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 – 0:029 turns
Good morning, everybody. I'd like to call to order this June 18th 2024 meeting of the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors. Madam Clerk, can you get a roll call please?
Roll call, called by Jacquelyne Alexander
Show transcript
Our next item of business is the approval of the minutes from the June 4th meeting and the June 11th budget hearings.
Move approval of both.
Second. Moved and seconded, all those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Passes unanimously. Okay,
next item of business is our County CEO's Report.
Good morning Chair Lavanino and Supervisors. This morning I have a couple of awards to highlight that were recently received by our supervisors. First, Chair Lavanino was awarded the 2024 Citizen of the Year Award by the Santa Maria Elks Lodge 1538. Right on! Wow. They said it was for his demonstrated support for the lodge, veterans youth local charities and for being a constant champion for the community. So congratulations again Chair Leveny.
Thank you.
The second was that Supervisor Williams received a 2024 honoree award from People Assisting the Homeless or PATH as its toast to home event. The organization runs one of the largest homeless shelters in our region on behalf of the county and the city of Santa Barbara, and they wanted to thank and honor Supervisor Williams for all his work. And that concludes my report.
All right. Madam Clerk, any announcements or changes to our agenda today?
0:02 – 0:0510 turns
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 June 14th amending the closed session agenda. The closed session agenda has been amended to reflect an additional item under conference with legal counsel existing litigation American Medical Response West First County of Santa Barbara at all. Santa Barbara County Superior Court case number 23 CV 04250 and removing the closed session agenda item under conference with labor negotiators. This addendum has been posted online and made available to the board and the public Additionally, I have an announcement on administrative item number 27. Administrative Item Number 27 is from the Human Resources Department. It is to consider recommendations regarding a performance-based salary adjustment for County Council prior to the board acting on this item.
In accordance with government code section 54953 subdivision c3, county council salary information shall be summarized verbally. County Human Resources recommends that the Board of Supervisors approve a 2.5 percent performance-based salary adjustment for county council effective June 24th 2024 based on the performance review of county council completed by the Board of Supervisors on May 7th 2024 By adopting this recommendation, the Board of Supervisors will approve biweekly salary of approximately $10,573 for County Council. Additionally I have an announcement on administrative item number 47. Administrative item number 47 is from the Social Services Department It is to consider recommendations regarding an agreement with Martha Gonzalez for services of contractor on payroll as the Quiama Family Resource Center coordinator.
Prior to the board acting on this item in accordance with government code section 54953 subdivision C3, contract information shall be summarized verbally Martha Gonzales total contract compensation for the period of July 1st, 2024 to June 30th 2025 is in an amount not to exceed $99,554. And lastly for the Board of Supervisors methods of public participation and to provide public comment on general public comment or an item on the board's agenda please see page two of the agenda Individuals that would like to provide verbal public comment may do so via Zoom by registering in advance via the link available on page 2. If you have any questions, please contact the Clerk of the Board's Office at Area Code 805-568-2240. Again that's 805 568 2240 and that concludes my announcements for today.
All right thank you very much
Next item of business is our administrative agenda. Would any board members like to pull any items from the administrative agenda? Supervisor Hartman,
I believe you have a
16 and that's it. Madam Clerk, any members of the public?
Chair Lavinino and members of the Board, I have no requests to speak from the public on the administrative agenda.
OK, I'll now entertain a motion to approve the balance of the administrative agenda except for Item A-16.
So
moved. Second.
All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Passes unanimously. You know what, since we only have one item let's go ahead and take A16 now.
0:06 – 0:119 turns
Chair Lavanino and members of the board, Administrative Item Number 16 is from the Community Services Department. It is to consider recommendations regarding the formation of a Santa Barbara Bowl Ad Hoc Committee.
Supervisor Hartman?
So I would suggest that staff give us a bit more specific direction in this, including that it would be a six month timeline and that the scope should focus on exploring avenues for enhancing the arts subsidy annual contribution.
Makes sense to me, Supervisor Nelson or no? OK, I agree. Madam County Counselor, are we okay with that?
Members of the Board, yes. That's fine for direction and it also helps to clarify that it is exempt from the Brown Act.
Okay so that would be Supervisors Williams and Hartman on that ad hoc subcommittee. Excellent, okay.
And I'll make a motion.
Roll-call vote Passed Moved by Joan Hartmann · Seconded by Bob Nelson
Show transcript
Chair Lavinino and members of the board, administrative item number one is sponsored by Supervisor Hartman and Supervisor Lavinino. It is to adopt a resolution of commendation honoring Rosa Coronado on the 2024 League of Women Voters of North Santa Barbara County Making Democracy Work Founder's Award recipient. And joining us here in person today we have Rosa Coronado and Virginia Suiza.
And if you can please join us at the podium. Excuse me, that's Virginia Souza. Thank you. And I will go ahead and read the resolution into the record. Whereas Rosa Coronado, a dedicated educator and community advocate has been recognized as the 2024 League of Women Voters of North Santa Barbara County Making Democracy Work Founder's Award recipient. And whereas Rosa began teaching U.S. citizenship classes in September 2013 through the California Independent Provider Training Center at the United Domestic Workers Office under a grant from US Citizenship and Immigration Service, where she worked until February 2015. And whereas following the conclusion of the grant, Rosa continued her efforts by volunteering to provide classes for free. And whereas Rosa mentors individuals through this citizenship process to complete forms and prepare for exams and interviews And whereas Rosa has assisted over 200 individuals from various communities including Lompoc, Santa Maria, Guadalupe, Paso Robles, Arroyo Grande and Nipomo in their journey to become U.S.
citizens. And whereas her dedication and effective teaching methods have resulted in 100% of her students passing their citizenship exams. And whereas Rosa's journey from undocumented immigrant to proud American citizen exemplifies the transformative power of legal citizenship Her accomplishments empower both her and others to fully engage in democracy, access education, contribute positively to our nation and pursue the American dream. Now therefore be it hereby ordered and resolved that this Board of Supervisors recognizes Rosa Coronado as the 2024 League of Women Voters of North Santa Barbara County Making Democracy Work Founder's Award recipient passed and adopted today.
I just want to thank you guys for recognizing the job, the work I do in the community. And for me it's a privilege to be able to help others to become U.S. citizen. It's an honor to see them how they struggle with the language and stuff like that and feel so not capable of making it past their citizenship test, but I just feel so proud of being able to provide all the training and the work and in this time spending with them.
First of all, to make them believe that they can do it If I did it, they can do it. So I am so proud and I am so honored to be honored by you guys and this is a privilege for me to be here and just enjoy what I do. And one of the things that I feel so happy when they come and ask me, so what's next? I say well, vote! That's next. You give you both that you got it now, you have the power to vote.
And so I am so proud of that and thank you. I could say more, but I don't know. I'm so nervous. So thank you everybody for honoring me with this reward is very special to me. Thank you.
0:11 – 0:183 turns
Just real quick, Allison Wales with the League of Women Voters just real quick. Thank you so much to the board for honoring Rosa. I was surprised to see this was happening a few weeks ago we gave out this award that was created by the board a few years ago and we truly truly believe in it because as we say change happens locally And honoring these people that are in amongst us and making change locally is so important and empowering. So thank you for this honoring her, and the league is around and we'll see your soon.
Chair Lavinino, members of the board. Administrative item number two is sponsored by Supervisor Capps. It is to adopt a resolution proclaiming June 19th 2024 as Juneteenth in Santa Barbara County and joining us today from the NAACP Executive Committee we have Yasmin Dawson, Angie Bolden, Sarah McDonald and Joanne Greene. And if you can please join us at the podium and anyone else who would like to join with you?
And I'll go ahead and read the resolution. Whereas on January 1st, 1863 President Abraham Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation declaring the freedom of enslaved people in the Confederate States contingent upon their return to the Union by that date thus using the proclamation as both a reward and punishment And whereas the Emancipation Proclamation did not fully abolish slavery in the United States and was not intended to end slavery completely as it did not affect northern states like Missouri and Delaware, where slavery was legal nor did it grant U.S. citizenship to black Northerners and emancipation was delayed for many enslaved people particularly in Texas due to the lack of significant union presence and the withholding of information by enslavers.
And whereas African Americans in Texas did not learn of the Emancipation Proclamation until June 19, 1865 when federal troops arrived in Galveston, Texas to enforce the proclamation and ensure the freedom of approximately 250,000 enslaved people leading to celebrations among the newly freed and the birth of Juneteenth also known as Freedom Day or Independence Day. And whereas the first annual celebration of Jubilee Day was organized by freedmen in Texas on June 19, 1866 featuring prayer meetings, singing of spirituals and the wearing of new clothes to symbolize newfound freedom. As black people migrated from Texas they carried the Juneteenth tradition with them leading to widespread commemorations that include music, barbecues, prayer services, historical reenactments and other activities.
And whereas slavery was officially abolished with the adoption and ratification of the 13th Amendment to the US Constitution in December 1865, which states neither slavery nor involuntary servitude except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted shall exist within the United States or any place subject to their jurisdiction. And this exception clause has been linked by scholars, activists and prisoners to the rise of a prison system that disproportionately incarcerates black people and profits off their unpaid and underpaid labor.
And whereas Texas became the first state to make Juneteenth an official holiday in 1979 and over the years several other states followed suit culminating in Congress passing a resolution in June 2021 Establishing Juneteenth as a national holiday, which was signed into law by President Joseph R. Biden on June 17th 2021 and further recognized in California as a state holiday by AB 1655 signed by Governor Newsom on September 29th 2022 with celebrations planned along the central coast including San Luis Obispo, Lompoc, Solving and Santa Barbara And whereas Juneteenth allows us to celebrate the freeing of enslaved people, reflect on the condition of their lives and their descendants in our present day. And black serving organizations as well as people who identify as black calls to action all levels of government to commit ourselves to practice inclusivity and pro-black inclusion as we work to end systemic racism across our country.
And now, therefore be it hereby ordered and resolved that this Board of Supervisors does hereby declare and celebrate June 19th 2024 as Juneteenth in Santa Barbara County. And encourages all residents to use this time to learn about the legacy of black people their contributions and take a valiant stand in alliance to promote equity inclusion and understanding passed and adopted today
Good morning, distinguished members of the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors. My name is Jasmine Dawson. I'm a member of the NAACP and Executive Director of C4 Collective Cultures Creating Change. I stand before you with the deepest gratitude for all the support and assistance that you give us. First, I'd like to begin with a message from our president, LaWanda Pruitt who couldn't be here with us today. Please keep her family in your prayers. Unfortunately, her father passed and she is presently in Chicago.
In her absence, I would like to convey her message of thanks for your support for the resolution We celebrated Juneteenth on Saturday, which turned out to be a delightful success. In addition we also would like to extend thanks to the racial equity grant and all our supporters. Lastly, when the NAACP and C4 partnered four years ago to celebrate Juneteenth we couldn't have imagined how it allowed our organizations to do something so positive and good for the Lompoc community. We are heartened by the people who show up and engage in our celebration. It truly is a beautiful sight to see this cultural event centered in the Lompoc community. Words can't express how much we appreciate all the support, assistance and aid to allow us to create unity, change and joy to our organizations and community.
Thank you and we humbly accept your resolution with the deepest gratitude I know I said thank you, gratitude, aid, all that. But that's how much it means to us. And I'd like to end with an Arabic saying, Jazakallah Khair, which means may God reward you all. Thank you so much.
0:18 – 0:246 turns
Supervisor Kaps?
Thank you. I just want to extend our gratitude to these wonderful women who have been doing tireless advocacy unsung long before there was a federal holiday, long before there was a state holiday, long before our county will observe Juneteenth tomorrow. Now we have the proclamations and resolutions but they've been doing the work, the Executive Committee of the NAACP and my heartfelt thanks.
Excellent. OK. Madam Clerk, can you please read administrative item number three into the record?
Chair Lavinino and members of the board, Administrative Item Number Three is sponsored by Supervisor Nelson. It is to adopt a resolution honoring the 10th year anniversary of Honor Flight Central Coast California. And joining us in person today we have Robert Toland and Jay Connor. If you can please join us at the podium and I will go ahead and read the resolution.
Whereas Honor Flight Central Coast California, Inc., HFCCC was founded on October 15th 2013 with a mission to honor our nation's veterans. And whereas HFCCC has provided a valuable and patriotic service for our veterans for over a decade ensuring that their sacrifices in service are recognized and celebrated. And whereas for 10 years, HFCCC has organized numerous all-expense paid trips for our veterans allowing them to take their tour of honor. Visiting their memorials in Washington DC including the World War II Memorial, Korean War Memorial, Vietnam Veterans Memorial and other significant historical sites fostering a sense of recognition and appreciation for their service from their grateful nation.
And whereas these trips have not only enriched the lives of our veterans but have also provided them with opportunity to connect with fellow veterans, share their stories and find solace and support among their peers. Fostering a sense of camaraderie that is invaluable to their well-being And whereas the 10th anniversary of HFCCC serves as a poignant reminder of the ongoing commitment to honor and recognize the service and sacrifices of our veterans, inspiring a renewed sense of duty and respect for those who have served our nation. And whereas HFCCC has been instrumental in raising awareness about the importance of expressing gratitude to our veterans, encouraging communities to come together in support of these heroes, and fostering a sense of patriotism and unity among our citizens.
And whereas the dedicated volunteers, sponsors and supporters of HFCCC have demonstrated an unwavering commitment to the mission of honoring our veterans ensuring that this program continues to thrive and make a meaningful impact in the lives of those who have sacrificed so much for our country. And whereas it is fitting and proper that we, the members of this community, take a moment to recognize and commend the incredible achievements of HFCCC on the occasion of its 10th anniversary. Now therefore be it hereby ordered and resolved that this Sound of Barbara County Board of Supervisors hereby honor and celebrate the 10th anniversary of Honor Flight Central Coast Inc., applauding their dedication to recognizing and supporting our veterans And extending our heartfelt gratitude to the organizers, volunteers, sponsors and all those involved in this noble endeavor for their unwavering commitment to our veterans passed and adopted today.
Good morning board. My name is Robert Tolan, I'm the vice chair for Honor Flight Central Coast. Thank you so much for doing this and me so much. This is our 10th anniversary but last year beginning of 2023 was our first time that we actually came to Santa Maria Airport and started flying in out of Santa Maria and since then we've taken about I think about 350 veterans out of the Santa Maria airport and we've also had our largest welcome home ever which was around 1,200 last April then we had about 800 last October. So we look forward to continuing honoring our more to Korean Vietnam veterans and all those who served in between now I'd like to introduce Jay Connor he is one of our founding members.
Thank you, thank you Chairman Lavinino and board. It is really an honor that we get this resolution and recognize the tremendous effects that Honor Flights had on our veterans. I just want to take a moment read some of the statistics. First of all in 2013 this was an unknown commodity six of us got together and realized it was a missing You know, the element in our communities and we identified Santa Barbara County and San Luis Obispo Counties as a deafened need. Since then it hasn't been easy all the time with one of our first flights having only 17 veterans on it and the last flight having 85 but since we started we've flown 668 veterans back to Washington DC for their tour of honor which include 26 ladies.
And I'll tell you what, it's been one of the most honoring times I had the opportunity to as a veteran but I was a guardian. I chose to be a guardian to learn about the experience and I have had the honor to go back with a World War II veteran and it's one of the most amazing things that anybody can do so anybody in the audience that knows a veteran that hasn't applied we need veterans to sign up to apply because if you know they say I've talked and many of us talk to the veterans a oh yeah I'd love to go well did just did you apply if you don't apply we don't need you one day we don' t know you want to go and then guardians you know they they're community volunteers and also a lot of veterans go as guardians but it's it is a very humbling experience to go with the veterans and it's really an opportunity.
We've had 185 World War II, 185 Korean and now 278 Vietnam veterans which are the more challenging veterans of the PTSD a lot of stuff that the unfortunate things that came with with that conflict but again we want to thank you on behalf of Honor Flight and look forward your continued support thank you very much
0:25 – 0:309 turns
All right, our final resolution A4. Can you please read that into the record Madam Clerk?
Chair Lavinino and members of the board administrative item number four sponsored by Supervisor Nelson it is to adopt a resolution proclaiming June 12th 2024 as National Women Veterans Day in Santa Barbara County and you know what this is actually sponsored by Supervisor Lavinino.
I was gonna let you get a little love there yeah
And joining us today, that's Allison Wales. If you can please come to the podium and I'll go ahead and read the resolution. Whereas President Harry S Truman signed into law the Integration Act on June 12th, 1948 enabling women to serve as permanent regular members of the Army, Marine Corps, Navy, and Air Force. And whereas women veterans are one of the fastest growing demographics within the United States military and are expected to reach nearly 20% of the veteran population by 2045.
And whereas she raised her hand, a collaborative initiative was formed in Santa Barbara County to provide opportunities for women veterans in Santa Barbara County to find community purpose and strength in their identity as veterans. And whereas Santa Barbara County is home to women veterans who have served our country with honor and dignity. Often in dangerous situations, safeguarding our heritage and freedom while providing valuable service and expertise to our society. And whereas women veterans have been leaders not only in securing their own rights of suffrage and equal opportunity but also at the forefront of numerous major progressive social change movements in history paving the way for future generations to enjoy the unalienable rights duties and responsibilities afforded equally to all residents of the United States of America.
And whereas each woman veteran is extraordinary in her own way, proving that women working inside the home or outside an academia science technology business labor governance and more maintain critical rows roles in every sphere of society. Now therefore be it hereby ordered and resolved that this county of Santa Barbara proclaims June 12th 2024 as National Women Veterans Day passed and adopted today.
I'd like to thank again our whole board for this honor and actually this opportunity from the Women's Commission. I want to take a small acknowledgment, where is Kathy? Where did she go? She likes to hide but bless her she is a big part of this. The commission had a little bit of extra money left over from a grant that you all allowed us to have a few years ago and I was able to take it to the Santa Barbara County Veterans Collaborative, which was Cathy. And we went to Hancock College and oh we're just going to do a little forum with a little bit of money.
And this is a testament to what can happen when you have a few women in a room talking and have an idea. So this idea formed in October, and here we are where we've actually been honored by the The Culinarians and Winemakers of San Yanez with a grant for $20,000 this past spring which is going to allow this initiative over the next few years to stand on its own and hopefully become its own nonprofit in and of itself.
And just real quick, as a commissioner I truly believe I am an advocate for all and advocacy is about education and opportunity. And you've allowed this to happen and I thank you for that for all of our women veterans out there. This is an opportunity for them to create their own space. Thank you.
And Allison, I just want to appreciate all the work that the Women's Commission does. I want to thank my other commissioners, Yvette Peralta and Tracy Beard for the outstanding work that you do at Stand Down every year. I did mention that the Stand Down contract was on this agenda but we just approved it. The next Stand Down is going to be October 26th and I know I can count on Allison and her friends to be there to help our women veterans what they did You know, they usually have a special side booth and everything. And they had a lot of women that have served for some reason.
They're kind of reticent to stand up and be recognized. So they had a cutout and the women could take a picture inside this frame that said I wore dog tags. The pride you could see when the women were taking those photos was pretty cool to watch so thank you again for all you do. So that closes out our administrative agenda. Now is the time for members of the public to speak on items that are not on today's agenda. Madam Clerk, are there any requests to speak on general public comment today?
Chair Lavinino and members of the board yes we have six requests to speak from the public on general public comment today.
Okay and once the first speaker starts we will close the roll for the rest of public comment.
And we will begin in Santa Maria here with Pamela Barilone to be followed by Leanne Wollever. Pamela
0:30 – 0:355 turns
Good morning. My name is Pamela Barilone and I'm the president of Del Cielo Home Residents Association. I'm here on behalf of the residents, which many are here, of the Del Cielo communities regarding the sale of our mobile home park to Harmony Communities. Del Cielo has been a senior community since the 1960s and we never thought it would be changed as this is our home And we purchased our homes with the knowledge that this is a senior park.
Our park was sold to Harmony Communities and Affiliates in April 2024, and they intend to change it to an all-age park. We as a community have already been in touch with and are in communication with Bob Nelson and Aaron Henke. We're very grateful for their genuine concern and quick response to our inquiry. Harmony has already purchased several homes in our community, in our advertising, and asking realtors to sell homes as an all-age park.
In addition, this company has had a history of numerous legal complaints ranging from charging extra on utilities to evictions and outright closing parks to leave seniors homeless just to make a buck. I bring this up not only because this is a trend that has happened with other properties but we are starting to see it happen in our very own community. Our very first rent bill, we were all charged extra on our utilities One of our residents has already received an eviction notice with a seven day notice to comply with park rules and regulations dated June 14, 2024.
I only want to share so all the supervisors in the county are aware of our plight as it will undoubtedly affect the entire county if Harmony and its affiliates are allowed to continue to purchase properties where seniors live. I know that Santa Barbara County is dealing with an affordable housing crisis, and I want to notify you of this new development so that you won't be caught off guard.
Thank you so much for your time.
Thank you.
We will now go to Leanne Wolever to be followed by Sherry Foster. Leanne?
Good morning board. My name is Leanne Woliver, I'm with the state of New California and I'm the chair for Santa Barbara County. I thought I would talk about, not about elections since elections have been brought up a lot. But this is concerning solar subsidies that a lot of us take advantage of but the Newsom administration that ran up a 75 billion deficit this year and expects 30 billion deficits for each of the next four years has just slashed solar power reimbursements and subsidies for the third time in the last year California in 1995 passed energy regulatory rules called net metering that established a framework for electric utilities to buy excess solar energy at the full retail prices from individuals that installed rooftop solar systems.
The goal was to end fossil fuel use by converting 100% of the California's energy production to renewables and achieve zero carbon footprint by 2045. But lavish solar subsidies were later extended to multinational corporations, owners of stack-and-pack Section 8 apartments to supposedly ensure that at least 51% of the energy derived from Solar ownership served disadvantaged customers.
About 1.5 million California homes with installed rooftop solar systems now receiving net metering subsidies for supplying about 10% of the state's electrical demand But over 14% of the state's electricity is supplied by large-scale corporate solar projects. California historically has some of the lowest cost electric rates in the nation, but residential retail customers after the implementation of green energy subsidies now pay an average for electricity of about $32.47 per kilowatt hour.
That is the highest rate in the continental United States and about 100% more than the national average of 16.68 cents per kilowatt hour, according to the U.S. Energy Information Agency. The CPUC Public Advocates Office analysis argued that the solar customers should pay their fair share of grid, wildfire and other related costs. But what's happening here is that just the prices of energy is going up even the people that have taken advantage of having solar on top of their roofs are now being squeezed for more money.
I don't like that but anyway, just wanted to let you know. Thank you very much.
We will remain in Santa Maria with Sherry Foster to be followed by Dan Kelly.
0:36 – 0:416 turns
Good morning board members. I'm Sherry Foster, Assemblyman for New California State. I am going to be speaking on Doctors Medical Group's call for focus on mental health and gender confused children. New declaration sounds alarm on the long term risk of subjecting children to so-called gender affirming interventions. More than 100 medical professionals and groups have signed on to a declaration that calls for a shift in focus towards addressing underlying psychological problems of children who experience discomfort with their sex. The Doctors Protecting Children's Declaration was issued by pediatricians, doctors, researchers, medical ethics advocates and faith-based medical groups on June 6 at a news conference in Washington.
Spearheaded by the Conservative American College of Pediatricians, the declaration highlights the long-term risks of subjecting gender confused children to gender affirming interventions which involves a social transition such as changing one's name and appearance to align with their preferred gender. As well as the use of puberty blockers, cross sex hormones and genital surgeries Instead, psychotherapy for underlining mental health issues such as depression, autism, anxiety and emotional trauma should be the first line of treatment for children who are confused or distressed about their sex. The declaration states We are here defying the claims made by these medical organizations in the US that those of us who are concerned our minority and that their protocols or consensus.
Dr. Jill Simons, a pediatrician and the executive director AC PEDS said at the event they are not consensus and we're speaking out loud in unified voice enough Dr. Simmons was referring to protocols developed by the World Professional Association of Transgender Health, an international nonprofit group dedicated to the study of transgender health guidelines known as Standard of Care 8 recommended that adolescent patients diagnosed with gender incongruence be given access to puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones and surgeries as long as they can demonstrate the emotional and cognitive maturity required to provide informed consent for the treatment. However recently linked internal videos and documents appeared to show that WePath members have questioned whether children were able to understand the full ramifications of those drugs and procedures.
Dr. Andre Van Mol, a Navy veteran turned family physician and adolescent sexuality expert at AC PEDS echoes such concerns. Minors cannot give true informed consent he said at the June 4th event speaking on behalf of the AC PEDS Thank
You Sherry that is your time okay thank you we will remain in Santa Maria with Dan Kelly to be followed by Paula Robledo.
Good morning, Supervisors. Thank you for letting me speak. I'm a resident at Del Cielo Mobile Estates and I'm also 100% disabled Marine Corps retired veteran. My question is directed to Bob Nelson and I ask this question with all due respect I wasn't at the last board meeting for Del Cielo, but Supervisor Nelson was able to attend. One of the things that he spoke about is that let's see here.
Excuse me, I thought I was more prepared.
Take your time.
He summarizes research that he's done recently, which shows that Del Cielo was consistently advertised as a 55 plus senior park from the early 1960s and he also said the senior overlay will take much more time and requires financing which may be difficult I just ask, and again I ask it respectfully if Bob could explain to the residents that are in the audience and the other board members what exactly was meant by that last sentence.
Thank you.
We will now go to Paula Robledo to be followed by Brian Rosen in Santa Barbara.
0:41 – 0:5210 turns
Good morning, all. Thank you for allowing me to speak today. I am a resident of Del Cielo Mobile Home Estates Park as of 2017. I bought my home within Del Cielo in 2017 after my husband passed away. Specifically chose that location as it was in the community where my family lived or I have lived since 1980 eight, and I felt it would be a safe community for me going forward in my life as I progressed in years into retirement.
And the citizens within that community, many of them have lived there for many years. It's a beautiful little spot and it's just appropriate for those that are in the senior age whether they're still working or fully retired. This community is not set up to be a family park not logistically, not physically in no way. It would not be a safe place to have little children running around in the streets in the areas of this park. It would not be safe for the seniors either.
I am very concerned that Harmony Co and all of these steps and efforts that they have taken illegally dishonestly to this point are going to affect our safety and our community as it sits today. These actions have caused a lot of stress, not only on myself but I'm pretty sure on every other resident that's within this park in this community. And I would almost consider it senior abuse in the way that they have behaved.
I am ashamed that there are people that take this kind of advantage and abusive actions towards the seniors of our community in anywhere. And as Pamela had stated, they have a long history of this kind of behavior and action. So I implore Mr. Nelson to do everything within your power and everyone else whose hands that it would be within government To raise your hand, raise your voice, raise your pen and sign whatever it takes to stop Harmony Co. from turning our beautiful senior community into an all age park. Thank you.
And we will now go to Santa Barbara for our final speaker Brian Rosen in Santa Barbara. Brian.
Hi. Brian Rosen here. You know, I think it's time we do something about the hot springs situation. It's been a long time. The residents would like some relief. The hikers would like some answers and I think we should set up a bicycle program. I see these electric bicycles stationed all over Santa Barbara. We should encourage people to take bicycles to the trailheads, have a special rack up there.
Other trailheads too. Some kind of incentive and it could be marketed at the farmer's market promotionally. I think it's time to move forward with some solutions. There don't need to be a million people parking up there, we need a reasonable amount of parking spaces maybe 30 or 40. I don't think the residents they're still putting the rocks on the public right-of-way and that's not right.
One resident has even taken over some public right-o way and put up a big parking space that says private property. So why don't we create a reasonable amount of parking spaces? I don't think it's good to have people parking over to the side on the soil. We're compacting the oak tree roots, leaking oil. But I do think we should have a reasonable amount of parking spaces and maybe we could loan busy Memorial Day weekends and so forth. Loan some signs to residents and they'll be happy to put them out there. Lots of no-parking signs So people aren't gonna park in the middle of the road or inappropriate areas.
It's time to move forward, we need public meetings. I don't like the way parking was restricted at the trailhead without a public process. People have been parking there for 100 years, backpackers and now you have to, now the Sierra Club can't have their night hikes anymore. Maybe it's a good idea but I don' think we should eliminate parking without a public process And even on Rivenrock Road there was a secret process where now there's a white line if you park over, you get a ticket. Trouble is the white line is covered with dirt so people don't even see it. So it's not a good situation.
I think the trail needs protection in restoration. There's all kinds of pipes left in the creek bed from the Montecito Creek Water Company. When are we gonna clean up the canyon? Now I'd like to go to Doss' office after this if possible and speak to his staff. I haven't gotten a response yet, but I'd like to see this canyon protected and to have a self-guided nature historical trail and to really work on getting hikers to not Take automobiles, there's so many cars and we're concerned about climate change and greenhouse emissions. So we need another way to get to the trailhead such as the bicycle program that I mentioned. And it's really time to move forward and get something happening now if that's okay with all of you let's try put this on the agenda.
Thank you very much. Thank
You Brian.
And that concludes general public comment.
Okay I want to We'll address Supervisor Williams first, then we'll come back to Supervisor Nelson. So since that was the last public comment
Yeah, no. I wanted to address the energy question just because it's a good opportunity to inform this board about how 3CE is handling it and to just make sure that the accuracy of information flows which I'm sure the speaker would like to be accurate. Historically California has higher rates per kilowatt of energy. But because of some of the most efficient laws, laws that require both appliances and homes to be more efficient than other parts of the country historically are bills are not higher than other parts of the country.
So that's important information to evaluate actions However, there are two big cost drivers in energy in recent years that affect that. One is the PUC's decision to allow wildfire settlements and damage to be rolled up into transmission costs. That is definitely affecting particularly PG&E territory, to a lesser extent SCE territory. And this thing called resource adequacy And what resource adequacy is, is essentially backup power for the grid.
And that is a large cost driver. That and the PCIA are being projected at very high rates. So that's where the risk really lies in these days. As the speaker mentioned, the rates for future household and commercial solar systems is less. And that's really a reflection of where the grid is. Right now, the grid's 73% renewable 8% nuclear and 5.3% large hydro means that only about 15% of the grid in California right now is any way fossil fuel related.
And so what the need for the state and our local area is more along the lines of batteries. So what 3CE will be looking at, at our June meeting is a essentially a tariff for people who get batteries in their house or commercial operation. And one where we intend to have a good, very good rate for people who get batteries to sort of move that forward and a clear signal to the consumer that from a price perspective and from an environmental perspective if you want to make a contribution, a battery is...
A solar array is nice but a battery is crucial And so that is going to be discussed. And if anyone's curious, we are having this quarter's meeting in Atascadero. So it's a little bit closer for you all.
Okay, thank you. Supervisor Nelson?
Yes, thank you Chair Lavagnino. I just had to respect even though this item is not on the agenda the Del Cielo situation is something our office is very aware of and are working to advocate on behalf of the residents of Del Cielo. My position at this point is that Del Cielo was permitted as a adult-only park in the first place so I would think through the owners of Del Cielo new owners would actually have to go and submit a permit to make it all ages and pay the appropriate fees and that's the position of our office at this time I know there's been other solutions out there to try to protect the senior status and we are evaluating those. But as my colleagues know, changing our land use process is an extensive process that goes through quite some amount of time and finances do that.
And we already have a pretty full long range planning agenda as it is right now. In the time frame that the Del Cielo residents would hoped to have some results, I think would not be the best route for us at this time. But our office is again engaged. We've reached out to the ownership there and we will continue to do that as we try to protect the interests of the residents of Del Cielo.
Thank you.
All right. Thank you very much. I think that closes out public comment at this time. Want to thank everybody that's been here today too on all topics so appreciate the tenor and the quality of the comments as well. So that'll take us right into our departmental agenda. Madam Clerk, can you please read departmental item number one into the record?
0:52 – 1:0010 turns
Chair Lavinino and members of the board Departmental item number one is from the Planning and Development Department. It is a hearing to consider recommendations regarding the Orkut Community Park sports field lighting project, case number 23 SPP1. OK,
while staff's setting up I'll call for ex parte on this item. Supervisor Hertman?
None for me.
Supervisor Nelson.
Yes, thank you Chair Lavagnino. I've spoken with Jeff Ingram from Parks Department about this as well as our local youth sports soccer organization that's pretty excited about the prospect of lighting at the Orchid Community Park. Supervisor Caps?
None for me.
And Supervisor Weems? I believe Mark Chitillo mentioned something, some information about this at a meeting yesterday but it was very short five minute.
Well obviously you had a lasting impression upon yourself. Park's not real happy right now. All right so we'll take time for our staff presentation at this time.
Good morning, Mr. Chair. As Jacqueline Alexander laid out for you this is an amendment to allow for permanent lighting in Orcutt Park and today we have Tina Mitchell our planner who will be doing part of the presentation. We have Shannon Reese our supervising planner and we have Jeff Lindgren from CSD who's available for questions. And with that I'm going to turn it over to Ms. Mitchell
Good morning, Chair Lavagnino and Supervisors. Today I'll be presenting the Orkut Community Park Sports Field Lighting Project. This project is a request by the Parks Division of the Community Services Department so we have representatives from their department here as well to help out with any questions about the lighting The project is a request to make amendments to the Rice Ranch Specific Plan that will allow county parks to install permanent lighting at Orchard Community Park.
These amendments are necessary because the Rice Ranch Specific Plan did not account for lighting at Orchard Community Park. The park operations and uses will remain the same with the proposed amendments, because local sports leagues have been using portable generator-powered lighting during months with limited evening light for at least the last five years.
The LUDC states that amendments to a specific plan shall be processed in the same manner as the original specific plan. The County Planning Commission reviewed the proposed amendments on May 8, 2024 and recommended approval by resolution to your board. County Parks is required to amend this specific plan based on state government code requirements which state that any public works project within a specific planned area be consistent with that plan.
Future build-out of the lighting is not subject to Planning Commission recommendation or board approval. However, any lighting installed by county parks will be subject to compliance with the amended specific plan. On this map, generally all development that you see below or south of Rice Ranch Road and Stubblefield Road is the Rice Ranch Specific Plan area which covers approximately 560 acres.
The Rice Ranch Specific Plan was originally approved by the board in December 2003 and amendments to the plan were later approved in January 2016. The specific plan area includes 725 dwelling units, open space trails and the Orchard Community Park which is outlined here in yellow and is the focal point for this project. It's an approximately 26 acre public county park located at the southern end of Bradley Road and zoned rec and within the park there's about five-and-a-half acres of baseball and soccer fields.
As I previously mentioned, local sports leagues have been using portable generator-powered lighting like what you see here for at least the last five years during the winter months when the sun sets early. These lights are raised and lowered with a hand crank and a telescoping pole when they're in use. The proposed specific plan amendments consist of changes to the design guidelines and open space management plan.
We've specified that lighting in Orchard Community Park will have a maximum height of 60 feet, we removed language that excludes lighting from the park And we specified that any lighting in the park is subject to the specific plan's design guidelines for exterior lighting, including requirements for low intensity, low glare design hooded fixtures that direct light downwards.
There is a detailed breakdown of the amendments included with attachment three of the board letter. This is the conceptual lighting plan that County Parks provided to staff to help guide the amendments and environmental review for the project. This is showing 14 fixtures surrounding the sports fields in red, 35 low-level walkway lights leading to the parking lot in yellow and orange, and 29 parking lot fixtures in purple.
All lighting seen here would be used on a limited basis, generally when daylight savings is not in effect. And there would be a timer control that turns them all off by 9 p.m.. The proposed amendments are consistent with the policies of the county's comprehensive plan as well as the Orca community plan. The board letter attachments include a detailed consistency analysis of all applicable policies as well as findings for board approval of the project.
For environmental review, staff prepared an addendum to the previously certified SEIR that was prepared for the Rice Ranch Specific Plan. None of the conditions in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that call for subsequent environmental document have occurred. The addendum includes analysis of visual resources and biological resources since these are the only issue areas where there's a change in the impact analysis.
The baseline for our environmental review accounts for the existing consistent use of portable lighting at the park. Impacts to visual resources and bio-resources will not be more severe because the amendments require that lighting in Orchard Community Park comply with the design guidelines for exterior lighting that are set out in the specific plan. The conceptual lighting plans provided by County Parks do comply with these design guidelines, and they also include photometric drawings that show the lighting being directed downwards with no spillover to open space or neighboring properties.
Use of the lighting will be limited to when daylight savings is not in effect in the shouldering months in spring and fall, and they will all turn off each night by 9 p.m.. This is consistent with the current use of the portable lighting. Staff also reviewed a biological report which concludes that impacts to wildlife are unchanged. In conclusion, the proposed amendments to the Rice Ranch Specific Plan are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the Ork Community Plan. Therefore staff recommends that the board receive and file the Planning Commission's recommendation, approve the introduction of an ordinance for the amendments to the Rice Ranch Specific Plan Waive the full reading of the ordinance and set a hearing for the administrative agenda of June 25, 2024 to do the following.
Make the required findings for approval of the project. Determine that no subsequent environmental document is required and approve the adoption of the ordinance. The full text of staff's recommendations is on the slide here And that will conclude staff's presentation. We're available for questions and then we have Mr. Lindgren from County Parks here as well.
1:00 – 1:0721 turns
Okay, Mr. Lindgren you have five minutes for a presentation as well if you'd like to make one. Thank You Chair
Lavinino I don't have
anything to add at this point. Madam Clerk are there any requests to speak from the public?
Chair Lavinino members of the board we have no requests to speak from the public on this item
OK, Supervisor Hartman.
I just had a question. How much do they cost? How long does it take to install and who will pay?
Chair Lavagnino, Supervisor Hartman, the total cost is anticipated to be about $1 million for the lighting in the sports fields, the parking lot, and the bridge that crosses you from the parking lot to the sports fields themselves. If your board chooses to follow today's recommendations, we will be able to wrap up the design documents and advance to starting work with a jock contractor as soon as we can.
And that contractor will actually establish the schedule but we are targeting being completed in the fall if at all possible. There are some challenges with PG&E that we'll need to overcome. But other than that, we're looking towards the fall. The source of the funding is it was ARPA and then it was swapped. So it's all budgeted in the parks budget.
I'm going to jump in. It's actually the funding is coming from the Orchard Community Facilities District, so this is actually gonna be paid for by Orchid residents that are paying that additional fee. So it's actually not...it isn't a parks budget. It has actually been budgeted for the last three budget cycles. We've had some hiccups getting to where we are today which is but it's exciting that we're finally moving forward with this project and so You know, just wanted to let the community know that this is not just an ORCID resource for our county. It's actually a well-used park by the entire Santa Maria Valley and the Lompoc Valley that often competes there. It's the home field for the ORCID Academy High School as well as many of the youth soccer leagues so if we can't get new facilities built maybe we can extend the life of the ones that we have.
And so this is a really neat opportunity and I really want to thank Parks and Jeff and his team for spearheading this and I know they're working hard to try to get these lights up and going so that they can maximize their use in this next year, if our board moves forward with this. And I offer my full support and endorsement. My Parks Commissioner is really excited about it as well. I know my Planning Commissioner Roy Reed who's here really carried the water through on the planning commission to get a unanimous vote. I know that there's some concern about light pollution but I believe we're using the best technology possible here That the light is going to be directly focused with the new technology just on the sports field and you're not going to have issues with the residents or the wildlife.
And so that gives me a lot of comfort if this would've been proposed maybe 10 years ago, it'd be an entirely different project. Also those lights since they're LED are gonna use little electricity right? The electricity use is gonna be minimal as well. So it's an exciting opportunity. Yes, a million dollars is a lot of money but it is paid for by the residents of Orkut and will create a great recreational opportunity for our community that we're desperately in need of.
After everybody makes comments I'd like to make the motion. Supervisor Katz?
Well, Supervisor Nelson just answered my question. I was going to ask if these lights were in fact LED so that's good to hear and it sounds like a fantastic project to let kids and others play more sports and recreate together and getting off the generator into permanent lighting is smart thing to do. Thanks.
Supervisor Williams.
Well I think obviously in any place that has experienced the level of growth that Orchid has, you tend to not have enough recreational opportunities for the amount of residents and so it's good to have a chance to ameliorate that.
Okay if you'd like to ready for a motion? Yeah. I think we asked for public comment.
We did. Chair Lavagnino members of the board we do not have any requests to speak on this item.
All right, with that I would like to make a recommendation to adopt staff recommendations, make the required findings. And that's item one A, B and C.
I'll second and just want to say congratulations on a great project to extend the life. We're in desperate shortage of playing fields throughout the county, and so to make this one you know the issue is the gophers and keeping it without a lot of holes and so we can we're already doing that we can extend the life through lighting I think that's a very efficient way to go about it
All right, motion and second. All those in favor?
And Chair
Labadino
prior to the vote my apologies just wanted to confirm that also include recommendation D setting the hearing on the admin agenda for June 25th.
So amended. My motion. Second.
Seconds good with that all those in favor aye any opposed passes unanimously so I have to make a change to the agenda. I'm going to have to leave, and we have an item that requires a four-fifths vote. And so I've asked if we can move Item 6 up to now. It sounds like the CEO and County Council are okay with that. We do have staff available, so I apologize. Madam Clerk, can you please read item six into the record?
1:07 – 1:137 turns
Chair Lavinino and members of the board. Departmental Item number 6 is from the County Executive Office. This is a hearing to consider recommendations regarding an ordinance amending the transient occupancy tax TOT from 12% to 14% for their November 2024 general election ballot. And as indicated by the chair on the board letter it does reflect a four fist vote required
Okay, Nancy.
Chair Lavinino and members of the board good morning this item was directed by your board at the June 4th hearing where an increase to the transient occupancy tax or TOT was discussed. This is the first reading of an ordinance changed to chapter 32 section 12 to increase the TOT tax rate from 12% to 14% that would become effective upon voter approval The purpose of today's item is to seek your board's approval of the necessary actions to increase the TOT on the November 2024 ballot. In order to do this, we would need the following that to introduce the first reading of the ordinance if your board chooses to designate and authorize members of the board to author sign and submit an argument in favor of the TOT increase and finally set a hearing for July 9th for the second reading of the ordinance and adoption of a resolution with ballot language and request to consolidate with the election Just a reminder that TOT is a tax generated by visitors who pay the rate when staying at any lodging facility such as a hotel, motel or vacation property rental for 30 days or less within the unincorporated areas of the county.
And the rate history is listed here currently we're at 12% rate This table shows the current TOT rates across the county. Most cities and counties are at 12%. The cities of Lompoc, Santa Maria are at 10% and Guadalupe is a 6%. In addition to the county seeking a 14% rate both Builton and Sullivan City Councils have considered and approved a similar increase to be added to the November ballot in addition to city of Carpinteria.
Here are the taxing authorities for the tax rate increase. Revenue and Taxation Code 7280 authorizes the county to levy the TOT within the unincorporated areas, as indicated it is in the Santa Barbara County code. Government Code Section 53723 indicates that voter approval is needed for a general tax and will require the vote to apply to all voters of the county although the tax would only be levied to the unincorporated operators And to put the measure on the ballot would require a four-fifths vote of your board and majority vote of all the voters of the county.
Here are just a few excerpts from the County Code that is being amended, as shown on Attachment A. The first bullet notes the change to 14%, and the second bullet denotes the timing. The tax rate of 14% shall take effect beginning January 1st 2025. There are several steps necessary to get the ballot measure on the ballot. Staff have been working with consultants to conduct polling and draft ballot language. This is in preparation of the July 9th board meeting where we will have the second reading of the ordinance, provide resolution to increase the rate with proposed ballot language and request to consolidate the election. As noted earlier part of today's Action is to determine if your board will be submitting an argument in favor of the TOT increase and which board members will be facilitating that on behalf of the board.
This argument is due to the Elections Office no later than August 1st. Additionally, as part of the resolution to be adopted on July 9th both County Council and the Auditor-Controller are directed prepared impartial analysis and fiscal impact statement these are due to elections office by August 12th and August 15th respectively The recommended actions for today are shown on this slide and include the consideration to consider the introduction of the first reading, read the title ordinance amending section 32-12 of the Santa Barbara Code to increase a transient occupancy tax rate to 14% and waive further reading of the ordinance in full. Approve and authorize members of the Board of Supervisors to author sign and submit on behalf of the board an argument in favor of the TOT rate increased ballot measure and any rebuttals.
Set a hearing for the departmental agenda on July 9th to consider the following actions. Consider adoption of the second reading of the Ordinance, adopt a resolution submitting the proposed ordinance in ballot language and determine that the project is not CEQA. With that I'm happy to answer any questions you may have.
Okay questions from the board? Supervisor Hartman
It seems to me the trickiest thing is to explain to voters who are in cities why they're voting on this measure that only applies within unincorporated county and that it'll be particularly tricky for voters within Buellton, Solvang and Carpinteria. Have you thought about how to deal with that yet on the ballot language?
You know, we've been working with a consultant. We actually hired a consultant specifically to help us with the ballot language and then of course FN3 is helping with the polling so that was thought through. The you know obviously there is not necessarily competing but those questions are going to be thought of through the way that The polling is happening, they're kind of answering it. It will help us drive how we should propose some of the language to help us with that question in particular.
Supervisors were working closely with those cities as well. We tell them we don't want to compete with them and so we are working collaboration in fact solvings consultants who we're using. So we're looking at the ballot language and then whatever educational materials we need to provide.
1:13 – 1:1837 turns
Any other questions from the board? Do we have any requests to speak from the public?
Chair Lavanino and members of the board, we have no request to speak from the public on this item.
Okay can I get a motion? Supervisor Nielsen.
Just real quick um I know one of things is to direct which board members would sign a rebuttal or argument for or against or I guess for and the rebuttal and I just wanted it for the record I'm not going to participate in either the support Or against, so I won't be on either one of those. So I don't need to have that as part of any motion on the board.
Well, I'd be happy. I think we should probably have one north, one south. I'll be happy to do the north.
Well, there's both a valid statement and a rebuttal. And my sense is that especially Joan should be on it because she's the I think the most popular countywide I could think of. But also, I think that if there is both an argument and a rebuttal, there some argument to having all four of us on one of them Right, so that everybody hears from their supervisor that they're supportive.
Well do we have to name who it's going to be or do we? You do because
we need to get the.
Well, why don't we just be all inclusive? Everybody's cool with it and put all of us on. And then if somebody wants to drop off later, Rachel,
Mr. Chair, members of the board, I have not looked at whether all supervisors can write arguments for and against. We haven't usually done that. OK, I can try to look it up quickly
Well, and just I'm not suggesting that all of us are on both. Right? I'm saying that two of us should be on the argument and two of us on the rebuttal to
Supervisors, I think that's a good idea. And if maybe you could at least identify which supervisors would be on the argument and which are on the rebuttal? And then if there's any change to that we can come back to the board but I think we've done that in the past so that would be helpful.
Well since you have the only properties that are affected it might be a good idea that you're on the argument and then if we want to do a rebuttal.
So
can
you just remind me on the ballot, it's all in the sample ballot. I'm just wanting to understand how this will be communicated.
Sorry Supervisor Katz, how it's laid out on the ballot. Yes I've seen it that you it's the impartial statement and the fiscal analysis and then there's a separate section so I'm not sure exactly how that but we can get a sample to you
yeah I'm fine with what the chair just outlined again I'm happy I'm all supportive of this I only have one of the hotels so it's I think it makes more sense to have others
Yeah, I would argue that we need a North County Supervisor and one of the more conservative ilk just so we spread the ideological. Since we don't have one could we get the other?
I'd be happy to do whichever one everybody wants or both or whatever but it does seem kind of weird that if I'm making an argument to tax Montecito so you should probably
Yeah,
but I mean that's gonna be my
rebuttal. I'm happy to be on it since I guess that's true that most of the revenue comes from the First District.
So I'm unclear could you please specify who would you like to meet on the argument and who on the rebuttal?
I don't think Doss and I together on the argument is a good idea. I would say... I think we should split it up. I think that optically will look better.
So going back to Supervisor Hartman and Supervisor Williams on the argument, and Supervisor Lavinino and Supervisor Caps on the rebuttal or would you like Supervisor Hartman and Supervisor Williams on the argument and Supervisor Lavinino? Wait, I just said
that.
Let
me propose. I think the first idea is best just with the limited options simply because the other question is Is driving turnout, too. And the importance actually of hearing from me and one and Laura and another because city Santa Barbara voters voting for this is really crucial in the past you know in the past that's been really important. So what did that mean? So who
are you suggesting
I'm I'm suggesting that if That it be Joan and I on the argument, and that it be Laura and Steve on the rebuttal.
Okay. I
think
that shows a united front too, a little bit better. If you're okay with that?
Absolutely.
Okay. Cool. So where are we? Did we make a motion? Oh, that was part of the motion, I believe. Correct? Have we voted? We have not.
We have a motion to approve staff recommendations A through D that was a discussion on recommendation C.
1:18 – 1:296 turns
OK, again I apologize. I've got to leave. We will turn it over to the very capable hands of Supervisor Capps.
OK. Thank you Chair. So now I believe Madam Clerk we're going to go back to item number two is that correct? Will you please read it into the
record? Yes, Vice Chair Caps and members of the board. Departmental item number two is from the Agricultural Commissioner and Weights and Measures department. It is a hearing to consider recommendations regarding a presentation and release of the annual Santa Barbara County crop and livestock report for 2023. All right, Director Chang.
Is this on? OK. Good morning Vice Chair Capps, members of the board, CEO Miyasato, County Council, county staff and members of the public. Jose Chang Agricultural Commissioner for Santa Barbara County with me today is Assistant Agricultural Commissioner Laurie Martin as well as IPM, Integrated Pest Management Specialist Mel Graham. I am pleased to present the 2023 Crop and Livestock Report highlighting the agricultural industries in Santa Barbara County.
This year we have decided to update the report, to call it the Crop and Livestock Report instead of the Agricultural Production Report to better describe Both the crop production and livestock production in Santa Barbara County. This report is developed in accordance to California Food and Agricultural Code 2272 and 2279. The first publication of this report in Santa Barbara County was back in 1916.
Since 1916, this office has produced an annual crop report. As you recall, in 2023 we had a series of atmospheric storms that caused significant damage to our county including the agricultural industry. The effects of those storms can be felt in the following report. Producers had to repair infrastructure, replant their fields and in many cases were not even able to access their fields for a long period of the growing cycle.
So the total agricultural production value in 2023 was $1.875 billion, which is a 2.8% decrease from the value in 2022. Many factors affected the total gross production including the atmospheric storms, pests and diseases and commodity pricing. I also want to highlight, and it is important to note that the values presented in this report reflect only gross values of agricultural commodities and does not consider costs associated with labor, planting, irrigation distribution among other production activities.
So the vegetable production in Santa Barbara County in 2023 saw a slight increase in harvested acreage. But despite consumer demand remaining steady, there was a decrease in value overall. This was due to lower market prices, lower yields and setbacks due to the atmospheric storms. In the fruit and nut crops category, we also saw a slight increase in harvested acreage.
But again, a decrease in value. The atmospheric rivers and the cold spring led to decreased yields for blueberries, raspberries, and also avocados. The introduction of new countries entering a very competitive avocado market also led to a price reduction and lowered total volume. This contributed to avocados dropping off of our top 10 agricultural commodity list.
I also want to emphasize that this particular category represents 50% of the county total gross production value, primarily O&T strawberries. For wine grapes, we saw a bit of the opposite effect with a decreasing harvested acreage but an increasing overall value. Despite these storms, the growing season had a long blooming period and better soil conditions which led to an excellent crop for wine grapes. The higher yields and quality also added to an increased value for this commodity.
Chardonnay, Pinot Noir and Sauvignon Blanc were the three most harvested varieties with the highest gross value. For cut flowers and nursery products we saw an increase in production as well as an increase in the total value for both cut flowers and nursery products. We also saw a large boost in value for nursery products due to more reliable reporting from our farmers.
In the field and seed crops category, the raining season in 2023 resulted in greater resilience in pasture and rangeland recovery after many years of drought. These along with more accurate reporting of rangeland values contributed to a large increase in total overall value for field and seed crops. We also saw a similar effect in the livestock, in APRA category. With the ranchers retaining more pasture due to the rainy season that along with higher sales and demand for beef led to an increase in livestock production values.
More accurate reporting of APRA products and evaluation of those products led to an increase in APRA products as well. In this slide here, our number one agricultural commodity for Santa Barbara County in terms of gross production value remains strawberries. And strawberries have remained the cornerstone of the Santa Barbara County agricultural economy since 2002 being the number one commodity each subsequent year.
Nursery products move up to the number two spot from the number four spot that they held last year, and wine grapes stay steady at number three. Cauliflower dropped from number two down to number five. The other changes I would like to draw your attention is the addition of livestock into the top ten commodities for 2023. Livestock has not been in our top 10 ag commodities since 2012.
And despite the slight decrease from 2022, the overall agricultural production value over time has continued to grow. Many of the commodities that we grow in Santa Barbara County are exported to other countries. 38 other countries, to be precise, with Canada and Mexico being our main trade partners. Last year, we shipped over 45,000 tons or the equivalent of 90 million pounds of food abroad.
Our farmers continue to also meet the need for the organic commodities, and we have increased our number of organic farms slightly from last year. In 2023, we had 197 registered organic farms. Our number one organic commodity is strawberries with about a quarter of the total acreage of strawberries grown in Santa Barbara County being grown for the organic market.
I also want to say that part of the mission of the Santa Barbara County Agricultural Commission's office is to improve and protect agriculture and the natural resources in our county. Our pest exclusion program helps us carry out this mission through inspections at mail carriers, nurseries, retailers, and within the community To prevent the introduction of pests into Santa Barbara County, in 2023 we found many invasive species or pests and issue 147 notices of rejection where plant soil and food material were returned away or destroyed due to the potential introduction of pests that could be detrimental to our local agricultural and natural resources.
As part of our mission to build better relationships within our community, we are now publishing a Spanish version of the Crop and Livestock Report for the very first time. We hope that this inclusion will help to strengthen our ties with the industry and the public and will help make the information presented here more accessible to our stakeholders and community members.
And it is a staff recommendation that the board receive and file the 2023 crop and livestock report, and that it is exempt from CEQA. I also want to take a moment, if I may Vice Chair, to proudly recognize my staff in the Agricultural Commission's office for their contribution to this report. But also my gratitude to the agricultural industry in providing us with vital information to make this report possible.
Thank you and we are pleased to answer any questions you might have.
Thank you, Director. Thank you to the staff and the fact I just need to give huge kudos. The fact that this is the first year it's been in Spanish is incredibly important for access in our community. OK, with that, I will see if Madam Clerk, if there's any public comment.
Vice Chair Caps and members of the board. Yes, we have two requests to speak from the public on this item. We are going to begin here in Santa Maria with Claire Weinman to be followed by Karen Hauenstein down in Santa Barbara.
1:29 – 1:358 turns
Good morning, my name is Claire Weinman and I'm the president of the Grower Shipper Association of Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo counties. We appreciate the opportunity to celebrate and highlight the diversity of agriculture in Santa Barbara County and the way it feeds us and provides a variety of economic and employment opportunities throughout the county.
I'd like to thank Commissioner Chang and his team for bringing this item to the board and community today and wanted to provide a few additional points of context to the numbers you heard today. As Commissioner Chang mentioned, the numbers presented are before any costs and not take home profit. Farmers only receive a small portion of the retail sales price. For example, a USDA study showed the farm share of the retail price of strawberries is often only 32%.
The majority of a farm's share of income is used to pay employees and other local businesses. Some local jobs and businesses might be some that we'd think of—harvesters, food safety, produce sales, and plant breeding—but others you might not think of include finance, insurance, restaurants, and equipment sales. Importantly, not every year is profitable. We face fierce competition from other states and countries with lower costs and fewer labor and environmental protections.
Because of the high costs of growing on the Central Coast, many farmers don't currently qualify for many disaster or federal safety net programs. Although the majority of produce grown here stays in the US, as mentioned some is exported internationally. In all cases this brings income in from other communities and countries to our community and although we have our own cycles and downturns agriculture has consistently provided community income and jobs during economic downturns for other sectors Thank you for the opportunity to share some of these important points.
We continue to need the leadership of the Board of Supervisors and all levels of the county as an important part of maintaining a vibrant agricultural community in Santa Barbara County, and the multitude of benefits it creates. Thank you.
Thank
you.
We will now go to Santa Barbara with Karen Hallenstein who is our final speaker on this item. Karen?
Good morning everybody. We're getting ready for 4th of July so I'm wearing my red, white and blue. And I had to be down here in Santa Barbara today. So we have questions about this report because you do not include cannabis in your report as an ag product. Why is that? Can anybody answer that question for me or are you allowed? Okay you're not allowed. We need, I want to know why cannabis isn't included in your report as an ag product because that would definitely affect the numbers additionally and this is completely separate With regards to the ag activity, immediately across the street from 1335 Perissima Road. 1335 Perissima Road is a residentially zoned property.
You, Mr. Agricultural Commissioner have been allowing commercial strawberry production across from 1335 Perissima Road which is a new form of farming that has been happening for that area and we believe that the overspray in the drift from those activities has been detrimental to the status of people's health in the area In the residential areas, immediately across the street.
Did you at all consider the impact of this intensive commercial farming? Because we're feeling the impacts of it and it seems like everything I've been saying has been falling on deaf ears I'm going to have to find the answers to these questions. Just like all the other answers that I have to find now involving the relationship that I now don't have with my parents' attorney, John Tyne.
And Lacey Taylor, who will not allow me to speak directly to them except in writing or on this dais. Thank you very much for considering everything I've tried to bring to your attention regarding agriculture over the past year when you make these decisions. Thank you.
And that concludes public comment on this item.
Thank you to our members of the public and now to the board. Any questions or comments? Supervisor Nelson.
Yes, thank you Vice Chair Caps. I think the question Ms. Hauenstein had about cannabis could you maybe address that?
1:35 – 1:406 turns
Supervisor Nelson, through the Vice Chair. The reason actually kind of is just included in the report but it's not included in the total gross production value because this is still a federal illegal commodity and so since the rules at the federal level they haven't changed that is the reason why it's not included in the report. Does that make sense?
It does I think to think The question the public has, Ms. Hauenstein has is probably a question others have too so that's helpful and if that changes on the federal level you would expect that to be a commodity in the future
that's added? That is correct. So I think I believe there are many states already that legalize cannabis and if that ever happens at the federal level of course at that point It could be considered an agricultural commodity, but at this point it's not. Although it is included in the report, it's just not in the total gross production value. But if you were, we will absolutely be a higher agricultural industry in Santa Barbara County
Well, thank you for that. Yeah and just for the public on page eight of the crop report they'll find a section there about cannabis which it is a significant number there but I also wanted just to comment that I think Ms. Wyman's comments about all the inputs that go into coming up these numbers are really important for the public to understand. I think a lot of people see these large dollar numbers and think well you know must be good to be a farmer But, you know for most of the farmers I'm talking to right now especially our berry farmers it's not a good time to be a farmer. Many of them are losing millions of dollars and it is a real concern out there and I think the trend that you're actually seeing in agriculture is consolidation where our small farms are not allowed, or not able to exist anymore because of these markets being volatile and the regulatory burden and requirements in competition that exists here in California.
You know this is probably the best place to grow these commodities in the world and we are really blessed to have that but we also have a lot of challenges ahead of us I do think You know, for some you know by hook or by crook people figured out and they will continue to show soldier on in the agriculture industry at the best that they can. But we are seeing real effects there. And I just think that Not necessarily our county, but on the state level there needs to be caution as they address some of these various regulations that are well intended, but have potentially significant impacts whether that's on labor or it's on potential other farming techniques that are really important to production.
So thank you, Mr. Cheng for Commissioner Cheng for all the work that you do. You've been doing an excellent job in these couple of years here as our agricultural commissioner and I'm excited to see these numbers continue to go up in the coming years so thank you for your presentation today.
Thank you Supervisor Hartman. Well first of all congratulations to you and your staff I think this is one of the most user friendly appealing ag reports, crop reports that I remember seeing. My question has to do with Whether crop reports ever make a distinction between the raw product and processing, I think about processing as getting added value. So when it can be for olive oil or whether it can be for grapes into wine even vegetables where they're packaged on site as opposed to just going off raw.
If there's, is that ever included? Could that be included? It seems to me an important aspect and the more we can encourage processing here to capture that value instead of just sending things off that we can realize more benefit here in the county so would love to hear your thoughts about that.
Yes, Supervisor Harmon through the vice chair. We follow the two code sections from the Food and Ag Code 2272 and 2279, and they are very prescriptive as how we are supposed to do this crop report. So it doesn't take into account all of the processing of the ag commodities. Wine grapes is another one, and I know that Allison Lassley is here from the Vintners, and she will tell me that the wine grape industry would be about a billion dollar and not $100 million.
So for us, we only take into account what we call before it leaves the farm gate. And that is the only value that is taken into account. I think it would be a lot more complicated if we were to calculate for each one of these commodities once it leaves the farm gate, that value. So to answer your question, I don't think that we will be able to handle the amount of work that it would create to calculate once the agricultural commodity leaves the field and calculate the multiplier effect once it is processed.
1:40 – 1:468 turns
Well, it's something to think about. I mean, I think even about cattle we don't have processing facilities here and have to send out elsewhere and you know it how I think the question is what can we as a county do to encourage more value added here within our county borders? So if this may not be the vehicle but at least to me that's the question thank you
Thank you. And Commissioner, I just wanted to point out this stunning factor that with all the storms there's just the pure resilience that was indicated in this report, the damage of over 169 million that the agriculture industry lost and so could you speak to efforts related to these extreme climate events that we've been having and how the sector has responded?
Yeah, Vice Chair Kopp. Thank you for the question. You know, this is one of the things that farmers face on a yearly basis. It is the weather and of course climate change it is now making it a little bit more challenging for them in all of these storms. And it's not only these storms but also these storms you know they are leading to an environment for pests and diseases to thrive and to be a little bit more complicated to be control of those pests So I will say that.
The efforts that our office has done, it is trying to collaborate with the United States Department of Agriculture. And they have an agency underneath that can help the farmers cope with any losses and like you mentioned we had over $160 million in losses in the ag industry but from that over $56 million it was for strawberries. And as Supervisor Nelson was speaking about, or actually Claire Wayman. She was mentioning that many of our farmers because of the income that they have often times don't qualify for assistance when it comes to that.
Am I answering your question? Okay.
All right, I'll entertain a motion please. Or another question?
Yeah, I just actually had another comment and I'm happy to also make the motion to receive and file this presentation but you know i think what Supervisor Hartman was bringing up about processing is a really important question and I do think in the past our county has not necessarily throughout development process been friendly to processing and I would love for that to change. I mean I think that's a huge opportunity. I'm glad you brought it up because I think it's something We should be signaling as this is really what we talk about economic development in Santa Barbara County, you know processing should be that. You know often processing will sometimes move into the cities because you know cities typically are a little bit friendlier when it comes to that level of economic development and that we've been resistant to that in the county I know many Farm and ag-related companies have struggled getting through APCD, and what that looks like when they're really just trying to grow additional crops.
And so that's something that we should really be trying to get our arms around in really trying to drive that business back into Santa Barbara County instead of losing it to other counties. I know that Supervisor Williams is always concerned about vehicles miles traveled. So if we can keep these products here in our county and process in our county with county jobs, you'd be more vertically integrated.
be really important to our economic viability of our community as well as our other goals.
Supervisor Williams?
Yes, this is a huge problem. You know obviously in issues like cannabis that means a huge loss of revenue for the county and then secondly for food security this is a big issue in Kiama because a lot of food has grown in Kiama but you can't buy any of it Because then it's shipped off to packing houses in Kern or LA County and then, you know, doesn't come back.
And so it's a, you know, almost colonial experience for the people of Kiama, you know, and even small storage or packing would make a huge difference.
I wonder, this deserves more thought but perhaps a task force or something under the Ag Commissioner's jurisdiction that community and maybe board and some people could gather some information and make some recommendations about further course of action.
1:46 – 1:4810 turns
Supervisor Hartman, yeah I think that would be a great idea for us to start to work with some of our partners. I think we got two of them here with Ms. Lassa and Ms. Weinmann to work with and really try to brainstorm on what we could be doing and really maybe bring forward projects and concepts that would really maybe could be fast-tracked, and have everybody on board understand that is a value of this Board to do this. So with those signals sometimes help our planning processes move a little faster And so maybe identifying some of those projects out there. And they're winners on so many different levels because it's that value added as well, but in the county what we make money is on property tax. So when you build these nice big buildings and that process things and there's a lot of taxes that are generated.
Through that as well. So I'm continue, I'd be happy to work with some of the partners and maybe even the CEO's office. I know that we've been looking at what economic development looks like and maybe kind of trying to reach into our agricultural community and see what we could do more there to move that along.
Great thank you. I will entertain a motion.
I'll make motion to receive and file.
Second. All those in favor?
Aye.
And my apologies Vice Chair Caps and members of the board, can we also include B for CEQA in that motion?
That was in my motion as well yes thank you. Yes A and B
correct?
Yes.
Great okay did that vote get recorded or set? Okay with that we're going to take a 10 minute break and come back to D3 OK, welcome back. We will now proceed to departmental item number three.
1:48 – 1:554 turns
Madam Clerk, please read into the record. Vice Chair Capps and members of the board. Departmental Item Number Three is from the Behavioral Wellness Department. It is a hearing to consider recommendations regarding Mental Health Services Act three year program and expenditure plan annual update for fiscal year 2024 through 2025.
Thank you. Take it away, Dr. Navarro
Good morning Vice Chair Kaps, Supervisors, CEO Miyasato and County Staff. Tony Navarro Director of the Behavioral Wellness Department joined here today by B Wells Chief Operating Officer Chris Ribeiro and our Mental Health Service Act Manager Natalia Rossi. It's actually been some time since before COVID that the Be Well team has reported out to the board in a formal presentation on our Mental Health Services Act annual update.
And as Be Well begins to plan for the transition of what is called MHSA into the Behavioral Health Service Act, system of care as a result of the passing of Prop 1 this past March. We're really glad to be here today to present an overview of the 24-25 Mental Health Service Act plan annual update in which we will highlight some successes from the current year and present some new additions to the system that were recommended, vetted, and agreed upon in the required community planning process this year.
So we'll just give a brief overview of the Mental Health Service Act. It was established by the voters in 2004 under Proposition 3, also known as the Millionaire's Tax as it is a 1% tax on every dollar earned over $1 million goes directly to fund California's county mental health system Currently in MHSA, the system is divided into five separate categories. The most funded at 76% is our community services and supports. Those are for those people who have diagnoses and are receiving treatment There's the prevention and early intervention bucket, which includes community-wide campaigns on public awareness and the prevention of mental illness as well as early detection and early intervention for conditions.
The current act also provides for the professional development of the workforce in order to enhance ongoing services and system effectiveness. And the current act also allows for funds to be utilized for capital facilities and technological needs development so that we can maintain a strong and robust infrastructure And currently 5% of the current funding that we receive annually goes towards an innovations funding bucket, if you will. Wherein we are allowed to create innovative and as yet not necessarily tested and proven evidence based practices that are more locally driven around the needs of our community.
So one of the pillars of the legislation is the community planning process. It requires, the act requires that every three years we create an extensive three-year plan as how we will expend the funds and present those in a three year program plan and extended your report. We are currently in the second year of what is now our final three-year plan And the act also requires that there is an annual update and complete review of the system by stakeholders, both including county partners, community partners, private partners, and the public. Especially those who are accessing and utilizing the system to work with our staff to address any changes That may be needed and adjustments as a result of funding the M. H. S. A- funding under proposition three has actually been identified as the most volatile So we have some changes that are coming after this next year, and you'll hear more about them in our next year presentation.
But the passing of course of Prop 1 is going to redefine our entire framework and expand actually the community planning process as well as change the allocation of dollars As we are gearing up to comply with these regulations, it's important to note that there is no new funding coming in the coming years. It will be a reallocation of funds. And so this presentation today includes some addition of some prevention initiatives over the next two years that we agree are really key for our system to be in the best shape possible as we transition in 2026 to the new allocation and funding framework.
All right, so again these current funding began last year for these current initiatives and we do have some additions. And so I'm going to send it over now to Chris Ribeiro to talk about the budget and funding portion before we get into the details of the programming.
Thanks, Tony. So the slide we're looking at now is the, this is the full MHSA plan budget so this is a part of the adopted budget that went to the board last week I believe and was adopted. So these are the areas we talked about, the community services and supports at 83% which is about 87 million, prevention early intervention 14%, at about 14, innovations and capital facilities and workforce employment and training So these are the entire MHSA plan spending, and I'll break down kind of the components within that on the next slide.
So this slide kind of shows the big areas. None of this would be here without the MHSA plan, right? So that MHSA allocation at 45.7 million is about 43% of the funding, and so that's a really volatile funding stream. Tony talked about it a little bit. It's extremely hard to predict. We've been fortunate the last few years to have significant increases due to personal income taxes, but again it is extremely volatile.
One of the things that is not tied to the service levels, the service needs, it's the money we're allocated from the state. The Medi-Cal revenue, that is the portion that we're able to draw down from the federal government for plan administration, quality assurance and then the provision of those specialty mental health services throughout the county. And that is dependent on the level of need and the amount of services that we do provide and are able to successfully bill for or draw in that Medi-Cal revenue.
The last piece is the 2011 behavioral health realignment. And so that piece as well is not tied to services, it's just based on the sales tax that we receive a certain allocation for each year. So those are the three primary components of the MHSA in its current state and we know this is gonna change as it goes forward with our BHSA but that is for the 24-25 budget year.
1:55 – 2:054 turns
Am I on now? One of the main components of MHSA from the beginning has been meaningful community involvement. This is central to MHSA program planning, so in order to develop the MHSA annual update for 24-25 we hosted 27 stakeholder sessions with local community members including consumers and family members, Spanish speaking populations, Latinx populations, Miss Tech communities, homeless and at risk of homelessness populations LGBTQIA plus populations, TAY populations, college and high school students, staff and tenants at supportive housing sites, primary care providers, veterans, law enforcement staff, school counselors and psychologists, justice-involved populations, and older adults.
Our stakeholder process must always include representatives of unserved or underserved populations and family members, stakeholders who represent the diversity and demographics of our county, consumers living with serious mental illness and or serious substance use disorders and emotional disturbances, and their family members. Those are all central community partners when we start to plan our MHSA program plans. So the goal of our update is to provide the community and stakeholders with meaningful information about the status of our local programs and expenditures, as well as gather input for program planning for the next fiscal year. So we always start by talking about what we've done, what we've accomplished, what's going on with our programs, and then we start to really ask them what they need in their communities.
So the top five priorities that were established by stakeholders are the following. These are the priorities that stay in place for the entire three year duration of our plan, so last year we established these priorities and then every year we have to really report out and change our programs depending on how we're meeting these five priorities. So those were increasing our full service partnership capacity, increasing warm handoff and navigation services for those in crisis Increasing mental health education and prevention programming for youth and families. Implementing mental health programs specifically for older adults, and then finally recruitment and retention of a behavioral health workforce. Those are our top five priorities so the rest of my portion of this presentation really talks about meaningful implementation of these priorities within our program plans.
So that first priority, increasing our full service partnership capacity. This is what we did in fiscal year 23-24, the year that's about to end next week. So we increased our FSP budgets to include flex funding to spend on clients' non mental health needs including rent, rental deposits, medical and dental needs. We created an FSP manager position to create better uniformity of care, continuity of service, and aid and retention of employees.
We also started Growing Grounds, Be Well, well we started funding Growing Grounds. Be Well contracted with Transitions Mental Health Association to provide a relapse prevention program stressing resiliency factors and supported employment for mental health consumers. This program is new for our department and it takes referrals from our Santa Maria FSPs and they get to work on the farm. I encourage you all to go out there on Thursdays. Awesome.
We are planning for the upcoming fiscal year within this priority. We are investigating ways, and then we're also implementing them, we have an update since we decided this, to measure client-focused outcomes that prioritize quality of life for our FSP clients and improve healthcare outcomes for our FSP clients. We're also increasing our staffing for the Justice Alliance FSP to enable them to better serve their clients.
So for our second priority, that's increasing warm handoff and navigation services for those in crisis. So in this last fiscal year what we did was we implemented the new mobile crisis benefit as part of CalAIM payment reform. We actually paused a little bit on implementing any initiatives or programs within this priority because we wanted to first implement the new mobile crisis benefit and get that kind of going before we looked at this particular part of our system and tried to help aid it. So, this priority is the one where we're actually implementing the most change this year because we paused a little bit last year.
So for the upcoming year, we've created a new peer assessment team that specifically reaches out to new clients post-hospitalization and post-crisis intervention to begin providing peer support services and help people entering our system of care to participate in services. This was a stakeholder ask and we really brought that out to various stakeholder groups over this last year and then developed the program with them Stakeholders were the ones that suggested that we also include post-hospital intervention, and that we also make sure of continuity of medication as part of this peer assessment team. So those were two areas where stakeholders had really meaningful input on this program.
And I just want to add to that, that the peer assessment team is also a way in which be well is looking to make sure that we capitalize on the new medical benefits and the recoupment and the matching of federal funds for our services. Because using a peer assessment team allows us to use certified peer support specialists in this role to maximize and leverage funds to keep our system as robust and maintain what we've currently established even in the light of changing Behavioral Health Service Act changes coming in the next two years.
The second new program would be our Access and Linkages team, which will provide outreach and linkages to services for all referrals including care court referrals. This will start around December 1st. Finally we're starting a new Homeless Early Intervention Team that provides early intervention mental health treatment to unhoused populations throughout the county.
This is our third priority, which is increasing mental health education and prevention programming for youth and families. Over this last year at the start of our new three-year plan we implemented a lot of new programs to help address this priority. We started the LEAD program with TEMA. LEAD organizes free community presentations and trainings in Youth Mental Health First Aid or QPR, which is Question, Persuade, and Refer. Those are two different mental health education trainings for communities And specifically for families and youth in the Santa Maria and San Yanez area, and also just community members. We also implemented a new Causa Pacifica Suicide Prevention Training Program where Causa Pacifica staff now provide suicide prevention trainings for schools and those that work with youth countywide.
We also implemented a new countywide youth council. We had over this last year 30 high school students participate as peer advocates to serve as trusted sources for mental health resources and information, and start to develop a peer-to-peer group throughout our county with high school students in mental health. Finally, we implemented the new Youth Languages Network.
This is a program we contracted with YouthWell. Also the YouthWide Council has also contracted with YouthWell to educate school staff and those working with youth including resource navigators, probation officers and school counselors. So we implemented a lot over this last year. For this upcoming year, we do plan to start new mental health education program that's specifically providing outreach to Latinx youth and families in South County with the Resilience Institute. And then we are also hoping to start a new mental health education program that provides outreach specifically to Mixtec youth and families in North County with MICOP.
On to priority number four, implementing mental health programs specifically for older adults. This was really important for community members in this last fiscal year we implemented two new programs the new peer and parent partners in wellness and recovery for families that's Always a mouthful. That program was designed to provide outreach and support to families with adults living with unmet or undiagnosed mental health, social healthcare needs. This is a program where they really do intensive outreach to the family members that's peer-led and has family advocacy members as well. And they really try to serve everyone in that family and meet with them where they are and try to encourage them to seek out supports such as NAMI And then also try to work with the actual individual living with them and see if they can start to provide peer support services, and maybe help be a trusted source for that person and encourage them to seek more services.
And I just want to say that program actually was developed as a result of the folks that came forward and spoke last year when we presented our capital facilities housing continuum plan, and we had many folks who were parents of adults living with mental illness come forward and say there's not help for us until our loved one gets into services And we're really seeking help. And so myself and Chris Ribeiro and Natalia were then able to take that information and go back, and we have partnered with the Mental Wellness Center. It's a very successful program that we're very proud of. We had anticipated that we might serve three families per quarter starting in November. We've actually served 80 to date since November with this program.
2:05 – 2:106 turns
Also, we implemented a new wellness promotion for seniors program which is a prevention program geared towards seniors living in senior housing developments throughout the county. We contracted with Family Services Agency and they're going out that programs still getting up and running but really starting to provide those early preventative services. For this coming year, we plan to implement specific outreach to older Latinx adults. This is a part of our community that we really feel that we need to do more specific outreach to try and connect them to services so we want to work with trusted community leaders countywide on trying to figure out the best approaches for really providing targeted outreach to these people. We also implemented a behavioral health awareness campaign, or we plan to specifically addressed to older adults again to try to meet them where they are and encourage them to seek services when they need to.
All right, our final priority was the recruitment and retention of our behavioral health workforce. Over this last year we implemented a master's in social work scholarship program. We funded $25,000 per applicant for four staff this year pursuing master's in social work degrees They were awarded their scholarships last spring. It was a really, really meaningful ceremony. Tony was there and we got to all hear about these awardees' background and all of them worked full time while also getting their master's in social work. It was really wonderful to hear their stories and really a proud moment. They all brought their families, I mean they brought just people that helped them because it's so hard to work full time and go to school full time.
Just people in their lives that had really supported them over the last couple years. It was really nice. We also had a number of staff retention and our Staff Retention and Training Program we provided trainings on best practices, cultural competency, leadership trainings for interested staff to aid in retention development of a diverse and competent workforce For this upcoming year, we will fund another four scholarships for staff that are pursuing master's in social work. That'll be a total of eight scholarships for up to $25,000 per scholarship. We're also working on developing our workforce pipeline. We plan to present more at high schools and college job fairs throughout the county on behavioral health career pathways, career opportunities in our department And information about things like our bilingual allowance for staff to try to really recruit at every level a more diverse and competent workforce that really is able to serve the communities that they live in.
That would bring us to the end of the presentation. Our recommended action for the board is that we are asking the board to approve our MHSA three-year program plan and expenditure report annual update for fiscal year 2425. Thank
you so much. Let's see, let's first go to public comment.
Vice Chair Kaps and members of the board, we have three requests to speak from the public on this item. We are going to remain here in Santa Maria with Jill Velster-White to be followed by Kimberly Valenzuela.
I'm Jill Bolster-White. I'm the Executive Director of Transitions Mental Health Association and we are a contract provider with Be Well, and I just wanted to support the approval of this plan. We among many of the contractors have participated in the programs as you heard a couple of programs are contracted out to community-based agencies and I just really appreciate the work of the department. I've appreciated how much support, I really appreciate the call out for Growing Grounds Farm and you all should come on Thursdays when we're selling produce. We actually had a great little write up in the farm and ranch publication in the Central Coast about growing grounds with stories of some of the folks who are benefiting from being out there I also encourage you to pay attention as Tony Navarro mentioned with the Behavioral Health Services Act, the changes of Proposition 1.
We're really hoping that we maintain some of these core services, wellness centers, the family programs are critically important growing grounds and I think that's going to be a challenge going forward. We're certainly willing and able to work with the department in meeting those. And just one little moment of bragging, both Elena Walczak, F Calm and I was able to go up to Sacramento. We were both awarded the Nonprofit of the Year Award by our respective assembly member Hart and Senator John Laird so we're really excited. So two of your contractors for behavioral health wellness were able to be called out this year just as a testament to all the work that's going into behavioral health. Thank you very much.
Thank you and congratulations.
We will remain here in Santa Maria with Kimberly Valenzuela to be followed by Gail Osharenko on Zoom. Kimberly?
2:10 – 2:199 turns
Hello, I'm Kimberly Valenzuela. I'm the regional director for Casa Pacifica a contracted provider with Be Well who I am also here to express support of the plan of the MHSA plan. We highly value our partnership with be well and two of our programs one was the new one that school based suicide prevention program which has just been a huge success in terms of being able to get into the schools, into some of the wellness centers presenting to kids, presenting to school-based counselors, presenting to teachers on how to find risk. We're also going to be incorporating some CSEC, commercially sexually exploited children trainings this upcoming year Which I'm really looking forward to as there is a high need and not a lot of knowledge in the education system.
And then, as well as our mobile crisis program. So the other thing that has been really wonderful this past year is these quarterly MHSA meetings that Natalia has coordinated and her team where we get together with the other providers can collaborate and continue to have this partnership expanded and understand each other better. So I just wanted to express my support for the program and the plan as well. Thank you.
Thank you. We will now go to Zoom with Gail Osharenko, and we had an additional request to speak in Santa Barbara with Karen Hauenstein. Gail?
Wait a minute.
Can you hear me now? Yes we can, please proceed.
I've never done this, this way. Thank you for the opportunity to speak briefly. So much of what's in the report is excellent and we're excited about. I'm speaking mostly on my own behalf but as the board knows, I work with a Legal Women Voters CLU joint working group on criminal justice reform and so we follow these behavioral Well, first of all, I want to say thank you very much.
Is much of anything about bringing some sub acute facilities for people in not needing necessarily the puff, but needing some acute beds in the county. And I think we really need to know How many people we're sending out of county and what the cost is of that because it's expensive to send people sometimes in an ambulance, not just to the neighboring county but far away.
And we really need that here. We work with our partners in NAMI and they sent a letter to the board on June 10th Highlighting these critical needs for more subacute facilities in the community, subacute community based psychiatric treatment beds. And we endorse that we endorse the whole effort to reach to have a continuum of care and do include the subacute in it.
So so that's what we wanted to know. We understand It's going to have its first RFP coming out in July and that those counties who apply earliest will, it's kind of first come first serve. So we're concerned at the fact that this county isn't really going to be gearing up until 2026 and we want to know about that. We're also concerned having just recently visited the jails in Barbara, the main jail That we really want to see this warm handoff become a hot handoff and we want to see that people not only leave. And we will now go to Santa Barbara for our final speaker, Karen Hauenstein.
Hold on. There we go. Please proceed. Thank you, Karen.
Am I only on audio? Okay. I want to echo the comments and concerns and all of the suggestions that were made by the previous speaker Gail who I probably met her but I would like to meet personally and have conversations with her because I think there's some overlap in the research we've done. And I want to share that with her, but she mentioned something that's very, very important.
When the county got rid of PUF, that means that they're expecting that all the people who require these services in our general population won't live here for their treatment That means that officially they're just shipping people out. And I think that's atrocious. When I listened to the presentation by Behavioral Wellness just now, I saw in their presentation that they mentioned adverse populations in Santa Maria And they mentioned the adverse populations in San Yanez.
But they didn't mention Lompoc. The population of San Ynez is less than half the population of Lompoc and the demographics of San Yanez, you're actually mentioning San Ynez instead of Lompoc's population in your report? Why is that? Why are you mentioning a smaller population in your report that has less people to serve by your agency organization and not mentioning Lompoc.
I'm going to have to have an answer for that, and I'm going to ask you myself in person why that is because I find it offensive because I am personally aware of what's going on with your services in my community, which is the Lompoc Valley. And I'm really looking forward to all of the advancements that are being made and it's exciting and I'm also looking forward to the services that are being provided to my close friends Sonia Silva And Carl Michelet.
My two close friends are some of the people who are being served by your agency, and we thank you all for your work and your service. Thank you.
And that concludes public comment on this item. Thank you to our members of the public, now to the board questions and comments about this report. Supervisor Hartman?
I just had two questions or really one comment first of all congratulations on your program dealing with the parents of adult people experiencing mental health issues those are the most Wrenching calls and emails that I get to my office, and now to have a program in something more structured is really terrific. I just wondered if you could talk about your use in the Department of Promotoras?
2:19 – 2:2611 turns
Hi, so we do use promotoras in our department. We use them through several programs that are part of MHSA and then some that aren't. We are hoping to start a contract with my cop as I mentioned earlier that would use promotoras. Our new contract with Resilience Institute in South County uses promotoras We also use promotoras through our contracted providers like Casa Pacifica when they're doing outreach at schools specifically on mental health education.
It's
not part of MHSA officially but it is a funding through the Mental Health Services Oversight and Accountability Commission called the Mental Health Student Services Act, the MHSSA. And that is a partnership we have with the Santa Barbara County Office of Education and Promotoras working with Christina Lombard And another staff in B-Well working with the schools in the mid and north region, bringing it to south region in 2425.
But they are close partners with us in that grant.
Sorry also I forgot CALM uses another contractor provider uses Promotores. So we don't
hire directly but we work through our office of education or other Entities that we contract with who use them.
Yes,
yes and there is a new certification coming to California for behavioral health called Community Health Worker similar to that in public health and so you may be hearing more about that more to come on that in the next year or so for internal positions within our department. Thank you.
Supervisor Williams?
I just had some questions particularly related to children and youth services. You're going to have the challenge that we were spending some of that Prop 1 funds on youth services, and we see just sort of an epidemic among the young particularly We're seeing a correlation with Social media as well, highlighted by the Surgeon General. Of course you can't really ask parents when they're already 16 to tackle it. It's much easier to ask them when they're 8 or 10.
You know, do we integrate that kind of protocol with our work to actively discourage social media or cell phone possession in younger kids and teens before the suggested rates? That's one question. And then just how are we planning on adapting Less funding in for the services that we already provide. For the youth and I saw great information, but I didn't see specifically that adaptation.
I'll let you talk a little about youth well and then I'll take it from there.
Yeah so I think we really do already through contracted providers with youth while with our small prevention programs geared towards youth really focus on self care and healthy things. So just instead of you know flat out saying don't use your cell phone. We have these really great cards that talk about all these things you can do instead, things that you can do to take care of yourself, things that will make you feel good and so it's taking a walk, it's like writing in your nature journal And then they do a lot of activities in their program to really promote that type of self-care. And then again, it's that peer-to-peer connection of these kids going back to their schools and working with their friends and people in their high schools and being like hey let's all crochet at lunch.
Stuff like that to try to promote a healthy relationship with social media. I think the second part of your question was about continuing our programs?
I think that first of all, I want to say no cost specific is here and I think that's part of some of the programming that they do. And she was talking when Kimberly was up here discussing some of the relationships in the contracts they have within the schools as teaching teachers and parents and those who are working with youth again not how to blatantly come out and say don't use social media it's bad but to help people to get the research in the data to understand what the impact might be but then also to offer healthy alternatives to social media utilization and overutilization and focus. In regard to the question about how we're going to adapt, I think that again we've been talking about payment reform. We've been talking about the opportunities within the CALI and payment reform model to increase our utilization of persons within our service area to maximize leveraging the federal benefits, which will fortify our system.
And in a prop one time frame post July 1 2026 we anticipate will offer us the funding we need to maintain more of that child system of care than anticipated. I think that Um. You know, currently we are rounding at the end of our first year but we're really looking forward to having the data available We're also increasing access and leveraging those funds. The most important part of that is the three programs that we're adding the access and linkages, the peer assessment teams as well as the homeless outreach in risk because any time we increase the utilization of our services by those in our county who most need it were not only maximizing the leverage of federal funds to bring more services into which is the ultimate goal of the system. So that's our plan.
2:26 – 2:3110 turns
Supervisor Nielsen?
Yes, thank you Vice Chair Caps. I just wanted to also highlight the new peer and parent partners program just because you know as Supervisor Hartman brought that up but this is really an important piece in our homeless strategy. You know many of our Our clients that are homeless have had issues with their families and not being able to have that reunification piece is a troubling.
You know, missing link there. And so I think this might help that and hopefully keep some of those people that are in our riverbeds or on our streets in their homes with their families with the right tools. So I think this is great you know that we're going to be actually able to treat the whole family not just a client. And I think that has a lot of value. So, I just wanted to give you kudos on taking that up.
Thank you for pointing that out Supervisor Nielsen. That is definitely a key A key intervention moving forward is how to help the establishment of reunification.
And I just wanted to direct my questions and comments related to older adults and seniors. I appreciate the fact that there's two new programs, and that's really important. But as we discuss this report in the Bewell Commission, I was alarmed to see the statistics that it's included And that's a new disturbing trend and over the last 3-4 years, that number has gone up about 8 or 9% as we discussed.
And then simultaneously, Daniella Aguirre in my office took a constituent call who had called in about the fact she is a senior We're just very interested in our office. I'm sure their How do we connect these dots between the lack of some lack? And we talked to some of the service providers and like Communify, etc. Of what can we do more of because I just see it's such a direct connection to food, sharing meals with others, good nutrition. And I just wanted if you could comment on that and we can discuss it at length offline too.
I definitely there definitely is a new connection. There are nutrition, isolation. Those things are key factors and impact mental health, especially isolation for seniors. And yes, we have noted the trend in suicides in our county over the past two years. We really targeted the campaigning for the buses. Some of you may have seen them around town for our state campaign Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the public.
Most of the hits to our website for suicide prevention are for seniors over the age of 60. So we feel that just even limited amounts of change in the way we do, the work is demonstrating significant gains in return. So we definitely think that that is an opportunity for us to maybe partner with social services and how we might do some things together to look at the meals, a healthy nutrition and some of our other contracted partners or where we may intersect as we move forward with BHSA and some other funding streams that they may have available that we can help them with to come together as teams to really tackle both of these things.
That's good to know that there are some good signs already this quarter. But yeah, count me and my team in on trying to figure this puzzle out of how we get more food to our seniors.
And I think those are the way to go is when we talk about food and we talk about socialization because again many seniors when you talk about mental health they don't want to talk about that. The generations they come from are like that's not something that I access or that I ascribe to so definitely coming at the angle of food and socialization is the way to go.
Well, this is an incredibly robust report as it is. And I just want to note that the Bewell Commission had a really good conversation about and was a lot of enthusiasm about different pieces. So some of them might be watching now. And thanks for your service. OK, I think we're ready for motion.
I'll move A and B.
Second. OK. We have a motion in a second on A and b and all in favor Aye. Thank you, thank you. Okay that brings us to departmental item number four. Madam Clerk will you please read that item of classification and salary plan for management into the record?
2:31 – 2:394 turns
I share caps and members of the board departmental item number four is from the Human Resources Department. It is to consider recommendations regarding updates to the classification and salary plan for appointed executives and management.
Okay, Director Schmidt. Thank
you. Vice Chair Katz and members of the board. Oh thank you, oh the red is on huh? All right. Vice Chair Katz and the Board of Supervisors I'm Christy Schmidt, Director of Human Resources and I'm here today to present some final adjustments related to the phase three of the Management Classification and Compensation Project. In December 2021, County Human Resources presented the board with a three-phase project regarding non elected management classifications and compensation. With the intent of eliminating the broadband classifications and establishing a steps based pay structure more similar to the compensation structure for the majority of our other represented job classifications, and more commonly seen for management classifications in the public sector.
And the goals were to establish a transparent and objective management classification compensation system, align pay with the labor market for similar positions at comparable counties. Ensure internal pay equity for incumbents and address compaction. Establish clear promotional pathways based on increasing levels of responsibility and accountability, and prepare for incorporation of the payroll function into the Workday ERP, and also to consolidate various documents governing management pay and benefits. The results of the project were approved by you in April 2024 And included a new management job classifications, new salaries, new benefits and a new consolidated compensation and benefits plan document.
You're way ahead. Recommended actions. It's the next slide. Okay. All right. The. OK. Well the additional adjustments that are included in the documents that we presented to you today include revised salaries for health services and human services which were based on, we heard you loud and clear when we came in April. You were interested in reconfirming our labor market for this fall and also in mitigating the impacts of Y rating on our employees.
And so You may remember that we had a significant number of Y-rated positions in our health services and human services job groups. And what we did is we accelerated our labor market comparison for these two job families, and that resulted in a 6.4% increase for health services and a 1.6% increase for human services classifications. And that took care of a lot of our Y rating, leaving just 17 Y rated positions.
Another change that we made was we allowed managers as you'll remember who believed they had been assigned to the wrong classification to participate in a review period and based on the first review period we did make two adjustments to management classifications We also remapped nine positions based on additional discussion with our department heads to more appropriate classifications. And then finally we added the Santa Barbara County Employee Retirement System positions for that agency to our classification schedule.
We're also recommending adjustments to the compensation and benefit plan that clarify prorating of management leave based on leave banks in the first year, applying a CPA allowance to additional classifications. Applying an increase to the family medical premium subsidies at the employee plus one and employee plus family levels and grandfathering executive benefits for certain positions that were reassigned to non-executive classifications that affects seven employees.
So can you go back to the The revised annualized cost of the salary structure is 1.8 million, of which approximately 990,000 is the general fund that's about 55%. This is an increase over the 1.3 million cost estimate that we had before the recommended changes but still lower than the 2 million general fund costs we'd estimated. So there are sufficient ongoing funds included in the FY 2024-25 budget to cover the change Next slide please.
When we came to talk to you in April, the board expressed an interest in mitigating the impacts of Y rating on affected employees and also refreshing the market study. There are only 17 remaining Y rated managers who would not be eligible for the COLA because their current salary is higher than the top of the salary range for their new classification. And staff are recommending that the Board of Supervisors authorize the human resources Director to apply the 24-25 management general salary increase to employees who would otherwise be Y rated as a one time exception to general Y rating rules.
This exception will allow County Human Resources to refresh that labor market survey and discuss recommended salary ranges adjustments with the board, and the Y rated status of those employees would be reevaluated once we have those new salary ranges and any increases have been incorporated there. So the timing and the amount of the salary increase are tied to labor negotiations with bargaining units, which are still underway. But it would be applied once those are concluded.
We will be conducting a compensation study for November 2024. This will include working with a consultant. We found that working with a consultant in these helps to add a bit of credibility both from the employee point of view and the public point of view We'll be engaging a management subcommittee to work with us on this. And in my experience, this helps both with buy-in to the process and the outcome and also brings a valuable perspective to the process.
The results of the survey may show market inequities. The last survey we did was in fiscal year 22-23, and we aged the data for last year by about 3%, but that market may have moved more than that, so we may find additional inequities We will return with a recommendation for funding to address any additional market inequities that we find through that process.
And with that, just if whether there are any questions?
Thank you. Let's just check first to see if there are any members of the public that wish to speak. Madam Clerk?
2:39 – 2:4415 turns
Vice Chair Capsen, Members of the Board we have no request to speak from the public on this item. Okay great I see Supervisor
Hartman has her
line
up.
How many of the 17 actually came for a re-evaluation
We had 11 people come in and ask for a reevaluation of their classification, so 11 of the 17. Not all of those were Y-rated, some of them had the truncated merit that we talked about but there were 11 people who went through the first round of the process. Now they can still come, there's still an opportunity to participate in the second round. We did leave that door open for those folks so we may get more but it was 11 to start.
Great, well I just wanted to say this has been a Herculean effort and you've brought it across the finish line just about here. And the Y rating that was kind of brought us all up short and I think you've handled it in a very thoughtful and very helpful way That communicates this board and our entire county's appreciation for those people. We want to keep them, so you found ways to address that. So I'm most appreciative and very supportive of this.
Thank you. Any other Supervisors? Questions or comments? Supervisor Williams.
I believe Supervisor Hartman's suggestion was to do partial COLA for the Y rated but this if that can be accomplished in full for one year, I suppose that's for the right Y rated folks even better because I suppose in the short run and appreciate you looking at that. And obviously the shrinkage in the number of Y rated folks also speaks to your department's willingness to look at whether reclassification is appropriate.
I just had a question, again I appreciate this effort sort of to clean up and explain better etc., it was raised to me that the impact on the F rated could you speak to that? I don't have data in front of me but just how this impacts tiers down Managers who wouldn't then receive merit, is that accurate?
Yeah there were some managers who received less than two and a half percent in this process. And once in the this type of classification system you proceed you progress through the steps until you are at the F step which is the sixth step And then that is where you stay and you're re-evaluated to ensure it's a competitive market for the work that you do, more regularly than we have done in the past. And then also the COLAs are adjusted to make sure to also try to keep pace with that, with the going rate for that work. But it isn't so that you just keep going up regardless of where the market is. It's very much more market based
Thank you. And again, I understand there's been some sort of growing pains with this need to right size things and get things on a better track going forward. And I just appreciate the work and appreciate the work of managers as well. Thank you. OK, I think we can entertain a motion to receive this report.
I'll move staff recommendation A through D in today's board letter.
Second.
Okay we have a motion and second. All in favor? Aye. Motion passes, thank you. Okay let's see do we want to continue or do you want to go into closed session? Let's knock it out. Okay let's knock it out. Madam Clerk could you please read in departmental item number five into the record
2:44 – 3:006 turns
Vice Chair Kapsa, members of the board, departmental item number five is from the Public Health Department and the County Executive Office. It is a hearing to consider recommendations regarding opioid unified response in Santa Barbara County RSBC and there is a four-fifths vote required on this item.
I think you were all maybe expecting after closed session so thanks for jumping up.
Actually this works well for us so thank you for accommodating us. You bet. Good afternoon, we're three minutes after noon. Thank you for the opportunity. As as you all know, Madam Vice Chair and supervisors a year ago during the budget hearing we were charged with looking at the opioid funds and the task was to coordinate how we want to make sure that we are using those funds in the most efficient way and also in a way that does not duplicate some of the existing efforts and also to include a lot of the programs that are currently in place as well as where they might be I am happy to share this presentation with you today but a lot of work has gone into this. With the support of the CEO's office, with me is Principal Analyst Lindsey Walters.
We also had Dana Grossi that looked a lot into the reporting and the fund structure and all that so today we are going to update you on the litigation, update you on the projections of what funds we might be getting as well as what are the use requirements as mandated with these settlement funds. What are some of the priorities that we are recommending? Recommendation of use of funds for immediate projects as well as a focus on next steps so with this I will Let Lindsay walk us through into some of the background and the history to what brought us here today.
So as a result of multiple settlements in the opioid litigation filed against opioid manufacturers, distributors and pharmacies state local and tribal entities receive settlement funds from some defendants our county started receiving its first funds in November 2022 As of June 1st, $4.29 million was received an additional $1.6 per year is anticipated for at least the next 15 years. Our current total projected settlement funds is $29 million throughout that period although this amount is variable based on the projections and how the updated settlements come in with jurisdictions involved. To prioritize use of the funds at the CEO's request, Public Health created and led the opioid unified response in Santa Barbara County which we have named RSBC.
In response to the national opioid overdose crisis in the United States that has a devastating impact on public health and the overall well-being of Americans, including residents of our Santa Barbara County, the Board of Supervisors directed the Office of County Council with the assistance of outside counsel Kelli Rohrbach to initiate litigation against defendants and manufacturers of prescription opioids to recover the county's damages from opioid drug misuse caused by the deceptive marketing and sale of prescription opioids, and to obtain other remedies to mitigate the problem going forward. The lawsuit was filed in 2019 and alleged that defendants created a public nuisance that violated California's unfair competition and false advertising laws by distributing large volumes of opioids in Santa Barbara County despite knowledge of growing epidemic caused by opioid misuse and by failing to prevent and report suspicious opioid orders as required by state and federal law.
In 2021 and 2023, the board approved partial settlement of litigation against various defendants. These represent the National Opioid Settlement and the new National Opioid Settlements. Additionally, the county is pursuing funds through the bankruptcy claims process and through other defendants including Melloncroft, Endo Health Solutions, Insys, Purdue Pharma and the Rite Aid Corporation.
With the resulting funds, we do have restrictions and requirements that are going to be placed on the county in order to utilize these funds. Opioid funds must be expended and approved on opioid abatement activities as set forth in various settlement agreements and bankruptcy plans. Through statewide allocation agreements, the State of California agreed to remit 70% it receives from settling defendants to local jurisdictions which can be used on approved future opioid remediation and high-impact abatement activities And to remit an additional 15% to funds to local jurisdictions that initiated the litigation, approved and to cover fees and costs of that litigation. The California Department of Health Care Services which we refer to as DHCS will oversee the use of these opioid funds They are going to be supporting things that are classified as core strategies.
Prevention, treatment, harm reduction, warm handoff and recovery programs and evidence-based data collection and research are all qualified core strategies. In administering these funds we also are able to incur reasonable administration costs which can be reimbursed. 50% of the funds must be used for high-impact abatement activities. High impact abatement activities are things that we typically see within our current provision of care and services, so upcoming is the provision of matching funds or operating for substance use disorder facilities with Prop 1's recent behavioral health continuum infrastructure program where we can use funding to match Creation or new or expanded substance use infrastructure. Activities addressing needs of communities of colors, vulnerable populations including those who are unsheltered or experiencing homelessness.
Diversion of people with substance use disorder from the justice system into treatment. Interventions for drug addiction for vulnerable use and purchase a naloxone for local entities distribution referral efforts The subdivision funds can be used for reimbursement of prior expenses such as contingency counsel, attorney fees and costs. The county did receive subdivision funds in the amount of $529,000 for these fees. The subdivision fund distributions are going directly future subdivision funds are going to go directly to Keller-Robrot pursuant to backstop agreements that the board approved for the remaining subdivision funds in excess of fee percentages. So what this essentially is saying is part of the funding is going to the attorney fees, it's a little complicated but we do anticipate and we've estimated around 15% from future funds to be for those attorneys' fees.
And overall, the opioid settlement funds must be expended or uncovered within five years of receipt or seven years of receipt for capital outlay projects. So if we want to build infrastructure such as beds, the county must always prepare on an annual basis It reports to DHCS and the National Settlement Administrator on the use of funds that it receives, and it can be audited by DHCS. So we've been working with the Auditor's Office to try to figure out how to properly account, make sure we're up-to-date on any webinars that the state is releasing as it's developing the required reporting mechanisms.
And I'm gonna turn it back to Director Hamami to discuss the planning so far.
Thank you, Lindsay. So as Lindsay mentioned we established a core team that we called our SPC that included a lot of the county departments such as Behavioral Wellness, the Sheriff's Office Probation, Community Services, Social Services and the CEO's office as well as Parks, as well as the Public Health Department. The goal was that we wanted to make sure that we are seeking feedback so we did a lot of presentations on what those funds are, what they can be used for. We went to coalition meetings, we went to community events, Project Opioid, the Opioids Prevention Coalition as well as Fighting Back and CAIDA are some of the examples We also did an electronic survey to the community to understand what is being done currently, and we received a lot of information on what is happening that are not some of the county programs but also what the communities are doing.
So for example There are now close to 23 programs that focus on prevention. They serve close to 9,000 people per year and five of those programs specifically are geared towards youth. 18 programs are for treatment serving close to 7300 people with three specific programs that are only for youth population. In terms of harm reduction, there are 18 programs serving 8200 with two focusing on youth. We also did a community focus group that included both county as well as external partners such as AGES and CADA, Good Sam, Lompoc Valley Medical Center, as well as CINCAL were part of that where we wanted to identify the needs and gaps that might be a good use for those funds. So three immediate needs were identified through the survey and the focus group.
Definitely there is a need to focus on medication-assisted treatment, and the continuity of care. We need to expand capacity of residential treatment facilities and treatment beds. And there has to be a care coordination And a connection to resources specifically for families and specifically for youth, and also a focus on those that are unhoused. Also, your board had seen this presentation that we worked with the sheriff on some of the data and I wanted to highlight a couple of slides that would give you a little bit more of the justification to why these recommendations that we are bringing in might be appropriate. So although we are seeing a reduction in the overall fentanyl overdose death, but we are seeing a high spike in that yellow line and this is the group of the ages of 35 to 54.
So there is a need to focus more on that group and adult. We also know that still Santa Barbara and Goleta to some degree are increasing, and the similar but in a lesser ratio is in Santa Maria. We also looked at those that were justice involved, and we also noticed as you can see 70% of those that OD'd had a prior connection to a correctional facility, and that justifies why The focus on maybe a correctional facility or expansion of treatment and coordination of treatment after release is a very important thing. And although the majority of overdoses happened in house population, but the increase was in the unhoused as you can see from that orange line and that again is also indication that we need to look into some of the projects that we are doing either through community service or also the homeless population.
The data that we gathered and the surveys and the discussions as well as feedback from our partners and stakeholders And all those factoring as well the core strategies such as those that are listed in Schedule A for allowable use, Exhibit E and the high impact abatement areas. All those are included in your package as in the appendix Our SBC agreed that we should focus on four major priorities with one extra one that is essential to all. So, we want to include prevention as our first priority and under prevention we can have everything from education to public awareness youth programs but even looking at policies and legislations that can probably advocate for how prescription of opioid can be done and this has happened elsewhere and we are looking at some of the models that were implied.
Treatment is our second priority, specifically MAT as well as focusing on cultural competency youth and those that are justice involved as well as coordination of care. Harm reduction, we know that Narcan and Naloxone has been proven to be effective in diverting some of the overdoses so again a lot of harm reduction has been done in the past and we need to continue to support that but also there is a need for data collection and research and to maybe establish a central location for all the data that is collected. We collect data, the coroner's office collects data, the hospital systems collect data so if we can coordinate a data hub that can be beneficial to lead into looking at where are some of the areas or populations that we need to focus and central to all we definitely need to have an equity lens that would look into communities in need and empowering communities as well attention to special populations such as those that are justice involved, as well as those that are unhoused.
So based on all we reached out as well to our departments and looked at current programs that can benefit from these funds the goal was to look at either supporting expansion but also diverting some of the general fund use that we can supplement with these funds but also to look at what are some of the priorities and potential for the use of the funds which Lindsay is going to walk us through.
Today we are proposing specific funding recommendations for year 23-24 and 24-25. The first is Community Partner Grants. This activity will set aside one time funds of $500,000 to be allocated to community partner agencies through a request for proposal process followed by grant agreements for successful applicants. Public Health would issue the RFP and oversee these grants and coordinate with the agencies to receive all needed program expenditure details for annual reporting to DHCS. The second is the expansion of the Behavioral Wellness Sobering Center of $300,000 with one-time funds. This activity will expand the capacity of the sobering center to serve those in need for addiction treatment. It would be a contribution to the overall project costs of purchasing and siting of a modular structure which increases the number of beds from seven to ten.
The sobering center reduces unnecessary hospitalization, incarcerations and inpatient stays by providing a safe space for individuals The third is the expansion of behavioral wellness recovery residences, which we typically call sober living beds. This activity will provide the county with an additional 12 contracted recovery residency beds over a period of three years for recommended amount of $600,000.
Currently, the Department of Behavioral Wellness has funding for 12 recovery beds countywide and 100% of those currently in these beds reports opioids as their drug of choice. Individuals who have the opportunity to receive support in these programs are likely to successfully complete treatment programs and many transition to long-term housing after completing their initial 90 days.
The fourth activity is in-custody medication assisted treatment, otherwise known as MAT. This activity will build on the current MAT program at the Sheriff's Office correctional facilities including serving all those in custody who qualify for treatment. Funds requested for this initiative will cover the cost of the contracted program and will be partially offset in the future through reimbursement anticipated to the Cali MediCal justice initiatives. The recommendation is 437. Madam
3:00 – 3:089 turns
Vice Chair, can I just ask a question about this? Sure. I asked the director this earlier kind of the question I have is we're like you know 10 days from the end of the fiscal year right now so obviously these are funds that have already been expended Is this money that would then return to the CEO's authority, or does this savings go to the sheriff's department?
I'm talking specifically of the 2324. And of that, you know, I support unequivocally the purchase of the drug because that is a commitment that we essentially talked about. But I just kind of understanding what's the logic of allocating funds that have already been expended?
Supervisor, through the chair I can answer that. I think that as we were developing this recommendation for you today it's been in development for probably four or five months and we always targeted use of MAT for the Sheriff so I think we were under the impression that hoping that the board would go ahead and approve this recommendation and for them to use funds for the MAT program. So this would basically cover costs they've already expended your rights since we're close to the end of the fiscal year And as you recall, when we brought the third quarter budget they were over budget I think over $600,000 for costs like this in their budget. That was some of the reason why they're over budget and so this would again be paying for those costs which would reduce their deficit at the end of the year.
And isn't this third party also only staffing at 60%? How do we ensure that this isn't just enabling them? They're not giving us a rebate for not staffing up to full capacity, so we're just gonna give them more money when they're not actually doing the job that the taxpayers are paying them for.
No supervisors through the chair. I think we're going to be addressing that next meeting as a whole item, several items on jail medical but I'll ask ACO Heitman if she can address that.
Supervisor Williams for the chair. For these positions in particular, we have looked at the staffing for the two FTEs that WellPath has assigned to Matt to ensure that those particular positions were filled for the entire year so We will go into this recognizing that these funds will not cover any portion of WellPath's costs where there was not a position filled and actively covering the shifts. And then the other piece of it is the medication specific to their MAT program. So we've taken the pharmaceutical costs for the entire jail and divided out those that are specific to MAT, to make sure that the opioid settlement funds would only be used for things that are truly allowable and have been delivered successfully.
Thank you. And I thank you for that work on that. You know, I know that it's, you know, obviously awkward and I guess exhibit of why I think that we should have y'all involved because we got to make sure that the taxpayers aren't paying for this twice. I mean, it's a worthwhile thing and we should spend money on it, but we just have to make sure that
Thank you. Continue, thanks.
Sorry I just want to wake everybody up.
The fifth activity is the Homeless Outreach and Engagement Support Team overseen by Community Services Department. This activity will provide a half year funding for Year 24-25 of $375,000 and ongoing funding of $750,000 beginning in 25-26 for an agreement to provide homeless outreach and support Services. The current provider is Good Sam's Shelters. The team will ensure that individuals residing in homeless encampments utilize available housing opportunities and receive medical behavioral health services. Currently the program is funded through the American Plan Rescue Act, ARPA, and an encampment grant without these additional revenues to sustain the team is anticipated to end December 31st 2024. Our commitment is that funds may be reduced in future if other state and federal or local funding does become available Additionally, staff is recommending dedicating opioid funding amount which is to be determined as grant match to state or federal funding opportunities for treatment in housing beds.
For example, the county has an opportunity to submit a grant application for the Behavioral Health Continuum Infrastructure Project, BHCIP, funding through Proposition 1 with applications due this fall if not late this summer utilizing opioid settlement funds as match source for allowable substance use disorder projects. Two additional recommendations are coming from, one is from the City of Santa Barbara who has requested a reallocation of dollars in which $79,675 of the city's direct allocation from the Janssen settlement which was due to the city for their claiming oversight where the funds were ultimately reallocated to the county. So we received the city's dollars and they're requesting reallocation of those. To ensure the successful coordination reporting on these funds to the state, the county would enter into a memorandum of understanding with the city and to receive all necessary information for the annual reporting.
Staff would return in for year 24-25 with a budget revision and create a purchase order agreement with the city. Additionally, we are recommending that the opioid settlement funds be managed within the Public Health Department under a new special revenue fund. The needed accounting structure will adhere to guidance provided by the Auditor-Controller's Office and an estimated $50,000 is recommended for an ongoing allocation to public health to aid the department in that administration of funds. Public health would also be eligible for indirect admin related to the community partner grants.
Overall, this is a chart indicating the requested funding. So today we're requesting for year 23-24 $430,900. For next year's budget for 24-25 the request would be $2.5 million. So we have received $4.2 million as of today from the current funds received and the attorney's fees, we anticipate through the amount we received from Melloncroft which was $528,000. These recommendations leave a little over $800,000 it's $822,000 remaining to be dedicated for treatment and housing beds for those grant applications and or other uses as directed by your board. So we will have about 800,000 left over from the current receipts as of today.
Beginning in 2025-26 and ongoing years recommendation is 1.4 million. We do anticipate that an average is probably around 1.6 of available funding that might grow as we get updated projections based on the new settlement that were in the works at the state level for projections and this would recover, this amount, the 1. 6 would cover the 1 .4 and the attorney's fees So if it does grow, we would have more funds. But we want to be pretty conservative and also know that some of the costs within the Sheriff and perhaps within community services would be reduced if we did have other alternate sources especially with CalAIM coming on.
3:08 – 3:147 turns
So while it is good to remember that these funds are very useful and actually very valuable, but they are not enough to cure whatever the remedy. They are a very small piece of it. And this is why we need to emphasize that ongoing collaboration and supporting activities that are currently happening, specifically the coalitions that exist and our community partners is something that we still need to be connected to. The opioid safety coalition is very inclusive in terms of all the community partners as well as behavioral wellness and we would love to see some sort of a connection between existing coalitions and maybe come under a major umbrella where we can all collaborate on how do we use those funds but also leverage other funds and build on activities and efforts that are currently existing because would be very naive if we think that these funds are going to make a big dent into a problem that has been going on for a while.
In terms of next steps, we do recommend or propose that for the community grants we are going to release an RFP look-alike where we want the grant to be more approached in a scientific way. So we are proposing a review panel that has members from the county behavioral wellness community service, probation, the CEO's office as well as the Sheriff. While we also are suggesting external partners such as Good Sam, the SBC Office of Education, Pacific Pride, Fighting Back Santa Maria Cottage Hospital or Cottage Health as well as the SBC Police Department I personally reach out to many of those and they are willing to serve on such committee to review proposals The proposals should meet four criterias. They should fit within the core strategies as Exhibit A, they should be allowable use as Exhibit E, they should fit also in the HIAA which is the High Impact Abatement Activity and they have to be evidence-based i.e., they have proven to be successful if implemented elsewhere.
Of course, the major thing is that they have to be needed activities and they're going to provide an impact. And this is how we will approach the RFP, and this is how we believe that the community grants should be distributed. Our recommendations for today is to receive and file the report on the opioid unified response in Santa Barbara County strategic priorities, and to provide initial direction for utilizing the opioid settlement funds in our county.
We also recommend to approve funding recommendations for the fiscal years 23-24 and 24-25 as detailed in your attachment A. We also recommend to approve the City of Santa Barbara's one-time request of $79,675.26 for the funds which represent the city's direct allocation of funds from Janssen Settlement which are subject to purchase order agreements specifying certain requirements and approved use of funds. We recommend approve the budget revision requests BRR009764 for fiscal year 23-24 opioid settlement funding to the Sheriff's Office in the amount of $437,900 for allocation towards medication assisted treat therapy pharmaceuticals and MAT program staff costs in Santa Barbara County Jail which is an attachment F.
I feel Lindsay should read that because it is self-serving.
We recommend that you delegate the Public Health Department in coordination with the CEO's office as a lead department in managing receipt and distribution of opioid settlement funds, including establishment of a new special revenue fund where funds will be deposited and the annual submission of required reporting to DHCS starting for year 2425 subject to the board's authority to rescind this delegated authority at any time.
We also recommend that you provide other direction as appropriate and also determine that the recommended actions are not project within the meaning of CEQA.
Thank You team for that report I see some lights on so maybe we'll do questions first before we go to public comment Supervisor Williams, did you have another question?
Yeah, one other question. First of all, great presentation, Lindsay and Dr. Hamami. But usually my concern is when we do something like this that the administration cost is too much. But I'm looking at the ratio there and I'm going there is no way the amount of work that the Public Health Department and the General Fund did in discovery For you know, back in 2018 or 2019. In administration of these grants and there's no way that 50 grand is going to cover even reimbursing you for the work that has already been done let alone that you're about to do. That's a 2% administrative overhead for this fiscal year.
Why is that so low?
Amen.
As the reporting evolves and the state comes out with what the requirements are right now, I think we have a good handle with the auditor's office on establishing this special revenue fund. We do know we're going to have to look with public health on what staffing is required with their financial team to understand So we're going to be working with the Board of Supervisors to figure out exactly which positions could do this process. So we're dedicating the 50,000 knowing also that they will qualify for that indirect allocation of the 500,000 at least going into next year so an upcoming in the budget revisions in the future for the next fiscal year. We could have a salary request which was indicated in the board letter.
Thanks.
3:15 – 3:2111 turns
If I understood you correctly it was, this is small drip in the bucket in terms of what's needed but that we do have the organizations in the Opioid Safety Coalition that are kind of capturing the universe in our county and if I understand this money can help further integrate that effort and leverage and perhaps bring down more resources for that. And I gather that's one of the reasons why the $500,000 for the community grants is so important. So I really like how you're allocating the money and I really like that idea. I guess I'm starting to ask in my own mind, you know what of all this works?
How do we report? I mean we do have our broad numbers of deaths and which population But with all the treatment beds and the medically assisted, is there any way to get more fine grained on what works or is that too costly to do that research? And we really just need to do the money getting out the programs to treat people.
That's a very good point and I think so there might be some proxy measures that can indicate what progress we are doing as collective efforts. One of the things that we will ask, and for example the proposals from the community organization or the community grants is a if they're asking for let's say they're asking for 50,000 for three years. So we want to look at what are the deliverables and we want to ensure that we are every year getting a report of we wanted to serve as much or whatever or we are seeing this so there is some level of data gathering that we want to infuse into that. I think back to the work that we have been doing with the Sheriff's Office in the corner and our epidemiology team has shown that we can look at some monitoring based on demographics, based on geography as well based on age so there might be those that we can use as we can look into The years to come of what progress or what effect those funds are showing us.
Yeah, you know we distinguish between outputs and outcomes. And we have lots of outputs but are they getting to the outcome? That's really the question. So much money so much effort I mean I think of the homeless for example and all the contacts and conversations Are we, you know are we really making progress? I think we are but it's really hard to articulate and it's hard to say of all these programs where should we be targeting which are the ones that are really working.
Caseworkers who are the ones who are really effective as opposed just having conversations so I hope over time we can get there Supervisor Nielsen.
Yes, thank you Vice Chair Caps. I just had a question on the budget side here. I see that we're going to be covering expenses on something like the Homeless Outreach Engagement Support Program, some of the things that have been funded by ARPA that we now know there's kind of a budget cliff for. Will the five-year forecast, this will have a net positive to our five year forecast in some of those areas where we've had projected deficits?
Supervisor, through the Chair. Any additional revenue will help us as far as the five-year forecast is concerned? I think there are homeless programs that we said were going or adding to our quote unquote negative cliff where some ongoing programs as well as some of these one time programs. So it should help but I can't tell you to what degree it will because I know some of the things we have in a clip for things that we knew were gonna be ongoing and somewhere things that we knew were going to end
How about with the Sheriff's Department, at least on the MAT treatment? Where were we previously looking for funding for that or were we always kind of targeting these dollars?
Supervisors to the Chair, we were targeting these dollars but in addition we are also trying to gauge what the degree of wait list there is at the jail and so we wanted to serve as many as possible because we think it obviously helps them when they get out. We'll help them while they're also in jail. So we were balancing what resources we had, what the wait list was, what the need is, etc., but we had always targeted these funds for that purpose. I think with this, with what you've seen in this report, we're able to do more.
Okay and then going back to the community partner grants, do we have an idea of what we're expecting those to be? Is that one $500,000 grant? Are we going to think it's going to be 10 $50,000 grants or do you have the flexibility there? What's your anticipation?
Before we even were entertaining a dollar amount, we did provide an electronic smart sheet. We call it soliciting ideas and we have at least 13 different partners that came up with different ideas that some of them range from 35,000 to 100,000. So I think this is where when we start digging deeper into what they are trying to meet, is there a need? Do they fit in those core strategies and then eventually the evaluation from the independent committee would come.
I personally don't have any weight or say into that, but I'll be happy if I see one project that would probably take all 500 if it proves to be worthy of the five hundred. Yeah.
And go over with me again. This is an independent committee who's going to be on that committee that's going to select these grants?
So it's going to be half from from the county and specifically behavioral wellness as well as the CEO's office, the sheriff And I believe probation. and community services. And then from our partners we have Good Samaritan, SBC Office of Education, Dr. Salcido the former CEO of Pacific Pride, Fighting Back Santa Maria as well as Cottage Health and the Chief of the Santa Barbara Police Department those are the proposed panels for now.
3:21 – 3:3420 turns
All great people, all great groups but at the same time these are our funds and so I'm just thinking this through. You know, I would. Are we going to be making a staff recommendation maybe to that board from the county? I would hope the weight of what we want to see funded in our staff wants to see funded would have some significant influence. I understand there's some value out there and pushing that to the community. But at the same time, you know, we're trying to put together a network and a system here. And so I would hate to see some of our friends and partners maybe go in a different direction than might be the desires of our staff. And so just trying to wrestle with that concept.
Supervisor Nelson to the chair I think that's very valid concern that we would anticipate addressing as part of the RFP process. That we can take any direction from your board today in terms of prioritizations and include that in the RFP so that it's very clear that This is not an opportunity. We don't have the luxury of just doing anything and everything. We have to be extremely focused on the things that the county was going to be needing to push forward, even if these funds didn't exist. It just gives us an opportunity to do it through this funding stream instead of general fund.
So this committee would be making a recommendation and then the board would eventually adopt those recommendations? And that would give us kind of a check Those grants or is this the last stop?
Well, it would depend on the value of the grants. Any that go over the threshold for being a board contract would absolutely have to come back to your board if For
your board, the funding that you've seen today is not in the next year's budget. So it would require an appropriation for a first vote of the board to put at it to the budget so for that very fact alone it would have to come back to the board but as ACO Heitman is saying it's really your boards discretion how you'd like us to proceed
And I guess what I'm trying to get at here, and I think yeah sure we have another discretion but it'd be really awkward to go pull one contract and vote against something. You know what I'm envisioning is a recommendation similar totally what we get with was it crimp now or something like that where you know there's or community block grants where there's a recommendation that's given to the board from that committee, and then the board can look at it and maybe accept those recommendations. Often we do from a lot of these committees but I think I would still like to have that authority to say you know what? Maybe that we were funding these seven items, maybe I don't want to fund five and six and I really want to bring eight up. You know maybe there was some other need that the board or priority that the board has that the committee did not fully appreciate And I'd still like to be able to retain that control or that ability.
I believe we can accommodate that just a reminder this committee is only going to be recommending that one time only 500,000 everything else they have nothing to do with that and we also are making sure that if any member of that committee who represent an organization might submit a proposal then they will definitely be
recused So you're only seeing this as a one-time committee? This isn't gonna be an annual expenditure?
Unless we get more money and we have surplus, and the board's direction is yes let's give more to the community then that might be it. But for now it is for that specific $500,000 allocation.
I'm not as concerned about this one time allocation as much as if this is ongoing funding stream. I would want to have a little bit more of a check from the board's ability to have some additional discretion and say in the final outcomes. I understand that we have a lot of great community partners out there that have been in this space for a long time, and they're doing a lot of good work, and I'm not trying to discourage that in any way but I do want us to still have that discretion with these dollars moving forward so that's where I'm coming from on that.
Thank you. I had a couple of questions. After having our jail health workshop, it was definitely driven home to me how much the medically assisted treatment is important so I'm glad to see that a big portion of the funds are going there. Maybe it was in the presentation but I didn't catch it. I see that it's 440 for staff and about 160 for the actual medication.
Do you know how many staff people that is out of curiosity?
I think it's the opposite. The majority is for the medications and what we are supporting for this year is 1.5, I believe, FTEs and next year it's going to increase to another two.
It is two positions this year, which is one as a Substance Use Counselor and a MAT counselor. And next year it will be an additional SUD counselor so they would have a total of three FTE allocated.
And was there information about how many people we anticipate that that would help serve? I just recall there was a very lengthy wait list for the medically assisted treatment
supervisor caps. What Lindsay is representing in terms of the staffing and the pharmaceutical cost is completely accurate in terms of what opioid settlement funds will be covering. But the reality is there, it will be additional staff that will be brought in under the WellPath or proposed to your board as part of the WellPath contract extension that will increase nursing overall. And that's really a primary pain point for this program is the dispensing of the medication So that increase in nursing staff actually will also help us get further into the wait list, and we do anticipate we should be able to eliminate the wait list. Our goal is certainly that we will eliminate the wait lists as we ramp up whether through these resources or additional resources.
As part of our CalAIM initiative, we will have to eliminate any wait list for any Medi-Cal recipients that are in the jail, which approximately 80% of them are Medi-Cal eligible. So through our combined efforts we anticipate eliminating the waiting list.
Well that's a laudable goal so limiting that wait list is excellent. My other question relates to young people and I represent two colleges, Santa Barbara City College as well as UCSB and I fully understand and I think you addressed it really well as to why sort of focus is on that age group that's really been seeing the brunt of the epidemics. I think you said 35 to 54 so I support that these funds need to go to the greatest need and obviously to our I just want to, it was listed as an objective to do NARCAN distribution in the schools and maybe this is an area for the community grants but when we did work with UCSB Gouchos for Recovery, Interfraternity Council, the Associated Students, Isla Vista Community Service District.
We did a NARCAN distribution of 900 units right before Deltopia and the hunger, the interest amongst young people in Isla Vista was really inspiring. They were very curious to learn how to do it, you know, to receive it. There was not one household that wasn't enthusiastic about receiving it so I just wanted to put that pitch out there maybe that's an area that they could Go for this potential community grant, but unless it's covered elsewhere. I guess that's my
question Absolutely and and UCSB was one of our initial partners that we sought specifically the Office of Student Wellness And we know they have a lot of programs that are addressing this they were part of the survey that we looked into I completely agree with you, but we are seeing an increased diverse resources in where NARCAN can come from and there are some free that the state is providing. There are some that we can get from alternative sources so this is why we are not focusing as much as the use of these funds. That doesn't mean that we don't want to continue on that. So that is one. The second is definitely, and I personally echo what you said a youth awareness and youth prevention program Which might not be too costly, can be a potential for a future collaboration or future funding or even part of the community grant.
So again we are not limiting as long as they fit within the three major buckets of prevention treatment and harm reduction.
Well that's good to hear that there's more Narcan being freed up for distribution because again needs to get out there thank you okay maybe I'll just turn it to public comment now Madam Clerk
Vice Chair Kapsa, members of the board we have two requests to speak from the public on this item. We're going to begin on Zoom with Gail Osharenko to be followed by Karen Hauenstein and Santa Barbara. Gail? Can you hear me? Yes we can please proceed. Good
thank you to the board current chair caps and rest of the members I don't know quite what to say. We're very pleased to see the opioid funds going for treatment, both in the community and in the jail. Certainly we saw the need in the jail. We were told the numbers in the MAT program this is last week or 120 and there were somewhere between 30 and 35 on the wait list who'd asked I guess what I want to say is, you can't separate the need for Drug treatment and mental health in general.
And obviously, we would like to see people treated in the community is one reason I was asking you before to really look at why we don't have more subacute beds in the county and why we're paying so much for Beds outside the county, we don't have a number. We don't have a count. We don't know how many people need it. Subacute means locked beds. It's a lower level of need than the PUF but it is a 12 to 18 month program usually sometimes they can go out two years.
We have to have that. And so it's really important that we kind of maybe do another special session just looking at this intersection of various kinds of drug use, including people who are addicted to marijuana And I'm stunned by the figure that 70% of those who OD'd had prior incarceration. So it kind of speaks to the fact that we're not solving the problem by putting people in jail and we would do better if we could divert those people so that they're not in the criminal justice system, mostly they don't even know they've committed a crime.
And try to get this treatment in the community and try to fill our MAT programs in the community. And be sure those leaving the jail continue in a MAT program, tricky to do but really important. And thank you for your time and your continued interest in solving these problems.
3:34 – 3:409 turns
We will now go to Santa Barbara for Karen Hauenstein, who is our final speaker on this item. Karen.
Thank you again for your great comments that inspire me and also remind me of the things that I've learned by watching the great work that has already been done by our county. Dr. Hamami mentioned in his presentation that this opioid crisis has been developing for quite some time. He said, well, okay. I hope he was talking about the influx of the drug fentanyl and the drug tranq on our communities because for this organization, this entity to treat the drug crisis and the epidemics Like they're all one is ridiculous.
You guys are working, and Doss brought this up too. He brought up that he was tracking things from 2018. Well if you're tracking things from 2018 then you're looking at when you guys were looking at meth and other chemical drugs and not the fentanyl crisis which is huge And it's caused by the liberal policies of our open border. Our open border has caused the susceptible people in California to chemical drug use, it's devastated this population And when Gail talks about needing to implement the services into our community and not forcing people to go through the criminal justice system in order to get help, the reason why she was overcome at the beginning of her statement is because she's trying to find a way to communicate how important this is.
I believe that everyone who's trying to solve this problem is doing everything they can. But when we talk about the causes and we talk about the real root solutions, we really have to acknowledge what's really causing this which is liberal policy generally to allow the drugs in in the first place And now we just got to deal with it. So we're training all of our college students to use Narcan. Well, I know how to use it too.
Everybody should know how to use it because it is needed now. Thank you.
And that concludes public comment on this item. Thank you. Any more questions or comments from the board? I
just think it may be only a fraction of the funding that is necessary to combat this crisis, but it's appropriate that the settlement funds be used to address the crisis. Now the settlement funds are generated by what were legal opioids that were disproportionately hawked by certain entities within the United States, and therefore we joined legal action against them. And I really appreciate the board members, especially the board members that have been around for a while for supporting this. I think at the beginning it looked like would not yield very much money.
But you know, part of my hope was that it would also have That just prevailing in the lawsuit would create a measure of justice where there was no justice, i.e., that so many people had been inflicted with human pain based on the profit motives of a few corporate entities here in the United States. But it's appropriate that we use those funds to tackle the next phase of the opioid crisis, which indeed is fentanyl and other trafficked drugs that are killing people in our community.
Yeah, thank you for that. We all read the headlines nationally of the Sackler family and these big pharma in Purdue and the court cases that took years and ruined so many people's lives. And then it is actually very gratifying to be sitting here locally spending these dollars that have come from that settlement and getting to this point. So thank you for all the work that's gone into this.
Okay I will with that I'll entertain a motion to receive this report
I move A through G in today's board letter
on public health.
Second.
Thank you, we have a first and second. All those in favor please say aye. Aye. Motions carries thank you very much. I believe we will now adjourned for closed session Let's see, that requires our County Council to read that out. Is that correct? Great.
3:40 – 3:428 turns
Thank you Madam Chair, members of the board. The board is scheduled to meet in closed session on two items of existing litigation. Veronica Cruz versus Christine Tyler at the San Benito County Superior Court case, American Medical Response West versus the county that's a Santa Barbara Superior Court case. One item of anticipated litigation deciding whether to initiate litigation and Conference with Real Property Negotiators for APN 059-12003, 059 12004-4410. That's in Cathedral Oaks in Santa Barbara Negotiators, negotiating party is Susan Salcido for Santa Barbara County Superior Court. Santa Barbara Superintendent of Schools and the time estimate is about one hour to one hour and 15 minutes.
Thank you. We'll adjourn to
closed session.
And that means we'll return about 2-15. Yeah
thanks.
Okay, we are reconvening the meeting of June 18th 2024. Will County Council please read out a report from closed session?
Members of the Board, the board met in closed session on two items of existing litigation. Cruz versus Tyler and County Santa Barbara American Medical Response Vest versus County Santa Barbara one item of anticipated litigation deciding whether to initiate civil litigation and real property negotiations for 4400 and 4410 Cathedral Oaks and the board took no reportable action
Thank you, County Council. That leads us to our last departmental item number seven. Madam Clerk, please read it
3:42 – 3:545 turns
into the record. Vice Chair Caps and members of the Board, Departmental Item Number Seven is from the County Executive Office. It is a hearing to consider recommendations regarding amendments to the Tax on Cannabis Operations Ordinance and there's a fourth this vote required on this item.
Okay, Ms. Oderman take away. Thank you Vice Chair Capps. Good afternoon I'm here today to present to you amendments to the tax on the cannabis operations ordinance. I'm here with Rebecca Falfall from the Treasurer Tax Selector's Office and I'm going to start this afternoon by just going over the purpose of our presentation and the proposed board actions. Staff prepared two ordinance amendments for your consideration today that vary only by the initial rate that is being proposed. Today serves as the first reading of the chosen ordinance amendment And staff is asking the board to also appoint two members of the board to author the argument in support of the tax measure to be included in the voter information guide, as well as set a hearing for July 9th for the second reading of the ordinance if you choose to move forward and to adopt the resolution to place the measure on the ballot including approval of the ballot language which would be presented on July 9th and also to make those CEQA findings.
So I will just start with a quick outline of what we're going to discuss. A summary, I will go over the board direction from May 14th and any assumptions that are being made as we prepared this ordinance amendment. I will go over the two options highlighting two different rates and why The factors that were considered in developing these options, some highlights of tax reporting and auditing and a high-level fiscal analysis and a reminder of the schedule to move forward with the ballot measure for the November general election.
So as a reminder, on May 14th we were here and presented some options to you for a tax amendment for cannabis cultivation. And the board directed us to return with a proposed ordinance language to amend Chapter 50A which is the Tax on Cannabis Operations to include the following We are looking at a hybrid structure of gross receipts tax rate, which is our current rate but also with a minimum activity tax rate based on state license square footage where an operator would pay the greater of those two options.
To apply the activity rate to licensed square footage where activity occurs, defined as transfers. To set the initial activity rate at 10 cents for outdoor and $1 for non-outdoor. Set a maximum activity rate at 75 cents for outdoor and $2.50 for non-outdoor. And limit the board action to change rates once every two years following implementation by 4 5th's vote.
Some important assumptions that were made to propose a hybrid system that would work and leverage some of the existing progress that has been made in tax compliance are the following. On May 14th, the board direction as I said set initial rates of 10 cents for outdoor and $1 non-outdoor assumed as annual rates The current gross receipts model is reported and assessed quarterly. And so the proposed model for this ordinance amendment uses a comparison of the square footage rate and the 4% of gross receipts to determine the tax owed, and to facilitate the true up and ensure timely tax remittance, the square footage rate also needs to be applied quarterly as well.
We staff felt that turning to an annual process now would be challenging So today there are two options presented for the board's consideration using that hybrid tax structure. Option one is board direction. Which proposed again the 10 cents for outdoor and a dollar for non-outdoor. When applied quarterly, that equates to 2 1⁄2 cents for outdoor and 25 cents for non-outdoor.
Option two as an alternative square footage rate is being proposed at 10 cents outdoor and 50 cents non-outdoor applied quarterly. Option two is staff's recommendation after weighing all of the issues and performing analysis using local average pricing data with current taxable transfer activity for the first three quarters of this fiscal year. We think this option better addresses the under-reporting imparity between the options and cultivation types as we discussed fairly extensively on May 14th.
The factors that are included in the proposed ordinance at either rate are the following. We'll start with what is activity? Activity is defined currently as a taxable transfer, and a taxable transfer occurs when a transfer of product takes place from county licenses or activities to any other license or activity, or leaves the county. To generate the square footage tax amount, the initial activity rate is applied to the state licensed square footage with taxable transfers.
And at this point square footage on state licenses with taxable transfers is compared to the reported gross receipts and then the operator pays the greater of the two. Applying these rates to only taxable transfers helps to avoid the double taxation that board members stated they wanted to avoid and we discussed again on May 14th, and was expressed also by operators as a concern.
And then in order to implement a new system, we also looked at staffing considerations Currently in the Treasurer Tax Collector's Office, there is one senior level manager and one senior finance office professional that administer the cannabis tax program and ensure compliance. With the hybrid model implementation, we believe that one additional analyst position at a cost of around $175,000 would be necessary in order to ensure that we could true up and compare the two square footage and the gross receipts and administer the program.
The maximum rates, again the board direction was 75 cents for outdoor and 250 for non-outdoor. Those are included in the proposed ordinance language as well as the method for adjustment which again was limited to once every two years and with a four fifths vote. Just wanted to go over a little bit of the tax payment reporting and auditing, so everyone's aware of the work that is currently being done.
The Treasurer Tax Collector's Office staff works with operators to produce accurate reporting including pricing of the product. The first round of comprehensive audits by an outside consultant, a third party HDL are nearing completion We're in that process right now. The scope of work states that the goal of those audits is to identify reporting variances, discrepancies and outliers to produce the most accurate measure of gross receipts for the county.
And we believe that there could be an opportunity to further expand the scope using HDL or another consultant or additional treasurer tax collector's office staff. The fiscal analysis in the staff report includes this table that is shown up on the screen. I have renamed the green columns that in your staff reports say option one difference and option two difference to say estimated additional revenue, to be more clear. And what this is showing is in the analysis that we performed used the actual information from the first three quarters of the current fiscal year to determine whether an operator would have paid reported gross receipts or the square footage rate when applying either option one or option two depending on which column you're looking at there These amounts with the boxes around them down there, called out are the estimated additional amount of tax revenue that would have been generated from square footage if the hybrid option was already in effect.
So as you can see with Option 1 which is that two and a half cents and 25 cents applied quarterly, we, the estimate is a little over $400,000 that would've been generated primarily actually in the non-outdoor space When you look at option two, which is the 10 cents and 50 cents. 10 cents for outdoor and 50 cents for non-outdoor. There is an additional $1.74 million estimated to be generated.
And there it's primarily in the outdoor cultivation type. I just want to quickly go over the potential, the ballot measure in the schedule. Similar to what you heard earlier for TOT we have the first reading today if the board by a four-fifths vote decides to move forward we will bring back a second reading on July 9th along with the resolution and the ballot language to place the measure on the ballot.
This is a general tax, and it would need a simple majority of Santa Barbara County voters to approve for passage. But like the TOT, it also requires that the entirety of the county electorate vote on this. So all of the voters in this city and the county. And we would place this on the November 5th 2024 ballot. I think then I just have restated the actions for today. As we said, this is the first reading.
We're looking for direction from the board if they choose to move forward with either option one or option two being solely the difference being the rates that are proposed Read the title and ordinance amending Chapter 50A, Tax on Cannabis Operations of the Santa Barbara County Code. And wait for the reading of the ordinance in full. Appoint board members to author and submit on behalf of the board the argument in favor of the ordinance.
Provide other direction as appropriate and then set the hearing on July 9th. That concludes my presentation and we are available for questions.
Thank you Ms. Oderman, I believe since our speakers have been hanging in here we'll go to public comment first.
Vice Chair Kaps and members of the board we have 14 requests to speak from the public on this item and we are going to begin on Zoom with David Van Wingerden to be followed by Kevin Wilson. David? And just before you start Madam
Clerk I would like to close public comment
3:54 – 4:006 turns
And David, we have unmuted you on our end. If you can please unmute on your end to provide your comments. We will return to David and go to Kevin Wilson to be followed by Micah Anderson.
Good afternoon, Vice Chair Kaps and Board of Supervisors. My name is Kevin Wilson. I'm the CFO of Leaf Brands. We have a 187 acre LUP located in Quiama. We're currently finalizing our business license with the county and we're excited to plant our first crop in the coming weeks. I am here today to express my strong opposition to the proposed amendments to Chapter 50A.
I want to highlight the significant investment that businesses like ours have made in the local economy. We've spent millions of dollars to build out a state-of-the-art cultivation operation with the understanding that tax structure was stable and predictable. Changing tax rates at this stage introduces a high level of uncertainty that jeopardizes the financial viability of our investments.
Secondly, the proposal to give the board the authority to increase the tax rate at will is deeply concerning. Such power can lead to arbitrary decisions that may not take into account the nuances and challenges of the cannabis industry. This could result in tax rates that are unsustainable for small businesses, potentially forcing them to close their doors.
Cannabis industry operates on thin margins and with any unexpected tax sites could be detrimental to the livelihood of hundreds of workers who rely and expect stability. In addition, it's essential to consider the broader impact on the local economy. Small business is the backbone of our community providing jobs and contributing to local economic development.
If these businesses are forced to shut down due to an unpredictable and burdensome tax regime, the entire community will suffer. Moreover we're in the midst of a significant transformation in the canvas industry at the federal and state level of governments I believe we need to continue to work together to ensure that the cannabis industry remains strong in the long term in the county.
Today, I urge the board to reconsider the proposed changes. Instead let's continue to work together to create a fair and sustainable tax environment that supports the growth of the cannabis industry while ensuring that we contribute its fair share to the county's revenues. Thank you for your time and consideration.
We will now go to Micah Anderson, to be followed by Amy Steinfeldt. Micah?
Can you guys hear me?
Yes we can please proceed.
Good afternoon Board of Supervisors my name is Micah Anderson and I am the founder and CEO of Leap Brands. I work with Kevin Wilson. Our project is located in Quiama and we are nearing the completion of our business and state licenses It has taken us almost four years and millions of dollars to finally get to the starting line, which is having plants in the ground in the coming weeks. A project like ours is agricultural at the end of the day in regards to dealing with the natural elements which lead to success or failure.
Ask any farmer in California and they will tell you that they have good years and they have bad years. Some years are good and some are bad. I'm here to express my strong opposition to the proposed amendment to Chapter 50A, Tax on Cannabis Operations. I believe changes to the local ordinance in regards to the tax structure at this stage will add to the potential headwinds agricultural projects such as ours face.
LEAF came to Santa Barbara to farm because of the local ordinance which we felt would support our business model. We raised millions of dollars, bought a property and hired local employees based on financial modeling done which tied into local tax rates, permitting fees etc. Changing these rates now and establishing a method by which the board can adjust them at will in later years will destroy our project and others like it throughout the county The industry within the county needs to have a favorable, steady playing field in order for us to be successful.
I understand and believe that it is not the intent of the council Um, big bankrupt the industry or operators. But what happens when the current board no longer exists? When a new guard steps in and uses past policy decisions to intentionally remove an industry? It's deeply concerning. Whether the industry be agricultural, restaurants, entertainment or housing, establishing a way for the financial goalposts to be moved every couple years would be detrimental to any small business.
I also believe that there could potentially be a VAT or value-added tax proposed within what we're discussing compounding the tax issue. No industry would ever be able to attract investment capital If overnight, the tax structure could be changed to a rate that bankrupted an industry. We are very excited to finally be operational this year and believe that our cultivation project along with other agricultural revenue streams we have underway will positively impact the local community of Cuyama as well as the county. It is essential to consider the broader impact on the local economy.
I see that I'm out of time so I will stop there. Thank you for your consideration.
4:00 – 4:0810 turns
We will now go to Amy Steinfeld to be followed by Jack Motter. Amy?
Good afternoon honorable supervisors, my name is Amy Steinfeld and I'm a local land-use attorney who represents cultivators in North and South County. I'm also pro bono counsel for Good Farmers Great Neighbors and I serve on the board of the Santa Barbara South Coast Chamber of Commerce. Our local cannabis and farmers as you've heard have invested millions obtaining permits and licenses to cultivate And I've worked diligently for years with your staff and numerous regulatory agencies to ensure compliance.
I do land use work in other counties, and I can tell you that this is one of the hardest counties to permit and license a cannabis operation. Many of my clients as you heard have worked upwards of four years to obtain a permanent license which was only possible after hiring local landscape designers, architects, biologists, land use planners, land use attorneys Hydrologists, civil engineers, security experts and state licensing consultants.
Once operational these farms employ numerous residents if the county changes today the tax model all of those jobs could be at risk. The economic benefits of our industry reach far beyond the taxes collected by the county because the industry employs thousands of people throughout the supply chain purchase services and equipment and engages consultants All of which have a multiplier effect that benefits local businesses and disadvantaged communities.
No business can operate with the uncertainty that this board can increase taxes every two years, especially when the max tax rate proposed in the board letter are untenable. Businesses need certainty. If this passes operators will close their door and lay off thousands. Those that have the capital will likely move to Ventura County where the permitting rules and 4% tax structure are stable.
This would be a huge loss for this county and all of their employees. I'm here to ask the county to continue to push for tax compliance instead of changing the rules. We urge the county to maintain the existing tax structure, which cultivators have based their business models on and is also on par with our neighbor at Ventura County. If anything has changed now it will adversely impact these already struggling businesses and also those that are still in the permitting process.
Now is not the time for the county to change from a progressive system to regressive system. This will eliminate also tourism opportunities like the incredible recent event at Sunstone, which brought the wine and cannabis industry together. We request you maintain the existing structure on gross receipts which is working and the county should see an increase in revenue later this year as prices continue to recover and some big farms finally come online.
There's a reason why some counties have reduced their cannabis taxes after losing many of their licenses. Let's not make the same mistake, especially at a time when the federal government has agreed to ease restrictions and reschedule cannabis. Thank you for your time.
We will now go to Jack Motter to be followed by Capone Currie. Jack?
Hello everyone. Can you hear me?
Yes, we can. Please proceed.
Hello Supervisors and everyone. Thank you for all the effort on this. I really just want to echo what the first three speakers just said that to move the goalposts at this point would be highly detrimental to the industry. You know this industry has been Really just beneficial new kind of opportunity in the agricultural space that I've worked in, in this county for the last several decades.
And there's away from taxes all sorts of auxiliary benefits as well and we just gotta give it time to really stabilize before we again change the goalposts. The projections of getting more taxes etc., I just don't really see those living out. If this were to be implemented, I think what we would see is a lot of companies going out of business and ultimately less taxes and you know, less of all the benefits that this new industry has created. So I urge you not to change the tax structure today and give us all a little bit more time and work together to come up with ways that this industry can stay around and be viable create taxes, continue to create jobs etc.
Thank you for your time and that's all I have.
We will now go to Kapono Curry to be followed by Jules Nau. Kapono?
I think I'm unmuted now.
Yes we can hear you please proceed.
Beautiful, thank you. A little bit of data to add some context to what we're discussing today. Per California state data from the Department of Agriculture, irrigated cropland is valued at about $16,300 per acre and at a state level that same acre of farmland is going to rent for $461 Here inside the county of Santa Barbara, that same acre of farmland is going to rent for $800-$1200 a month for irrigated cropland. Strawberries, lettuce, cruciferous vegetables, anything you got.
Option A for outdoor cultivators growing in ground is three times the state rental rate for that acre of land And then option B exceeds the land value and is almost 2x what you would pay in rent, and is more than what you would pay for a mortgage on the land that is listed on the MLS today. I am calling to oppose both options I believe that staff has put a lot of work into understanding what's actually happening on the ground and is developing an understanding that would let them communicate what the impacts of changes to policy like this would be to this growing industry.
I think the best idea would be to let the tax collector complete their audits. I think that looking at a one size fits all tax rate for outdoor cultivators on a spreadsheet will make you significantly more money. However, what you'll find is you're very quickly pricing them out of the resources they need to survive. If you really wanted to increase the revenue from specific producers, there's opportunities to work with the industry. The Ag Commissioner has put together panels where the outcome from those has been discussed as things that would work for both the wine industry and the cannabis industry.
And although this is a very good headline And it's a great way to get people excited. This is a little bit premature, and it can be incredibly harmful to nascent industry and a block of people who've put a lot of work in to make sure we are all doing this the right way. Thank you very much for listening to me. Have a great day.
4:08 – 4:179 turns
We will now go to Jules Naou to be followed by Cindy Van Wingerden. Jules?
Good afternoon County Board of Supervisors, I serve on the board of St. Laurent Coalition on Responsible Cannabis. Currently we suffer from the nuisance associated with commercial cannabis operation. It's time our community reached the benefits through enhanced public services funded by these businesses Numerous grows have avoided paying their fair share. With some operations neglecting to pay taxes or even file tax reports, this undermines our community and must be addressed.
The new tax system must close loopholes to prevent tax avoidance ensuring that all cannabis operators contribute equitably to development of and well-being of our county. However These rates proposed for outdoor cannabis are simply too low and will continue to allow growers to avoid paying their fair share, and will limit the county's ability to better regulate in the future. I hope that the board can come up with rates that more accurately reflect the market value of cannabis and bring our community the benefits promised. Thank you very much for your time.
We will now go to Cindy Van Wingerden to be followed by David Van Wingerden. Cindy? And Cindy, we have unmuted you on our end if you can please unmute on your end to provide your comments. Alrighty, we will now return to David Van Wingerden And then we will go to Santa Barbara with Jared Ficker.
Hello?
Hi David, yes we can hear you please please proceed.
Sure sorry we're having some technical difficulties over here. Good afternoon Supervisors my name is David Van Wingerden co-owner of Farm Lane greenhouse operation in Carpinteria Thank you for the opportunity to speak on such a critical topic today, tax reform. The county and local industry and residents have spent close to a decade and tons of money shaping the ordinance that regulates the local cannabis industry for what it is today.
The tax reform that we are discussing today is premature and will kill the industry. There's no doubt that everyone should be paying their fair share of taxes, but there's an auditing process in place to ensure that this happens. It is unclear why we are having this discussion before the due process of tax auditing has been completed. The only reason that I can think of for this our personal agendas and to destroy the local cannabis industry 55% of Santa Barbara County voters voted yes on Proposition 64. I would like the board to remember that the majority of your constituents support cannabis. Discussions around cannabis must remain in good faith for the industry, as not only does it pay substantial tax to the county but provides many jobs which in turn supports local economy.
The industry is still young. The current tax structure does work. We need to see the process of checks and balances through before we discuss reform. Additionally, the tax reform that is being proposed is very ambiguous. It does not account for losses if my farm were to experience losses due to disease and or weather events causing my business to lose money and it does happen this would further impact us with the tax burden that would be due regardless of my income Especially since the rates you're proposing are not minimum rates. These rates will put operators out of business, you're trying to put a blanket tax over the industry to resolve an issue of a few operators not paying appropriate tax. This ends up hurting the good operators and the industry as a whole.
Now take into consideration the board being able to increase the base rate up to 10 times Has anyone calculated what that looks like? For our small self-funded family farm, that equates to $500,000 per quarter. Regardless of how many controls are put on the board, the possibility is there and leaves too much control in the board's hands instead of in the hands of the voters where it should be.
Let's keep the 4% tax on gross receipts and vote no for the change but let the current process do its job to regulate. We as growers are your constituents as well. Thank you for your time and have a great day.
We will now go to Santa Barbara with Jared Ficker, and then we will return to Santa Maria with Teddy Cabugos. Jared?
Yes, thank you Vice Chair Caps and members of the board. Thank you for taking testimony from Santa Barbara. This is Jared Ficker here with Axiom Advisors on behalf of Central Coast Agriculture and Glasshouse Brands. And I wanna call your attention to a letter submitted by those operators and certainly carp growers in the guild as well. At this point we are all opposed to proceeding with any changes in the tax structure for cannabis for the November ballot. I think we've all been at the table Trying to have discussions that were constructive and moving on in looking at different structural options, but what's here today doesn't work. The primary concern here is the authority provided to raise taxes on cannabis operators to absolutely extreme rates that will drive any away further investment in Santa Barbara County.
If we started with option one proposed here in the ordinance, and it provides authority to raise tax 750% for outdoor operators. And 250% for greenhouse operators. And this could be done and executed with a four-fifths vote in the future. This is extraordinary. In listening to the board discussions on this matter, the impetus really was over concerns with tax avoidance, tax leakage. And importantly, the perspective that operators were underpaying taxes under the current grocery seats model. Today we believe many of the operators that were reporting no tax and or were transferring at rates that cannot be supported by either costs or market transactions are frankly not really operating in the county any longer. This appears to be corroborated by the staff and the Treasurer Tax Collector's Office as well.
Therefore, this effort to change policy appears to be addressing a concern that has largely already been resolved through attrition in the marketplace with operators not essentially approaching their business in a tax compliant way. I think the county staff and the Treasurer Tax Collector's job is done an excellent job working through that. The square footage, grocery seats and hybrid models really all have potential to achieve the goals of providing the county more certainty for cannabis tax revenue. I think we had a lot of good work in discussion and we shouldn't throw that out. I think there is really good work. Our primary concern is the authority for the raises in the future But here, the treasurer tax collector in our assessment and the audits that are going on working with their consultants is working.
Let's let that continue. Should the board want to address tax leakage? We really suggest that and there hasn't been a lot of discussion about this yet but you start to look at some planning policies or tools to expedite permitting requirements for cannabis operations and reduce the requirements for basic processing facilities in the county The issue on tax leakage is one that most operators want to process, manufacture, do operations in the County of Santa Barbara but they go to other jurisdictions and some have the exact same tax rates so it's not a tax seeking or tax reduction seeking opportunity. It's really people can't get through the permitting process or the appeals process or the building ministerial permitting process in a timely or cost efficient manner.
So to conclude, we appreciate the efforts to optimize cannabis tax. And you know while the current grocery seeds taxes is higher than many jurisdictions as of today it is something we understand, we business plan for and should not be changed at this time. These new tax proposals do not strike an appropriate balance and we recommend the board table this discussion.
The current legal market cannot also bear more tax burden without losing more customers to the illicit market. The Treasurer Tax Collector is working to optimize cannabis tax through its audits and we believe that process, which is already underway, is working. And should the Board want to revisit this in the future, we'd recommend a little more deliberative or workshop process with operators and key stakeholders. Proceeding to go without any support from the taxpaying sector really is ill-advised. Thank you.
We will now return to Santa Maria with Teddy Cabugos, to be followed by Kyle Wolfe.
4:17 – 4:245 turns
Thank you. Wow, everybody just said everything I wanted to say so I go back to some great speakers and just like Ms. Steinfeld was saying it really besides the cannabis and the taxes, the businesses and everybody else, the general contractors, soil people and so many different businesses, the trickle down effect and what this would take away from our local economy I believe is just would crumble it even more than it is. There are different ways, and I think a vote on yes on this is cutting thousands of jobs, really good jobs as well as letting this industry unfold how it should.
I just want to say first of all the Supervisor Hartman you guys have all been here through the ringer with this thing for such a long time And I know it's such a hard time. Sorry, Brittany and all staff you guys have such a tough job. You guys have done a great job and have gone through this. And I think right now changing something when we're just getting to that point would bring us back down to square zero. So asking the new supervisors to help with the old and let's all work together to create a solution and again go after the people that aren't paying their taxes. It's easy to do, you know how to do it, the rest of the industry shouldn't have to suffer from that. Thank you guys so much. Have a great day.
And we will now go to Kyle Wolf to be followed by Colin Dvorak who is our final speaker. Kyle?
Good afternoon Supervisors my name is Kyle Wolf I was raised third generation in the San Ynez Valley and I still live there today My wife Tracy and I own La Laguna Los Alamos, an active cultivation project in the county. Before and after the passage of Prop 64 and Santa Barbara County Cannabis Tax Ordinance, I worked very closely with county staff and industry stakeholders to make sure everyone involved was fully informed and understood the enormous opportunity afforded to us to adopt the best agricultural and sustainable practices From any objective measure, we achieved that goal and more so compared to any other county in the state. And we should take pride in that accomplishment. But for business leaders to be successful, you must have certainty from policy makers.
And since 2018 all that we have experienced and witnessed is constant change with little opportunity to catch a breath, to adopt and stabilize our standard operational procedures to be competitive in a market of unpredictable peaks and valleys because of the destructive illegal operators undermining our regulated system. Please go after the ones breaking the rules, not the ones that are innocent. Changing the tax system only helps those operating in the illicit market and it hurts those of us who are here today pleading for certainty. It doesn't come easy. We are here today because we subscribe to the school of hard work Developing short and long-term plans and investing our hard earned money to make strategic investments to be successful.
However, the action you all may take today to change the cannabis tax system will set us back into another world of uncertainty and potentially drive us out of business. Help us succeed, do not put us on a dead end road to failure. Let's jumpstart this public and private sector partnership to be the best in the state and a model of excellence and certainty to come.
Thank you.
And we will now go to our final speaker Colin Dvorak.
Good afternoon honorable supervisors. My name is Colin Dvorak, the owner and operator of Pacific Grown Organics a cannabis greenhouse in Carpinteria. After UCSB I spent nearly 10 years working abroad three different companies half a dozen cities but in 2017 an incredible opportunity presented itself for me to move back to Santa Barbara with my family and raise my little boy, Ellis, on the same beaches that I grew up playing on and in the same hills that I grew up playing in.
And that opportunity is thanks to this board. When you voted for Chapter 50, you gave me a job and you gave my family a home. And because of that, I've been able to give 74 other people full-time jobs so that their children have a future here in our county. Families like Jeremy Matras, a loving father who lives for his daughter Alice with joint custody. He cried to me as he explained that without his role with us, he would have to head east for a lower cost of living separating him from his daughter.
I'm able to ensure that he can stay here and that he and 73 others can eat shop and raise their children in our community only with the knowledge that I can rely on the ground beneath me not moving. In the early years, forming Chapter 50 I recall sitting through the countless hours of debates in these chambers as you toiled over every conceivable unforeseen element of our cannabis ordinance.
Listening then, I was confident while the future was unknown and unexpected was sure to arise that this board understood the only truly predictable thing in farming its unpredictability. You foresaw that crops fail due to pests, weather or incompetence. Farming is unpredictable. You knew that markets were uncertain. Booming and busting as this new industry found itself and came to some sort of stable range.
Because you understood that, you created a flexible gross receipts tax system that allows the county to make money when it's likely the farmer would and to be lean when the farmer was down and out. We have built our financial models and our lives around that idea and around that number. The industry turbulence is far from over. The country is changing. The state will have to change too, and likely we in the county will.
There's a million pound gorilla in the county below us that threatens our very existence. A million pound gorilla operating with Ventura County's 4% gross receipts tax. Please keep us competitive with Ventura, or you could lose us. Please vote no. Vote no to let your law be enforced by the competent people we all pay to enforce it. Vote no so as not to add change to an already changing landscape. Vote No not to use your pulpit as an enforcement vehicle.
Your policy was well-deliberated. Your staff are sharp and doing their job. The tax office is learning the industry. Complete the audits, learn the industry, collect the taxes. You already have all of the tools you need. Thank you so much.
4:24 – 4:307 turns
And that concludes public comment on this item.
Thank you to our public for speaking. I'll turn it to the board first for questions. Supervisor Nelson.
Yes, thank you Vice Chair Caps. I have some questions. Brittany, I think you were going to get into the difference between option one and two would you mind walking us through that a little bit more?
Sure, so the differences between option one and two are simply the rates that are being proposed. In option one we took board direction which was the 10 cents and $1 and we wrote that into the ordinance language for the tax on cultivation applied quarterly at 2 1⁄2 cents and 25 cents simply taking those amounts and dividing them by four So those rates apply to operators if they have taxable transfers only within that quarter, we would apply those rates depending on the cultivation type of outdoor and non-outdoor.
come up with a value, they would report their gross receipts and they would pay the greater of those two values. We proposed option 2 as well today after May 14th we went back to the office, the Treasurer Tax Collector's Office started looking at how to take the direction from the board And apply it and implement it. And what those rates that were directed by the board would mean in terms of current operators, the amount of licenses, the prices that we're seeing being reported.
Did some analysis and came back and said look these rates of two and a half and 25 cents at a quarter are not equivalent to what we're seeing for average pricing locally. The better rates and what is still conservative, based on their analysis would be 10 cents and 50 cents. So 10 cents for outdoor and 50 cents for non-outdoor applied quarterly again. Using the same model where we would only apply those rates when there's taxable transfers happening, where there's activity and calculate an amount. The gross receipts is still reported and they pay the greater of the two.
You can see from the table that we presented I can go back to that. There is a significant difference in what would have, and this is real data from current fiscal year for the first three quarters that we have data from. We just gave you our Q3 report. Looking at what operators reported for their pricing versus using these, applying these rates at a square footage to the taxable transfers that they had in those quarters.
These are the amounts that if we applied that model today would have been paid and you can see What we talked a lot about was in the outdoor space, we were seeing quite a bit of product that is a taxable transfer as it leaves the county. It's usually in a fresh plant format and then it gets processed outside of the county and so the pricing is reported to the treasurer-tax collector based on a value that varies all over the place from a penny, a pound to something more average and realistic to more like 20. Sorry lots of numbers.
Rebecca can get into some of the details but we There's big variances there. And so when they did their analysis, they wanted us to know that if we're really looking at trying to get at this underreporting that we've been talking about, to get at the parity between these different operators because it's self-reported That the rates that were directed by the board when applied quarterly just weren't really going to get there. And so that's where option two numbers are coming from.
It is true, I think what some of our speakers said that this is based on Current information, but because it's not in effect we don't know how many of these operators would be here or survive if we applied these rates. There is a potential that we could lose some operators and we wouldn't see this level of increased income or revenue. But this is simply to demonstrate what it would look like today. And this is again average pricing Right, what we're seeing around our county being reported.
And so that's the difference between the two options as far as the actual ordinance amendment everything else is identical it's just those rates.
So I'm trying to understand why you chose what you did and I'm guessing that The 10% in option two was because usually there's just maybe one crop or one transfer for that acreage in that year on the outdoors, is that what you're? That's correct. So you're going to capture that $0.10 at one time I guess if they grew two crops then it would be twice that would be captured so likely not to be more than two on an outdoor but then and the indoor they're turning pretty quick right
aren't they
doing three or four Crops a year and so likely they're going to have transfers in every quarter, so then it's an action. It turns really into $2 on annual basis instead of the
4:30 – 4:379 turns
Thank you, Supervisor Nelson through the Vice Chair. That's correct. There is a difference in how many harvests and how often these different cultivation types are having taxable transfers and activity. And so for the non-outdoor operators it is essentially an increase to $2 annual. That is right. And again, those numbers are based in reality. Based in what we're seeing on average. So there will be some operators who are as this demonstrates if this was an effect that would be paying the square footage who are reporting some lower pricing than their neighbors but you have to start somewhere and I think somewhere in the middle made sense And in the middle, locally again reported pricing that we're seeing here in California and our county and the Central Coast.
Got a couple more questions. One of the speakers brought up crop
loss.
How would that be dealt with? In the ordinance so let's say that someone loses half the acreage or mold which is another good where they're not gonna have the revenue because, you know, they're not gonna be able to have sold half of their product there. You know how would that potentially be accounted for in the square footage tax?
Supervisor Nielsen to the Vice Chair. We talked a bit about that, it's not, there are some administrative I believe, and I'm looking at Rebecca because, Ms. Falfall because she you know they're responsible for the compliance and the reporting. I don't have the day-to-day so I don't know how that's handled currently and its gross receipt so I suppose at that point they're reporting less then but do you want to speak to that Rebecca?
So the exact scenario in what you're explaining hasn't necessarily happened at this point in time, but we handle it administratively where we do have an adjustment section where we allow for adjustments to be reported to us especially when they are obviously reporting gross receipts if for some reason there was a loss or A scenario that could happen is that you transfer that fresh plant out of the jurisdiction to your processor, your processor receives it and then the processor says hey this crop is no good. There's nothing we can do with it. We're sending it back to you. Then they're able to provide us the documentation to reflect that till say this product was no good. It was returned. It's not something that we can sell and then we can take that into consideration so we do have adjustments that are available and that we could administratively handle.
It's not going to be something as simple of them saying, hey, we lost half a crop. We would need backup, something associated so that they would need to provide to us in order for us to confirm that that was the actual case, that it was lost crop and that we would have to come up with a process and procedure to handle that accordingly.
And that would potentially be able to be done through the administrative process? That wouldn't necessarily need to be an ordinance change? Correct. OK. And then one other issue you know there's a lot of moving A lot going on in the cannabis space, and I think it's a Senate Bill 1064. How do you see that potentially impacting what we're doing or what we're working on here? And what would that potential look like? I mean because we were going to...
That's gonna have some type of impact on our current system and if we evolve to this hybrid system how would that potentially have an impact on that or would it not?
Thank you, Supervisor Nelson through the Vice Chair. Senate Bill 1064 is working its way through the legislature right now. It's been I think passed through two committees thus far and has been referred to the Appropriations Committee And it does, it is on its face a wholesale change to the way state licensing is currently happening through a consolidation of state licenses.
A majority of the changes are outside of cultivation although the cultivation change The way we read it and understand it could mean that we are no longer looking at individual stacked licenses with square footage associated with them. However, you know the details are in how it gets implemented right? It's very high level there is a pretty significant price tag associated with it so it's unclear whether it will be able to pass We did take a look at it and in considering this ordinance amendment, knowing that this could potentially change how we would be able to assess the square footage tax.
There is language in the amendment that clarifies that if some kind of change like this were to occur, that the Treasurer Tax Sector's Office does have the authority to defer to the gross receipts model. It's not perfect because it would go back to the way things were but at least we're protected so that we don't have this unknown. Currently with the large license structure that the state has, operators do have to report their acreage. And so there's a potential that they're still reporting their acreage to the state it's documented we would then probably have to go out and do some Um spot checks and verifications and measuring, which is something we talked about. We were trying to avoid but could be done with our compliance teams. And so we are aware where we're monitoring it closely and it could affect the program.
It does have a start date of 2028 at this point. It's been amended to be pushed out a bit even if it does pass We have some time to think about it and look at it, and hopefully come up with a solution that would not require going back to the voters.
My last question at this point is about the additional staff member. What exactly are we getting for that additional person if this moves forward?
4:37 – 4:429 turns
Thank you Supervisor Nelson through the Vice Chair. That additional staff person was described to me, unfortunately I don't think Mr. Hagan is on the line he wasn't able to make it here today but as a A cost analyst who could do some type of additional data analysis that in order to ensure that we were keeping up with the true ups between calculating what would be owed under square footage.
versus then what's reported. I mean that actual comparison is probably pretty simple but putting together the square footage documentation, downloading all the licenses and then also when reporting the square footage you know we're still going to look at that and do the current auditing that we're doing. You know Rebecca and her staff are gonna review what's reported in that pricing data and ensure that we're not You know, now we aren't tipping the scales the other way. Right?
And so this would be an additional staff person to assist with that implementation and I didn't get a sense of whether it's would be long term forever Or if it was to help out with the implementation. But one thing we did discuss is there are, we can review our fee schedule and that's something that we could consider folding into the annual compliance fees that the operators charge.
But yeah, that is additional staff person in the Treasurer Tax Selector's Office.
And actually do you have one more question since we're on it? And I lost it. I'll come back
to Supervisor Hartman.
Thank you. If we went forward with one of the two options, what would you think of limiting the board's discretion within a certain percentage every two years to raise 15 or 20 or 10? Or was that discussed?
Thank you, Supervisor Hartman through the Vice Chair. On May 14th we definitely discussed having those specific limitations of the every two years and four fifths vote. I know staff presented some ideas about using percentages to adjust the rates but those were more related to sort of an automatic adjustment and so I don't think there was a conversation about every two years if you, if the board would be limited in how high they could go.
That is something that I think we could probably, I'm looking at council but I believe could also add to that section in the ordinance amendment to limit how much increase could happen each?
Just to give greater certainty and I guess what I'm asking is based on your greater familiarity would that make sense?
Hi. I don't see why not. I think it would address some of these issues and concerns about, hey you have your max set at $2.50 that seems untenable. I don't think in my mind when we were putting this together and when we got that direction from the board, we didn't anticipate that meant that in two years you would just go to the max rate. That's the ultimate max that you could ever go to. That they would still be reasonable but You all may think that, but we don't know what future boards might think. So the concerns from the operators I think are maybe there's a potential. A percentage seems like it could be reasonable. Supervisor,
through the Vice Chair, I think you're asking to limit your own discretion and we typically as staff would recommend that you don't limit your own discretion because at any time, you have the discretion. And so asking our staff now what percentage would be reasonable? That is really for you I think to decide how much comfort you'd want to give to the operators of how much you'd want to limit yourself.
Well, I throw that out as an idea. I guess my other questions you know if one reason we're looking at this is because we don't have a good way to see into these operators We do have audits underway but I think they're just two audits, right? In depth. So they're very time-consuming, very expensive and I guess my question is like with the TOT hotels we know every, the hotels know every three years they're going to be audited and they know there's gonna be a look back for that period of time so there's you know that it in itself is a strong incentive to be on the up and up. But in cannabis I don't know, I mean I'm trying to compare if we did this versus audits and I just don't see how we could put in a audit system that was certain enough but I guess I'd like some thoughts about that from whoever might have some
4:42 – 4:578 turns
June.
Thank you, Supervisor Hartman through the Vice Chair. We've talked about this quite a bit. It is true that currently there are two audits underway and it has taken some time. This is a new audit industry. There are very few if more than one at all company that was willing to take this on at this point But my understanding is that Ms. Falfall herself and her staff have been working very closely with them, and the idea is this is a lot of time to set up a system that is able to be used again and again. And that eventually we would get to a point where we are looking at 15 operators every year on a cycle so that we are auditing operators on a regular three to four-year cycle. I mean, that's the goal similar to TOT.
TOT has been around a lot longer right? And so there's a lot more certainty there. I don't know if you have anything you wanted to add.
Just to add, in general you know there's this constant comparison of TOT to cannabis and they're really not comparable besides the fact that we use some of the language of TOT to go into the way that the tax ordinance functions in regards to the delinquencies and different things. We are working on those two current audits. They are drawing towards an end so we will be getting the results from those audits and then moving forward with whatever those findings will be The plan is obviously to audit a lot more than two a year.
And then also as we've explained, on a quarterly basis we are doing analysis on what the operators are reporting to us and we are having if you want to call them desk audits essentially that we're doing when we're looking at the data and we are following up numerous operators have been asked for invoices. We're doing all these things in between it's not a full-fledged audit but it is follow-up that we're doing with the operators We're pushing the envelope in regards to the pricing that's being reported to us or the valuations that are being reported to us. It just, it takes time and I know that the board you know said hey it's been six years but in the grand scheme of things and everything that's going on six years isn't that much? And then the true compliance has only been in effect about two years at this point so we've made a large amount of progress in those two years or 24 months.
We want to get it right. We don't want to come out there and do something and enforce something, and then it come back and be challenged. And then there's other issues associated to that. So if we're going to do something, we want to make sure that we're doing it properly. But the goal would be to do more than two audits obviously once the program is fully up and running.
aware of that, or if there's a specific schedule. You know we when we had discussions in regards to it you know just because you were audited this year doesn't mean you're not gonna be audited again next year. It's you know we're not gonna do this oh yeah you're off you're all clear for three years like there is going to be some randomization to it And then there are the ramifications of delinquencies and interest that gets charged when someone's underreporting those stand. Obviously, that would potentially come before the board given what the findings would be but there are ramifications they are there we just have to give it time to work out.
Supervisor through the Vice Chair, our intent is to get everyone on a regular schedule and as Rebecca had said if we need to audit someone more than once every three years based on their findings they will. Again just to clarify you're right we have two that the outside consultant is doing we should get the results at the end of next month I believe And these are comprehensive audits based on their own cannabis analytical tracking solution system.
But our intent is once we get those results and we say yeah it's a go, these were a model that we want to follow, we would pursue doing more audits And we said in the board letter, we would come back to you at the next quarterly cannabis update. But how many that would be what the cost is and we are evaluating if we can put that into the cannabis fee schedule so we would try to get all that information to you by the next cannabis update.
So I guess Mike, back to the TOT analogy we have the hotels which are on a real cycle and then we have the short-term rentals and homestays. And that really has to come from a complaint and you know it's very rare that anybody gets audited and I think we're losing a lot of money so I guess my question is would cannabis be more like the hotels or more like the STRs?
Homestays, and I guess what you're saying it would be more like the hotels. I guess that's my questions for the moment. Supervisor Williams?
So my understanding is that in the last so I tried to really dig in because I know you guys let me use a lot of time to try to get to yes last time So I tried to use some of the time to really dig in and understand what's going on more. And one of the things that we looked at is how many licenses have been surrendered. And I forget the amount, but it was nine operators have gone out of existence and then a couple more have surrendered some of their licenses in the last year. Is that the correct number? So, you know, I would say that's important information.
You know, is in a good way because, in some ways that improves the likelihood of others to survive. But it also is an indicator of how on a knife's edge the industry really is. And interestingly enough one of the entities that still is around that surrendered some their licenses Uh, was you know. Pretty big operator and you know that has got to be one of the factors in reduction of tax revenue.
And I guess one of the other observations of these options is when we talked about the hybrid, I kind of thought that the hybrid was we still are mainly depending on the gross receipts and that the square footage was sort of like just mostly a compliance mechanism to make sure everybody's paying something. This to me looks more like a replacement to aggressive receipts. It looks like it's heavy, square footage tax and there is nothing inherently wrong with that but you know there was But it's definitely not what I was comfortable with.
And part of it is my, I try to ask this question all the time like is the public policy we're creating punish vice and reward virtue? And while our mechanisms are not perfect This to me is taking the ones who are paying taxes and then extracting more or endangering them by making the future more uncertain. And that is punishing virtue, not punishing vice. To me compliant improving compliance is to punish the vice And I feel like we're getting more capable of doing that. I mean, I was really impressed last time with the questions that you were asked and how you were able to answer them and the couple this time as well.
You know, and the fact that you're asking for substantiation invoices things to not just take people's word for it. And so I'm just more confident of the enforcement and audit capability of the treasurer tax collector. So, I mean, I'm not like saying it's a terrible idea to ever do it, but I'm not comfortable moving forward Mainly because when all is said and done, the reason why we went with gross receipts and not a square footage was because we didn't know for sure what the right number was.
And the downside of having gross receipts wrong is not massive. But the downside of having the square footage wrong is real massive And I feel like if we got the number right, the upside is modest on this as evidenced by the numbers up there. And if we got it wrong? The consequences would be would be big and I don't feel like we're to the right numbers yet. And and I even have yeah, I think I said something about this last time you know after you know you think something's going to be like really simple and then it doesn't end up being all that simple.
I think the but but I think in the future if the board were looking at modifying taxation I even think it might be better to look at at The path of the per pound. I mean, I know I was like really not jazzed about that, but Bob came up brought that up before and I think at this point that's like what I would recommend for the future, not that I will be a part of it.
But I just. And then and then it's significant to me too The idea that you keep the main thing, the main thing. And for me, the TOT is the main thing. If. You know? If the business roundtable thing is on the ballot this time around, we may need a higher threshold for success. So I am trying to and we need really high numbers in jurisdictions like Santa Barbara and that's my district Two-thirds of Santa Barbara is. And I'm trying to envision the average voter going, oh, I'm voting on a TOT increase for the county. I'm voting for a sales tax increase for the city and I'm voting on a cannabis tax change or increase in the county. It just makes it more complex. The more things you add to the ballot And I think we're not factoring that in enough.
And I frankly care a whole lot more about the city's sales tax and our TOT than I do about this passing. So those are my reasons.
Well, yeah. I mean, it seems as though we have our decision here because we do need four votes and but I did have some questions so if you could go to slide 4. I am really interested in where we landed or where you interpreted that we landed on discretion. I think discretion for the board as our CEO discussed is important because I think it's the fact that we've, it's a new industry, a nascent industry as has been stated yet we're sort of been locked into this system that folks tout is the voters voted for this. The odds that the voters had any idea what they were actually voting for with a 4% tax is kind of humorous to me but but I just wanted you to explain to me what this means and your interpretation if this were to go forward with this, where we landed with the range.
And what would actually be on the ballot? Would it be if we went with option two, would the actual language on the ballot be 10 cents and 50 cents or would it be the max which is what I think a lot of our speakers were reacting to. Does
that make sense? Vice Chair Caps, that's a great question. The ballot language has not been developed however I believe that we We would need to set the initial rates in the ballot measure. That would be clear about what we're doing. The maximum activity rates, I'm looking at council. I don't know if we need to state All of that, since those are potential future rates.
But those are stated in the ordinance amendment language so if we the entirety of the ordinance amendment is in your voter guide it would be that languages added and it says The cultivation tax is either a gross receipts at 4% or square footage set with a maximum rate of 75 cents and $2.50, setting the initial rate at 10 cents and a dollar. So that's the language in the actual ordinance amendment. What goes into the ballot, language with the 75 words? I don't know if both of those things would be required since we normally do state the amounts.
We haven't contemplated that.
4:57 – 5:097 turns
Members of the Board, I'm a little bit confused on where we're at. Just generally speaking the ballot measure would have to have whatever our maximum is we're going to charge for any category and we could go down from there and then in general however many words we have we would need to include enough information people understand so my thought is that we would include what the maximum rates would be
Yeah, we got into that last time May 14th. My preference for a range but then legal opinion that it needed to be a max and I do think there's a difference because There could be a number. This, because it is whichever is the greater amount I can see why you see that this is moving to a square footage yet I wonder if we were to lower the max if that makes you more comfortable in order to get there? I believe that action is important given all that we've Incurred, I don't share the concerns. The last time that we did raise TOT as a county was in 2016 on that same ballot we did a cannabis tax. We also did nine other bond measures so the average voter in Santa Maria, Orkut, Lompoc, Santa Barbara, Goleta voted for a bond measure plus TOT which doesn't tax them Plus cannabis, which doesn't tax them.
So I don't see that as a concern to move forward. In fact history shows us that maybe we should be linking these things together. So I just want to entertain if there's any movement here on the actual max amount that could get us closer to four votes here?
I think I know more than most people that the mood of the voters has changed Since four years ago. And, you know, so I mean, I think that the what in what you saw, you really look at the results of our of our poll and you see that like people even though we're not in recession, people feel kind of like squeezed and it's the culmination of living with things being more expensive And for me, even if it affected the opinion of one city of Santa Barbara voter out of 100 or one out of 200, then it's an intolerable amount of risk.
Because we need city voters to vote for this in high numbers because of other parts of the county where they won't voted for it in high numbers that is the T.O.T.. So. The It changing the for the Max and men if we would increase Mike my my comfort I just feel like we're at a time right like if if you know. You know and I appreciate really The amount of time and the discussion, I actually think that this is a worthwhile discussion because I don't think we are yet at a perfect system. You know?
I don't think it would be crazy for the board to look at changes in the future and you know And I even would support some form of change. But I also think that some of the premise behind this was wrong from the beginning, right? The fact is that if there's one entity in my district, they have six sites. When they pay their taxes, five of those sites look like they're not reporting But all six of them are paying their taxes because they're processing in one entity, right? So I think part of the discussion of this was based on compliance but not a holes-in-compliance that were really holes.
I do think though that the good part about this is it's helped spurred us to embolden Treasurer Tax Collector with whatever they need, including asking people to offer proof that that's really what their fair share of taxes would be. I'm prepared to support the Treasurer Tax Collector in any mechanism that backs that up and so you know if this really isn't about taxes but is really about compliance which for me that's what it's been because of maximizing revenue that gross receipts would be always the right thing to do Then, you know we should concentrate on compliance.
Supervisor Nielsen?
Yes thank you Vice Chair Kaps. You know, some of my initial goals when I was supporting this or am supporting some type of change has been about making it simpler and more transparent. And I am disappointed that we're at right now even with the great work that's been done by Brittany and Rebecca that we're really going to be having now Potentially, if we did move forward with this.
Two tax systems so it actually made it even more complicated and that's really hard but you know this is us as a board trying to solve this problem where we do have this compliance issue where there's not a lot of faith out there in the public because that they're people that aren't they're out there paying their appropriate amount And I do hear from a lot of operators that are saying, hey we're struggling. The industry is not what it used to be and I'm sympathetic to that because you know we do want to promote jobs and industry the best that we can in our county to allow on that happen. I would have been okay with if we were moving forward with a vote with lowering The rate, because I don't want anybody to think that this exercise was about putting the industry out of business.
I know there was at least one nodding head in the audience when the speaker on Zoom had mentioned that. That was never part of my insistence on trying to find a better way to do this. And so you know I've heard from ministry that You know, you know 10 cents outdoor is right about probably the right number that most people are paying at 4%. Some it's up to 20 20 square foot. So I was OK with a smaller floor on that something closer to our median which was about 55 or was about 5 cents.
And then maybe something that was closer to our median as well on the non-outdoor, if we were to have moved forward today with something. I thought that would give us a nice little average that we caught most of those on the operators out there that aren't paying appropriately there but it doesn't sound like we have four votes at this point to move forward which You know, I think it should be a lesson though as we move beyond this discussion to industry and the board. As we have this ongoing conversation about the audits, making sure we really have a better handle on that.
And then also if there is a better mousetrap out there, you know, I've been talking about wait for some time, that we get on it and we start talking about it. I know the industry has been coming to these hearings here in May and June saying work with us You know, we've been trying to send signals to work on this for quite some time. And we've been trying to send signals to work on things like odor for quite some time and it's when we come and start to push things up here on the dais everybody gets excited again. And I understand you guys have businesses that you guys have to go back and work on and so I know that you guys, that's why you guys aren't necessarily following it like you guys did back when these ordinances came into play because these used to be full rooms full of operators when we were developing those ordinances in the first place but as we're continuing to figure out how to make it work We still need your engagement on this because this would be a lot smoother process if we had all of you on board saying, hey guys, we want to get rid the bad actors.
You know what we want? I mean they're giving us a bad name. You know, I think this industry has to get beyond the honors among thieves that are out there right and that exists and we need to get past that. And we're gonna need your cooperation. The good operators, the ones that are showing up To help us as a board send that message. So I hope that's the takeaway that we end up going on here is that, you know, we've got some work to do as a as a board and as a county but also as an industry if we were hoped to get the you know The unity that I hope that we all want. I mean, that's the reason why the odor issue is still out there is because we really wanted that to die down. You know, we want it to no longer be a pain in the side of the community and that we can we can all kind of cooperate together.
And that's what that's what supervisors often do is what we're trying to do is we're trying to eliminate conflicts You know, that's zoning. That's ordinances. You know, that's kind of one of our biggest thing is trying to keep peace in our communities. And so there's not peace out there. There's a lot of concern and we really want to tackle that. So as we move, you know, to this next phase, that that's the message I want to make sure it's heard.
Thank you, Supervisor Hartman. Well I think for the moment this is at least on pause but I just wanted to say I thought this was excellent staff work last time and today it was a huge investment and I think it was very educational for all of us and I think it's provided something that we'll build on in the future and I just wanted to thank you because you really did a great job
Yeah, I will echo that in terms of the pause. And thank you Supervisor Nelson for bringing up odor because to step back, I do see the connection there because and I have such respect for you Rebecca but you mentioned the six years it's taken to have audits and I fully understood why and how it's taken that long. But for somebody who, for so many people who have experienced the odor to at first sort of thinking oh well this is going to be for the greater good we're gonna have more money for other really good things for our community you could sort of see that rationalization but then to read headlines that operators aren't paying taxes and then the revenues down Yet the odor persists and our appeals persist. Ninety percent of our appeals relate to odor, taking up all this time so you know it does six years is a long time in that regard not in the way that you're speaking.
So I'm disappointed that we're not going to get this across the finish line today but I agree with Supervisor Hartman it's just a pause and I think we have learned a lot and I appreciate and like Supervisor Nelson said welcome more industry engagement I think it's important to figure out a better system because ultimately, I think we do want more transparency. We want more fairness. We want more streamlined this one did seem to complicate it a little more as much as I appreciate the creativity that Supervisor Hartman had in trying to come up with this. You know this? Let's make sure everybody is paying something kind of hybrid so I would like to make the motion if I'm able to do that as vice chair. I will make the motion just to see where we are on the staff recommendation of option number two.
5:09 – 5:1312 turns
Okay, to second that if we had brought it down to just a little bit of a lower rate on the initial setting which would have been five cents and I guess it'd be 37.5 cents which would have been again, I was playing with the numbers but that was equivalent to our 55 percentile so I would okay with moving forward with that. If you wanted to do the ceremonial where we all stand on the boat so I'm okay with that.
Are we legally required to have the vote if we know there's not four?
Members of the board, no. I don't think so. You could take no action. You also could abstain if the motion were to have a first and second.
I don't want to push it. I'd feel better with action but If I don't have a second, I don't know. Second,
I'm giving you a second with the lower numbers of five cents and the thirty seven and a half cents for non outdoor. I think that that would be a reasonable floor.
OK?
Would you accept that?
I accept that that addition or that change in that second
So I'll abstain on this because I don't like those kind of last minute changes.
OK, and I just want to comment on the motion, especially since odor was brought up. I want to especially because folks in the industry are hopefully still watching that. I agree that that paying attention also means action. and should mean action, and that even though our analysis indicates that the odor is concentrated on two areas of non-residential land.
In Carpinteria? Right in Carpinteria there is still a collective effort to be made to reduce odor in the Carpinteria Valley and elsewhere. And while I don't I believe in just tying our wagon to one technology. I think people need to do things, including if they can't find another way by more infinity scrubbers and I and I think that that should be done now. And I think the very fact that we are not ready to take action today on this should evidence that we care about people's ability to buy voter control technology and that we want them to stay in County which from my perspective with the you know the invent you know with the work that I did in the last couple weeks. You know, I feel like that's a big part of what the revenue issue is here You know, I think there is still action to be taken to increase the peace as Mr.
Nelson said. I will be abstaining on this motion however.
Roll-call vote Passed 2–0 move forward today with the vote here. I'm just going to call for roll call. · 1 under review
Show transcript
Motion fails 2 aye, two abstentions.
Okay well that brings us to the end of our meeting so I am happy to adjourn this meeting at 4 o'clock. Thanks everybody