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 – 0:0415 turns
All right, good morning everybody. Sorry about that. Technology is technology so we will do our best. Jacqueline's kinda running things old school flying the old way so we're gonna see how well we do but I'd like to call to order the June 4th 2024 meeting of the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors. Madam Clerk can we please get a roll call?
Roll call, called by Clerk of the Board
Show transcript
Next item of business is the approval of minutes from the May 14th meeting.
Move approval. I second.
Okay, that's been moved and seconded. The minutes? All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Passes unanimously.
Next item of business will be our CEO's report.
No report this morning.
No report this morning. Alright Madam Clerk are there any announcements or changes to our agenda today?
Chair Lavinino and members of the board, I do have a few announcements this morning. We posted an addendum to today's agenda on Friday May 31st amending departmental item number four. Departmental item number four is from the county executive office it is a hearing to consider recommendations regarding a proposed increase of transient occupancy tax TOT Recommendation B was amended to reflect a revision to the proposed date of the first reading of the ordinance from June 25th, 2024 to June 18th, This addendum has been posted online and made available to the board and the public.
And lastly, for the Board of Supervisors methods of public participation and to provide public comment on general public comment or an item on the board's agenda please see page 2 of the agenda. Individuals that would like to provide verbal public comment may do so via Zoom by registering in advance via the link available on page two. If you have any questions please contact the clerk at the board's office at area code 805 5 6 8 2 2 4 0 again that's 805-568-2240 and that concludes my announcements for today.
All right thank you very much that takes us to our administrative agenda would any board items members like to pull any items from the administrative agenda? Supervisor Nelson I have yours written down here supervisor Capps you have 47 and 50.
You bet.
And Supervisor Williams 27 28, Supervisor Hartman any okay and from the public I have A21 any other items
Yes, Chair Lavinino and members of the board. From the public we have A21, A27 previously polled, A43, A81 and A82. And just so I can note on the record for Supervisor Nelson which were those items?
Item A13, 19, 27 and 28.
And Mr. Chair, I'm not pulling 27.
OK, so the public is pulling 27 anyways. So am I. And Bob. OK. So we're still doing 27. All right. OK. So I'll now entertain a motion to approve the balance of administrative items except for 13, 19, 21, 27, 28, 43, 47, 50, 62, 63, 81 and 82. Hike? Yeah. So moved. Moved.
0:04 – 0:109 turns
Second.
Second, Supervisor Williams? I was going to pull 62 and 63 just want to highlight that these are part of the flood control master plan work happening. OK. I've got it pulled. Yep. You don't we don't need to pull it now that I just said that. OK
well hope today goes just like that. Let's OK so we're going to include 62 and 63 into the balance of the administrative agenda. So it's all those except for the items they called out Motion? Supervisor Hartman. Supervisor Kapp seconded. All those in favor, aye. Aye. Okay.
Chair, for supervisors the supervisor who pulled 828 is there a particular one so our staff can be ready on the budget revisions which number?
Yeah, Chair Lavino and CEO Miyasato it's a budget revision number 09686. It's Public Works and I've talked to Director Snedden to let him know I was gonna pull it.
Thank you
Okay, next item of business will be the resolutions to be presented. Madam Clerk can we please read administrative item number one into the record?
Chair Lavinino and members of the Board, Administrative Item Number 1 is sponsored by Supervisor Lavinino. It is to adopt a resolution of accommodation honoring Alicia Duran, Kristen Mahiran and Juan Valdez as the June 2024 Employees of the Month in Santa Barbara County. And joining us in person today we have Kristen Mahiran and Juan Valdez And unfortunately, Alicia Duran was unable to join us but we have a few other members from the sheriff's office and I will go ahead and read the resolution into the record.
Whereas custody deputies Alicia Duran, Kristin Maheran, and Juan Valdez exemplify the county's organizational values of accountability customer focus equity and inclusion Innovation, trust and ethics. And whereas custody deputies Alicia Duran, Kristen Mahiran and Juan Valdez model the transformative behaviors of collaborative problem-solving alignment with the county's vision risk taking data driven decision making and strategic thinking. And whereas in the Sheriff's Office unwavering commitment to enhance the mental health and wellness of inmate patients facing mental health challenges The Custody Operations Division in collaboration with WellPath Health Services embarked on the development of specialized mental health housing unit pilot programs at the Main Jail and Northern Branch Jail, designed to offer comprehensive services provided by mental health clinicians, program counselors and community resource volunteers.
And whereas Custody Deputies Alicia Duran, Kristen Mahurin and Juan Valdez have played integral roles working in close partnership with service providers. We're specially selected to lead these new specialty units on a daily basis due to their composed demeanor, constructive interactions with inmate patients, adept de-escalation skills, organizational prowess, sincere dedication to engagement and assistance and their ability to ensure the security of both custody staff and program participants.
And whereas Custody Deputies Alicia Duran, Kristen Maheran and Juan Valdez have been devoted to these specialty units since the July 3rd 2023 inception. And their unwavering commitment has played a pivotal role in the success we have achieved thus far in alignment with the goals of the county and the guiding principles of the Sheriff's Office. Now therefore be it hereby ordered and resolved that this Board of Supervisors recognizes Custody Deputies Alicia Duran, Kristin Meheran and Juan Valdez as the County Employees of the Month for June 2024. Passed and adopted.
Good afternoon, Chair Lavinino and Supervisors. Under Sheriff Craig Bonner on behalf of Sheriff Brown and we greatly thank you for this recognition of these incredibly valuable county employees. We nominated custody deputies Alicia Duran, Kristen Mahern and Juan Valdez as the County Employees of the Month because each of them has modeled transformative behaviors that are and will continue to be key to the success of both our county and the Sheriff's Office. As it relates to simultaneously maintaining the safety and security of our jail facilities while better utilizing the available resources to better serve individuals in our custody.
Sheriff Brown and our entire sheriff's office team are committed to enhancing the provision of health care within our jail facilities, including the provision of mental health services. Our custody leadership team in collaboration with WellPath, our healthcare provider and other county departments have worked together to create and launch specialized behavioral health housing unit pilot programs at both our main jail and northern branch jail facilities.
These BHUs were designed to offer comprehensive services of mental health clinicians, program counselors, and community volunteers but also required close coordination and collaboration with our custody deputies that are responsible for managing the day-to-day operation of the units. Over the past 11 months, custody deputies Duran, Mahern and Valdez worked in close partnership with service providers, inmates and other custody staff to ensure the success of the behavioral health units.
This has required a good amount of adaptability, flexibility and de-escalation to achieve that success along with a sincere commitment to this important program. Their work within this project was truly in alignment with the goals of the county and the guiding principles of the Sheriff's Office. And we are all very lucky and thankful for their hard work and dedication of Custody Deputies Alicia Duran, Krista Mahern, and Juan Valdez. Thank you.
0:11 – 0:154 turns
Can we get Administrative Item No. 2 right into the record, please?
Chair Lavanino and members of the Board, Administrative Item No.2 is sponsored by Supervisor Caps. It is to adopt a resolution proclaiming the month of June 2024 as LGBTQ Plus Pride Month in Santa Barbara County. And joining us in person today, we have Janice Trinidad Coates and Tyson Halseth. And if you can please come to the podium. And I will go ahead and read the resolution into the record.
Whereas, Santa Barbara County is home to a diverse and vibrant lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer plus LGBTQ plus community. Each June, the county of Santa Barbara honors the significant contributions, progress, and culture that LGBTQ plus community and their allies bring to enhance our region. that we all may celebrate in pride. And whereas Pride Month was catalyzed by the Stonewall uprising in New York City on June 28th through June 3rd, 1969 creating a movement for LGBTQ plus civil rights equality and inclusion. And whereas LGBTQ plus individuals have risen above the challenges of their existence and equal rights including the denial of the right to marry discrimination employment and housing the inadequate response to the AIDS epidemic The lack of protection from hate crimes and marginalization in media and society.
And whereas while LGBTQ plus Californians are now protected for many of these issues, challenges still remain especially for LGBTQ plus of all ages including LGBTQ plus elders, transgender and gender nonconforming community members and LGBTQ plus people of color. And the County of Santa Barbara stands against all forms of LGBTQ plus discrimination and hate The county of Santa Barbara wants all LGBTQ plus people to know that they are valued members of our community.
And whereas LGBTQ plus people have contributed greatly to Santa Barbara County, enhancing our communities culture and serving an influential roles in the government business arts and philanthropic I would like to begin by acknowledging the importance of LGBTQ plus community members. Santa Barbara Transgender Advocacy Network, PFLAG Santa Barbara, Pride and Joy Santa Barbara, Planned Parenthood of California Central Coast and the UCSB Resource Center for Sexual and Gender Diversity. And whereas in the month of June is a time for reflection celebration and renewed hope for LGBTQ plus people and everyone in our community The County of Santa Barbara takes this opportunity to provide awareness, support and advocacy for the LGBTQ plus community.
And is an additional opportunity to engage in dialogue to strengthen community build acceptance and advance equal rights. And now therefore be it hereby ordered a resolve that this Board of Supervisors declares the month of June 2024 to be LGBTQ plus pride month in Santa Barbara County. Not this board encourages all community members to commit to being good allies to members of our LGBTQ plus community. I'd like to thank the Santa Barbara
County Supervisors for this resolution. in support of our community's LGBTQ plus youth, adults and families. All of whom live love work learn and thrive by our side making our city county and region stronger more diverse and more prosperous. Recognizing Pride Month fosters a culture of inclusivity and acceptance and it signals to LGBTQ folks that they are valued supported and celebrated Helping create a safe and welcoming environment for everyone. So thank you again to our Board of Supervisors, to your support and happy Pride.
Yeah, thank you Chair Levin. You know I just wanted to thank Mr. Halstead and Ms. Coates for being here and this weekend Senator Tammy Baldwin was in town. I heard her speak and she's the first openly gay senator U.S. Senator in the history of United States and she just made the point about how much she stands on the shoulders of individual community actions like what we're doing today but more importantly what Tyson and Denise do every day of advocating and pushing and making safe spaces And supporting those who go on in their own lives to be comfortable but also become leaders who pass laws that help dispel so many of the challenges and myths. So thank you so much for your work, and it's an honor to I'm proud to kick off Pride Month. Thanks.
0:15 – 0:213 turns
All right. Let's go to Administrative Item No. 3 please.
Chair Lavinino, members of the Board, Administrative Item Number 3 is sponsored by Supervisor Caps. It is to adopt a resolution proclaiming June 1st 2024 as International Children's Day and honoring LEAP, Learn, Engage, Advocate, Partner in Santa Barbara County. And joining us here in person today we have Lori Lander Goodman, Kara Shoemaker and Juan Pimentel.
And I will go ahead and read the resolution. Whereas on June 1st, the world recognizes and celebrates International Children's Day as a global initiative for children's well-being and rights. And whereas International Children's Day is a day to make space for children and young people to raise their voices on issues that matter to them. And whereas International Children's Day is a commitment from the global community to create a better future for every child. And whereas since 1971, LEAP, Learn, Engage, Advocate, Partner has been a leader in advocating for children envisioning a community where children are loved valued and respected and families are supported to reach their highest potential.
And whereas LEAP cares for the whole child and their families providing early care and education, support for school-age children in carrying wraparound services for families to ensure everyone thrives and has a healthy future in Santa Barbara County. And whereas LEAP and the critical services they deliver to children and families has positive ripple effects on the entire community breaking cycles of poverty and equipping children and families with the tools to flourish Now, therefore be it hereby ordered and resolved that this Board of Supervisors acknowledges June 1st as International Children's Day and commends LEAP for their work to uplift children and their families throughout the Central Coast. Passed and adopted today.
Thank you Supervisor Caps and to all of the Board of Supervisors for this wonderful honor. I'm Lori Goodman, my pronouns are she her hers. I am here today with Kara Shoemaker and Juan Pimentel. And I wish each one of you could have been at our recent family fiesta. Picture this, 100 people. Babies and grandparents, toddlers and teenagers together at our Children's Center learning about Persian New Year.
As I was walking in one of our preschoolers called to me. Will you play with me she asked? How could I say no? I got down into our sandbox and we played zoo with a plastic lion and a plastic cow The child narrated the action. We're going to the zoo, the cow and lion are pushing each other. The lion can jump but the cow can't. It was adorable but it was also an opportunity for connection, for creativity and for joy all values we hold dear at LEAP.
LEAP mitigates the effects of poverty, racism and trauma by providing high quality trauma-informed child care, comprehensive culturally sensitive family support and visionary community leadership. Formerly Isla Vista Youth Projects, LEAP stands for Learn, Engage, Advocate, Partner. And even though we have a new name for one year now, we've been part of this community for more than 50 years nurturing child development, supporting our communities most vulnerable families and most importantly cultivating joy.
We are deeply connected to the people we serve and responsive to their needs. And this is why we started a diaper bank in 2021, the only one in the county and since then we've provided more than 200,000 diapers to County families. It's why we created attendance rights webinar in April with more than 100 people in attendance And it's why we began hosting bi-monthly family fiestas at our Children's Center so that we can engage with our extended families, not only the children in our Children's Center but their older siblings, their parents and grandparents.
Each month we learn about a different culture in our county and we celebrate that culture with stories and food. In every interaction with our students, our families and our community we seek to create a sense of belonging, of safety and of joy. And Pride Month is another example of that so I'm so honored to be here today Today we are here to celebrate International Children's Day.
At LEAP, every day is Children's Day. We center our work around children providing nurturing high quality care, strengthening families and building a resilient community so that every child can thrive. We are so excited to bring that sense of community belonging and joy to our new center in Lompoc which we hope will open this year. It will serve 52 more students, more than doubling the number of infant and toddler spaces in Lompoc.
So thank you again for recognizing LEAP's vital work on behalf of children and families.
0:21 – 0:2616 turns
All right, now we're gonna take up the administrative items pulled in numerical order. Madam Clerk can we please read item 13 into the record?
Chair Lavinino and members of the board, administrative item number 13 is from the Behavioral Wellness Department. It is to consider recommendations regarding the California Department of Health Care Services DHCS third amendment to the fiscal years 2021 through 2024 drug Medi-Cal organized delivery systems DMC ODS intergovernmental agreement number 21 10034 A03
Supervisor Nielsen.
I was checking throughout the weekend and this morning it still wasn't online so I thought we could continue that item to a future
meeting.
Supervisors, we apologize for that thank you Supervisor Nelson for pointing that out it was a very large administrative agenda so we will find out what happened and why it wasn't posted and so we would continue that item to next available date thank you. So
my motion would be to continue item A13 to next week's agenda. All those in favor.
Supervisors we have the budget hearings next week so we will look to see you next week or the following whatever is practical or we'll discuss with the department. I'll
give that discretion to staff thank you motion bring back at a future meeting
all those in favor aye any opposed passes unanimously okay takes us to item A19
Chair Lavinino and members of the Board, Administrative Item Number 19 is from the Community Services Department. It is to consider recommendations regarding a sub-recipient agreements for California Encampment Resolution Funds, CERF, to address vehicle encampments.
Supervisor Nielsen. Yes, thank you, Chair Lavender. I just thought this was too big of an item just to pass off with the agenda well over $7 million, almost $8 million of state funding, SIRF funding towards dealing with those that are homeless in vehicles. I had some questions for staff. I thought Joe might be able to answer some questions about how these funds will be used and what some of the next steps are. So I don't know if Mr. Armas wants to be there but I guess my first question is Now that we have this funding, how will it be different moving forward with these services to those that are living in vehicles?
Supervisor Nelson through the Chair. First of all thank you for the opportunity to highlight this grant as you indicated. It's a substantial sum of money approaching $8 million with roughly two-thirds directed toward the county and about a third through a partnership with the City of Santa Barbara. It's a significant effort. As you will recall, the Governor announced this in April and it's been a pretty quick turnaround to actually get a contract from the state in as rapid a period as we are here today.
So we have a number of things that we're going to be doing. First of all, it's important to recognize that some of our homeless individuals live in vehicles and the vehicles may be scattered, maybe located throughout different parts of the county. In January of 23 or so, a variety of staff people and others were involved in canvassing the county to identify potential encampments So that we could begin targeting if you will, let me apologize for that word. That's an incorrect word to select areas where we might lend assistance and we were able to identify and as one of the exhibits in your material indicates a variety of locations in our county We will be through the use of outreach workers reaching out to the residents in those vehicles, try to connect them with services and really develop a rapport so that we can ultimately place them in either interim or permanent support housing.
And so these funds
will be offering Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And I understand the grant there was already sites that were selected, not targeted. That we are aware of in our county but those spots were just flexible? There's other locations anywhere that's in a county right away within the cities?
We are per the contract with the state
0:26 – 0:3111 turns
Prioritizing these sites, but it doesn't preclude additional sites. Obviously as our staff and our consultant partner do some work out in the community they may identify additional locations and of course because they are RVs they're mobile and they may go from point A to point B so we will be able to address those locations as well
Thank you for that because looking at the map there was definitely some hot spots in the Santa Maria Valley that I saw were missing and so I wanted to make sure that there was flexibility there to approach some of those areas. With these funds is there anything that compels those that need these services to utilize them?
Well, compel is an interesting word because I'm not sure we can compel anyone to do anything if they're not Motivated to do something and we believe that by making sure that our Outreach workers are developing rapport with the residents and that we can provide meaningful alternatives for them That the residents will avail themselves of those options
And so now that these options would be in place, jurisdictions whether city or the county could then have ordinances in place that might prohibit potentially street camping as one of the positive outcomes from this.
A number of communities not necessarily in Santa Barbara County have pursued those kinds of options and one of the values that we will be pursuing here is monthly meetings of the team that's executing this contract to include Thank you, Mr. Chair. Supervisor Williams? I just want to point out that this is great news but in the past the challenge has not only been a lack of funds but
So we at the county provide one of those vehicular sites, a number of partners that provide vehicular sites. Part of the grant is to resolve vehicular encampments and safe parking is a vital part of resolving vehicular encampments and so you need to not only have money but you need to have It's a good place, good way to have a place after hours only. that has additional eyes on it. In fact, when the program was first started, it was thought of partially as a way for commercial property owners to have an extra eyes, extra security onsite but it's definitely a way to help resolve the homeless problem both here in town and countywide.
Supervisor Nelson?
Yes, I think Supervisor Williams brings up a really important point that I wasn't sure. So is there safe parking funds in here as well? Because I thought this was just housing outreach or is that these funds flexible enough to be used for safe parking sites?
Supervisor Nelson through the chair, so the funding itself actually allocates $3 million to rapid rehousing which is what you're referring to and that's a tremendous amount of money that will really help folks get into permanent residency through lease incentives for landlords, security deposits, utility deposits, movement those sorts of things. We call them flex funds or rapid rehousing. What you're asking about we do have $200,000 that we have to expand formal safe parking lots for operation in those areas that allow them to expand or exist.
And there's also $500,000 in this specifically to help individuals or families go into motels and we can hold them there you know help them stay there until we get them into permanent residency. Understood thank you for that.
Outstanding thank you. So we'll take a motion on that. Yeah, I
can be part of a bigger motion.
I think these are probably we had so many of them. I thought we just package them all together. Okay. How about 821 place?
0:31 – 0:3615 turns
Chair Lavagnino members of the board administrative item number 21 is from the Community Services Department it is to consider recommendations regarding an American Rescue Plan Act ARPA senior meal program funds update and approval of sub recipient agreements And we do have one request from the public on this item,
okay And who is it?
And we are going to Jennifer Heil on Zoom. Jennifer and Jennifer, we have unmuted you on our end if you can please unmute on your end to provide your comments Jennifer if you can hear us we have unmuted you on our end. If you can please unmute on your end to provide your comments. Chair Lavinino, members of the board perhaps we can trail this item to the end of the administrative agenda?
Let's move on to A27 then please.
Chair Lavinino and members of the board Administrative item number 27 is from the County Executive Office. It is to consider recommendations regarding an agreement for services of independent contractor with Indignant Conflict Defense Council for Santa Barbara County LLC for conflict indignant defense services. Oh, I'm sorry. I read the wrong one into the record.
So now you
have to read it
backwards.
My apologies. To get
it out, that's the only way.
I'll blame the technology. A27 is also from the County Executive Office. It is to consider recommendations regarding establishing a neutral position on property owner assessment ballots for a proposed community benefit improvement district located in downtown Santa Barbara and we do have three requests to speak on this item from the public We will begin here in person with Terry Penner to be followed by Kristen Miller.
Well, good morning Board and Chair. Thank you for the opportunity to speak. My name is Trey Pinner and I serve on the Steering Committee for the Downtown C-BID here for Santa Barbara downtown. And I also have the pleasure of serving as a President of the very first C-BID in the County of Santa Barbara that of Coast Village Road. We created that C-bid just almost two years ago A lot of work and a lot of great things have come from it.
And as a result, the city or the downtown area has elected to move forward with the opportunity to create a CBID, a Community Benefit Improvement District for the downtown area. The community has worked very hard to get to this opportunity and we're grateful that we're almost there. We will be before the City Council on June 25th. to hopefully reach a opportunity of enough votes to push us into moving to that district.
We always appreciate the county's involvement with the downtown, and as a result you are property owner in the district that we're involved with and we appreciate those collaborations that we would be having as part of property owners in downtown Santa Barbara. We note that the staff has recommended a neutral position and we appreciate that. But we hope there will be an opportunity here to move from a neutral position to a position of support for the county's role with the C-BID.
We think that would be very helpful in moving the project along and the advancement with the rest of the members, the other property owners in this community seeing the county also being a part of that. As you know, the city has been very supportive of us as well. I appreciate that as well too. So we just thank you for the opportunity to present to you today and ask you to move from a position of neutral to a position of support. Thank You.
Supervisor Hartman
Yes, I had a question. What might be the relationship between the activities of the bid if it's approved and the new navigation center for homeless? I think there may be some synergy there and this would be a bid that would be quite distinctive in that sense so we'd like you to talk about that.
Sure. You know the great opportunity about CBIDS is an opportunity to create collaboration and voice. An opportunity for property owners to get together. There really is no current avenue for that, it's a lot of ad hoc direction and now if you create a C-Board and you've created a board and the opportunity for like the new Navigation Center to dialogue and communicate in a more effective way on how things are happening together Things that the CBID might be doing, a big part of our budget is to deal with safety, cleanliness and operations of the downtown. The same thing the Navigation Center's trying to do so we would be working together with them.
0:36 – 0:4113 turns
All right thank you very much. That takes us to- We will- Oh there's two more speakers yeah.
Two additional speakers on this item that we will now go to Kristen Miller to be followed by Robin Elander.
Good morning Chair Lavanino and members of the Board of Supervisors. I'm Kristen Miller, President and CEO of the Santa Barbara South Coast Chamber of Commerce. Thank you for discussing this item today. This is the CBID, the Community Business Improvement District. This critical initiative is our self-help Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Santa Barbara downtown economy is vitally important. It's a part of the local economy and jobs on the South Coast, which is a critical part of the mission of the Chamber of Commerce.
The county support of this as Trey so eloquently explained to move from a neutral position to a support position does signal to the business community that we're working together in a public-private partnership to improve conditions in the downtown. Your support of this initiative as a downtown property owner ensures that, as he explained, all voices are heard, all stakeholders can have a say in the future of how we collaborate together. The CBIT is carefully crafted to align with local enabling ordinances providing a framework that is both adaptable and accountable With the initial term of five years alongside structured opportunities for reestablishment or disestablishment, the CBID remains responsive to the needs and priorities of our community allowing for continual reassessment and alignment.
The chamber asks that you vote yes and support the actions being taken by property owners committed to improving the downtown in Santa Barbara. Thank you.
Supervisor Caps?
I just had a question on the motion. So if we just go along with staff support for neutral, but then the CBIT is created, we still are responsible for the amount? Is that correct?
Supervisors to the Chair, that is correct.
Well then in that case, I don't know if our supervisor who represents the actual downtown wants to speak before me?
Do we have one more speaker? Yes. Oh,
I'm sorry.
Sorry about that.
Thanks. Chair Lavanito and members of the Board, our final request to speak is Robin Edelander. Robin?
County Board of Supervisors, my name is Robin Elander and I serve as the Executive Director for the Downtown Organization of Santa Barbara. Over the past several years, as mentioned a committed group of downtown property owners and business leaders has united with a shared vision for a vibrant and prosperous future for downtown Santa Barbara. The focus has been on developing this, what's in front of you, the Community Benefit Improvement District for the downtown area strategically designed to address the areas challenges and foster economic prosperity.
Today I come to you to consider a yes vote on the CBID ballot to help us move forward to implement needed supplemental services including safety, cleanliness, homeless services, beautification and maintenance vital for a vibrant downtown. The Seabed Management Plan and its budget are a result of careful consideration representing significant community effort over the last several years. This plan represents the property owners' experience and input who have come together to collectively invest in downtown's future through this project.
The proposed seabed improves significantly on what the existing business license-based bid I would like to begin by thanking the Board of Supervisors for their continued support Collectively pooled from all property owners in the district, the CBID will fund services beyond existing city provisions ensuring a cleaner and more welcoming environment for everyone.
The CBID will finally allow us to create a very high quality safe beautiful thriving space that our entire community can be proud of. This is a moment in time for our community that we should be proud of, the coming together of diverse stakeholders to help create the environment to support existing businesses and attract new businesses. The proposed CBID budget outlines specific allocations for different Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the board.
are above and beyond what the city currently provides, and do not serve as a replacement but instead a carefully curated non-duplicative service enhancement. These important district services also serve as a complement to the county's work to mitigate issues around homelessness. Thank you for your consideration and leadership.
And that concludes public comment on this item
0:42 – 0:4710 turns
I had a question about governance. If this is created, how would it be governed and would the county for example have an opportunity to be part of the board?
Can you ask your question one more time? I didn't quite hear the beginning.
Could you describe governance should the bid pass?
Absolutely. So a new board of directors will be created with also a number of committees to support its work, and so if this group, the county or the city or any property owner was interested in being on that, that could be up for consideration and so you could be part of the leadership absolutely.
Supervisor Williams
then Nelson. Well, I do think that the county as one of the larger property owners should step forward and have a representative on the board. You know, I wanna say that I think making downtown Santa Barbara work better, I think it already works pretty well but I think making it work better is important for the county. It is important for us also to be A partner to the city, and it's even more important to the city.
And so while I understand the recommendation of neutral, I am inclined to support the effort. All of the solution. I mean, I think it's been clear from the data that we've gotten over the years that one of them most important parts of the solution is more housing downtown And the work that the county and its partners, including the city's housing authority does on homelessness is a big part of that. But the things that the T-Bid proposes to pay for, I'm sorry, yeah, the C-Bid, I get those confused, proposes to pay for I'm inclined to support it. I do understand You know, concerns and I think it's kind of ironic that we have, you know, not Robin. Her work has been really important for the future but we have some members of the business community that are simultaneously saying that the business community needs to assess itself to deal with some of these problems downtown but that the county I would like The C-BID and the efforts to improve downtown, even though I think that's foolish because the efforts to do the C-BID ultimately will not look successful if the county is not continuing its work on homelessness.
When the state legislature proposing to eliminate the next round of HHAP all of that becomes much more difficult. But it does not, we should not hold it against the CBID effort and the need to improve downtown. I understand that the assessment is not budgeted as part of our proposed budget and that's a problem but I do think that we should ameliorate that and support it.
Supervisor Williams, I mean Supervisor Nelson.
Yes thank you Chair Labadino. I know when we recently had a discussion about parking and we talked about the probation building there was a mention that this might be an opportunity for us to work with the city to secure some parking. Did it get that further along at all? That it come to any type of fruition?
Supervisors through the chair if Mr. Lagerquist is here but I believe it's not because those are two separate entities this would be a CBID board on operating those funds and that would be an issue with the city itself
Yeah, I just thought we were going to try to connect those two in a conversation. And I had hoped that those would connect so that maybe with our support for this, that might help us solve some of those issues that we're going to have now that we're going to make our parking issues worse for our employees and the public by eliminating parking and adding more administrative buildings.
This, my understanding is 66% supposed to improve public spaces. You know mostly what the county has in downtown is public spaces so I mean obviously the courthouse is a big part of the public presence as well as we also own the art museum on State Street and are some of these funds going to be spent on those public spaces as well just since those are also available to the public?
That might be helpful to understand whether Is it just going to be on city public spaces that these funds are spent or how would we deploy these dollars?
0:47 – 0:5421 turns
Are you asking for a response on that for where the money gets spent? Yeah. The budget outlines different areas of the budget being spent, safety and security marketing in place making things of those nature it's not a specific property that they're spent on their spent on the whole district
sure
so something that is happening in the area on a street would be benefiting up any property owners at the county have the city has or individual property owners
So most of it's public space. I see civic sidewalks, safety and cleanliness is 66%. That's
everything between not the property so basically if you were to picture property line to property line on a street in the sidewalk areas, the public areas those are the areas that the district.
Understood but we're unique because our spaces are also public right? Right. So we're not typical property owner and we're also providing those.
Correct wouldn't be on your public spaces beyond The streets and sidewalks and things of that nature.
The other public?
The other public, I guess. Gotcha. The additional public. All
right. So my position on this was not to go neutral but actually I didn't support it. I generally wouldn't support this at this point without some further negotiation on what we could get for that $70,000. I think we already give a lot as the county of public space Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Hundreds of thousands of dollars if not more just on maintenance in some of these areas.
The county gives a significant amount of money to the municipal library for its services. We also have a building that we provide for a museum. I understand that, you know, we wanted to make it better but we're already giving quite a bit at the county level to this and that's, you know, we're looking at $750,000, three quarters of a million dollars over the next year
I think $75,000.
For a year? Yeah for a year. I'm saying over the next 10 years. This is not just a one-time expense. Let's go you know but this is an ongoing expense that's not budgeted and so you know I think that there's probably some negotiation there that could gain support I think from me where if we were to maybe address some of our other downtown issues that the county is having that we could be a bigger part of that since we are one of the largest property owners and I think we're a pillar of downtown.
I could support this but I don't think I can support it in its current form. Supervisor Caps?
Well, thank you. I'm happy to move from neutral to support for this. I think while I understand the staff's recommendation we do our part. We do clean up and take care of graffiti and all of the things that are important. I just appreciate that the revitalization of downtown economically is such a key issue, a consternation, a concern This is a constructive move forward, not just for the folks who live right downtown but for the entire county. So I'm happy to give support and understand especially since this supervisor representing the downtown is giving his support. But again, I think it's worth noting that we are good partners already but I do want to see this cross the finish line and moving it from neutral to support would help do so.
Supervisor Hartman?
Well, I am also supportive. I think the opportunity for a public-private partnership of this nature is very significant. I do think it would be important for somebody representing the county to serve on the board, the leadership and for me what makes this really interesting is the navigation center will be opening and frankly many of the things that are being cleaned up or are result of homeless people So I'm hoping for creative, innovative ways to work with the homeless population and get them into the navigation center and get them into services in housing. And I hope that will be a premier goal of the effort and why I am eager to support it.
Supervisors, I think that's a positive way of looking at this. Just the staff's reasons for staying neutral are in the board letter we wanted the businesses to sign. We do a lot with the city already. We're good partners with each other. The application you just looked at on the big grant, the SURF grant that we applied with the city so the city got $1.5 million of that So I think it's helpful then if the board wants to support this, we will come back to you and talk about the budget impacts. It's not very much but we haven't been given any expansions to any of our departments this year. This is general fund.
But I think it's important for us to then track How often we are engaging with them for some of the homeless services that they want to provide. And we think it's a positive things but I think it's helpful for us as well to do some tracking and monitoring of that. So if that could be part of your direction, I think that would be helpful.
All right. And then for me, I would just say that as we look like we're going to be partners on this C bid and we are looking to be looks like we're gonna be moving from I'm trying to think of what the word is, or what the staff recommendation was. Neutral to a positive support position. To spend dollars that are unbudgeted is a leap for me. I'm willing to make it with the thought also that we are going to be talking about other partnerships today When we get to D4, when we talk about TOT. So I just want that fresh in everybody's mind that this board is willing to make sacrifices where we need to and let's just hope that spirit of camaraderie and teamwork continues throughout the day. So can we get a motion on this item with what the direction from CEO Miyasato?
I'll move support in the form that CEO Miyasato has articulated. Is there a
second?
Yeah, I'll second.
OK. All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? No. Supervisor Nelson is no. Passes four to one. Okay, so we actually did take 827. So we're gonna move to 28, 828.
0:54 – 0:576 turns
Chair Lavagnino and members of the board, administrative item number 28 is from the County Executive Office. It is to approve budget revision requests of various numbers that require a four-fifths vote and the item is being pulled for budget revision request number 9686. Supervisor
Nelson? Your mic. Thank
you. Thank you, Chair Labanino. I pulled this item. I understand that he's here but my concern was about an anticipated increase in the motor pool costs for public works and with that increase that really It looked like the budget adjustment meant that they didn't take additional dollars out of our roads funds, which is obviously those are sacred dollars. You know one things that all of us as elected officials hear about the most is about potholes and roads and to have to take dollars out of that account to go ahead and fund increases in the motor pool are a concern to me. I'd like to hear from Director Sneddon on what's going on there and also maybe it's an opportunity to see if we can't figure out a way to maybe arrest those increases moving forward.
Supervisor Nielsen to the Chair. Yes, so the motor pool charges are set based on or budgeted based on projections from General Services and the work they have to do to maintain the fleet. Unfortunately this year just with the escalation in cost of everything across the board that goes into maintaining our fleet parts fuel labor equipment everything The projected expenditures for this year exceed what was budgeted at the beginning of the year.
And it does come directly from funds that would be used elsewhere in maintenance for exactly the types of activities you're talking about.
I think I'm going to submit a BIF to look at the motor pool and see how that's affecting other departments. And whether those have been on budget or not, and how that's increased over the last couple of years. And for the public, a BIF is a Board Acquired Reform. Next week we're having our budget hearings like to track those. I know that there are other internal service funds that hit departments that they're concerned about. And this is one that we need to look at because it's kind of a hidden expense. A lot of people don't see that everybody's used Increased labor costs, but some of these other decisions and other funds that the county has that's internal to our own systems end up impacting other revenue sources that typically go to things that are really important to all of us like our roads.
So I want to dive a little deeper into that over the next week and hopefully we can get our handle on that. Thank you. I'm okay with that being part of a general motion today. Yeah.
Okay. All right. Thank you very much Mr. Sneden. Let's go to A43.
0:57 – 1:0211 turns
Chair Lavinino and members of the board. Administrative item number 43 is sponsored by the Human Resources Department it is to consider recommendations regarding the adjustment of wages a new higher incentive for the job classification of veterinarian and we have one request to speak from the public on this item when we are going to zoom with Lee Heller.
Good morning, Chair Lavanino and Board. I want to thank all of you and especially Supervisor Williams for your advocacy on this. As you know, we've been without a staff veterinarian for nearly 18 months. The salary range was nearly $50,000 less than market rate even as this county has one of the highest housing costs in the nation. Vets are medical professionals who carry large student debt. They are also in short supply nationwide with a limited number of veterinarian schools to mint new vets. So we need this pay raise and the hiring incentive to actually hire a staff veterinarian Having a vet on staff will save money, as paying private vets on a case-by-case basis has not been cost effective. And a staff vet will also enable animal services to move animals through the system more quickly which also saves money and benefits the animals under our care.
I would ask that HR prioritize this position so that we can quickly fill it since it's been empty for so long and we are paying the price for that on so many levels. Thank you so much for your attention to this. All
right thank you very much Can we go to A47 please?
Chair Lavagnino and members of the board, Administrative Item number 47 is from the Probation Department. It is to consider recommendations regarding the fiscal year 2024 through 2025 combined comprehensive multi-agency juvenile justice plan CMJJP and Juvenile Justice Realignment Plan JJRP
Supervisor Capps.
Thank you, Chair. I pulled this just because I know we have a lot of things end of the fiscal year but this is such an incredibly huge undertaking this report so I was hoping that Chief Benton could speak to it if she's here just to give a couple of the top lines because I commend the work I serve on the Juvenile Justice Coordinating Committee and I just wanted to highlight some of the progress we're making in probation and juvenile justice.
Good morning Board Members, Supervisor Caps through the Chair. This undertaking, this multi-agency Juvenile Justice Plan and Juvenile Justice Realignment Plan we are one of the few counties that actually combines these two plans together. These plans govern and paint a picture of all of the juvenile justice activities through our county and also paints a picture of what's available in the community for our youth.
The idea here is that we highlight not just what our department is doing, but we highlight what all departments are doing to serve youth in the county. This plan also highlights some of the activities that happen in our Juvenile Justice Center and I think as we have highlighted during the budget process and in other presentations Our Juvenile Justice Center now houses youth who are realigned from the state to the counties, youth who used to be held at the Department of Juvenile Justice at the State's facilities. Those facilities closed. Now they are in our local Juvenile Justice Center and will remain with us for many years. So the plan actually begins in the community and highlights what's available to prevent youth from coming into our system.
And then it sketches the picture all the way from earliest intervention, diversion, all the way through to reentry for those youth who are held with us and committed to our custody for long periods of time. So this undertaking is a partnership and a collaboration between many county agencies and community partners You know, it requires a great deal of examination of our system gaps Looking at ways that we can produce better outcomes for youth and ways that we can Highlight the good work. That is actually done by our partners in preventing those youth from coming into the system in the first place. I
Thank you and I know that you all did resource fairs in April. If you could just speak to, I believe that was new and I just wondered how that again engaged the community further?
We did and I'd actually like to invite Deputy Chief Melinda Brera to come up for a moment and speak to that if that would be alright.
Thanks.
She was the mastermind behind this particular event.
1:02 – 1:0610 turns
Supervisor Capps, through the Chair. The Family Engagement Resource Fair began as a goal of the CMJJP plan and it turned into a wonderful collaboration between Public Health, the Department of Social Services, Behavioral Wellness along with two community colleges, Santa Barbara City College as well as Allan Hancock College it was a multi-city fair held on three different dates and We served over 500 families with overnight 90 vendors who highlighted their services That were available to our community The focus was we were trying to go to the community and Eliminate barriers and access to services
Thank you, thanks to your both
Thank you.
Excellent. OK that takes us to item A 50.
Chair Lavinino and members of the board, administrative item number 50 is from the Public Health Department. It is to consider recommendations regarding the First Amendment to Grant Number 21-10585 for the Sexually Transmitted Diseases Program Management and Collaboration Project.
Supervisor Caput?
Yeah, thank
you. I pulled this because I represent two college campuses and the reduction of funds for sexually transmitted disease caught actually the eye of our intern who's a UCSB student. And so I just wanted to give an opportunity it's always great to reduce expenses but I just want to hear our director's response about how that won't affect services that are so vital especially to our young people.
Good morning. Thank you, Supervisor. The short answer is it's not going to affect any of our services. These were funds that were designed to increase our capacity and there was a delay in using those funds and we still have funds that will last us three years. We're using those as a cross-training tool where we can have our disease prevention specialists cross train So they can case investigate as well as case trace any infection regardless of what it is. This way there's not one specialty where one nurse or one disease infection specialist. It is good to have that fund, we have used it in a very wise way. We have a little bit of surplus that is going to last us and this is why it is extended We don't anticipate any reduction in services or in the way we are delivering our disease prevention programs.
Well, that sounds very efficient. I appreciate that and I just wanted to highlight the other items in the Public Health Department also caught our eye of our team because not that we need to discuss these but A47, A51, A54 and A57 all have to do with women's health specifically so I just wanted to call that out. Examples are a service agreement between Santa Barbara County and Cal Poly promote the study of cardiovascular health among pregnant women.
And MOU was an American Indian Health Service for shared access to dental and OBGYN healthcare, and also an increase to WIC funding. So again didn't need to take too much time on these items as we have 81 this morning but it's just caught our eye in my teams that we have so much of these services devoted to women's health and I just wanted to commend that. Thank you.
1:06 – 1:104 turns
That takes us to A81, which is a hearing request.
Yes, Chair Lavinino and members of the board. Administrative item number 81 is a hearing request from the county executive office. It is to set a hearing to consider recommendations regarding attacks on cannabis operations ordinance for the November 2024 general election ballot. And this is a hearing request for June 18th, 2024. And we have one request to speak from the public on this item and we are going to remain here in Santa Barbara with Dennis Bozanich.
I represent the property owners at 3823 Santa Claus Lane. Pat and Mayor Radus, they're here in the room with us today. We're concerned about further negative impacts to the cannabis industry of kind of randomly developed cannabis tax amendments that your board is considering with the set hearing this week. We are recommending that you vote to not set the hearing today, to consider any changes to the Cannabis Tax Ordinance on June 18th 2024 On February 7th, 2018 this board was offered two well-developed cannabis tax proposals for the June 2018 ballot. One for a general tax, one for a special tax.
The board had previously provided specific direction to staff over multiple open sessions of the board on the basis of the tax, the tax rate and directed the staff to come back with specific proposals That is not what's happening this time. The board approved that general tax on a four to one vote, and the voters approved that with 76% of the vote. This year from what I've observed the board has not reached consensus on any proposal.
provided staff with nothing but broad direction after consulting no outside experts and yet you're setting a hearing to consider changing the cannabis tax. Five critical facts to consider in 2017 and early 2018, the board received significant input from staff and HDL on taxation policy options including percent of gross receipts taxes Number two, the ballot language was approved by a supermajority of this board and by 75% of the county's voters in 2018. And that tax in the language on the ballot said specifically that that tax would raise between five and $25 million.
In the language that was printed on the ballot, this tax has raised that amount of money at least $5 million every single year it's been in existence. Why are you now second-guessing the voters about whether or not this amount is enough? Why seek a change now when you have nothing better that you've reached consensus about. Number three, changing the basis of the cultivation tax is contrary to the policies voters established in 2018 and creates a competitive disadvantage from a progressive form of taxation to a digressive fixed tax rate Number four, the county has now put together the data and tax compliance staff to do what we believe would have happened in 2018 if we had had full disclosure from the state about what data we were going to have access to.
And lastly, given the significant federal and state policy changes in the next two years, the board will be able to make a higher quality tax policy decision in two years. We requested the board take a roll call vote, reject the set hearing or trail this item until after your conversation about the transient occupancy tax increase. Thank you.
And that concludes public comment on this item.
1:10 – 1:1613 turns
Can we go to A82?
Chair Lavagnino and members of the board, administrative item number 82 is a hearing request from the planning and development department. It is to set a hearing to consider recommendations regarding a BABBitt appeal of the Planning Commission approval of the Scriberb residential alterations case numbers 24 APL 8 of 21 LUP 292 and 22 BAR 187 And this is in the first district. And again, this is to set a hearing for June 25th, 2024 and we have one request to speak from the public on this item and we are going to Mark Shatillo. Mark?
Who do I give this to? Young
lady in the back. I was gonna say Mark you got into a time machine it looked like.
I've changed. I've shapeshifted. Good morning, Mr. Chair and members of the supervisors. That was Richard Seibert. And I would appreciate the opportunity for him to be able to address your board on this as well. I represent the appellant in a land use appeal that went to the Montecito Planning Commission and is now we appealed it to your Board of Supervisors. It concerns the unpermitted demolition of a portion of a historic structure and then unpermitted renovations that were all undertaken after a red tag was issued by the county. The planning commission, Montecito Planning Commission was advised by both the HLAC, Historic Landmarks Advisory Committee as well as the Montecito Board of Architectural Review and this appeal involves a number of technical issues and technical experts addressing both historical and structural engineering issues When this matter was, we of course have been involved in this at every step and when I saw last week that the matter was set for hearing on today's agenda, I contacted staff.
Unfortunately they've been largely on retreat and unavailable but however we were able to close the loop yesterday and staff acknowledged that they should have consulted with all the parties to make sure there was an acceptable date. I have a conflict on June 25th with a hearing significant hearing before the City of Santa Barbara and am unable to do both hearings in one day because not only the hearing time but the preparation time as well. So we've reached out to staff and to the applicants to try and identify an acceptable date. I was told yesterday that the summer is not available, however that may have changed for the applicants. Identified in a letter to you I think 10 different dates that would be acceptable to us. I learned today from staff that July 16th may be appropriate and available and acceptable to all the parties, that's fine.
Any of the dates that are identified in the letter would work for us. So thank you very much, and I appreciate your indulgence in setting this for a time that works for all the parties. Thank you.
OK. And Mr. Schtilo, just FYI, that meeting is in Santa Maria? That's correct. Just a second. She's going to read you
in. And we did have an additional speaker and that is Richard Skybird, my apologies for mispronouncing Richard who is our final speaker on this item.
Thank you. My name is Richard Skybird and I wanted to apologize that this 700 square foot home in Montecito has now come before you for discussion. We've had, coming up on four years of the appellant's rejections of all the approved MBAR hearings, MPC hearings, HLAC approvals. And we're now in front of you as their last effort to find opposition to our project. We've had manipulation, incredible manipulation.
two attorneys on their side, three historians, maybe four historians. They're really well-funded. It's our next door neighbor and they're now trying to push back the date we had all agreed upon June 25th due to serious financial implications in this. We strongly recommend that you stay with our June hearing date, and they have other attorneys that can represent them besides Mark. Please consider this. It's very serious for our family. We've been doing this for four years.
Ms.
Plowman, can we hear from staff please on this issue?
Good morning.
Yeah, I just want to ask the question about outreach to both parties and what was agreed upon, what wasn't agreed upon. Obviously we have two conflicting statements there so where do we go?
Sure, Chair Lavendino. Mr. Shatillo is correct. We did confirm with the applicants for the June 25th date but we do not have record of confirmation with the appellants.
1:16 – 1:2127 turns
OK. And Mr. Chair, we understand that and Mr. Seibert can confirm this that he is willing to attend the meeting in Santa Maria on the 16th of July.
OK. Is he still here? Yes. OK, so sir I understand it's been four years and these things get very frustrating. It's two extra weeks obviously we You know, it didn't get done. So I wouldn't feel comfortable setting the date for June 25th without both parties. What's that? Okay. That sounds like a yes. So July 16th... Well can you come up to the...
I can't. I have four kids, I have their whole schedule and I can't on the 25th and I've had enough from this neighbor. I can't do it anymore so I don't know. I don't even want to remodel my house. I just want to be left alone. I've had it with this man, with this neighbor. Took our driveway in escrow, put up hedges, took half of our driveway. I don' have the bandwidth to do this anymore Or to be manipulated and bullied by this neighbor who leaves bees in his trees
so I can't get in my car. This is testimony for the hearing.
Great,
but I'm
not changing.
So OK it's yes or no?
It's
June 25th. All right thank
you.
Yeah I'm going to kick this back to staff.
So Mr. Chair and members of the board our policy in the department has been that each party can reject one date right so we now are in a situation where we have to find another date And we can either schedule it now for the 16th, or it will go beyond that. So I think Mr. Seibert if you can return to the microphone. It's either the 16th or then it moves to August and so we need to get your feedback on which you would prefer.
I just repeat that the financial implications are really huge. We had agreed three months ago to the June hearing date, every hearing change has been adding months and months onto the process so now we're looking at four years and this is, we don't know when it's going to end. We have no idea what they want, we have mediation and none of that has been working so we're not clear on anything.
We also have numerous e-mails saying your date is approaching of June 25. But this isn't our fault and it's been going on, it's the same as we got our roof permitted but the neighbor doesn't like the roof.
Let's take the next following date available.
Hopefully there will be no more errors made because We have a roof. It's permitted. The neighbor doesn't like the roof. We were told this was our date. There's been a lot of mistakes. Great, we'll see you in Santa Maria.
We're all going to be there on July 16th. Yeah.
So,
can we get a motion?
Move that we continue this item to July 16th in Santa Maria.
Correct. Second. All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Passes unanimously. Okay. Doss was the second. Okay so now I need a motion to move 19, 21, 43, 47, 50, 62, 63 and 81.
Chair Leveny no I'm sorry one second the last motion I tried to stop you but the motion I think was to continue this item we weren't continuing the set item you were changing the date of the set item the set hearing so just want to clarify that yeah the staff report says the set hearing is a set hearing approval for June 25th, we're changing that June 25 to the July date.
So we changed the set hearing on remove?
Correct just want to be clear on the record thank you.
Okay so I still need a motion 19 21 43 47 50 63 and 81.
Chair Labonino members of the board before we get a motion on all of those remaining items I was going to return to A21 to see if Jennifer Heil was able to... I wasn't
1:21 – 1:2912 turns
but okay let's go for it she's still there
And we will now return to A21, that was from Community Services Department. It is to consider recommendations regarding the ARPA Senior Meal Program funds update and approval. Jennifer Heil are you available on Zoom? My apologies, it appears she is not. So we can move forward with that approval.
And we're adding 28 in there as well right? Okay.
Move approval. Second.
All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Alright. We finished the administrative agenda in just under two hours. Okay, let's now move to members of the public this is your chance to speak on items that are not on today's agenda. If there is anything that is not on today's agenda that would surprise me but Madam Clerk are there any requests to speak on general public comment?
Chair Lavinino, members of the board. Yes we have several requests to speak on general public comment. We are going to begin on Zoom with Lisa Sloan to be followed by Thomas Becker. Lisa?
Yes good morning. Chair Lavagnino and honorable members of the board, I'm Lisa Sloan from Goleta. I've been working with the Santa Barbara Voter Integrity Project which is concerned about the many ways our current election system is vulnerable to corruption. Yesterday I responded to a request from the Santa Barbara County Elections Division that I provide evidence of irregularities in our voting system. My email response lists multiple concerns Including the manipulation of ballot counts in the cast vote records. My email includes charts received from the elections office, in which evidence of unnatural manipulation is readily apparent.
A copy of the email was forwarded this morning to each of the board members we found That the county voter rolls are growing at a rate of 2.7 times the rate of population growth. Meanwhile, the state level help America vote voter roll verification has been rejecting on average 3000 voter registrations per week because the registrants do not exist in the social security system.
The latest find is that the final cast vote records showed a problem with the 1% tally that merits further investigation In the 2024 primary election, the reports generated by the computer system for the 1% manual tally show that batches 5 and 28 run through the tabulator 9 each contained one overvote. The final cast vote record report details the counting of ballots through all tabulators and it shows no over votes for tabulator nine batches five and twenty eight instead the yes totals are one more than Report states, the final cast vote record totals exactly match the certified final report. This must mean that the computer data was changed after the 1% manual tally was performed. Included also is a lawsuit filed last month by Judicial Watch against the state of California to compel the state to make a reasonable effort to remove ineligible registrations from the voter rolls as required by federal law The complaint includes correspondence from California admitting that 21 counties removed five or fewer registrations of people who died or moved out of county from November 2020 to November 2022, with Santa Barbara County during the two-year period removing zero registrations.
Please respond to our request for an agenda item on June 25th 2024 to consider greatly reducing opportunities for fraud by returning to in-person single day hand count of paper ballots with photo ID required. Thank you.
We will now go to Thomas Becker then we will return to Santa Barbara with Sherry Foster. Thomas?
Can you hear me?
Yes, we can please proceed.
I want to discuss something today that is not on the agenda item or any specific agenda. It's the issue of elder financial abuse, which is a rapidly increasing and serious problem, not just in Santa Barbara County, not just the state of California throughout the United States. Here in Santa Barbara County you actually have a large number Elderly people who are dependent on the government, to be quite honest, dependent on the government to protect them from people who are going to abuse them financially by stealing their money out of bank accounts or trusts or stealing property.
I'm involved in a administration of a trust worth close to $1 million. There were some improprieties that we believe with a facility that was providing medical care, they had what they call the quote unquote overlooked billing charge of close to $20,000. They couldn't explain how they did it or where it went. We filed a complaint with the appropriate state agency on this, that was over six months ago. We got the report back which ignored half of these itemized complaints that we made to them and then when they described our complaint their description of our complaint which by the way I helped prepare and you know how I prepare reports. Their description of the complaint Came nowhere near what the complaint actually said.
And you know what, I suspect that there are hundreds or even thousands of people who have elderly people who have been abused financially that have gone to the district attorney's office, the state attorney general, the state of California and have absolutely gotten short shrift from those agencies I would like to see an agenda item placed on the agenda I think it's important to understand that the people who are committing financial elder abuse.
The district attorney, our district attorney in a knowing who these people are that committing the abuse and enabling them to commit that financial abuse pretty serious allegation. So I'm requesting that this actually somebody one of you five people put this on the agenda to discuss financial elder abuse and how this district attorney and our local health agencies deal with complaints from the public concerning elder abuse.
Thank you, Thomas. That is your time. We will now return to Santa Barbara with Sherry Foster to be followed by Leanne Wollover. Sherry?
1:29 – 1:364 turns
Good morning Board of Supervisors. As the time has come once again for the passing of the proposed request from Departments for Budgets and Overall Budget for the County of Santa Barbara, although many things are taken into consideration when approving a budget however it is clear that the white elephant in the room has been clearly ignored for too long Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the Board of Supervisors.
I would ask the supervisors to take into consideration the failing infrastructure, the public county roads, county buildings etc. as many of the counties building roads and infrastructure are in disrepair and desperate need for being brought up to par especially with a number of employees the county has on payroll and the county's ability to hire third party vendors it seems that the county should not have deferred maintenance A lot of money is generated from people who own property in Santa Barbara, pay property taxes and are in general tax at the grocery stores, gestations department stores, et cetera. Therefore where's all the taxpayer money going? Why are the county roads, parks, beaches and infrastructure in disrepair? Why is there this deferred maintenance socially since the County of Santa Barbara receives money from the state of federal funding.
With the rise of inflation and additional cost of expenses and new taxes, bonds being imposed on the public it seems that the money is not the problem. It's a lack of leadership and oversight. Perhaps before the proposed budget is passed, an independent audit should be completed on all departments that are overseen by the supervisors and CEO of Santa Barbara County.
There needs to be more individual accountability. Perhaps the district supervisors for the county of Santa Barbara should adopt a former ballot initiative Measure M, which was brilliant and would be a great solution for fixed deferred maintenance while utilizing taxpayer money efficiently with transparency. Taxpayers of Santa Barbara County deserve far more than their elected officials and CEO instead of approving all the new pet projects and pandering to the homeless agenda. Deferred maintenance needs to be a top priority just as former Peter Adam Thank you, Sherry. That is your time.
Thank you. Have a good day.
We will now go to Leanne Wollever to be followed by Philip Gallanders. Leanne?
Good morning Chairman and Board, my name is Leanne Wollever I thought I wanted to bring this to your, you probably are already aware but this is a report from the California Legislative Analyst's Office concerning future of public health budget solution. The proposed elimination to the future of public health funding very likely would adversely impact the ability of the California Department of Public Health and local health jurisdictions to maintain the effort to improve the public health made since the pandemic.
The CDPH funding historically stagnant and include little flexible funding since 2007 and 2008 when CDPH became a stand-alone department, funding remained relatively flat at around $3 billion. I would like to start by saying that the California Department of Public Health has not received funding annually until the COVID-19 pandemic. The majority of funding for the CDPH has been from federal and state special funds, which typically specify and therefore limit the particular activities the department can support from these funds. So the majority goes to LHJ's mostly county health departments that carry out many of the state's public health programs.
In the May revision, there is a eliminates 300 million in ongoing future public health funding. The governor proposes eliminating 300 million in ongoing future public health funding beginning in 2024-25 And the proposal also reverts $52.4 million in 23-24 from unspent funds with a $41.4 million being reverted from the state operations and $11 million being reverted from local assistance.
So, the assessment on this is elimination of future public health funding would result in loss of core services affecting efforts to mitigate negative trends Outcomes and recent public health workforce hiring would be at risk. The majority of the hundred million state operations funding is for hiring public health staff to support the recommendations of the future of Public Health Work Group.
LHJs are also required to spend at least 70% of the funding on workforce given that limited flexibility of the CDPH's funding and the number of state hires made The state likely will be unable to use existing vacancies and other programs to fully mitigate the elimination of the future of public health funding. Although the administration has not stated an intent to initiate layoffs, they would become necessary.
Thank you, Leigh Ann. That is your time. We will now go to Phillip Gallanders to be followed by Otis Kalief.
1:36 – 1:424 turns
Thank you Chair Labanino, Board of Supervisors. I've heard a lot about economy today budgets shortfalls money coming in or not and that's why I came here today the county as all counties in California are going to get Reduced funds because they're not gonna be able to charge fees as they were due to the Supreme Court finding in Sheets versus Eldorado. In addition, Sacramento is happily looking at an 80 plus billion dollar shortfall this year for this year's budget.
That means a lot of payments are not gonna be made. There's no money to pay it Supervisor Hartman, you said at a candidate forum that 50% of the monies in Santa Barbara are from grants that come from the county and from the city. Sorry, check, check. The state and federal government. If the state has got such horrendous shortfall what impact is that gonna have on the county?
So, my suggestion is save money where you can. And a good way to do it is to go to paper ballots in-person voting at the precinct because the estimated cost per ballot voted is $5. In 2022 237,759 voters cast their votes At $5 each, that comes out to four million... Sorry, check-check. That comes to 1.2 million dollars. Using the electronic machines and the mail-in ballots, the mail-in ballots cost 4,636,000 dollars.
And updating the machines costs approximately anywhere from one to two million dollars annually. So go to paper ballots. We'll spend one point two million for the next election and we'll save five point five million and that money can be used for other things and pay other bills. Thank you.
We will now go to Otis Califf to be followed by Karen Hauenstein. Otis.
Good morning, Chair Laminito, Board. My name is Otis Califf. I'm president of the Santa Barbara County Trails Council. I also serve right now as chair of the CRATAC, your county riding hiking trails advisory committee. I want to talk to you about a matter of basic good government I hope we all agree that when the county takes an action that could adversely affect tens of thousands of residents and visitors, that the impacted public should be very well notified in an understandable manner. And that they should be afforded the opportunity to comment at a public forum.
In Montecito, unfortunately we have the case of the Gorner Development Project along the Hot Springs Trail where such notification has not happened. This trail is enjoyed by tens of thousands of trail users annually. Interesting read is Brewer in 1853. He rode his mule up there twice to visit that. Hot Springs. This project will severely disrupt trail usage over at least three years of construction and will permanently alter the scenic character of the trail, a gateway to the national forest and will significantly impact designated environmentally sensitive habitats.
So far no large accessible signs have been posted to notify trail users of this very high intrusive project. About 800 trail users were recently interviewed over five mornings by the Trails Council, and all were completely unaware of the project. This seems unacceptable. While noticing minimums may have been met, this type of severe impact to a very popular recreational trail deserves much better notice. There should be large informational signs posted on the trail and notification in social media such as all trails and next door describing the project, its impacts, and how to participate. This complex driveway project also deserves an evening public environmental hearing to permit affected members of the project to hear details about impacts and how they will be mitigated.
I'm sorry to tell you that this lack of adequate notice for development projects, that impact trails has become normal We hope that your board and the county CEO will take action of the Gorner Development Project to remedy this unfortunate situation. I'm not asking for money. Those of us who build and maintain the trails want them to be respected, to not be just taken for granted. Ever since the Potter Hotel was built 120 years ago, trails have been the most important part of our recreational infrastructure.
Thank you Otis that is your time. We will now go to Karen Hauenstein who is our final speaker on general public comment.
1:42 – 1:463 turns
Good morning. I'm gonna continue on with what Otis was saying because what Otis was calling for is accountability down in the unincorporated area, down in Montecito, in an incorporated area in Montecito he wants accountability down there because there's development planning that's kind of sneaking in under the radar Kind of like the development, Joan. The development, Joan that you're planning at the corner of Rucker Road and Burton Mesa Boulevard.
You, Joan are planning development on the corner of Rucker and Burton Mesa Boulevard. That's as dense as what? Times Square in that community? And none of this is being reviewed at all. And nobody cares how it impacts the local community, is that correct? Because nobody's talking about it and it's a lot more impact to the property owners in that area than hiking trails, right?
And when in my research and my investigation, oh the other thing I want to mention while I'm up here for another minute and 30 seconds. What I've noticed the county likes to do is they create a needful situation. Like everybody's wondering why none of the roads were mowed for our Memorial Day holiday in certain areas of the county when we know you guys are funded to mow, but they didn't get mowed.
So we feel the needful situation. We can see it every time we drive around. The potholes are there. Needful situation. The divide and conquer MO that's been going on with the county, that a lot of the people here have documented. Divide and conquer where isolation is the enemy. We're gonna be isolated? You defer maintenance and you control investigations. That's how you control everything.
Defer maintenance, control investigations. You need to have the hearing that he called for about APS and their role in taking away people's assets. That needs to happen in the public forum and you know it's time.
And that concludes general public comment for today.
Okay great okay we're gonna take a 10-minute break and we'll be back right around 1115 All right like to reconvene this meeting of the County Board of Supervisors and just a little heads up for agenda management purposes is we are going to try to get through all of our D items before lunch, before we break for lunch. So just if you're out there and you're thinking about d4 we're gonna try to get that done before we break so with that in mind what's d5?
Try to do it all. Try to do it all. Yeah, but I don't think the appeal... Well we'll talk about that when we get there. We'll see how long that's going to take. Okay let's go to D1. Madam Clerk can you please read that into the record?
1:46 – 1:568 turns
Chair Lavinino and members of the board departmental item number one is from the Public Works Department. It is a hearing to consider recommendations regarding solid waste tipping fees collection rates and parcel fees for fiscal year 2024 through 2025
Good morning Chair Lovenio, members of the Board. I'm Jeanette Gonzalez-Knight, Interim Deputy Director with Department of Public Works and here to introduce this morning's speakers. I have with me Mackenzie Forgey our Senior Program Specialist. I also have Gloria Alvarez our Fiscal Manager and Leslie Robinson our Collection and Materials Manager.
Good morning, Chair Lavanino. I think
you're going to have to get a little bit closer to that microphone. There you go. Thank you.
Check mic? Okay. Thank you for the opportunity to review staff's recommendations for next fiscal year solid waste rates. The rates package that we have submitted for your review include our proposed facility tip fees charged at the scale houses and at the UCSB Household Hazardous Waste Collection Center, the Cuyama Valley parcel fees assessed on the tax roll and the franchise hauler collection rates for the unincorporated zones.
Our facility tipping fees are the rates charged to customers using our recycling and transfer stations, excuse me. The Tahiga's Landfill and the Resource Center. The fees covered the cost to process municipal solid waste recyclables and organics at these facilities. The facility tipping fees are evaluated annually and are increased to the extent needed to meet our debt obligations.
The proposed franchise solid waste And recyclables tipping fees will increase 7.4% from $176 to $189 per ton. The mechanism to set these franchise tip fees is established in the materials delivery agreements between the county and the participating jurisdictions. The Cuyama Valley parcel fees support the new Cuyama and Venticopa transfer stations, and are included as an assessment on annual property taxes.
Staff recommends no changes to the current rate of $77 per single family dwelling. I will now turn it over to Ms. Forgy to discuss the next component of our rates package.
Good morning. I will now cover the proposed franchised hauler collection rates for the new fiscal year. These are the rates charged to residential and commercial customers in the unincorporated area by our franchise waste service provider Marburg Industries. As a reminder, the collection rates proposed simply outline the maximum rates that the franchise hauler can charge for trash recycling and organics collection service The franchise hauler collection rates are comprised of three components.
The first is the collection component, which covers the cost for the hauler to pick up waste, recyclables and organics from customers. Given the differing nature of collection routes in each of our five zones this component is the most variable. Per our franchise agreements, this portion of the rate is subject to an annual CPI adjustment. Specifically the annual average CPI increase of the previous calendar year.
The annual average CPI increase for 2023 was 3.5 percent so that increase was applied to this portion of the rate. Please note the collection component for zones 1 2 & 3 will be subject to an overall CPI increase of 4.7% due to a carryover of 1.2% from the previous years rates Annual CPI increases are capped at 5% if the annual average exceeds 5%, which was the case last year.
This is done to reduce large fluctuations in cost within a single year. The second component of the franchise collection rates is the tipping fee. After haulers collect waste and recyclables from customers, they bring the material to a disposal or processing facility. This portion of the rate incorporates the current tipping fee costs at the relevant waste facilities utilized.
In Zones 1, 2, 3 and part of Zone 4 in the San Ynez Valley, the tipping fee will increase by 7.4% since these areas use the Resource Center and Tejuis Landfill to process their waste. The part of Zone 4 in this Lompoc Valley uses Lompoc Landfill for trash disposal which has increased its tipping fees significantly within the last year. Specifically, tipping fees for trash have increased 24.5% at Lompoc landfill as compared to current rates.
Lastly, Zone 5 uses Santa Maria landfill for trash disposal which has also increased its tipping fees significantly within the last year. Specifically, tipping fees for trash have increased 20.3% at the Santa Maria Landfill when compared to current rates. Both the City of Lompoc and City of Santa Maria have outlined future tipping fee increases for these facilities as well.
Lompoc landfill tipping fees will continue to increase by approximately 5% each year until July 1st, 2027. Santa Maria landfill tipping fees will increase approximately 5% for fiscal year 2025-26 rates but future increases are not outlined beyond January 1st 2025 at this time The third component is the Solid Waste Program Fee, which is used to support compliance with various state regulations and for supporting solid waste reduction and recycling programming in the community.
Staff recommends no change to the current value of 11%. I will now focus on Zones 1 through 3 where waste service will continue to be provided by Marburg Industries per the Zones 1 through 3 Franchise Agreement approved by your board in May 2022. This agreement commenced July 1st, 2022. So the upcoming 2024-25 fiscal year will be year three of this agreement when the program fee tipping fees and collection fees are combined for these zones. The overall residential and commercial rates will increase between five and six and a half percent depending on the specific service level and region Now I will discuss zones four and five, where a new franchise agreement with Marburg Industries approved by your board in July 2023 will commence on July 1st 2024.
The upcoming 2024-25 fiscal year will be the inaugural year one of this agreement therefore the rates proposed reflect the new costs under Marburg Industries Due to increases in solid waste tipping fees at local waste facilities as previously mentioned, rates will not decrease across the board as initially anticipated after analyzing Marburg's proposals for service of Zones 4 and 5 back in early 2023.
This table shows the current costs under Waste Management versus the proposed new rates starting July 1st under Marburg Industries for Zones four and five for three common service levels 96 gallon residential cart services a two yard commercial trash bin and a two-yard commercial recycling bin. Despite some significant increases in trash tipping fee costs that have occurred within the last year, certain service levels will still see a cost decrease as compared to current rates.
Notably, residential cart services in Zone 4 San Ynez and Zone 4 Lompoc will decrease in cost while residential cart services in Zone 5 would increase by less than $1 under the proposed rates. Commercial trash services in Zone 4 Lompoc and Zone 5 would increase up to about five percent under the proposed rates, which can be tied back to the tipping fee increases at Lompoc Landfill and Santa Maria Landfill.
I will now touch on some key details in the upcoming transition in Zones 4 & 5 from the current hauler Waste Management to the new hauler Marburg Industries beginning July 1st Marburg has purchased facilities at 1850 Betteravia Road in Santa Maria and 67 Commerce Drive in Buelton, both formerly operated by Waste Management to support their own operations in Zones 4 & 5.
In preparation for the transition, Marburg has distributed outreach to inform customers of the upcoming change. Welcome letters were delivered to all commercial and residential customers in late April early May and a detailed customer resource guide was distributed to all residential customers in early May. Marburg will distribute schedules for bi-weekly services with an accompanying letter in mid June.
Customers will receive their first Marburg bill at the same billing address they have on file with Waste Management All commercial and residential routes will be the same following the transition, so customers will have the same collection day as they did previously. Lastly, Marburg began exchanging existing waste management collection containers with Marborg Containers in May.
The new containers will show updated cart labels and show Marborg's logo and contact information. In summary, staff recommends that your board adopt the resolution and fee schedule for county facilities. Adopt the resolution and parcel fee schedule for the Cuyama Valley. Adopt the resolution and fee schedule for the franchise solid waste collection services.
And determine that the proposed actions are exempt from CEQA. This concludes our presentation. We're happy to answer any questions you may have. Thank
you. Great. Any questions from our board? Supervisor Williams.
So I totally understand how this has worked out and why there needs to be some increases, but can you look at those examples that you did of the transition of rates? And I noticed that the commercial trash and commercial recycling rates are very close. And isn't it best practices that you normally make sure in residential that the recycling is cheaper than the trash, so that people have more of an incentive to recycle?
And why don't we practice that as much with commercial?
1:56 – 1:5810 turns
Supervisor Williams through the Chair, thank you for your question. In Zone 4 Lompoc commercial recycling is slightly priced higher than trash and that is only for that instance of a one-and-a-half yard commercial bin and a two yard commercial bin. Once you get a three yard commercial recycling bin it starts becoming cheaper than the subsequent three yard commercial trash That is the only instance across all of our five zones where recycling is more expensive. And it is simply because the distance between that area and the ultimate facility for recycling, which is the Resource Center, is slightly farther than the distance between trash, which for that region is Lompoc Landfill. We'll continue to look at this specific instance for Lompoc because we agree.
We want to say for all services that recycling is cheaper. This is simply the only instance where it is not.
Got it. Supervisor
Hartman?
I just wanted to take this opportunity to say, I live in the San Ynez Valley and the transition to Marburg is going very smoothly.
Excellent. Do we have any public comment on this matter?
Chair Lavagnino, members of the Board, we have no request to speak from the public on this item.
Okay. I'll entertain a motion.
Move staff recommendation A through E.
Second. All those in favor? Aye.
And if the board members can please vote. Chair Lavinino and members of the board. Departmental item number two is from the County Executive Office, it is a hearing to consider recommendations regarding fiscal year 2023 through 2024 third quarter budget status report.
1:58 – 2:081 turns
Good morning Chair Lavinino, members of the board. In today's report, I'll be updating your board on the county's third quarter projections relative to the adjusted budget. As a reminder these reports take projections from departments on where they estimate they will end the fiscal year and compares them to their adjusted budget for the year. If a department in the general fund projects a variance to the adjusted budget positive or negative greater than $300,000 we'll include an explanatory write-up in the report For special revenue funds, that threshold is 500,000.
Here we see the general fund as a whole is projected to end the year just over $6 million positive, much lower than the past couple of years where we saw significant property tax growth. Most departments are projecting positive balances with the four in blue on the right meeting the reportable threshold On the left, we see three departments projecting reportable negative variances compared to budget.
And we'll discuss these seven departments more specifically on the next slides. General Revenues is the department where all the general fund's discretionary revenue is recorded and includes property taxes, TOT, sales and more. A $4.3 million surplus, just around 1% of the budget is projected here. Mostly driven by interest income coming in about $3 million higher than budgeted due to the higher rate environment from the past year or two.
Other significant drivers include holding back some general fund contribution from social services this year due to higher than anticipated state revenue in that department, as well as franchise fees and sales tax coming in slightly over budget. These increases are being partially offset by property taxes coming in under budget by $1.7 million as property tax growth has slowed significantly.
All of these projected actuals have already been factored into the baseline for the 24-25 budget that we'll be discussing next week, and particularly with the slowing property tax growth is one of the reasons why we were not able to grant general fund expansions in next year's budget. Cannabis tax revenues are also projected to come in $1.8 million under budget, that's just under six million dollars projected for the year mostly due to lower retail revenue than anticipated and the cannabis report following this item will speak more about this.
That shortfall eats into cannabis tax fund balance held in general county programs and does not impact the overall general revenues 4.3 million there. Probation, treasurer tax collector and county council all had reportable positive variances. And this is due mostly to salary savings in those departments. Public health is reporting an almost $400,000 negative variance in the animal services budget due to both decreased animal licensing revenues as well as increases in the cost of food, pharmaceuticals and contracted staff support This trend was noted in our quarter two report and also discussed during the April budget workshops where the department discussed plans to increase licensing revenue by streamlining pet licensing through the newly implemented DocuPet online service as well as conducting a fee study next fiscal year.
The department also anticipates that hiring a staff veterinarian will help reduce the services and supplies costs that have been recently escalating. To close the gap in the current year, the department plans on drawing available fund balances. The Parks Division of Community Services is projecting a $618,000 negative variance driven mostly by unrealized revenue from the Goleta Beach restaurant which was anticipated in their budget to open July 2023 but as of today has yet to open The delays are reported as due to damage to the building from the 2023 winter storms, as well as greater structural and remodel work than anticipated as the building prepares to open.
Additionally, winter storms caused loss of camping revenues which is impacting the department's bottom line. The department is defraying some of these losses with planned fund balance draw and greater than anticipated salary savings in the fourth quarter could help shrink this negative further. But the rest of the deficit would be absorbed by the larger general fund surplus.
If subsequent revenue comes in through business interruption insurance claims, those payments would then come back to reimburse the general fund. The Sheriff's Department is projecting a negative variance of just under one million dollars, which is under half a percent of their total budget. very similar to their quarter three variants at this time last year.
This is partially driven by overtime costs which are projected to be $11 million over budget, although most of that OT is being covered by salary savings. The largest driver of the variance is pharmaceutical costs in the jails exceeding budget by over $600,000 due to both increased costs of medications as well as increased utilization in the jails. There is the possibility of using opioid settlement funds towards some of these pharmaceutical expenses, which would help reduce this negative variance. Your board will be hearing an item by the end of this fiscal year on recommended uses of those funds.
Negotiations are also still continuing with WellPath on receiving credits this fiscal year for missed or understaffed shifts during the current contract, which would also help reduce the sheriff's year-end deficit. The $2 million Prop 172 set aside, which I'll discuss more on the next slide will help mitigate any remaining year end deficit. We heard at April budget workshops that the board wanted a refresher on the $2 million set aside.
In October of 2022, the board approved a budget policy that has been readopted each year in the budget development policies which states that a minimum of $2 million will be held in Proposition 172 fund balance in general county programs only to be released by recommendation of CEO and approval by the board to mitigate overtime costs, cover costs of the new higher incentive program or other CEO-authorized recruitment efforts. This would include the referral program for hard to fill positions, as well as their approval to overhire into sheriff's deputy and custody deputy positions so that they're able to onboard as many qualified applicants in a pool as possible during a recruitment. To date, the department hasn't requested use of these funds specifically for overhiring simply due to the amount of vacancies that they've been carrying.
They haven't reached that threshold yet. The department utilized 1.5 million of the 2 million set aside last fiscal year to close the budget. That amount was replenished at $2 million in the current fiscal year and next year's recommended budget includes a $2 million in fund balance as well. We have reportable positive variances of over $500,000 in the fire district IT shared services and county liability special revenue funds.
In fire and IT, those variances are driven mostly by salary savings with much of fires due to the deferral of hiring for the RFCC dispatch until that's closer to completion. And the liability fund they received an unanticipated payment related to property damage claim which will be held in retained earnings and then used in future years to offset rate increases to departments.
And finally, to get a picture of funded vacancies by quarter. We've created a chart that shows adopted FTE by department in the blue line with smallest departments on the left and the largest on the right. Underneath that we've got bars for each quarter's vacant funded positions by department. Orange is Q1, gray is Q2 and yellow is Quarter 3. As of quarter three, 625 or 13% of the county's 4,644 adopted funded positions were vacant.
This is similar to quarter two's vacancy rate and slightly lower than quarter one which was 15%. As expected, the departments with much higher adopted FTE have higher numbers of funded vacancies. But when we're looking at calculation of a vacancy rate, it's some of those departments in the middle with lower adopted FTE but a relatively high number of funded vacancies that have the highest vacancy rates as of March 31st.
That includes the auditor controller, which has consistently been over 20% in each quarter but reports a number of recent hires in Q4 that have sustained will drive their rate down in next quarter's report. And IT, which had a 32% vacancy rate in Quarter 1 and has seen recruitment success over this year but remains at 22% in Quarter 3. We also wanted to point out some of the successes we see here, such as Public Defender which had a 21% vacancy rate in quarter one and reported 5% by the end of quarter three filling 17 positions over the year.
And General Services which has dropped from 21% to 10% over the fiscal year filling ten positions. We will continue to track this quarterly and we report all department rates on the attachment C to this report
2:08 – 2:1421 turns
Mr. Clemeni, just a question on that. So buried in the report is there a chart that shows it by percentage?
Attachment C shows each department attached to this board report. And that concludes the presentation. Recommended actions are to receive and file and make the CEQA determination.
Supervisor Nelson.
Yes thank you Chair Labadino. My questions go back to slide 8 for a moment and my concern It's about the Sheriff's overtime. So right now, projection of over $11 million of overtime costs which means that we have and we're at about a $900,000 variance is that so I understand that right about $10 million in salary savings is what's the number that were taking a look at here?
Or is it about a wash? Supervisor Nelson through the Chair, it is about a wash. There's probably a few hundred thousand in there that may not be covered but most of that is being covered by the vacancies and what we're seeing of the 900,000 two-thirds of that is this pharmaceutical issue.
So there's like ten million dollars there at the Sheriff could be using to hire positions
Yeah, and I believe they are. But yes, the salary savings are generated from their funded vacancies.
Okay. And then going, I guess to Attachment C, continuing on that threat of the Sheriff's Department, I see there's still in a quarter three over 100 vacancies but then the Sheriff's Department on April 1st had quite a few retirements is my understanding? So that probably increased by another 40 plus employees. Do we have a number there?
Supervisor Nielsen through the chair. I don't have what they what would have impacted them post March 31. But when we bring our next quarterly report, which would be the year-end report typically around August or September, we will have the refresh number there and see whether it goes higher or lower if they have hiring as well that offsets those increased retirements. That just kind of
begs a question about that phenomenon where we have a lot of retirements in quarter three. Do we typically see in quarter four more salary savings than other times of the year due to those retirements?
Supervisor through the Chair, I couldn't say off the top of my head but we can certainly look into that and report back.
And then last question is on slide 10, the IT services where we've essentially billed our other departments through that fund about more than what we've actually had to spend because of salary savings. Does that money roll over into future rates that go back to those departments at that time? How does that exactly work as a function?
Supervisor through the Chair, it can. They're supposed to maintain a certain number of level of working capital if they're consistently holding a fund balance higher than that the auditor or controller will work with them and that may end up being like refunds back to departments. We've been tracking that as well and we spoke with them as we were developing the 24-25 budget and increased their assumed salary savings which offset some of the rate increases as well.
Okay, that helps. As I mentioned earlier today with the motor pool and IT services impacting various departments, I think that's something we just need to keep our eye on. Certainly. Supervisor Kaps?
Thank you. Yeah, just to pick up on the staff vacancy and I know we might get into it more fully in our budget hearings but I just wanted to ask about sort of our rates of 13 percent that's better than we've been but what how does that compare historically with this within this county? I know obviously the pandemic took a hit and we were closer to 30 I believe or in some departments but how if you don't have that here I'm kind of throwing this at
Supervisor through the Chair, excuse me I don't have that but that's something we could probably put together and make it a BIF and try to post something and distribute prior to hearings next week.
And I know this has been a topic previously during budget but for the departments like Auditor Controller's Office that's over 20% consistently are those the same positions? And then I think we've talked about is there sort of a sunset if a position open for year after year after year that obviously becomes irrelevant or eliminated to save money.
Supervisor through the Chair, it's not typically, excuse me, it is not typically the same positions being held and we do look at that when we're developing the budget and we adopted a policy just this year to look closer at ones that have been vacant two years or longer funded vacancies. We didn't come across too many that seemed like they were just floating out there for no reason. The departments are still trying to fill or that they're using it, the funding towards contracted services while they try to adjust the position but certainly those are the positions that as the budget tightens and things tighten in coming years, those would be the first place to look would be long-term funded vacancies to begin on funding and things if we're talking about reductions.
Yeah and along those lines I know, I believe we're tracking this potential state legislation if it passes that would actually force counties to forfeit vacant positions. Is that accurate?
So I've seen a little bit on that and I haven't seen any analysis on what really the impacts might be but I know there is a bill that is moving through that would require a meet-and-confer or certain works with labor groups
I think if that bill has a prospect of becoming law we should be well ahead of that and make sure department heads are aware that might be coming. Again, I don't want to fear Monger at this point if it actually won't move but as far as I understand it seemed to have some traction. Okay, switching gears completely to ask Mr. Lindgren with the variance in parks on Goleta Beach restaurant we get asked in our office quite a bit about the opening and I understand fully how there's been storms that have delayed that if you could provide a quick update That would be helpful
2:14 – 2:1812 turns
Good morning, Mr. Chair, Supervisor Caps, Jeff Lingren with Parks. The Elwood, which is the name of the restaurant that is forthcoming at Goleta Beach, is back under construction. Financing is in place to carry them through the rest of their construction period. And they're anticipating being open within 90 days. So yes, we did budget that we would be receiving revenue from them this fiscal year and are planning of course to receive revenue next fiscal year.
We're talking about an opening in August at this point so there will be a gap next year in anticipated revenue from that restaurant as well.
It's looking pretty
good for August. Yes, the good news is you know they are in compliance with their agreement they're making their base rent payments and they've been resilient through a lot of challenges so I think we have a good concessionaire that will be able to work with for a long time.
We'll welcome that when it happens thank you
Supervisor Williams. I wanted to say something in agreement with Mr. Nelson's concern about the Sheriff's Department. My understanding is the three or the four things that are articulated as possible uses for the 172, that the board has made a strong preference and withholds a discretion to not use it for overtime. The whole point of it is to try to help the Sheriff's Department overhire to avoid overtime. In fact, it might be a perverse conclusion if we use that 2 million And so I just want to say, you know, I hope the department keeps us informed of developments because I'm not inclined to vote to use that 172 for overtime increases that are in the millions.
I would consider if it was in the tens of thousands or low hundreds of thousands but not in the millions.
Okay and I think the message to all department heads Looking forward into, from what I'm hearing up here is that that is an item that this board's really concerned about moving forward. Is what your vacancy rate is kind of what we're doing to make sure that those longtime unfunded unfilled positions. I know everybody's working on that but that's something that's going to be a focus for us. CEO Miyasato?
Thank you, Chair Lavinia. That's true and because as Mr. Clemente highlighted we are seeing very narrow margins in our revenue next year where we are having to have extra controls put in place probably in the next coming year so vacancies may be used to eliminate budget deficits Rather than departments going out and trying to fill quickly we were we'd evaluate whether those positions are actually needed or not because I think we are gonna need Some more cushion in our operating budget, and that's a place. We would naturally go
okay, and since we've had a few rough comments. I'll add one Little salve at the end is that I think the Sheriff's Department is one of the largest departments. And for them to be only less than 1% out of budget, for me, is good news. So I understand that we do have overtime filling in where we could have actual bodies there. But as far as the rest of the department, I would welcome anybody to be within 1% of their projected budget.
All right. Is there any public comment on this matter?
Chair Lavanino, members of the board we have no request to speak on this item.
Okay can I get a motion?
Move A through B of staff recommendation.
Second. Moved and seconded all those in favor aye any opposed? Aye. Passes unanimously that takes us to departmental item number three
2:18 – 2:236 turns
Chair Lavanino and members of the board, departmental item number three is from the County Executive Office. It is a hearing to consider recommendations regarding a third quarter fiscal year 2023 through 2024 update on cannabis taxation compliance and enforcement.
Good morning, Chair Lavinino, members of the board. Brittany Oderman, Deputy CEO. I have Carmella Beck here, our Cannabis Program Manager. She'll be giving our Q3 report this morning or yeah, this morning, thank you.
All right, can we get this on? There we go.
All right. Yes, good morning. Thank you. So I'll be touching on five topics this morning including tax receipts and compliance, land use permitting, business license activity, enforcement of illegal activity and emerging issues. Interesting. Oh, sorry. The Treasurer Tax Collector Office collected $1.2 million in cannabis gross tax receipts in Q3 with an annual to date collection of 4 million. Collections were less than Q3 last year and were lower than projected due to delayed retail opening dates and due to lower-than-expected receipts from the Isla Vista and Santa Ynez retail locations.
In Q3, we had 57 operators required to report. Of the 57 operators, four did not report because they are not currently in operation. Their state licenses and county business licenses will not be renewed this year. 20 of the 57 operators reported zero gross receipts and 33 of the 57 operators reported and made timely payments. All 57 operations are accounted for.
Planning and development is continuing with their land use permitting activities. The submitted permit acreage continues to exceed the acreage cap. There are still three cannabis projects on appeal, and there have been several actions taken on existing approved cannabis entitlements although no new entitlements were issued for new cannabis operations. There are 58 county business licenses that are currently pending.
We have the following updates on the four remaining dispensaries that have yet to open. The Orca, Dr. Green Thumb's location will be making interior tenant improvements over the next few months. The business anticipates opening the doors sometime between October and December of this year. The Los Alamos Haven location needs to pay their fees in order to start the plan check review for new construction. The business anticipates opening their doors sometime between October and December of next year.
The Eastern Goleta Valley Island Drift location has demolished the existing structure. Grading and construction applications are under review. The business anticipates opening their doors sometime between October and December of this year. The Toro Canyon Summerland Santa Claus Lane location plans to submit a building permit application this month for an interior and exterior remodel. The business anticipates opening their doors sometime between April and June of next year.
The Sheriff's Office is actively pursuing illegal activity. They completed four enforcement actions in the third quarter. 259 pounds of dried product was confiscated at an estimated street value of $261,000. The Sheriff's Office has identified the three following industry trends. One, continued illicit activities are shifting from large outdoor grows to smaller indoor grows.
Two, a large amount of non-volatile cannabis extraction labs have been encountered. And three, the use of burner distros have been encountered. Per the Sheriff's reporting, the amount of cannabis sold in the illicit market does not appear to have decreased. In closing, we've identified two emerging issues for the board to consider including the following. One changes to the tax measure and any adjustments needed to Chapter 50 and two county implications for the upcoming cannabis rescheduling from Schedule 1 to Schedule 3 Our recommended actions today are to receive an update on the fiscal year 23-24 third quarter cannabis status report and to make a CEQA determination.
Thank you, that concludes the presentation. Deputy CEO Brittany Oderman, Lieutenant Rob Minter, and Sergeant Matthew Bankson are available to answer questions.
Okay thank you very much. Questions? Supervisor Hartman
So what does the federal change in classification mean or how will we go about understanding that better?
2:23 – 2:2919 turns
Thank you, Supervisor Hartman. Through the Chair, that's a great question. We are still looking into this and considering it. We're in conversations with the Department of Cannabis Control as well as just reviewing information that we're receiving from the federal government. Concrete things to report today about what it means. But we will certainly continue to track it and bring you updates as they become available.
Do we anticipate that it would allow interstate transport and sale?
Supervisor Hartman, yes potentially that is certainly part of what's being discussed and that that's the one thing in particular that would have the biggest effect I think on our industry locally. Well and state statewide so we will again we can bring back in quarter four any updates that we have related to
that
thank
you Supervisor Nelson.
Yes, thank you Chair Lavinio. Going back to slide eight there for a moment. Enforcement of illegal activity. I think it's bullet point four there are large amount of non-volatile cannabis extraction labs in use of burner distros have been encountered. Can you define burner distros?
Supervisor Nelson through the chair I believe we have the Sheriff's Office online via Zoom. Is that correct?
Yes, this is Matt Banks.
Thank you, Sergeant Banks. Could you please talk about that in particular in relation to what you're seeing in our county? Thank
you. Yes, thank you Supervisor Nelson through the chair. A burner distro is from my experience comes in one of two fashions a business might obtain a license in a local jurisdiction and a state license and then not follow the rules and divert the product to the illicit market at times people are stealing license numbers from a legitimate business and it takes time for that to be vetted out Or sometimes a licensed business will receive payments for an illicit person to use their license. And in all instances, that is one of the most common ways that legal product is being diverted to the illicit market.
Supervisor Nelson through the Chair, I'll just add to that. So what Sergeant Banks is describing in the first instance is someone will get a distribution license from the state in another jurisdiction and they'll approach cultivation operations in our county with that legitimate state license and that product, legal product will be transferred to that distribution license and that distributor.
And they will take that product potentially into the illegal market in our state, but most likely out of state. And then that distribution license disappears, those people disappear and that's why the term burner
is used. Is that same strategy being used for tax evasion as well?
Supervisor Nelson through the Chair, Since the tax, in that case that I described, the tax burden is on the cultivator, right? In our county when they transfer. That's a transfer taxable activity. I don't believe so because the pricing then becomes an issue of what they report as for their pricing and so it's the tax burdens on the cultivator. The distribution license is another jurisdiction then potentially they're supposed to owe taxes to that other jurisdiction. It wouldn't affect
Yeah, my understanding on some of these burner distros was that they were again buying the product at a very reduced rate less than market. Therefore evading taxes and not paying the proper cultivation tax in Santa Barbara County that's due to the taxpayers and then retiring that cannabis either on the illicit market or into other markets without having to pay taxes maybe in a jurisdiction doesn't have a gross receipts tax for example so Trying to better understand how that's being done.
Potentially, that's the case. I think there are... Supervisor Nelson through the chair, I think there's lots of different ways and instances that this is occurring and the Sheriff's Office is addressing it.
And hopefully through our audits that we're doing, we might be able to start-
Absolutely.
Yeah. To identify some of that what's happening on the tax side. My next couple questions had to do with the retail locations. Thank you for the updates on the Orca and Los Alamos locations but I've been hearing this pretty much that same thing for last couple years. At what point do we say thanks but no thanks to these operators There's nothing really stopping them from moving their project forward, that they're just not paying fees because they want to drag their feet.
They're holding up whether another person can come in with that license or whether that community might have anxiety about having it in the first place, you know, that timing of it. At this point I don't even know if we include it in our budget anymore as our forecasts so is this something they are going to have indefinitely here? Or at what point does this board pull back some of these licenses
2:29 – 2:3711 turns
Thank you, Supervisor Nielsen and Chair Lavanino. The ordinance states that as long as an applicant is making progress through the process they may remain in the process and we are in communication, close communication with Planning and Development I just want to make sure that we're all on the same page. I think as noted by miss back, all of these operators are in that permitting stage of some point.
I think the one operator there that says you know they're waiting to pay fees. Obviously that's that's the balls in their court and speaking with P and D staff. It appears that they're As we know that process can be long. And I have heard about some delays due to sort of waiting for the costs to come down for tenant improvements, for example and other things of that nature. And so we will continue to keep a close eye on these operators. They know they heard your question last quarter.
We've inquired with them individually as well as with Planning and Development, and so they know that we're watching, and they know that they're under some pressure to continue through this process if they want to continue to hold this position to have the license.
Yeah, so I'm just going to say maybe next time we have as far as emerging issues are concerned when it comes back to us with potential our next set of Chapter 50 changes. We include actually the expiration of these permits for those people that might get the fire underneath them that there would be something in place for those expire and then potentially be reissued to potentially another operator. I think that they're your At this point, taking advantage of the system of dragging their feet for years. Some of them have good reasons and others don't. And I think they either need to get their permit or move on. So I'd like to see that as one of our future things to discuss.
Thank you Supervisor Nielsen. We will definitely take that into consideration.
Supervisor Hartman?
That does raise a question. If the cannabis retail operation goes out of business, how is that replaced? Is it through a lottery or do they sell it or how does that work?
Thank you Supervisor Hartman, through the Chair. Chapter 50 lays that out and if a retail business goes, if they go out of business we have our ranking of the applications that we received and we maintain that list and annually we're checking in with the operators that are on the list and so we would go to number two each of those areas and invite them or ask them if they were still interested, and they could then apply. It doesn't we do not have a lottery and it doesn't just open up unless we go exhaust the list and there's nobody on it we would then have to go through our process again of doing a call
for proposals. All right thank you Madam Clerk are there any requests to speak from public?
Chair Lavinino and members of the board, we do have one request to speak from the public on this item. And we are going to remain here in Santa Barbara with Dennis Bozanich. Dennis?
Chair Lavinino, members of the board, I represent the property owners at 3823 Patton Marietas. There's no doubt that it's been a long road to get to this point since submitting their application in October of 2020 to the submission yesterday for a building permit at 3823 Santa Claus Lane, that it's been a long and extremely expensive road. Some in this community have characterized the county's 2018 cannabis regulations as weak and as a red carpet to the industry.
From where I sat to where I stand, that is not true. It never was true but it made a great talking point Compared to the board's action on January 19th, 2016, the County of Santa Barbara created an integrated series of land use and business requirements that match the state's regulations in 2018. However it is a long and expensive road made longer by incredibly careful and slow processing of permits and license applications by staff fearful of making a wrong decision.
We ask that the board maintain the existing regulatory structure, but we ask that the process for all applicants move much, much faster. For all businesses in the county, not just cannabis. Permits and licenses should not be required to, should not require the disproportionate amount of upfront time and treasure they currently do before a single dollar goes into the cash register.
The cannabis industry has been in a recession since 2022. This recession has resulted in the loss of liquidity across the supply chain from producers to retailers. It is remarkably consistent in each of the legacy recreational cannabis states, California, Colorado, Oregon and Washington. This is not a Santa Barbara County thing. This has directly affected the property owners at 3823 They are having to seek a new operator due to the lack of funds available from the partners who were invested in other cannabis operations. Finding the right operator for this amazing location is critical and is ongoing.
We ask the board to lobby for legislation needed to support the rescheduling and descheduling of cannabis. This will open capital markets and provide tax deductions for reasonable business expenses just like every other business, and we ask you to support all efforts to combat the illegal cannabis market through active compliance checks to maintain the integrity of the licensed businesses and to enforce against the unsafe, unhealthy, and anti-competitive operations of the illegal market.
Lastly, of particular concern for the Radises and all business and property owners on Santa Claus Lane is the ongoing construction and frankly the horrible road conditions from Padaro to the south slash east end where the new turnaround is. where the new 101 on-ramp goes and the new bike path. These conditions caused by the 101 widening, and the start stop implementation of the Santa Claus Lane streetscape project is scaring away customers and new operators. We ask that you work with Public Works to streamline the completion of this project before more businesses are at risk, and to provide the long promised beach access across the UPRR right of way. Thank you very much.
And that concludes public comment on this item.
Thank you very much.
2:37 – 2:485 turns
You know, the input that Public Works got from the merchants in Santa Claus Lane was not to begin construction in the summer. And so they're trying to do it in the narrow window between summer traffic and Christmas traffic being the most important times for the business district. So that's what's going on there. They're not delaying it for any reason on our end but because of the preferences of the merchants in the area. Okay, did we vote?
We did okay oh so I was going to great departmental item number four please
Chair Lavanino and members of the Board, departmental item number four is from the County Executive Office. It is a hearing to consider recommendations regarding a proposed increase of transient occupancy tax, TOT ballot measure for November 2024 general election ballot and as previously announced this morning we did post an addendum to our agenda on Friday May 31st excuse me Revising recommendation B to direct staff to return on June 18th, 2024 with an ordinance of the Board of Supervisors.
Yeah. Oh sorry Nancy.
That's okay. Good afternoon Chair Lavinino and members of the board I am here with Chief Deputy CEO Brittany Oderman to assist with this presentation in regard to TOT or transient occupancy tax. This item was requested by your board at the May 14th board meeting to allow for a discussion to consider an increase to the transient occupancy tax or TOT rate to be put on November ballot. The county is seeking revenue options to diversify our resources given our future economic constraints and as you may recall, a sales tax increase is not viable option at this time.
Today we are looking for direction to either return on June 18th with an ordinance change to increase the TOT by 2% from 12% to 14%, and the necessary steps to proceed with that action or take no action today. In today's presentation, we will provide some background and overview of TOT as it relates to the county. Provide the TOT rates currently across the county which includes the cities.
Who is impacted and some feedback received already from major stakeholders. The taxing authority and required votes to pass an increase. And the next steps necessary in order to meet the election deadlines should your board direct staff to move forward. This slide helps to set the context of why we are here. This chart is meant to quickly highlight that we as a county do a lot, and by comparison our TOT is not much but still needed to provide critical services from criminal justice to safety net to roads and infrastructure among others.
The county has a $1.6 billion budget that is funded over 40% by state and federal resources to provide mandated services. Only about 24%, or 384 million, is truly discretionary to the board and nearly 45% of that pays for public safety in criminal justice programs. Over the next three years, the county is projected to be at a nearly $8 million deficit as a result of growing expenses that are simply outpacing the resources. 4.3 million of that deficit is related to homeless services and programs to assist this vulnerable population.
And we are now having to grapple with the state's fiscal issues as well that is currently looking at a $44.9 billion shortfall. So far, the county has been able to weather the budgetary gaps through funding efficiencies where possible and long-term planning with prudent set asides for future deficits that are now being depleted. For that reason your board previously asked the staff to pursue polling for a sales tax measure and information now related to TOT for discussion and consideration.
We've shown this map before. This is a reminder that the county is largely an agricultural area with government holdings. 49% of our land is government-owned, mostly by the federal government and 46% is agricultural which leaves very little less than 5% for urbanized uses housing and commercial activities. So what is TOT? TOT is a tax generated by visitors who pay the rate when staying at any lodging facility, such as hotel, motel or vacation property rental for 30 days or less within the unincorporated areas of the county. Currently the rate is 12%, as approved by voters in 2016. This was an increase of 2% from 10% to 12% and became effective January 1st 2017.
Prior to that, the rate held steady from 1990 to 2016 at 10%, and the TOT was first established back in 1978 at 8%. So how is TOT collected? It is remitted by hotels and short-term rental businesses that hold a TOT certificate on a monthly basis from the basis to the treasurer tax collector. This is pursuant to county's codes Sections 3211 through 3221. Operators are required to obtain an occupancy registration certificate from the TTC's office within 30 days after commencing business. The DTC identified 24 hotels and motels, and 520 short-term rentals that currently remit TOT to their office.
This table shows the current TOT rates across the county. Most cities and county are at 12%. The cities of Lompoc and Santa Maria are at 10% and Guadalupe is at 6%. The collection amounts listed here are from the fiscal year 22-23, year to reflect the full year actuals for all agencies. The county's TOT collections have remained relatively flat with a projected estimate for fiscal year 24-25 of $17.6 million annually, and a 2% increase is estimated to generate an additional $2.9 million a year.
The county is not the only agency exploring an increase. Both Buellton and Solving City Councils have considered and approved a similar increase to be added to the November ballot. Since docketing of this item, we've also learned that the city of Carpinteria has approved an increase of 3% to 15% total to be added to the November ballot. Additionally, it is the city of Santa Barbara is exploring a half-cent sales tax increase on the November ballot as well.
In addition to solving Buelton and Carpinteria, the county would not be alone in pursuing a 14% or more rate. There are several California jurisdictions that currently have TOT rates at or above the 14% being considered. As noted earlier, there are 24 hotel lodging facilities that are remitting TOT to the treasurer tax collector. This slide shows the general location of those properties throughout the unincorporated areas of the county and because TOT generated by business is confidential with the treasurer tax collectors office we do not know the amount generated by each of these properties Additionally, the Treasurer Tax Collector indicates that there are 520 short-term rentals remitting TOT to the county. This chart shows how many operators are doing business within the various district areas.
Staff met last month with representatives from both Visit Santa Barbara and Visit San Yanez as they represent a majority of those operators that would be impacted by an increase in TOT. These organizations also participate in and receive funding from the Fulfillment Tourism Promotion Program that allocates $190,000 to several organizations throughout the county based on a population served Both organizations administer tourism business improvement districts at the consent of the county within their respective areas After our meeting with visit Santa Barbara They provided a formal letter to the board indicating they oppose the increase and expressed the following concerns They were concerned about significant unsold capacity compared to previous years.
They were concerned about unincorporated operators that would be disadvantaged compared to those in the cities or regions with lower TRT, and they would like to see an economic impact analysis on the visitor and lodging industry before they consider supporting any type of increase. Staff did offer to explore one-time funding for projects that would help mitigate potential impacts. And after consulting with their membership, Visit Santa Barbara indicated that they were not interested at this time.
Revenue and Taxation Code 7280 authorizes the county to levy a TOT tax within the unincorporated areas. Santa Barbara County Code sections 32-12 codifies the 12% rate effective January 1st of 2017 based on voter approval. Government code section 53723 indicates that voter approval is needed for a general tax and would require the vote to apply to all voters in the county, although the tax would only be levied on unincorporated operators.
As noted, this is different than the sales tax that would only apply to voters in unincorporated area of the county. To put the measure on the ballot would require four-fifths vote of your board and a majority vote of all the voters of the county. If the board directs staff to proceed, we would plan to initiate polling and begin developing ballot language. Seek formal approval of a first reading of an ordinance amendment on June 18th with a presentation.
Seek formal approval of a second reading on July 9th and request consolidation with the election in addition to presenting the ballot language. This will allow the measure to be presented to the voters on November 5th 2024 as a ballot item. The recommended action is to receive and consider this report regarding a 2% increase on the November 5th ballot, direct staff to return on June 18 for a first reading of an ordinance amendment, and provide other directions as appropriate. Determine the action is not a project under CEQA.
With that we are available for any questions you may have.
2:49 – 2:5514 turns
Thank you very much. Nancy, Supervisor Nelson?
Yes thank you Chair Lavagnino. Go back to slide 13 there for a moment on the taxing authority got my attention I think also got Supervisor Hartman's attention on government code 53-723 that this tax would be countywide but only applied to unincorporated and is that because it's a hotel tax or what why is that different than the sales tax Is that an option the county has?
Or is it that what's going to be, is that the code and requirement. And that also now suggests that some voters in our county will actually have multiple TOT tax elections like in Carpinteria they'll see a 15 and a 14 if that's the case. So just could you tease that out a little bit for me?
Supervisors, I would ask County Council because they've researched this on the specific language. But last time this came up, I can also relay what we had talked about at that time.
Members of the Board and Supervisor Nelson, we did look at this issue as it relates to a sales tax. There's a specific statute that says that when you are voting on a sales tax its unincorporated voters only and I'm just pulling up this section here but the section is what applies for a TOT and it is the broader electorate.
Does the county have discretion or is there no discretion there?
Supervisor Nielsen, I'll look at that. I don't believe there is discretion and we also went back to look at what the county did in previous elections when we did TOT increases and we did do a vote of the entire
county. And I understand that but I understand some of that law has changed since then so that's why I thought it might also apply on this one and maybe that legislation that required sales tax to only apply to the unincorporated residents I mean, it's the same principle though that you would taxation representation having another body potentially tax another entity that they not.
It's indirectly associated with, is a little anti-democratic. But I guess that's the
law. Supervisors to the Chair, I think when this came up some years ago and we increased it, the philosophical underpinnings as I was related to me was that because on a TOT it's a general discretionary revenue, it could be spent anywhere in the county not just when unincorporated so it's giving opportunity for all of the electorate which would be all voters in the county to have a voice in it.
But I would say that same thing occurs for the sales tax. So that's why I'm trying to understand how this is potentially different.
Mr. Chair and Supervisor Nelson, I am looking at that elections code or that code provision and it has not been updated or revised so it's the same as it was when we look at a seven years ago. It looks like it was approved in 1986 and has stayed consistent and it is a separate authority than the sales tax provision
All right, I'm sure we have some public comment request to speak. Madam Clerk?
Chair Lavanino and members of the board yes we have nine requests to speak on this item. We are going to begin on Zoom with Linda Honigman to be followed by Frank Rodriguez. Linda?
Thank you, you caught me eating my lunch. Dear Supervisors I'm Linda Hunneckman speaking as an individual who lives in the South Hollister area of the county that is likely to see significant changes to its livability in the next 10 years Now that we have closure on the housing element and up zone locations, we need to ensure that we have enough resources to produce new regional and neighborhood plans. That can reduce negative impacts of high density and seed money to help the county's Housing Authority and non-profit developers fund housing for low and moderate income workers as well as our more vulnerable populations.
Thousands of sites have been identified across the county that could house very low and low-income residents that need subsidies in moderate income households as required by RHNA. Getting those units actually built will be challenging, so an important first step is to have some seed money that can leverage state and federal funds. An effort is needed that is similar to the City of Santa Barbara's establishment of an affordable housing trust fund that can qualify for matching state grants and other grants and philanthropic donations.
There is a county workforce housing study being finalized this summer, and I am hopeful that the efforts to identify more county-owned sites in the establishment of a housing trust fund Will provide a means of reversing the decline in housing for our new missing middle, the low and modern income workers in the South County. It will also provide a chance to explore more cost effective building materials, new financial models like limited equity cooperatives and community land trusts.
And innovative housing systems that can provide new jobs for the North County related to affordable housing design and production. Any type of tax increase will be difficult to pass especially since all residents of the county are allowed to vote. But I think we have to try something this year since it will take a few years to get access to tax funds and apply for grants.
During the housing element process for all jurisdictions, I was disappointed that districts and jurisdictions seem to work against each other. It's districts in the city not the county. This is a time to come together and support all parts of our county for the greater good. We also need the business community homeowners renters and the tourism industry to work together on solving the housing crisis.
I hate going against the chamber on this issue because their road-to-home efforts are likely to be an important part of our solutions, but we must consider the needs of our local residents and workers who are also vitally important to our economy as consumers and to the tourism industry as workers. Thank you
We will now go to Frank Rodriguez and then we will return to Santa Barbara with Nancy Avasi. Frank?
2:55 – 3:0310 turns
Hello, hello.
We can hear you please proceed.
Awesome, thank you. Hi Chair, thank you Chair Lavinino and County Board of Supervisors of Santa Barbara my name is Frank Rodriguez speaking here as part of CAUSE or the Central Coast Alliance United for a Sustainable Economy and also as a resident of Noleta or the unincorporated part of Santa Barbara County we are Have been very vocal and stressing the importance of having the protection for our renter community.
But at the same time, we need to have the vision for the type of housing that will help our workers, especially our hotel workers thinking about our domestic workers are service industry and the tourist industry. And thinking how do we make sure we have a vision of housing that community so We're in favor of following the lead of municipalities around us, such as Carpinteria and others who are increasing the TLT tax. Believe the county should do the same in order to really have the funding to create that vision for the housing capital affordable housing that we need. Thank you all for taking on this conversation excited to hear what y'all discuss and debate thank you.
We will now return to Santa Barbara with Nancy Yvossi to be followed by Kristen Miller. Nancy?
Good morning, Chair and members of the Board. On behalf of Santa Barbara County Action Network, SPCAN, we support the staff proposal to place the issue of increasing the county transient occupant tax on the November ballot. In general, we support the need for public deliberation about how public services are financed and how the community benefits of the tourist industry can be insured.
We are particularly concerned that the county find revenue streams that will support increased development of affordable housing and hope this measure will contribute to that end. Please consider the lives and rights of Santa Barbara County's hard-working employees who are struggling to make ends meet living in this county. Santa Barbara County Action Network, SPCAN appreciates the opportunity to comment on this. Thank you.
We will now go to Kristen Miller to be followed by Laura Robinson. Kristen? Alrighty, we will now go to Laura Robinson to be followed by Kathy Janega-Dykes. Laura?
Good morning Chair LaPanino and the Board my name is Laura Robinson and I'm the Executive Director of SEIU Local 620 I am here today to express my strong support for the proposed increase to the transient occupancy tax from 12-14%. This modest adjustment will predominantly affect our visitors, not our local residents. ensuring that the vibrant tourism sector contributes its fair share to our community. Santa Barbara County is renowned for its stunning landscapes, rich culture and welcoming atmosphere which attract countless visitors each year. By increasing the TOT we are tapping into an essential revenue stream that aligns with the benefits visitors receive from our services in our infrastructure.
The additional revenue generated from this increase is crucial it will directly support the ongoing operations and staffing necessary to meet the growing needs of our community This means not only maintaining our beautiful parks and beaches and enhancing our public services, but also providing adequate resources and support for our county staff. By investing in our staff we can ensure they have the tools training and support needed to continue delivering high quality services to our residents and visitors alike. This proposal is a strategic move to secure sustainable funding without placing additional financial burdens on our local residents. It is a balanced approach that allows us to uphold and improve the quality of the Santa Barbara County, ensuring that both residents and visitors can continue to enjoy all of our wonderful region has to offer.
By supporting this TOT increase we not only support our community's needs but also empower our county staff who are the backbone of our public services. Their well-being and efficiency directly impacts the quality of services we provide making this a vital step towards a prosperous future for Santa Barbara County. Thank you.
We will now go to Kathy Genega Dykes, excuse me, to be followed by Leonardo DeCasas. Kathy?
Thank you. Mr. Chair and members of the supervisors, my name is Kathy Genega-Dykes. I'm president and CEO of Visit Santa Barbara. It may actually surprise you but I'd like to share that we largely agree with you while we oppose raising the transient occupancy tax on our overnight guests, we sincerely agree that the leisure in the hospitality industry can be part of this solution and add new revenue to the county and help balance your budget. But raising the tax rate is not the way to achieve this shared goal. The wise and sustainable policy path to increase revenue is by making the region more competitive, more attractive, and certainly attracting more overnight visitors. The 14% TOT would be the highest on the Central Coast and would be the second least competitive tax rate among similar leisure destinations.
For more details, I would actually refer you to the letter that Visit Santa Barbara submitted last week as well as the sincere concerns of 109 regional business leaders that were added to the record yesterday. These representatives of the 109 businesses include owners or staff members of various businesses including hotels and restaurants, attractions and events who are concerned that this increase in tax will actually help to decline our industry. So as an alternative we are encouraged That since fiscal year 2018, which was actually the first full rate of the current 12% TOT rate. Collections by the county have grown from just $8 million to now over 17 million. But this has also been possible through the addition of new properties and certainly countless capital improvements by business owners.
Similarly that tax has grown due to aggressive and very highly effective sales and marketing campaigns developed by Visit Santa Barbara and our partners. I see a bright future for TOT growth without risking our shared future with this tax increase. Visit Santa Barbara is very committed to doing everything in our power to expanding The economic impact of travel to the South Coast for our resident workforce, our business owners and yes even for our partners here in the government. So we ask you to join us in this work and vote no on today's proposal.
We will now go to Leonardo DeCassis to be followed by Dustin Hoyseth.
3:03 – 3:087 turns
Hello Chairman and the County Board of Supervisors. My name is Leo Decasaus, and I am a field representative for Service Employees International Union Local 620. We are an employee organization that represents thousands of workers who are currently employed at the County of Santa Barbara. While the county offers a great place to work in the public sector and offers a variety Great career opportunities. Our members are realizing that inflation has been rapidly increasing over the span of the last few years.
That is why I'm here today on behalf of SCIU Local 620 to support a transient occupancy tax that will help alleviate the fiscal constraints that the county is currently under to supplement the county workforce cost-of-living adjustments that need, that our members need for basic living expenses like gas housing groceries etc. We hope that the board agrees to implement the steps necessary to amend the county's tax code and submit this ballot measure before the voters this November.
Our members, employees of the county are hopeful that the funds that this tax can potentially generate will be used to invest in the workforce that serves our communities and provide the essential public services that our county rely on. Thank you.
We will now go to Dustin Hoyseth to be followed by Tom Patton. We will go to Tom Patton. To be followed by Kristen Miller.
Good afternoon chair and fellow board members. I'm Tom Patton, the general manager and partner of the Ramada Santa Barbara located in Nolita, 126 rooms. Several hardworking constituents that we employ for many years. Thank you for the time that you took earlier this week to meet with us here on this very important issue. We appreciate your support of tourism.
I'm here today to ask that we slow down the process a little bit. As we just heard, you just started thinking about this on May 14th. I want to make sure we fully understand the ramifications of what this may mean. I would certainly suggest an economic impact study. We all have our guesses on what it may or may not do and I think we need – this is a time that a study is certainly warranted to find those out. The hotels are operating in a challenging market.
A year or two of really great numbers coming out of COVID, but it's become a very challenging market with a higher vacancy rate than some of our other competitors. Groups are certainly very rate sensitive and as one of those hotels that's in Nolita that will be directly impacted that I guarantee you I will lose some business to competing areas with the lower tax rate. So I would also suggest that you support explore some alternate revenue opportunities My suggestion is let's grow the pie for everybody. We've heard about the needs for housing, the needs to support our hard-working employees in the county and I support that 100%. But let's grow that pie so we really can make a difference. We can invest more in tourism promotion, make sure that all of the short term rentals Are remitting the correct amount of TOT, and make sure that we're working as diligently as we can to approve the projects that are in the pipeline that will generate both jobs and a higher tax base.
So thank you for your time and your consideration.
And we will now go to Kristen Miller who is our final speaker on this item.
Thank you. I'm Kristen Miller, President and CEO of the Santa Barbara South Coast Chamber of Commerce from Goleta to Carpinteria. And I have a really nice speech written here but I think you've already read our letter and I thought instead today I would just say this. The economy is so uncertain right now. Our businesses are suffering in every industry sector some worse than others but all from the uncertainty of an economy that is in flux So I get it, that you're there too and the county needs revenue. But what we'd like to ask and offer is could we in the spirit that Steve Lavagnino said this morning collaborate a little more on some economic development strategies That truly do bring more revenue to the county, but through business improvement and through raising up our local economy and jobs.
We have some ideas for this. We probably should be sitting at the table and bringing those to you a little bit more. But to the point about slowing this down, looking at the economy, looking at an economic impact study that would really We're so concerned that you may not even get the revenue you're looking for because if it depresses the customer counts, this may work against us. So I offer that. Thank you for considering this. Thank you.
And that concludes public comment on this item.
Okay. Go to staff first. Was there anything from public comment that you'd like to address or heard?
3:08 – 3:249 turns
I really do appreciate the representation from and the willingness of Visit Santa Barbara and Visit San Yanez to meet with us so quickly. It has been quite a turnaround, and we do appreciate their feedback on that.
Thank you. All right. Let's kick it to Supervisor Williams' kickoff.
Well, I know that seven months before leaving proposing a tax seems like a strange thing to do because I won't be able to allocate any of the money from it. But I am a believer in guardianship over an institution and a community. And I really think that what we're collectively doing on homelessness, on housing, as a safety net for the community, as a partner in economic development. The county hasn't historically done a whole lot of that but we're doing more than we ever have before.
All of that is at risk The impact of the state budget cuts have yet to be really felt in our budget planning. They will be significant, and they will be a large challenge to whether we can maintain the successful formula that between us and our partners again has gone from housing 800 to 1400 people a year. I can't imagine What this community would be like if we had not been able to go from 800 to 1400 per year and what would happen if we sank back below 800 per year.
And I think that has a direct relevance on the business climate in the community. So you know I think this is the opposition is enormously short sighted but we need to I think take care of what the community and business is going to need in the long run and that is a community that is housed and that is and the staffing to be able to do the job that the public expects. 2.9 million is not going to be a game changer on that, but it may make the difference because we're operating at a very tight margin in our previous budget deliberations. We really just didn't say yes to anything new.
There will be some new things as we saw today in the budget changes Even without us making changes to policy. And this provides some badly needed funds to maintain the efforts that the public have come to rightly expect from a United Board of Supervisors.
Seeing no other lights, I will weigh in a little bit. You know, beautiful. First off I want to say I think the Chamber and Visit Santa Barbara are doing an amazing job. I went to the, was able to attend the annual summit at the beautiful Rosewood Miramar and presentations were amazing. I was educated, went away. And I know everything's uncertain but I think you guys are doing an amazing job.
And there's a reason why this place is called the American Riviera, right? Because it's a beautiful place and like Lauren said, it's not just the natural beauty of it. It's the sense of community. Some people are never happy with the roads but we've got a place where we can get around in this area where the traffic is not It's horrible like in some regions and where it is, we are trying to improve that.
You know our park system, our hiking trails, we spend a lot of time and energy trying to make this a beautiful place to live. And just because you are a beautiful place at one time doesn't mean you're always going to be that beautiful place. I used to visit San Francisco regularly after my last visit there two years ago. Never going back really. It's a mess, and I'm not sure it can ever be cleaned up because once it gets past a certain point, it just costs you too much money and too much political capital to kind of recapture that.
So I really want to continue to invest in this community to make it the place that people want to be drawn to. And unfortunately, that does cost money. You know, when I look at the numbers, the percentages, we can all argue about what it means if we increase it 2%. Are people really going to go somewhere else? I think one of the arguments that I look at, you know, Santa Maria and Lompoc have the lowest. And I don't see anybody knocking down the door to go there instead of Santa Barbara. You know, I live in Santa Maria. Kind of glad that not everybody's rushing to Santa Maria to visit. They do have a strong—we bring people in through car shows and festivals and those types of things but Santa Barbara is a unique community.
Destination I want to keep it that way and the way for us to be able to keep it that way. I think is we do have to have The funding that it takes to provide the services that make this the desirable place to be so Like I said, I understand Your position, I think it's something we also should be monitoring very closely. This is something that when you talk about the timing, I apologize for the timing but we were on a path where we were kind of looking at sales tax as that was going to be the vehicle that was gonna provide us the necessary funding. Thank God we did go out and do the polling because we saw the appetite for the citizenry abysmal. Nobody, you know this is the wrong time to go and talk to people about increasing their sales tax so in fact it was the first time I've ever seen in a poll that when you ask the question they said no and then when you said okay well let me explain it they said heck no or worse.
So I've never seen numbers go down after you put the qualifiers in but that's the case that we're in. And so I will Not with a standing ovation. I'm not jumping up and down with glee in moving this forward. This is something that it's taken me awhile to get there myself, but honestly, I think if we had brought this to visit Santa Barbara and the chambers three months ago or four months ago, I think honestly, we'd probably be in the same position we are right now except we don't have an economic report And I'm not sure what that's going to show us anyway, and people will read those any way they want to make them give the story that they want to hear. So I will hesitantly be supporting this and kick it to Supervisor Nielsen.
Yes. Thank you, Chair Lavenino. You know, looking at slide four of all the services that we have to offer and the limited discretionary funds that the county has. I mean it is daunting and I don't disagree with there's a problem where there are more needs and wants than there are resources. I just disagree with the solution. You know, more taxes doesn't necessarily lead to more revenue. I've heard from some of the hotel owners not just in the unincorporated area but in some of the cities expressing concern about the market getting soft now and they're already seeing reduction in some of the prices.
Many of the conferences and other Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the board. And it's a total cost, not just what the room rates are but with the TOT tax on there that the consumer can tolerate. My preference and where I think we would receive way more revenue is if we actually just reformed our planning department and really got projects moving through, including getting projects that have potential to create TOT moving much quicker. I'm hopeful with some of the ag enterprise stuff that we've been working on or the rec master plan there's some revenue opportunities potentially But that's been languishing in planning for years now, and hopefully we're going to get it out this year. But if we actually just prioritized that, we would have had revenue from those places.
We have the Biltmore on the horizon that hopefully we can work with to get them open sooner because I think the amount of TOT they provide would probably take this whole potential increase. I know that there's some that thinks it's just 2%. It's not that bad. You know, most consumers aren't going to see it but the voice and the message I've gotten from those that I know in business community is that they're concerned especially as economy has got a little weaker.
And so at this time, I'm not going to be able to support it. I don't think that my opposition is short-sighted. I think it may just be a different philosophy on this. So today, I won't be supporting moving it forward. I am comfortable with leaving it to the voters. I don't plan on being very active in this campaign one way or the other. Those here today advocating for the increase to have that discussion with our constituents.
Thank you. Supervisor Hartman and
then caps.
Well, the first point I want to make is that I think we are working hard to increase our short-term rental collections and will continue to press hard on that so that we can realize the full panoply of benefits from that. Personally, I'm very much invested in the Ag Enterprise Ordinance which will lead to farm stays and Help also some limited clamping opportunities.
The same with the recreation master plan, it should enhance visitor serving. I happen to think that Santa Barbara is unique but the most persuasive argument I heard from the tourist industry is the group rates and when you're going to have a conference or you're having Thank you very much. Thank you. So I am supportive of this and I'm supportive of all the other things I said. And particularly, you know, I think there's more. The City of Santa Barbara is now working hard to collect their short-term rental And I know we're looking at that, trying to see what we can learn. But I can attest in the San Ines Valley where we have a lot that they're not collecting, not reporting and so we must do better on that as well and not let money that should be on the table be hidden underneath it.
So I will be supporting this.
Supervisor Caps? Thank
you. Yeah, first off I just want to take up Kristen Miller from the Chamber's offer to talk about economic vitality and how we can do better because I think we're really going to need to. And I'm connecting this conversation back to the CBID conversation earlier just how essential it is that we keep our place, to Chair Lavinio's point, we have to be vigilant about making sure this is the destination that we all love and know and that means That means tackling hard things and like homelessness. And I just see, you know we've made such we have such momentum on these really vexing issues like homelessness but we're facing a budget with ARPA funding drying up and state funding contracting that this is It's not the end all be all at $2.9 million potentially, but I see if the Biltmore opens up we could actually see that increasing quite significantly.
We don't have that exact number for privacy reasons, but I see this as a way to maintain solution momentum on some issues that some of our advocates cause as we can spoke about that we can take care of folks who really need those social safety net Services that the county provides. That's what the county does and we're looking at you know We're good this year, and we'll talk dive into that next week in our budget But we're looking at a really tough outlook And so as much as I do really appreciate the tourist industry the meanings that we've had over the last few days The measured tone of the cooperation that you have expressed.
I appreciate that the hotel owners that I've heard from have been those who Actually cater to sort of the middle of you know, not that not the high-end but more than the folks who are coming here this weekend for UCSB's graduation. I fully understand that so it's a it's a challenge right to sort of balance these priorities of making sure we keep our momentum on homeless services and cleaning It's a tough one but I lean towards giving the support and moving in the direction of a 2% increase.
Thanks.
3:24 – 3:3717 turns
Okay. Can I entertain a motion?
Move A through D, staff recommendation.
Second. Let's do a roll call vote.
Roll-call vote Passed 3–1 Moved by Joan Hartmann · Seconded by Williams motion by Supervisor Hartman and a second by Supervisor Williams to approve staff recommended actions A through D. And roll call · 1 under review
Show transcript
Motion passes 4-1
Okay. All right, Madam Clerk can you please read item number five into the record please?
Chair Lavagnino and members of the board, departmental item number five is from Planning and Development Department. It is a hearing to consider recommendations regarding the appeal of the County Planning Commission approval of the Moriarty Holdings Cannabis Cultivation Project case numbers 23 APL 5, 23 CUP 14 and 19 LUP 273 and this is in the fourth district.
Okay, well I was going to call for ex parte. So we're going to have to wait just a minute because we're going to wait just a second. Well it's a hearing all right let's just and that's why I asked the question if everybody who's okay here we go yeah now We're good. OK, let's start with Ex parte. Supervisor Nelson please?
Yes. Thank you, Chair Labadino. I haven't had much ex parte even though this is my district. I briefly spoke to Mr. Scitello and Mrs. Sullivan this morning. And I had Amy Stanfield the attorney for the applicant I spoke to on the phone as well as got a email from this last week And I texted with Matt Smith, a gentleman who lives out there in Long Canyon. Thank you.
Supervisor Hartman? Same for me as well. Supervisor Caps?
Yeah, I had an expert meeting yesterday with Mr. Moriarty and Ms. Steinfeldt.
And Supervisor Williams. I had a ex parte communication by Zoom yesterday with Mr. Moriarty and Ms. Steinfeld, and this morning with Mr. Chatillo the former appellant.
Okay excellent so that takes us to our staff presentation
Mr. Chair, members of the board, this is an item that's been in the works for quite some time. The permit was actually originally approved in 2022. Went to the Planning Commission. The appeal went to the Planning Commission in January. And then was ultimately appealed, it was January actually 2023 that it went to the Planning Commission. And now we are finally here at the Board.
Today I have Gwen Beiler, Supervising Planner over the Cannabis Team and then Aaliyah Vosburg who's the planner on the case and they're gonna go ahead and make their presentation.
There we go. Good afternoon, Chair Lavagnino and Supervisors. I'll be presenting the appeal of the Moriarty Holdings Cannabis Cultivation Project. So this slide shows a vicinity map of the project site and the surrounding area. The project site is located on a 40-acre parcel outlined here in black which is bounded on the south by Cat Canyon Road shown here in green and bisected by Cat Canyon Creek shown here in blue.
This site is zoned Ag 2100 and is currently undeveloped and supports cattle grazing. The site is located in the rural Cat Canyon area, and is surrounded on all sides by properties also zoned Ag 2 with surrounding land uses including grazing and open lands. The nearest residential zones relative to this property are located approximately four miles to the northwest within the town of Sisquauk and approximately five miles to the south within the town of Los Alamos.
And the nearest existing developed rural neighborhood or EDRN relative to this subject property is located approximately one quarter mile to the north and is identified as the Long Canyon EDRN shown here in yellow. The nearest existing residence within this EDRN is located approximately 1,600 feet from the nearest boundary of the project site and approximately 2,500 feet from the edge of proposed cultivation.
With the exception of this EDRN, the Cat Canyon area is predominantly characterized by oil and gas production and agriculture uses. So this slide shows a quick background and prior actions on this project. So as Lisa mentioned, on March 10th, 2022 the project was approved as a land use permit by the Planning and Development Department Director. On March 21st, 2022, the director's approval was appealed to the planning commission.
On January 25th, 2023, the planning commission granted de novo approval of the project On January 31st, the Planning Commission's approval was appealed to the Board of Supervisors and on the same day, the Cannabis Ordinance Amendment took effect and changed the required permit for cannabis cultivation from a land-use permit to a Conditional Use Permit or CUP.
So as a result of the Cannabis Ordinance Amendment, the project or former project land use permit application has been converted to this CUP application that's before you today. Additionally, after approval of the project by the Planning Commission and appeal to your board, the applicant revised the project to reduce the scope of what was previously proposed and removed all components of the project that were to be located north of Cat Canyon Creek.
So the previous project included 17.4 acres of outdoor cannabis cultivation, two new 9500 square foot processing buildings north of the creek and an improved driveway from Long Canyon Road with an engineered culvert crossing. And the proposed project as revised is now limited to 5.19 acres of outdoor cannabis cultivation just south of the creek and no processing will occur on site.
The proposed project also includes some small agricultural accessory development including a 2400 square foot water storage barn, a 120 square foot storage shed and a new driveway directly off of Cat Canyon Road along with installation of permeable parking landscaping lighting and fencing. So this shows an overall site plan of the project site showing the full property.
And zooming in on just a project area south of the creek, you'll see the proposed outdoor cultivation area is shown here in green and it has set back a minimum of 100 feet from Cat Canyon Creek and a minimum of 50 feet from all property lines. The water storage barns and water storage shed are located or shown here in orange and located in the south east corner of the property.
And the proposed fencing surrounding the project area is highlighted in red, and the proposed permeable driveway and parking areas shown here in gray. So as previously mentioned, the appellant filed a timely appeal of the Planning Commission's approval of the project and cited impacts to neighboring groundwater wells as the basis of the appeal. However, as discussed in detail in the board letter, the applicant provided an updated water demand memo and hydrogeological analysis for the reduced project scope which together demonstrated that the project water demand is limited to 1.7 acre feet per year The water demand can be adequately met by the existing on-site groundwater well. And the use, groundwater use will not significantly impact neighboring wells.
Additionally, the projected groundwater use of the project will be well below the threshold of significance that's established in the County Environmental Thresholds and Guidelines Manual for the Santa Maria Basin which is also an adjudicated basin within which there is no finding of severe water shortage conditions. So accordingly the project's potential impact to groundwater resources is determined to be less than significant.
And then on May 21st, 2024 shortly before the board letter was docketed staff received a letter from Mark Titillo serving as counsel for the appellant. This letter was included as attachment 14 to the board letter and briefly states if your board approves the revised project as it has been reduced the appellant will take no further actions to appeal So in summary, the revised project is consistent with the County Comprehensive Plan and all applicable policies and standards set forth in the Land Use and Development Code for cannabis projects.
The project will implement a landscape plan and screening plan to ensure the project will be screened from public views within five years. The project will implement a lighting plan to ensure all exterior lighting will be fully shielded, directly downward and motion activated. And the project will implement a fencing and security plan to ensure that cannabis operation will be secure.
The project is located on property zoned AG-2, is not located adjacent to an EDRN or urban rural boundary and does not include proposed cannabis cultivation exceeding 51% of the lot area. Therefore an odor abatement plan is not required for this project but nevertheless the project does include measures to minimize the effect of odor generated by the project on surrounding areas so specifically in accordance with condition numbers one and two of the conditions of approval All harvested cannabis will be transferred off-site the same day it is harvested and no cannabis processing will occur on site.
And lastly, the project was appropriately reviewed under CEQA with preparation of the state CEQAs guidelines section 15168 checklist. And this checklist demonstrates that the environmental impacts of the project are within the scope of the project covered by the programmatic environmental impact report for the canvas land use ordinance and licensing program and no subsequent environmental impact report or negative declaration is required pursuant to CEQA guideline section 15162.
And with that, staff recommends that your board take the actions presented on this slide to deny the appeal. Make the required findings for approval. Determine that the PEIR is adequate and no subsequent environmental review is required. And approve the project subject to the conditions of approval. And that concludes staff presentation. We're happy to answer any questions. Thank you.
Supervisor Nelson? Yes, thank you Chair Lavagnino. A couple of things here I guess I'm going to ask questions about the current proposed project and not the applicant's project because it's a little bit odd here where we have a project and then we have this new project and I know it's less in some ways but it's it's different project which is kind of difficult for me because the Planning Commission hasn't seen this new project and there are some things that are different And that might be a little, I don't know if they're fully bedded here and if this is the proper venue to do that. But my first question though was about the 2400 square foot water storage barn. Is that a water tank? I'm just trying to understand what a water storage barn is.
A little bit about ag but I'm trying to get my brain wrapped around that.
Thank you, Supervisor Nielsen through the chair. Yeah, the water storage barn is just a 2400 square foot pole barn that underneath has I believe it's 10, 2500 gallon water storage tanks. It's just to cover for the water storage.
Okay and then previously the processing was gonna be on site and I gotta imagine now since this can be off-site that's going to be trucked off-site How is the product going to leave the campus?
3:37 – 3:4623 turns
Thank you. Supervisor Nelson, yes so as was mentioned in the project description after the cannabis is harvested it will be transferred off site the same day and that will be by either truck like box truck or van.
Would that As I've been evaluated, probably the traffic study because a previous entrance was off Long Canyon. Now this is off Cat Canyon. So I'm trying to see if what we currently have as far as the environmental work is enough to cover both locations.
Thank you Supervisor Nielsen. So yes, because when the project was reduced to its current scope that's being proposed now, the site transportation demand management plan was also updated There was a reduction in cultivation area, so the truck trips are less as well as the reduction in the required number of employees. So the vehicle trips are also less.
That trip management plan is now on the record?
Yes. The trip management plan is a plan sheet within these site plans set which I believe...I don't know the attachment off the top my head. I believe it's attachment 10 to the board letter.
All right because I thought I found the management plan for the original project but not the new project.
No, the
site
transportation and management plan was updated for the new project. And that's what's included in the attached plan set.
And then once so now if it's going to be harvested or grown on site and harvested, how long twice a year I've heard?
Yes, that is specified in the project description. They're proposing two harvest cycles per year, one 90-day harvest cycle and one 100 day I should say planting and harvest cycle, one 90 day and 120 day cycle.
Okay that's for the entire ranch not just a block in the ranch? Because I want to make sure as we get the harvest period that it's a specific period of time and not ongoing and indefinite.
Yes, thank you. Supervisor Nielsen. The planting and harvest periods are for the full cultivation area, the 5.19.
I really want to be specific here and make sure it's in any type of approval because that means you plant the whole entire ranch all five acres at once and that means you'll harvest all of it over that one or two week period and it's not going to be phased in over weeks or months where half acre here, four acre there And the reason why I'm bringing that up, for odor purposes even though you might only harvest a little bit at a time it ends up going for most of the year. In Long Canyon? In Long Canyon. Right next to an EDRN.
Okay. Yes, that's in there.
Yes, Supervisor Nelson. Yes the in the project description it lays out the harvest periods will be one month each per harvest period and that is for the entire cultivation area will not be phased.
Okay all right thank you that's my questions for now
any other questions of staff okay we'll now go to the appellant presentation which is five minutes long
Good afternoon. Chairman Loving, you know members of the board. I'm Mark Sciatillo. I am here on behalf of the appellant Jim Sullivan who is a Cat Canyon resident. Your board is sitting in de novo review so you have the authority to review this project and approve the revisions. The original appeal that was filed to your board focused primarily on groundwater issues because the project is located in an area with a shallow groundwater basin and limited groundwater supply, and a number of residents and other activities in that area that are dependent on that groundwater.
And so that was a leading issue. When the Planning Commission heard this project, it was part of my involvement but the appellant at that point didn't have the opportunity to present their expert to talk about specifically about the groundwater issues. So there's been considerable maturation of the overall information and the quality of the evidence as we move forward.
And today, as you know, we're seeing a revised project that I'll get into very briefly in just a moment. The other concern was over the use of the northern area north of the creek That required major road and creek infrastructure, and significant additional impact. And largely it was really considered out of scale with the community in that area. So that's why these changes which the applicant has brought forward voluntarily to revise the project to just the area south of the creek substantially reduces both of those areas of concern.
The revised project It includes a higher level of water efficiency and a very low water duty, which is remarkable. And we're anxious to see this proven up because it does have significance for other outdoor cannabis operations. But also the elimination of the northern portion allows a concentration of the activities on the site to that southern area, avoiding many of the biological and other impacts that were considered problematic by the community as it was considered.
So the revised project description that the applicant has voluntarily brought forward is one that we've viewed, we have worked with and collaborated with the applicant to ensure that the community concerns would be addressed and resolved. They do involve the elimination of over 25,000 square feet or 21,000 square feet of structure on the site. They avoid over 5,000 cubic yards of filled material being brought onto the site. They eliminate any work in the creek area And by eliminating processing, they also eliminate one of the larger potential sources of odor to the community. These are again the applicants' voluntary revisions to the project and we've determined on behalf of the appellants that if your board does approve that revised project description Thank you.
committed that we will no longer take any further appeals forward for this project. So we would encourage you to look carefully at those revisions, recognize that they were something that were the product of communication between the community and the applicant and resulted in a resolution of many of the significant issues so with that I'll Reserve any remaining time for rebuttal and answer any questions that your board might have.
Supervisor Nelson? Yes, thank you Chair Labadino. You mentioned that the removal of the processing removes the odor from the project. My understanding if maybe staff can clarify, the processing facility was going to have carbon scrubbers is that right? Wasn't there an odor abatement plan?
Chair, Supervisor Nelson through the chair. That's correct so processing is required to be indoors with odor control technology could be carbon scrubbers some type of technology.
So I guess Mr. Chateau could you elaborate on what additional odor that you thought processing might be adding to the project?
It's a fine question. I will defer in part to the applicant to let them explain their operation, however the reason for that comment is that in the process, in the harvesting process if the material is harvested and it depends on whether it's oil and it's going to be flash frozen or fresh flour my understanding is this is going to be fresh flour but in the process of removing the agitate or harvesting bucking up the plants the agitation So I'm going to start with a couple of questions. The first one is, you know, we've been talking about this for quite some time now.
Out and around, back out to Long Canyon Road and then over to the northern portion of the property. All of that movement has the potential to increase the amount of odor. Once the material is inside the processing facility it is subject to odor control but as we saw in Carpinteria operators were designing carts with seals to be able to move product in the field and around on the field and that's one of the areas where by Having it just immediately directed to the off-site, to a processing facility. The harvesting is going to occur and it's going to be ideally dependent upon the operations and I think Mr. Moriarty has demonstrated his capacity to develop a program that's gonna move that material quickly into a sealed kind of container such that the exposure profile will be less.
That's the basis of that comment.
Thank you.
3:46 – 3:537 turns
Okay thank you. That takes us to our applicant presentation, which is five minutes. Good afternoon.
Honorable supervisors, thank you for your time today. My name is Jason Moriarty. I am a third generation rancher. I'm not a real estate investor. I am not backed by a corporation or investors. This is a self-funded project. I sold a farm in Carpinteria to pay for this and to get away from the political drama that was happening in Carpinteria I bought this property six years ago because I thought if cannabis is going to be anywhere, that this is a perfect location for it.
It's in a remote part of Cat Canyon quite a ways past any wineries. Turns into oil country on a single lane rough road down the hill to get to it. There's no tourism, and I thought this would be a great location for a cannabis farm. I've always considered myself a good neighbor and good steward of the community. A couple examples of that real quick. During COVID, I started a program called Keep The Lights On.
And I organized local businesses to buy lunches for their employees at the height of the pandemic when restaurants were struggling to stay in business. And we did thousands of lunches every week and kept employees working and businesses open. Closer to this project, when Cat Canyon itself slid into Cat Canyon Creek. I volunteered my property for the county to keep their equipment on so that the county could rebuild the road for the neighborhood.
And also when my neighbors came to me with concerns over the project we worked closely with them to alleviate those concerns and come up with a revised project Even though this project is now quite a bit smaller than what we originally got approved, it's still a very economically viable farm. It's five acres that's still pretty good size. I'm an experienced grower on that five acres. I can do about 2000 acres of high quality flour per acre So that's about 10,000 pounds of cannabis yielded per harvest times two harvests. That's 20,000 pounds of flour a year with fairly low overhead because I own the property. I'm not paying exorbitant rents and can produce some revenue for the county.
You know it's been five years to get here I started this project in 2019, I think. I've spent my entire life savings on this well over a million dollars and you know, I stand before you today just asking that you approve this project and let me go to work. I just want to support my family and try to make some money for the county So I thank you for your time. And I also want to thank all the County staff cause it's been such a long project and everyone's worked really hard, especially Aaliyah who's worked diligently with me over this over time.
And um, yeah, I just appreciate y'all. Thank you.
Thank you.
Good afternoon, Honorable Supervisors. I know we only have about a minute left so I just wanted to emphasize a few things. First by moving this project south we are now 2,500 feet away from the nearest residence on the EDRN and in addition because water has been an issue here we drastically reduced the project by including a project that all the cannabis will be grown in soil-less media pots. This will reduce the overall water use to less than two acre feet per acre I'm sorry, two acre feet total. And so as a water lawyer, I can tell you this is a very small amount of water especially for a property that has a senior overlying adjudicated water right if you have any specific water questions We've studied this particular area of the basin and we have here our hydrogeologist Jordan care for any questions So in closing over the past few months, we worked closely with Aliyah Thank you so much to commission various expert reports on This small, sensible project which has been reduced to approximately five acres of cultivation and less than one acre of irrigated area on a 40-acre AgZone parcel has been designed to be extremely discreet, water efficient and compatible with the neighborhood.
Thank you. Please let us know if you have any questions.
All right, thank you very much. Supervisor Nelson-Dustin?
Yes thank you I was just curious went down from 17 acres to 5 9000 square feet of processing to none was there any consideration about having processing on the south side as well?
Yeah, we did consider it. But in discussions with Mr. Schatillo and his client, we knew that they were opposed. And so in order to move forward, frankly, our client couldn't afford a lawsuit. So we decided that settlement was the best option. Jason does have processing options not too far away in Lompoc. So that is the plan currently.
3:53 – 3:5814 turns
Thank you.
Okay, thank you. We'll go to public comment. Madam Clerk, do we have any requests to speak on this item?
Chair Lavanino and members of the board, we have one request to speak on this item. We're going to Zoom with Catherine Deputy. Catherine?
Hello. Can you hear me?
Yes, we can.
Please proceed. Hello. Hope you guys are having a good day. Listening to your staff talk about the area, they didn't mention that
right at the corner of Cat Canyon is where Long Canyon starts. This is a south side Long Canyon. There's a north side and a south side. At one point the county had thought of keeping maintaining Long Canyon but then they gave it back to the landowners So, Long Canyon on our side is not maintained at all by any county road personnel whatsoever. It's all has to be paid for by all the residents who live out there and I know you guys are looking at your EDR which is like this year community thing. There's a lot of other people that live in this area that aren't mentioned in this and we'll be getting The drift from what he's processing.
All of us have put all of our money, all of our life savings into all of our homes or ranches and the property that he is talking about utilizing actually my husband and I had that property before he bought it and we raised hay on it and cattle and we actually fixed it. It's a flood zone parcel There's a lot of rain and Cat Canyon is a blue line creek. And right where he's planning on putting his water barn for his shed, for his water that's right on it's like a blind corner right there. It's not a very good area at all to put a road and to be transporting trucks in and out. And the driveway that goes down into our mailboxes are within I don't know 100 feet, 200 feet from that driveway he's talking about using.
And after that is the entrance into Long Canyon Ranches and the original owner Mike Brand that put the paved road in, he did it as cheap as he could. It can't sustain any type of commercial Barbara County Board of Supervisors meeting That's like a third world country road. I know Mr. Lavinino has been on it before. I mean, when you see somebody coming down the road, you better pull over and let them go by because there's, some places it's so narrow and potholes and all that type of stuff.
Also-
I'm sorry though ma'am, that's your time. Thank you.
And that concludes public comment on this item.
Okay, this takes us to rebuttal time. The appellants have two minutes plus I think they had a minute and change left?
Thank you Mr. Chair the appellants have no further comments unless there are board questions.
Okay thank you very much. Supervisor Nielsen.
Yes thank You chair Lavigny. A quick question it was mentioned by the applicant that The appellant opposed processing on the south side is curious on what the reason for the opposition to processing on the south side.
Yeah that just arose in the last really few hours as a possibility I think this appeal has been the product of a lot of community discussions and Mr. Sullivan needs to be congratulated and appreciated for his work in Bringing together his neighbors and trying to find a solution that met everybody's needs as best they could. And the cultivation only south of the creek was the That was the project that was discussed and shared amongst the neighbors in the community. And initially, there were some real reservations even to that. So Mr. Sullivan was dogged and very effective at working with his neighbors and a couple of other neighbors who are here.
We felt like to try and add back another piece, and would potentially upset that whole apple cart that was very carefully stacked. And it did represent a pretty significant change in the nature of the project and its impacts to the community. So Mr. Moriarty has indicated that he feels that he can make it work on the five acres, and we think that's really an acceptable compromise, and we'd hope your board would support that.
3:58 – 4:0514 turns
Okay, now we move to the rebuttal from the applicant. You have two minutes.
Thank you, Chair. So I just wanted to briefly address the comments by the prior public commenter. So because this project has been revised to move south, Jason will no longer need to use the easement or Long Canyon at all. He'll be avoiding that road completely. Second, the Regional Water Board has signed off on this project and third, all infrastructure and cultivation will be sited at least 100 feet from Cat Canyon Creek And at least 50 feet from any tributaries. In addition, all cultivation activities will occur during the dry months. Thank you.
Okay. Thank you. That brings it to board deliberation. Supervisor Nelson, your district, do you want to kick it off?
Yeah, thank you Chair Lavinio. This project kind of baffles me a little bit. You obviously got unanimous approval at the planning commission at one point. There's obviously the neighborhood Issues here, there was other products that were kind of approved in the area early on in the cannabis days. None of them have come to fruition and so it's kind of just hung around for quite some time and finally getting to the hearing today I've been trying to wrap my arms around it to better understand you know what we're looking at here today. You know if would have felt more comfortable with with the new proposed plan actually having its own hearing I know that the Planning Commission has been pretty good at pulling apart some of these various issues.
The 17 acres that previously exist was kind of an economic unit too, you know? It's kind of what when I looked at it, it was like with the old micro license that they were trying to do where they were going to have a lot of different pieces on site so it could be a unit business and I just don't get five acres outdoor cannabis in this market with the restrictions that we place on projects and so I'm struggling with it I understand it's come out of a compromise.
I think it's going to be a challenge for Mr. Moriarty to actually make this work if it does move forward. He thinks it's a good business, and I guess I have a hard time opposing that if he is comfortable with it. If the odor abatement schedule is adhered to, if the neighborhood is okay with I would have a hard time voting against it, but I do want to hear how much my colleagues feel about the project as well. Like I said, I've been a little bit on the fence on which route to go here. So with that, I'll hear from all of you.
Supervisor Hartman?
If the applicant is supportive and the appellant is supportive, I'm supportive.
Well that's a way to wrap it up quickly. Supervisor Caps.
Yeah I'll be similarly succinct, I just think that these compromises have been made in good faith and I'm happy to support.
Supervisor Williams.
Yeah I know our hearing is de novo and we can decide to do what we want but I do think that should be informed by the Negotiations, the wishes of the applicant and the appellant. And I would have supported a project with processing because I think that's important for the county and the people of the county to have the benefits of
revenue.
But... And because it has to be in order control, you know? That's something that's taken... I think we should support it as is. Or, as is presented may be the right way to put it.
like a case study on kind of why we aren't making any money. I mean, we put you through a meat grinder for five years and got you down to five acres that we aren't going to make any money on because you're not going to process on it. And I can't think of a more remote location than Long Canyon to go to. So this is like the textbook on Why we're underperforming.
And so, I mean it's not my job to tell you like this isn't viable that you know more about the industry than I do so I'm going to stay out of that but talking about truck traffic and stuff like that on Long Canyon when six seven years ago we were cheering because we had increased truck traffic in Cat Canyon with the oil industry now the oil industry is gone again and I'd like to count how many trucks are going through Long and Cat Canyon at this time. Think you could be sitting there for a while.
And to work a five-acre farm, that's what it is, a five-acre farm. The hoops that you have to jump through to do that at this point is bordering on ridiculous. And so I'm going to be supporting it, because I think you guys all worked it out. But this is a warning to anybody else that's out there that's trying to do this. We've made it nearly impossible. So good luck to you.
Glad you made it through the gauntlet. But message is loud and clear to the industry. All right, we'll take a-
Got a quick question for staff. If Mr. Moriarty wanted to add processing to that and maybe make an economic unit in the future what would be the process they would need to do to potentially amend this CUP? They do have an environmental document that I understand did have processing at one point on it.
4:05 – 4:127 turns
Supervisor Nelson through the chair, they could request a revised CUP to add processing.
So I could get this come back with likely not much more additional environmental work since processing was already studied on the initial?
That's right and it would be within the scope of the EIR too.
Okay and you know the questions I asked I was dancing around a little bit, but one of the things I was struggling with was is it juice worth the squeeze here on this project after all that? I mean, I thought the 17-acre project made a lot more sense from an economic point of view and actually getting revenue for the county. And if it's going to have that impact in the neighborhood, maybe there actually could be the revenue to maybe improve that neighborhood in the future.
I will join my colleagues in supporting the project moving forward with a compromised revision. So with that, I'll go ahead and since it is my district, I'll take the responsibility of denying the appeal or I guess staff recommendation which is denying the appeal accepting the revision project and making the required findings including the CEQA and that this grant approval of the project de novo.
I think that's A through D, right? Yeah. Okay good and we got a second from Supervisor Hartman. All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Passes unanimously. Alright we're now going to be recessing the closed session County Council can you 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 two items of existing litigation, Castellanos versus the county and Whiting versus the county, and those are both Santa Barbara Superior Court cases. One item of anticipated litigation deciding whether to initiate civil litigation Conference with labor negotiators, with all bargaining units, unrepresented employees, managers and executives.
The agency designated representatives are CEO Mia Sato and Human Resources Director Christine Schmidt. And public employee performance evaluation for the following directors of county departments. Agricultural Commissioner, Behavioral Wellness, Child Support Services, Community Services, Fire, General Services, Human Resources, Information Technology, Planning and Development, Probation, Public Defender, Public Health, Public Works, and Social Services.
And the time estimate is approximately three hours, maybe three hours 15 minutes.
Okay so we will come back maybe at quarter to five. Is that right? At five yeah quarter to five. But don't try to time it, because we might be back a lot sooner and we might be back later. All right, we are adjourning, recessing the closed session. It's gonna be hard to report out of closed session. We're reconvening this meeting in the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors.
County Council, would you mind reading out from closed session please?
4:12 – 4:158 turns
Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the board. The board met in closed session two items of existing litigation Castellanos versus the county and Whitting versus the county one item have anticipated litigation conference with labor negotiators for all bargaining units on representative employees managers and executives and public employee performance evaluation for all of the directors listed on the agenda. The board took one reportable action In closed session, the board considered a decision to initiate litigation on one case. The board authorized County Council to initiate litigation, the details of which will be disclosed once the action is formally commenced to any person who inquires. Supervisor Caps, Hartman and Labnino voted in favor of initiating litigation.
Supervisors Nelson and Williams abstained.
Okay, thank you very much. And Madam Clerk I think now we need to go back to item A13 if I'm correct?
Chair Lavinino and members of the board that is correct. Returning to administrative item number 13 this was from the Behavioral Wellness Department it was to consider recommendations regarding the California Department of Health Care Services Third Amendment to Fiscal Years 21-24 Drug MediCal Organized Delivery Systems And previously the board had acted on continuing this item to June 18th and if we could just have the maker of the motion, Supervisor Nelson.
We would need to realize that we need to actually move that to June 11th? Correct. So if the maker of the motion, Supervisor Nelson could revise that motion to continue that item to our budget hearings on June 11th
I'll go ahead and amend my motion to bring back A13 to June 11th.
And initially the second was Supervisor Hartman so perhaps we can have... I may,
I can second. Fabulous thank
you.
We have a motion and a second all those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Passes unanimously Is that the end of our business? Okay, I'd just like to take a second to close today in the memory of Katie Torres. Katie passed away on May 7th at the age of 85. She was the first female male carrier hired by the United States Postal Service in Carpinteria She had 23 grandkids, 22 great-grandchildren and two great-great grandchildren.
She had a huge birthday party the week prior to her passing. Five surviving siblings attended and Katie was lucky enough to pass away in her sleep in the arms of her daughter. She has a quote that she always told all of our grandkids and that was to always leave room in your heart to love someone else. And so we will close today in honor of Katie Torres. And with that, we will be adjourned to Tuesday June 11th in Santa Barbara for the fiscal year 2024-2025 Santa Barbara County budget hearings.