to continue doing so. Also, it does not allow us to keep our fields certain portions of our fields fallow at different times which encourages fertility and other farming practices. Growing outdoors right now the margins the majority of the product that comes out of that field Uh, goes into manufacturing supply. We do not we are not able to persist in the revenues or and the margins that greenhouse.
And other indoor growers are able to have that are able to exist. And for this reason, it really does not make sense for us to be taxed on a square foot basis because it is not linear to the amount of revenue that we're pulling in. I do want to make comment early on about self-reported weight and how it's not verified. It is in fact, verified as it would be putting our license out of compliance and the downstream license that is receiving that product.
It would also be putting their license at risk as well. And it is tracked and checked on both ends throughout the entire supply chain. And for this reason, we would like to just stay exactly how it is. Thank you so much. Have a great day.
4:00 – 4:0813 turns
We will now go to Mike Palmer and then we will go to Santa Barbara for Capone Curry. Mike?
Yes, Mike Palmer a grower down in Carpinteria and the greenhouses here. Hey to Labanino and board thanks for having us on. The I wanted to clarify one thing with the square footage numbers that are out of the range up in those like 250 whatever number per square foot, I believe. The reason being is cultivation licenses or sorry processing licenses are also considered cultivation licenses so we for example will transfer many acres of product to.
1 of our 2 processing licenses that hold a couple acres. And then those transactions happen from those licenses, so it multiplies the acreage calculation of the product going being sold out of those 2 licenses. So I believe that's why the square footage numbers are inflated with some of the operators because they. Consolidate there within. 1 or more licenses that also hold acreage, but it I think the math is considered. You know, that small amount of acres to be covering a larger amount of acreage so staff can can help clarify we actually give a.
Breakdown on ours and where it's coming from, but I'm not sure if that math was used. So the biggest point here, I guess is the self reporting issue. The outdoor operators they produce a quarter to the equivalent production that we do out of our greenhouses depending on how many crops they do and. What their style of growing is and unfortunately, carpentry is always paid.
Around 80 to 90% of the taxes in Santa Barbara County and it has less than a 5th of the licensed acreage. And I think at 1 time, it was over 10 times as much acreage in North County so. Although I do agree that we should research this more and figure out something that potentially makes sense. It is kind of unfair playing field for those that are self-reporting, basically self dealing to themselves out of the county if you sell all of your pounds to your license out of the county for a dollar and pay 4% tax on that then It creates an unfair playing field for the rest of the operators in town. So I do understand it's a complicated issue and some growers are just growing straight for biomass, fresh frozen and that's when they're done with it and that's what they sell it for but That should be sold for cost of goods at least to pay a tax on, otherwise you wouldn't continue to be in business.
But also on the note of finding a standardized index price for product that's virtually impossible because of the different grades that different seasonality supply and demand price compression all those different factors so.
Thank you Mike.
Yep thank you.
We will now go to Santa Barbara with Kapono Curry, to be followed by Patrick Forme. Kapono Curry? Hi
can you hear me?
Yes we can please proceed. Wonderful. Oh now we can't. Can you test it? Oh, now it's off. Keeps getting
hit.
Alrighty and you can also raise the podium
Sorry, technical review. Okay let's get to the action. Hi everybody my name is Kapono like many of the people you've spoken to today we work with cultivators North County South County throughout the state I'd like to thank all the staff very much for all the hard work they put together to identify how these changes would impact and how they stack up in regards to the status quo They have a really hard job. It's really hard to compare a pound of flour coming out of an oil field versus a pound of flour coming out of a greenhouse versus a pound of flour coming out of an indoor operation.
Looking over the staff report, one of the things that stood out to me is nearly a 5x increase in taxes per page 6 of the CEO's report. A lot of the farms that are up north, nearly a quarter of them are under 10 acres. They aren't the giant farms you're thinking of. And there's a couple of things to be considered that I don't think have been brought to light yet.
One of which being that a lot of the people up north have to ship their product wet, they don't have drying facilities or processing facilities on site and so that requires them to ship it out and we run head first into the issue of apportionment which is how much revenue is due to this county versus that county due to activities A thousand grams of wet whole plant cannabis becomes 237 grams of sellable material if you let them dry it and process it.
You're looking at way more than a 10x increase in what it's worth, and more than an 8x trip reduction. One of the other challenges that we've encountered quite a bit, working with our clients and working with the people at Treasure Tax Collector who work very hard is there's this tricky little thing in Chapter 50 where it's based on gross receipts or reported value from the operator. It's a real challenge considering there's no established commodities market such as the Chicago Mercantile Exchange where we can accurately say what A wet pound is worth what a dry pound is worth.
And the audit data they're going to get this year will help move them in that direction. One small thing you could do that would really help the staff at Treasurer Tax Collector, is instead of going with stated value we could look to the International Financial Reporting Standards Foundation. International Accounting Standard number 41, Agriculture where they talk about how you value a crop. It's defined in paragraph 10 and they also handle the issue of dealing with a crop where you are unable to measure fair value reliably In which they say, the presumption can only be rebutted on initial recognition for a biological asset for which quoted market prices are not available and alternative fair value measurements are determined to be clearly unreliable.
In such a case, the biological asset shall be measured at its cost less any accumulated depreciation and any accumulated impairment losses. Instead of putting something on the ballot creating a new burden for
staff.
Thank you very much for your time.
Thank you. We will now go to Patrick Formy, and then we will return to Santa Maria with Jack Motter. Patrick?
4:08 – 4:115 turns
I'll be down in a minute. Good morning, afternoon. Doss, we're old friends. Worked on the Ordinance Committee back in the day with Lynn Schneider and Marty Blum worked on ordinances back in the day. And of course Steve, we know each other. Long story short, I'm sort of here to talk about the elephant in the room, which is like basically you're in the pot business and basically you're Al Capone.
And these guys are running your numbers and basically that's just the way it is. Steve looked at these other counties as competitors, which is true, and that's the way to look at it. But it's not about grabbing their revenue. It's about being righteous. And Doss says rewarding the virtuous. Now let's talk about virtue and Graham Farrar and his partner. His partner is ex-Torrance cop On his Wikipedia, it's a vulture capitalist. Who on their Wikipedia leaves the word vulture there? This guy is proud of it.
Graham came, asked yourself why there are only two medical permits in town and not the third. The one that's supposed to be the medical one, the one with the nurses, the ones that gives away the herb at the end of the year to women, that one has gone. Why? Because Graham and his partner came in and fucked over everybody, screwed up Joe Allen I had to go then disbar Joe Allen, talk to the city attorney. I said look what's going on. Joe Allen with the guy in Milpas is getting $400,000 from people from Ojai putting it into Milpas accounts. Joe Allen siphons 50 grand. I got a call from Thomas at Raw Garden. Joe Allen is trying to sell my permit for 100 grand. So I call in Kyle excuse me I call in Graham and his scumbag attorney to meet with me at Cantaloua's and they're basically switched up my applications license Complete contract with the landlord.
and switch it up, try to play hammerhead. They already have a mission street dispensary for recreational and Graham is unhappy he has to go into the medical side and wipes me out that's why there are only two. And who are the two? A Lebanese guy that has a tobacco store, that's the one medical and some scumbag from Los Angeles comes up and rips people off and that's who is sitting there. I go in to play city attorney and ours gets wiped out We wipe out Joe Allen, but the guy on Milpas is still there and Graham is still there. And Graham is selling pot everywhere as you know. There's a big lawsuit going on because the metrics say that he's the biggest black marketeer around. Everybody, my brother, everybody gets calls to grab the weed. He's so brazen.
I can't believe he's still here. Partner? In what? Partners in what? Your revenue for the county. Shame. I know everybody. Caps, your father was a big mentor to me. Doss we've worked in the Ordinance Committee at their origin. I went to Locke here to get stuff for the Ordinance Committee and who is our opponent? Steve Wiley, the city attorney right so the virtuous thing to do you take those permits that belong to Graham and other guys that are playing this thing as a long spack money grab so they can go and take the yachts and you sit down there and waves will go up and down people got hurt little guys in Santa Maria and everywhere else well they need to get those permits back And your job is to correct it and to look at things because there's a federal suit coming down from the feds, and all this stuff is coming down on you.
Major lawsuits are coming in and you're looking like fools because you haven't addressed this issue.
Thank You Patrick that is your time
well I know and it's your time too to act thank you
guys we will now return to Santa Maria with Jack Motter to be followed by Micah Anderson.
My name.
4:13 – 4:187 turns
Good afternoon, my name is.
And we will now go to Todd meal who is our final speaker on this item
Todd.
The clothes are out of the
bullpen. Thank you chair Levin you know Board of Supervisors Brittany and team.
Public comment on this item.
All right, so let's bring it back to the board I almost feel like it's like it's almost like a hearing so I don't know I'm gonna just ask Brittany real quick is there anything that popped out to you that
4:18 – 4:217 turns
Thank You chair Lavinia I'm
okay I'm good nope supervisor Williams
Oh, I'm the adventurous one
here? Your microphone was on. You
self-reported. I self-reported
to you.
Yes what I was attracted to on the weight issue is that it was still elastic, right? It still was a percentage.
4:25 – 4:284 turns
Thank you, I'm in line with that approach.
Supervisor Hartman.
First of all, I guess I'm
Well, and that's one of the issues is putting something on.
4:37 – 4:489 turns
So board members, two years ago you asked us to look at this.
Thank you CEO Miyasato. Supervisor Nielsen.
Yes I have a question about the audits, thank you Chair Labadino. So once we do these audits we'll come up with
another number Supervisor Williams.
Well maybe we could ask staff
in May for a menu of I
mean it's, I feel like going on to more than three might be too complicated. So that's what was you know my suggestion for a direction. Supervisor Hartman
could you explain the second one again?
So right now in most of the state it's a two-to-one ratio between green mixed
4:49 – 4:5321 turns
Yeah, it would be so my the second I'm just saying that we
could
do a
square
foot option.
You have two options rather than three is my sense.
Great Supervisor Nelson?
Yeah, I'm concerned about tying
it to a 2-1 You might be right
there, too. So so I guess that's where I'm I don't want to get too if we go down some route they're too enslaved to just a that type
of ratio. Two to one, but seven to one or six to one is ridiculous. What if the product is six times more valuable? I don't know what indoor
I'm going to go back to the If you don't look at the value, then one of those two is getting a disproportionate share of their revenue impacted by the taxation. And so I think that's where we need to kind of dial in on to figure out that right ratio is based on that ultimate value. I don't know the number. I know if it's 2, 3
or 20. That's why I didn't put a number in what I suggested as direction. I just said more consistent with what we see around the rest of the state because I do think ultimately
Brittany
As part of the
conversation, we do bring back a square footage option. We definitely want to have it tied to CPI in some way.
Supervisor Caps?
Yeah I had a question clarifying question first on what what the deadline is in terms
Perhaps we would have to.
So the reason why I have a kind of a hesitancy to change, not because I'm married to the one that we created
is because when
4:55 – 4:5819 turns
This is open season.
Go
ahead.
I thought I heard Doss's proposal of
having some options What's different about what would they come back
with square footage wise this time that we don't have this?
Further refine the numbers. Okay, right. Well, we are or staff is?
Chair Lavan and you and Supervisor Nelson yeah I wanted to just
If I may. I think so
and there was a lot of
discussion using
I'm supportive
of use the state number personally. Yeah, I support it.
I want the state number just to keep numbers consistent
and it's also at some point you might have an entitlement but did only exercise these
state
Whoever wants to talk, go ahead.
It's
the three is indoor as I understand correct so it's really a two-to-one in other jurisdictions.
5:00 – 5:0516 turns
Supervisor Hartman.
Oh, I had a question about the square footage because
That's another one of those On the values to be able to give you more information on where I would think that they should land. Supervisor Hartman.
Well, I would just say that they grow so much less than we do.
Brittany.
Thank you supervisor.
Is there any consensus about
He didn't make
it. Can I ask just one question first which is the hybrid as
you envision it So as you, as
you
articulate that option just maybe. You're
talking about right? You're saying everybody pays this so that would be the primary.
The larger
amount of revenue because she's running. She's got to go, you know I gotta figure out a scenario where 2 thirds of this is coming from gross
risk
5:05 – 5:1029 turns
Yes, so I'm sorry. I asked Brittany
Can we just give direction that it would be to
study different variations of a hybrid model?
No on just square footage, flat out.
I'm a yes.
I am a yes. I
may yes as long as the ratio is closer.
I mean yes as long as it's fair.
Well then
I'ma yes too.
Chance we'll get there and a chance that we won't. Devils in the details. But that's why I think the hybrid is a good possibility as a fallback.
So don't give up on the square foot, we just got to argue what the but yeah what the
ratios are and so we're down
Bob. Chair Lavignino, thank you and I think at that point we do want to hear how the audits are going because I think that's helping to inform this conversation.
And it may be that the treasurer tax collector has recommendations that they can admit
All right, so is there a motion? I think you tried it.
We will receive
and file this report.
Thank you. And on the state licensed area, correct?
Yes, on the state license here. Thank you. Second.
I'll second.
OK, let's do a roll call.
Roll-call vote Passed 4–1
Show transcript
Motion passes four to one.
And it'll be really important for the treasurer to come next time
And I know it was said during the meeting, but somebody outside told me that still didn't get across. But I just want to make sure that it wasn't the treasurer tax collector's plan. He would love to be here. It wasn't... No, I take full responsibility when I was scheduling this. I apologize. Excellent. This is something he really wants to talk about so and we really want to hear from him all right with that we're going to take a 10 All right since when I always talk about when we're on time, we are now an hour and 20 minutes
behind. Members of the board departmental item number seven is from the
social
services
department it is a hearing to consider
5:11 – 5:186 turns
Good afternoon, Chair
Levinino and Supervisors. We are here today for our second update to your board on the Farmworker Resource Center program. Today we're going to be focusing primarily on the impacts we believe we've been having with the farmworkers
as well as looking
There you go. Hello, good afternoon Chair Lavanino and Supervisors. Thank you for the opportunity to provide this second update on our
project.
Information on the project an overview of the impact of the project thus far lastly we'll also share some of the lessons learned at a summary over funding and sustainability efforts As a reminder, the Farmworker Resource Center is funded primarily by state grant of $833,000 and the general fund contribution of 208,000. The grant began in July of 2023 and it's due to end May 15th 2024 however as a result for fiscal planning that project will actually be operational through June 30th of 2024 These subsequent slides provide some additional information in response to questions that came up during our first presentation in December. This particular slide provides an update on the impact of the project and the progress of our projects since we launched in July during the first seven months.
The figures at the bottom of this slide show the three levels of engagement we are currently tracking. On the bottom left hand corner is a number of farm workers engaged, The second level of engagement is the number of farm workers registered on our system. The current number is actually 5,240 as we received over 600 new registrations in the last few weeks.
The third figure is the number of services requested by farm workers. As of February, the team has provided over 3,400 services. These numbers double since our first presentation three months ago. This slide reflects the six domains and activities required by the grant. In addition to the top most frequently accessed services associated with each. Under emergency supported services requests for food, clothing, household goods and hygiene products were the most requested at the suggestion of employers we have been distributing containers for waters beanies and bandanas for protection against the cold and windy conditions gift cards for immediate food needs and lunch bags to maintain food temperature The second most popular request under this domain is assistance with scheduling services provided by the Mexican Consulate.
This work is important because bad actors are charging farm workers to schedule appointments. Education access and support includes requests for school supplies, English language education and computer and internet access emphasizing our efforts on providing services that enhance educational support for farm workers and their families. The domain of Health and Human Services includes requests for assistance navigating various applications processes for services such as CalFresh, Medi-Cal, and Cash Aid and assistance with other government and non-government programs.
The domain of Financial Assistance involves requests for storm flood cash assistance and tax preparation assistance and referrals. Overall, our team delivered 3,437 services. Each service we offer takes place after a lengthy interview with each farm worker in order to guarantee a successful referral. Having staff on our team that have over 35 plus years of combined experience in public assistance programs in addition to having someone that is trilingual has positioned us in a very unique situation to be able to help our farm workers.
At our December presentation, additional information was requested on the demographics of the farm workers registered. This slide provides details on preferred language, family size, age and gender of farm workers served by our project. For preferred language, Spanish is a language mostly spoken by our farm workers followed by Mixteco. Most workers responded having a family size of four to six members.
Ages 29 to 39 was the most frequent age group, followed by 18 to 28. Lastly, field mill clients represented over 60 percent of the farmworkers registered. An important thing to note is that the vast majority of mills registered were interested in gaining new skills in order to be able to promote within their companies. Our engagement with community partners has been instrumental in the success of the program.
This slide provides an update on community outreach events. During the first seven months of the project, we have participated in over 80 community outreach events including events in partnership with the Mexican Consulate and several community-based organizations. The team has several events planned for the next few months. During these events, we are connecting with our community and building those bridges that have allowed us to get our project up to a good start.
One of the things we are most proud of our partnership, our team has been able to establish with our employers. This slide contains the names and logos of various employers who are supporting our project. As of February, we have coordinated 16 special events with employers. These events take place at the employer's work sites and are customized to the needs of each employer and their workers.
By partnering with employers, we have been able to enhance our ability to reach more farm workers. We are able to bring services to the employer worksites reducing the need for workers to leave work early or miss work altogether. Additionally by partnering with us employers are able to show their workers their level of dedication to meeting the employees basic needs As an example of our strong partnership, on February 28th we coordinated a series of workshops with Bay Farms, a local employer where the Mexican Consulate provided financial workshops to over 190 of their workers.
Additionally, on February 29th we hosted our first Ag Employer Brainstorming Session where employers were able to share with our team recommendations for additional services such as better access to transportation for their farm workers, child care and more and better coordinated resources for employers amongst other things. Lastly, in the next few months we have several events planned including financial workshops, food drives, pesticide trainings. They're all taking place at various worksites throughout the county.
Some of the lessons learned. So we have learned our clients need a great deal of assistance to successfully navigate the services available to them in their community. This is primarily due to language and cultural differences. Even though all of our clients are farm workers, they have diverse set of needs and diverse challenges in accessing the services. Therefore individualized assessments and plans of actions are needed.
We have learned that in order to help our client has just obtained the assistance they need but to empower them with the skill necessary to do that on their own future we need to take the time to teach them how to seek and help and advocate for themselves. Lastly, we have been pleased to develop meaningful relationships with a large number of employers and their insights have improved the effectiveness of our program.
5:19 – 5:2514 turns
This slide shows some of the efforts we are currently making in order to fund the program at a sustainable level. We are pursuing competitive grants through the State of California Employment Development Department and the Governor's Office of Business and Economic Development. Staff are also exploring local community-based funding opportunities such as CENCALS Community Benefit Funding, and through partnerships with community partners.
Our community advisory work group is also supporting our efforts by sharing funding opportunities as they become available. So if you look at this chart, the number one item was a grant we pursued that we were not awarded. Everything else is still in play, the largest amount being number two which is a $2.5 million grant opportunity through EDD and we'll be knowing about that at the end of this month.
In addition to these items listed on this chart, we have two additional funding sources that we're currently exploring. One of them is a Department of Labor grant entitled the National Farmworker Jobs Programs Career Services and Training Grant and then also a state funding to provide assistance to the farmworkers in applying for and dealing with their covered California benefits.
We anticipate that we will have a clearer picture Of fiscal year 24-25 funding between mid April and early May. Our existing yearly operational budget is approximately $760,000 with service delivery that includes intensive case management, walk-in services, outreach events, employer events, workshops, remote office locations and a strong social media and online presence.
Our goal would be to find sufficient funding that would allow us to continue the project maintaining the same level of services. In the alternative, we believe that we could operate a smaller program and still have the capacity to apply for grants for $442,000 per year. This would require a reduction of staff assigned to the program and a significant reduction of services but that would hopefully be temporary As stated earlier in the presentation, we expect to know more by early May if we've been able to secure enough funding to keep the program operational at our current level of services for the coming fiscal year.
Additionally, something to consider is that if grants are awarded, the focus of the program could shift over time dependent upon the requirements of those funding sources. That concludes our presentation and we're happy to take questions.
Is there any public comment on this item?
Chair Lavagnino, members of the board we have no request to speak from
the public. Supervisor Nelson.
Yeah thank you Chair Lavagnino if we can go back to the slide where we were looking right there funding sustainability that one right there so it's a $320,000 reduction It looks like we reduced services by over half for that number. I mean, it seems like it's a big drop off. Can you walk me through? Is that one position? Is that two positions? What is the difference between these two scenarios?
Supervisor Nelson, through the chair, I'll start and then Luis can add on. Staff and I have determined that in order to keep the program operational at a minimal level and still have the capacity to apply for new funding sources, that we need to maintain two staff. So this would be a reduction of one staff. And then the reduction related to the different activities. Luis, do you want to address a little bit more of the specifics of capacity moving forward if we're at that lower level?
Right, our main component that we wanna keep, we wanna be able to keep on applying for grants. We're cautiously optimistic that with the nine different options that we showed that by the end of May, we're gonna have enough to be able to continue the service at the same level. Obviously in our community, we've created a good expectation with our farm workers and employers to be able to continue the services so that's our main goal. If that doesn't happen and we go with this contingency amount of 441 Then we still want to be able to maintain some services.
These are just examples of what we thought the services might look like, but our main thing is we want to be able to continue to go after additional funding opportunities.
I'm going to continue to kind of push back a little bit here. I mean one staff member goes from 90 community events down to 20. The last one staff member means we reduced all the financial and affordable connectivity programs. I mean that's pretty stark. I mean these are some of the really excellent things that were in there And I know all three of the members that are part of that team are really crucial.
I'm just concerned that's a significant drop off for just the loss of one staff member and I just want to understand that better, it's not a criticism, I'm just concerned with that and also my perception is You know all that you see there in fiscal year 23-24 was at the same time that we were building the program right so there was a lot of upfront costs and surveys and things like that, that we may not need to do. We've done a lot of the upfront work I was hoping to see something like fiscal 23- 24 at the price tag of 24-25 continuing on so i'm really concerned about that drop off can you again
Dive into that a little bit more for me. Supervisor Nelson, I will again lead off. These estimations of what would be sustainable in the coming year at that lower level with two staff were the estimations that the staff currently working in the project and Luis came up with so that was their perspective based upon their experience of what they're doing now compared to what they'd be able to do with two people. So Luis can you add anything to that?
Yeah, so that's correct.
Luis your mic is off. There you
go. Okay thank you. The 760 it does include some of those one-time costs including the mobile the mobile event so that is included Looking at the actual amount that we will look if we deduct that one-time cost is really looking at about $600,000. That's really the amount that we will need to be able to maintain the same level of services with three staff.
Okay good I'm trying to get you to sharpen your pencil here a little bit because I really do believe what the work guys are doing. Cesar and his team are all stars this program. I took a lot of heat early on because I supported it moving
forward
5:28 – 5:336 turns
This weekend I attended an Empty Bowls in the Santa Ynez Valley
and
Yeah,
thank you. I appreciate the support for this program on this board for all the right reasons of helping people
Supervisor Williams and I just want to thank you both.
Got mad at Bob about was they did not trust that the county would come in and actually try to improve the life of the farm worker. They thought it was gonna be
5:34 – 5:3610 turns
Congratulate our staff, they're doing a great job. Supervisor
Nelson and Director Nelson! Through the chair,
yes, Luis has had those conversations and continues to have those conversations with the growers as well as all of our partners in terms of you know
painting our picture for our future. Yeah I just
want to speak to that just real quick because i do think that that's an option that we should look to and if we're going to lose the program but I think one of the reasons why it's been able to really kind of thread the needle here is because it hasn't been seen as on one side or the other. It hasn't seen us
like a completely Speak from the public.
Okay, can I get a motion for items A and B?
I'll make a motion to staff recommendations A and B. Second.
All those in favor? Aye. Thank you very much. Passes unanimously thank you very much excellent job. We are adjourned
to Tuesday