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 – 0:0320 turns
All right, good morning everybody. I'd like to call to order the August 20th 2024 meeting of the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors. Madam Clerk can please call the roll?
Roll call, called by Clerk of the Board
Show transcript
This time I'd like to turn it over to Supervisor Williams who would like to make a brief announcement regarding his participation today. Supervisor Williams?
Well, the Brown Act now allows some provision for visiting a sick loved one. We have a grandmother in Germany that has had a recent circulation surgery and so we're long in Germany right now. So I understand that a majority vote allows us to participate. And there is no adult person over 18 in the room.
Including yourself or? I don't think I'm supposed to
disclose whether I'm here.
All right, well thank you for joining. I'm just curious what's the time difference? What time is it there?
It's 6 p.m., so I'm really sad to tell you Steve, I have pizza in. German pizza everybody's
favorite all
right well definitely yours
okay can i get a motion to approve Supervisor Williams request to participate remotely under Assembly Bill 2449 remote attendance record
so moved second
moved and seconded all those in favor
aye
And since he's not voting on that, we don't have to do a roll call. Correct? Okay.
Next item of business is the approval of the minutes from the July 16th, 2024 regular meeting and the July 30th, 2024 special meeting. Can I get a motion?
Move approval of both. And second.
Moved and seconded. All those in favor will do a roll call.
Roll-call vote Passed 3–0 Moved and seconded. All those in favor will do a roll call. · 1 under review
Show transcript
Aye.
Motion passes unanimously.
Okay, next item of business is our County Executive Officers Report. Ms. Miyasako?
0:03 – 0:064 turns
Good morning board members just a couple of quick items one is that this Friday the South Coast Chamber of Commerce will be hosting the state-of-the-county presentation featuring myself and Chair Lavinino along with economic forecaster Peter Rupert from UCSB More information on tickets and the event can be found on the Chamber's website. The second item is that we have some exciting news to share that has been already covered in the paper, and two of our board members were present. And this was the Buena Tierra ribbon cutting. Community leaders, local officials, and residents gathered on Thursdays to celebrate the opening Buenotierra, a new supportive housing development providing affordable safe and permanent housing for those experiencing or at risk of homelessness.
The event marked a significant milestone in the county's ongoing efforts to address homelessness in the region. Located in the heart of Old Town Goleta, Buenotierra is designed to offer not just permanent supportive housing but comprehensive services. It's 60 units 15 of which have been designated specifically for youth transitioning out of foster care The project was a collaboration between the county, City of Goleta and Housing Authority of the County of Santa Barbara. And we contributed more than $3.5 million to the project and it is in both supervisorial districts I believe, Supervisor Katz and Supervisor Hartman which is probably a first for any project so congratulations and thank you to our board members for being there. That concludes my report.
Excellent. All right so clerk announcements, Madam Clerk are there any announcements or changes to our agenda today?
Chair Lavanino and members of the board I do have a few announcements this morning. We posted an addendum to today's agenda on Friday August 16 adding the approval of the July 30, 2024 special meeting minutes. This addendum has been posted online and made available to the Board and the public Additionally, we received a request from the department to withdraw administrative item number 23 from the agenda.
Administrative item number 23 is from the Human Resources Department. It is to consider recommendations regarding a general salary increase for local agency executives. A copy of the withdrawal memo is included with the associated documents online and are made available for inspection in the Office of the Clerk of the Board. We have no request to speak on this item so the board may include this request as a part of the balance of the administrative agenda.
Lastly, for the Board of Supervisors methods of public participation and to provide public comment on general public comment or an item on the boards agenda please see page 2 of the agenda. Individuals that would like to provide verbal public comment may do so via Zoom by registering in advance via the link available on page two. If you have any questions please contact the clerk at the boards office At area code 805-568-2240. Again that number is 805-568-2240 and that concludes my announcements for today.
Well thank you very much. Next item in business is our administrative agenda would any board members like to pull any items from the A agenda? I have A19, Supervisor Capps, Supervisor Williams you good? Good Okay, so do any members of the public request to pull any items from the administrative agenda?
0:06 – 0:109 turns
Chair Lavagnino and members of the board we have no requests to speak from the public on the administrative agenda.
Okay so I'll now entertain a motion to approve the balance of the administrative items except for A-19.
So moved. Second.
Roll call please
Roll-call vote Passed 4–0 moved. Second. Roll call
Show transcript
Next item of business are the resolutions to be presented Madam Clerk can you please read administrative item number one into the record
Chair Lavinino and members of the Board, Administrative Item No. 1 is sponsored by Supervisor Lavinino. It is to adopt a resolution of commendation honoring Ryan Dipp of the Treasurer Tax Collector Public Administrator's Office as the August 2024 Employee of the Month in Santa Barbara County. And joining us in person today we have Ryan Dipp and Leanne Haggerty.
If you can please join us at the podium I'll go ahead and read the resolution. Whereas Ryan Dipp, Cost Analyst has been with the Treasurer Tax Collector Public Administrator for more than 19 years exemplifying the county's organizational values of accountability customer focus equity and inclusion innovation trust and ethics. And whereas Ryan Dipp models the transformative behaviors of collaborative problem solving alignment with the county's vision risk taking data driven decision making and strategic thinking.
And whereas Ryan, as the lead for the County of Santa Barbara Transient Occupancy Tax, TOT collections and compliance successfully threaded the needle of increasing TOT revenue while maintaining a positive rapport in short-term rental operators. And whereas Ryan is always willing to learn and take on new responsibilities and has excelled in his latest assignment of reviewing disbursement requests for their recently issued 121 million certificates of participation.
And whereas Ryan contributes to a positive work environment by engaging peers and co-workers with his helpful, cooperative and upbeat attitude. And is showing a total commitment to dressing up every Halloween. And whereas Ryan is a devoted and loving husband of Connie and proud father of his two beautiful daughters Everly and Zoe. Now therefore be it hereby resolved in order that this Board of Supervisors recognizes Ryan Dipp as the employee of the month for August 2024.
Is it on? There we go. Hi, good morning. I'm pleased that Ryan is being acknowledged for his contribution to the success of the Treasurer Tax Collector's Office and to the county as a whole. Ryan is someone who can be counted on not only to do his own work with excellence but he's also available to step in and help his coworkers when needed. Ryan is a friendly face in our department and is patient when he's called on to train others and his and in his interactions with the public.
It's certainly a pleasure to work with Ryan. Congratulations Ryan on being named the August employee of the month.
Thank you Leigh Ann and thank you Chair and members of the Board. This is an honor, I just want to thank all my co-workers and managers. Thank you.
Congratulations. Madam Clerk can you please read administrative item number two into the record?
0:10 – 0:145 turns
Chair Lavinino, members of the board. Administrative item number two is sponsored by Supervisor Kaps. It is to adopt a resolution honoring the life and legacy of Sharon Ann Segal in Santa Barbara County. And joining us today we have Andy Siegel. And if you can please come to the podium and we will read that resolution into the record. And I will now turn it over to Supervisor Kaps
Thank you. I wanted to read this one myself as I wrote it and it's very meaningful to me so thank you Andy for being here. Resolution in honor of the life and legacy of Sharon Ann Siegel in Santa Barbara County, whereas the Board of Supervisors acknowledges with deep appreciation the exceptional life of Sharon Ann Siegel whose dedicated service enriched the lives and residence of Santa Barbara County Whereas following a distinguished career in television, Sharon embarked on her second vocation for two decades as District Director for Congressmember Walter Capps and later Lois Capp.
From 1996 to 2016 she helped countless constituents access their government to receive the federal services they needed from immigration support to transportation funding to emergency response. Whereas Sharon was the ultimate go-to in government, she knew which levers to pull, which contacts could help and how to skillfully navigate bureaucracy for the greater good.
She collaborated effectively with county city and state elected officials and their respective teams. Together for 18 years, Sharon Siegel and Lois Capps made a formidable duo and became the closest of friends crisscrossing the diverse communities within two counties to listen learn laugh and sometimes console but always to try to serve. Whereas Sharon conducted public service with her trademark zest, speed, competence, determination and infectious warmth.
Sharon's eyes would light up by the spark of a smart idea and she had many or the completion of a significant project and she had her hand in many. Sharon supervised dozens of individuals often at the outside of their career imparting the essentials of productive government service Whereas Sharon was a loving mother to Holly, Julie and Elizabeth and a doting grandmother to Chloe, Devin, Sylvia and Grant. Her enduring partnership with her beloved husband Andy was a testament to their shared values and a commitment to family and our community.
Now therefore be it hereby ordered and resolved that the Board of Supervisors pays tribute to Sharon Ann Siegel honoring her legacy of compassionate service and profound impact on our county. Passed and adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Santa Barbara County, State of California this 20th day of August.
Madam Clerk, can you please read Administrative Item No. 3 into the
record? Mr. Chair, before we leave, I just so appreciated your penmanship on that Supervisor Caps because there is just such a special camaraderie that comes from working in campaigns and in public service over and over. And Sharon and Andy, they were just tireless comrades, tireless folks that you knew were there to fight for something right. And I just always enjoyed seeing them and love to see Andy smile there today
Thank you. Madam Clerk, can you please read item three?
0:14 – 0:195 turns
Chair Lavinino and members of the Board, Administrative Item number 3 is sponsored by Supervisor Lavinino. It is to adopt a resolution proclaiming the month of August 2024 as Child Support Awareness Month in Santa Barbara County. And joining us in person today we have Lucia Reyes, Project Manager of Child Support Services, Tiffany Rocha and Meadow Richardson. Now I will go ahead and read the resolution into the record.
Whereas August is Child Support Awareness Month, an annual time to raise awareness of the vital role of child support in meeting the diverse needs and wants of children enabling them to thrive and reach their full potential. And whereas the well-being and upbringing of children are of the utmost importance and it is our collective responsibility to ensure that all children have the necessary shelter safety and support. And whereas Santa Barbara County Child Support Services serves nearly 10,000 child support cases Distributing $29 million in annual support to families and children. And whereas Santa Barbara County Child Support Services understands that every family is unique with different needs and wants. And that despite being differing circumstances, backgrounds and family dynamics parents share a common goal of ensuring the well-being and future success of their children.
And whereas the month of August provides an opportunity to raise awareness about child support and emphasize the importance of collaboration understanding and empathy among parents custodians and community members. Whereas in partnership with the family law facilitator Santa Barbara County Child Support Services is hosting bilingual income and expense declaration workshops throughout the month to assist participate participants in completing and understanding the forms required to calculate support distributing school supplies at Boys and Girls Club and of Santa Maria and in tri-county collaboration promoting the child support program at the Consulate of Mexico in Oxnard. And now therefore it is hereby ordered and resolved that this Board of Supervisors proclaims August 2024 as Child Support Awareness Month in Santa Barbara County, pass and adopt it today.
Good morning Chair Lavagnino and members of the board. My name is Tiffany Rocha, Assistant Director with the Department of Child Support Services and I'm excited to be here on behalf of the department's outreach efforts for child support awareness month. Alongside me is Lucy Reyes Human Services Manager and Outreach Committee Lead. Child Support Awareness Month is a national and statewide initiative celebrated each August to inform families about child support services available to them.
Co-parents navigating the child support legal system can seek help with every phase of the process, including adapting support orders to change circumstances and in some cases avoiding the court process entirely. This year's statewide theme is shelter safety solutions support and to share more about Child Support Awareness Month activities, I will hand it over to Lucy.
Thank you. To commemorate Child Support Awareness Month in partnership with the Family Law Facilitator, we are offering bilingual income and expense declaration workshops to assist participants in completing and understanding the forms required to calculate support. The workshops are being offered weekly at 4 p.m., in person and virtually in North and South County. And further information is available on our website or by contacting our department.
In addition, on August 15th we distributed school supplies at the Santa Maria Boys and Girls Club and sent 100 children home with pencil boxes full of supplies to ensure every child has the tools they need to thrive academically. We also educated parents and guardians about the services we provide to families and answered any questions about Child Support Services.
In a tri-county collaboration with San Luis Obispo and Ventura Counties, we set up a month long display at the Regional Mexican Consulate in Oxnard to promote child support services. We are on site on Mondays throughout August. Lastly, our goal is for every family to have the resources to provide shelter and safety for their kids. And we are here to provide the services and solutions and support to assist them as they make that happen.
So thank you all for helping us celebrate Child Support Awareness Month.
We will now take up administrative items pulled in numerical order. We have A-19, which is another resolution. Go ahead, Madam Clerk.
Chair Lavanino and members of the Board, Administrative Item 19 is from the County Executive Office. It is to consider recommendations regarding a resolution of support for AB 2236 and SB 1053.
0:19 – 0:2515 turns
Supervisor Caps?
Yeah, I just wanted to pull this item. It's a support for a plastic bag ban and it was brought to my attention through CalPERS. I believe we have some representatives from CalPERS here who requested to speak is that correct? So I appreciate the support for this and just note that the legislative committee had already weighed in on behalf of our county so thank you for your advocacy
Hi my name is Johnny. I'm a student at UCSB. I am a second year poli sci major, I've been a canvasser with Cal Perg this entire summer So yeah, I'm here on behalf of CalPERS in support of the resolution for Senate Bill 1053 and AB 2236. In 2016 the state of California did vote to ban plastic grocery bags but unfortunately a loophole in the bill gave way to thicker grocery bags.
Now plastic waste is actually at an all-time high This summer we've talked to 3,100 residents in Santa Barbara County to educate them about the state's opportunity to lead the way to reduce plastic pollution by fully banning plastic grocery bags. Over 800 people donated to our campaign to fund our efforts to engage Santa Barbara citizens and beyond and we gathered about 2,000 petitions that our team delivered to states legislatures in Sacramento about two weeks ago People in Santa Barbara are very excited about this opportunity to ban plastic grocery bags once and for all.
I can speak personally on that as someone who's talked to Santa Barbara residents throughout the community, so I urge you guys to support this resolution for SB 1053 and AB 2236. Thank you for your time.
I'm just curious, and I don't know who knows the answer to this but I support this. Big plastic bags are a bane of everybody's existence, I think. Just curious though so what's the... I read in that thing it says it's requiring grocery stores to do something different. Are they required to give us a bag or are we just supposed to be taking our own bags? Do you know?
After
the bill? Yeah after the bill. There will be paper grocery bags at grocery stores.
Yeah, and Mr. Chair that tees up well a good point I'm happy to make after they take photos. All
right go ahead
Supervisor
Williams.
So I love CalPERS great organization love love the work that they do and especially folks who get going canvassing from the very beginning And however, it's important to remember that the original bill in its original form also took action against paper bags. And I'm talking about when I was in the legislature and you know so paper bags are not the solution bringing your own bag is in fact from a climate and water pollution perspective Paper bags are even worse than plastic bags. So, you know yeah taking your bags to the store or doing like I do when I forget and just juggling five things is the way to do it.
That's why you have
kids all right okay so oh yes Supervisor Hartman.
Well, first of all I just also wanted to commend CalPERS for all the work you've done. You're an organization with over 50 years history and it's a proud history and we are glad to see that you active at UCSB in really teaching young people about how to get engaged. You have a tremendous system of training and mentorship. I was on the Ledge Committee and very supportive of this. On average, an adult in our country consumes about a credit card a year of plastic.
At first the research showed that it was bioaccumulating in fish and marine resources as it went out into the water, but now it's also accumulating directly in us with all the plastic that we have. The microplastics abrade. They rub off. And so it's creating a lot of health issues. Now they're looking at this. It's cancer and endocrine disruption Thank you.
Greenhouse gases from the atmosphere and create healthier crops and grazing lands, but were inhibited from this because of all the plastics. And it's very difficult to get them out. So I think that this measure will help directly an interest in our county to make this compost more plastic free. So, I'm enthusiastically supporting this and so glad that CalPERS brought it forward. It takes a lot of work to do that.
All right. Congratulations. Thanks, Johnny. All right. So do we need a special vote on that one? I guess we do. Is there a motion to approve A-19?
Yes, I move to approve A- 19.
Second. Roll call please.
Roll-call vote Passed 4–0 move to approve A- 19. Second. Roll call
Show transcript
0:25 – 0:3211 turns
Motion passes unanimously
Okay, now it's time for the 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?
Chair Lavinino and members of the board, yes we have six requests to speak from the public on general public comment and we're going to begin here in Santa Barbara with Ellen Duke to be followed by Martha Hasenblug. Ellen.
Thank you. Good morning.
Good morning.
I'm here today with other residents of the San Jacinto Mobile Home Park and the Rancho Santa Barbara Mobile Home Park. I am president of Chapter 1316 of the Golden State Mobile Home Organization League, and we are concerned that our parks may be forced to become All age parks. And this concern has become heightened because of action in our north part of our county, a senior park called the Del Cielo Mobile Home Estates located just outside of Santa Maria was recently taken over by Harmony Communities and given a new set of rules and regulations that started off by telling them they were now an all-age However, any change to rules and regulations has a grace period of six months if the residents don't sign. The residents do not want to have their park converted to an all-age but they only have until November to save their park.
This is something that we in our southern parks feel strongly about. These parks were built to be senior parks when we moved into these parks, these were for seniors who were probably going to have their this was going to be their last home And the pace of life in these parks, the facilities in these parks are all about senior living. Not about all age. In addition we know that senior housing is limited and the numbers of seniors are growing We know that is going to be a continuing issue.
Our concern is that we would like to have the supervisors pass a moratorium. The reason we are asking for a moratorium is we have been told that it would be too difficult to pass the senior mobile home park overlay within the six-month limit. A senior mobile home park overlay simply says that within the county, the senior parks need to stay senior parks With me today are some representatives of our parks. Thank you, guys. Wow! You didn't even have to be asked.
And I have here probably 15 letters and some of which have already been submitted. I'm, I think that that's really pretty much all I have to say because it really speaks for itself. Okay? And thank you so much for your time. Oh, I would like to point out that there are nine other communities in California that have already done this. Most recently Thousand Oaks passed a moratorium to give them the time to do it and actually then completed the ordinance process within three months Thank you, Ellen. That is your time.
Thank you
so much.
Supervisor Caps?
Thank you Chair. Just to give an update Ms. Hassan, you are very effective with your advocacy and thank you for reaching out ahead of time. My Chief of Staff is in touch with the right department heads to push this forward so I appreciate you giving us a heads up that you were coming today and to write us ahead of time. We're working on it. Thank you. Thanks.
We will now go to Martha Hesinpah to be followed by Ed Kolaski.
My name is Martha Hasenplug. I live in Rancho Santa Barbara Mobile Home Park, which is a senior mobile home park in the County of Santa Barbara. I am part of the Silver Tsunami. Harmony Incorporated, the owner of Del Cielo, a mobile home park in North County has exercised their right under existing zoning law to convert this senior age mobile home park to an all-age park I am asking the supervisors to agendize this item and vote for a moratorium on changing senior housing to all-age housing until a Senior Park overlay to the existing zone can be enacted by the County of Santa Barbara.
Special zoning called Senior Mobile Home Park Overlay has been enacted in Ventura County, the City of Ventura and Thousand Oaks. This is a tried and true method to support senior housing and ensure the safety and security of aging seniors. The issues upon conversion, no designated area for a child's playground. Many existing senior mobile home parks do not have available land to build a safe playground.
No parking space for multiple cars. This is necessary when adults are in the workforce. Many senior mobile home parks have one parking space per unit. Many mobile home parks do not have safe access to schools. We all remember Jeff Bolzo who was hit by a car and died while cycling to school on Calle Real A moratorium should be enacted to prevent all-age conversion until a permanent senior mobile home park overlay is in place.
Thank you for your consideration for this very important issue.
0:32 – 0:386 turns
We will now go to Ed Kalaski followed by Richard Salazar.
Greetings. We just pledge allegiance to the flag for liberty and justice for all. In 2014, there was no liberty and justice here. For six years every week I would be here or downstairs asking for some liberty and justice. We had proposed and my architect had finally agreed that our second story would not be solely over the garage as required by Alex Peugeot in the previous meeting. So we go in with a lot of confidence that, okay, we'll get passed and we'll have the project built by October. This is 2014. We go in, we sit down and I notice all of a sudden Omni is talking to Valerie and something's going on at any rate My architect's holding our drawings.
We're not allowed to talk, we're not allowed to show our drawings. Every time my architect tried to say something they had Dylan jump up and yell sideloading, sideloading, sideloading! And they even wrote up in the document, the 64-page document that the garage is located solely over the garage. The second story is located solely over the garage Peter Adam recognized that in two seconds from a regular drawing, an architectural drawing.
Oh get out! Out! Out! Get out! You can appeal to your corrupt supervisor Janet Wolfe. Yes in June I tried to meet with my supervisor And finally she gave us, or me the right to talk to her in December. Right before we're supposed to present our arguments. So now I get a bill 10 years one month and 12 days later for $546.52. For what? I request an audit sheet It's a bunch of gibberish. I don't know these people, what is this? What is that? Where's the 546? What's happening?
This has been on my life. I should have screamed my head off when he kicked us out of the meeting. We could not even show our drawing. Does anyone believe that that outline in red is solely over the garage? Thank you. So disgusted with everything. Finally, I got a note from the Department Planning and Development of Extortion and Corruption. And they said, well we're gonna waive the 546. What was it for?
You know they didn't offer to pay back some of the 10 plus thousand dollars that I spent on an architect or anything that I spent down there. And no one would listen!
Thank you Ed, that is your time.
Thank you for nothing! One last comment. Thanks Joan for trying to sneak our project past Janet Wolfe. It failed, but congratulations Joan. Thank you very much.
We will now go to Richard Salazar to be followed by Rama Fox. Richard?
Good morning. I'm a recent retiree veteran and moved to San Vicente probably about two years ago. Once again, I'm going to speak about what they've already spoken but I won't repeat. What we're looking for is your support in getting this first of all on the agenda for the next meeting in a week so that it's discussed. The overlays are to prevent What usually happens when it becomes all age, it happened in Flamingo and I think it was sued. There was a lawsuit and it was turned around but in the meantime a lot of residents got evicted. Their homes were not able to be sold so they were grabbed by the developer who then jacked up the rent.
Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the public. reduce the amount of affordability. It would also start taking care of stop the support that we give each other as retired residents that let us stay in our houses longer than having to go to and not having to go to managed care which costs everybody a lot more money. Our community helps people avoid a lot of loneliness and isolation that you would lose if he came all age Like she said, the parks are not designed for that. They don't even have sidewalks. Our pool doesn't have a lifeguard.
Everything's sized, all the amenities for senior residents. We moved here for the peace and quiet that we have in our park in San Vicente and we'd like to keep it that way so we ask you support us and also begin by putting it on the agenda next week. Thank you.
0:38 – 0:445 turns
We will now go to Rama Fox, to be followed by Karen Hauenstein. Rama?
That's me! Good morning. I'm a resident of San Vincente Mobile Home Park for Seniors and my husband and I moved there to retire and hopefully have that be a quiet peaceful place for the rest of our lives Thank you very much. The elders that live there and some of which have canes, some walkers, some wheelchairs. We all try to get out and be mobile you know? And so we're on our streets which are very quiet and to imagine kids zooming around with their bikes and not having a field to play in so they would play in the streets with balls and stuff like that.
It wouldn't even be fair to them, and they don't know how to deal with elders. They don't have a frame of reference for our needs. So when we heard about the Park del Cielo, I mean, we would be shocked beyond words if that happened to us. And so many elders—I mean, we retire early. We're looking for quiet and with young adults coming in or even middle-aged adults, you know they like to have later hours and entertainment and what have you. And our homes are close to each other so I don't know if you guys have ever been in a mobile home park but I was just trying to give you a sense of what it's like there And we would really appreciate if there could be a moratorium to look at creating an overlay for us to protect us and keep our parks for seniors.
And thank you for your time.
Thank you.
And we will now go to Karen Hauenstein, who is our final speaker in general public comment.
Good morning, you three. Okay. So I'm following some people who are very established here in our community who are complaining because of a planning kerfuffle. That's happened. Maybe the population has increased so quickly in our communities because of disastrous, ill-conceived liberal policies that you three supported at the state level that have flooded our communities with needful population who need housing I mean, you're not going to try to say that none of the people who are flooding into California come to Santa Barbara County, right?
There's a lot of people who are not supposed to be doing their jobs with a partisan take. Law enforcement is supposed to support the law, not some political agenda. I'm very concerned because I was really excited about the Rice Ranch development which has been stalled because of the unintended economical impacts that liberal poor policy at the state level has happened to our economy.
The Rice Ranch development was supposed to have been built, wasn't it? Or at least started. What's happening with that? You guys have a skyscraper sitting empty in Santa Maria That's been done for like a year, livable. I've seen it. How come there's no people living in it? Isn't this state housing? Why do we have state housing that's built, paid for probably many times over, ready to be used and it sits idle for months I'm confused, we need answers. No Dominion machines should be running in this county.
Dominion? You guys are actually running Dominion election machines? Did I hear that correctly?
0:44 – 0:4814 turns
That concludes general public comment for today.
Okay, then just for staff direction purposes. I know Supervisor Kaps is working on the mobile home issue. I know Supervisor Nelson is neck deep in it up at Del Cielo with Orchid. Just wondering if we need to offer any other direction of... I'd like to bring it back for some sort of discussion and make it a agendized item. So CEO Miyasato what do we need to do?
Chair Labadino, we can certainly talk to the board offices who are already involved and consult the county council. And we can bring an item back for discussion.
Great. Thank you very much. And that closes out public comment. We'll now go to the departmental agenda items. Madam Clerk, can you read departmental item number one into the record please?
Chair Lavanino and members of the board, departmental item number one is from the Sheriff Coroner office. It is a hearing to consider recommendations regarding an extra help services and retirement waiver for the sheriff's office.
Good morning. Chair Lavanino, members of the board, good morning. I'm Lieutenant Salim Selmeda with Santa Barbara Sheriff's Office. On behalf of the Sheriff's Office Custody Division I'm asking board approval and permission to rehire our Building Maintenance Supervisor Stephen Akiyoshi, a sex or health employee before 180 days have passed from his retirement date.
Mr. Akiyoshi retired from our county in June 17, 2024. And prior to his retirement he and the team he supervised were heavily involved with multiple projects in the main jail facility. Projects such as anti-ligature compliance, painting, plumbing, miscellaneous maintenance issues, as well as maintenance of sanitary conditions on main jail facility. As you can imagine all of these tasks are directly and indirectly related to safety and wellbeing of our inmates in our jail facilities.
We are in the process of hiring a new Building Maintenance Supervisor. We have tested, we have one in the background process. The background process usually takes two to three months so bringing Mr. Yoshi on board as extra help will help with keeping going with these projects that we have as well as training the new supervisor coming on board at the same time not rushing the background process for the new supervisor.
Mr. Akiyoshi will perform the work at a salary that does not exceed the maximum authorized by the county for the building maintenance supervisor position. The cost will be covered by the existing budgeting funds and will not result in an increase of department general fund. Looking forward to your approval on this matter as it is critical for our custody division, and thank you for your time.
Great. Madam Clerk are there any requests to speak from the public on this item?
Members of the board we have no requests to speak from the public on this.
Any questions from our board? Can I entertain a motion?
Move staff recommendation.
I'll second.
Roll call please.
Roll-call vote Passed 4–0 Move staff recommendation. I'll second. Roll call
Show transcript
Motion passes unanimously.
All right Excellent. That takes us to departmental item number two. Can you please read that into the record?
0:48 – 0:539 turns
Chair Lavinino and members of the board, departmental item number two is from the General Services Department and the Public Works Department. It is a hearing to consider recommendations regarding an ordinance renewing Santa Barbara County Code Chapter 12A county owned property article 2 real property procedures section 12A10, 12A 10.1, 12 A11 and 12 A 11.1 pertaining to the administration and procedures for managing county owned property and renewing delegations of authority therein
Good morning. This presentation in Board of Directors today is
to consider renewal of County Code Chapter 12A which pertains to administration and procedures for managing county-owned property. This ordinance will streamline county real property acquisition and disposition, and eliminates the need for board action for minor real property transactions. It delegates authorities to the Directors of General Services and Public Works, and the authority is good for five years, and in this current case would be good through September 25th, 2029.
Specific authorization will allow for the lease of county real property for use by other parties, as long as the terms are less than 10 years and the rent is $10,000 or less per month. And it grants easements, licenses, or permits for county property to other public agencies or utilities if it's in the public's interest and doesn't interfere with county use.
Also, Section 12A.11 authorizes directors to lease or license real property for use by the county for a term not to exceed five years and rents not to exceed $7500 a month. And Section 12A-11.1 authorizes the directors to acquire any interest in real property not to exceed $50,000. In conclusion, it's the staff's recommendation that the Board consider adoption of the ordinance amending portions of Chapter 12A Article 2 delegating limited authority to Directors of General Services and Public Works to allow for greater efficiency. This recommendation is subject to any further revisions directed by
Yes, this is normally a question I would have asked Public Works before but I was on vacation and didn't get to it. So I'm particularly interested in rights of way that now or in the future would be designated for trail easements and the recreation master plan should have when we adopt Which I hope we will sometime this year. That it would delineate where those are so we don't want to abandon rights of way that are on plans or maps to be trails. So how does that fit within this?
Supervisors your question to general services, I know it's about trails and rights away. I think Walter is here for public works.
Good morning Supervisor Hartman, through the Chair. I think you're generally your question would be in regards to the $50,000 limit so if the transaction for the right-of-way itself was less than 50,000 the only difference in process is it wouldn't have to go to the Board of Supervisors for approval all the other processes remain the same. If that addresses
I guess it does. I think sometimes right-of-ways are transferred or abandoned and it's not always a very public process, and I just want to make sure that Public Works consults these maps to make sure that before that happens that it isn't designated for a possible trail.
Okay so Supervisor Hartman through the Chair That would generally be through our vacation, roadway vacation process. When we do that it goes through a manager process role where everyone reviews it and one of the requirements of that utilizing the roadway vacation is if we had to have no future use in mind for that real property so that sets a pretty high threshold already.
Right. But now we have to define that, I think by looking at this plan and making sure that it's not there. Okay. I'm satisfied. Thank you. Okay. Thank you.
0:53 – 1:0017 turns
Yes? Supervisor Caput.
I just understand this is one of those ones that came across and I thought why are we talking about this and I understand it's state law. We have to do this every five years. Is that correct?
That's correct.
Has there been any issues with this?
Okay. So
it's just a performa thing.
Thank you.
Madam Clerk, any requests to speak from the public?
Chair Levinino and members of the Board we have no requests to speak from the public on this item. I'll
entertain a motion.
Move staff recommendation. And I second.
Roll call please.
Roll-call vote Passed 4–0 Move staff recommendation. And I second. Roll call
Show transcript
Motion passes unanimously.
Okay, Madam Clerk can you please read departmental item number three into the record
Chair Lavinino and members of the board, departmental item number three is from the county executive office. It is a hearing to consider recommendations regarding a response to the 2023 through 2024 grand jury report entitled Santa Barbara County Coroner Facility and Equipment, A Hazardous Environment.
Good morning, Chair Lavinino, members of the board. The Santa Barbara County Grand Jury distributed their coroner facility report to the county on June 11th. Reports by past grand juries recommended improvements or demoing and rebuilding the facility. We thank the grand jury for their attentiveness to the coroner facility which is operated by the Sheriff's Department.
Like most county facilities, capital projects and maintenance are performed by the General Services Department. As we will detail in this presentation, the grand jury's recommendations for repair and inspections or abatement have been implemented. However, their recommendations for replacement have not been because they are not warranted. The county recognizes that we have deferred maintenance issues with our aging buildings and infrastructure. The county prioritizes capital funding based on criteria including health and safety needs.
The facility is inspected and was deemed in compliance by the county's Public Health Department, Environmental Health Services Division and the California Department of Public Health. Additionally, General Services Maintenance Division conducts annual building inspections. The board is required to respond within 90 days of receiving the report which is coming up on September 9th.
Separately, as an elected department head the sheriff's response was due to the grand jury within 60 days of receipt. In response to the 2015 Grand Jury Report, the coroner facility was included in the five-year capital improvement program covering 2015 to 2020 And that analysis was undertaken to determine if a new building was needed or whether improvements to the existing facility would satisfy. And as a result, over the past nine years, over $390,000 of improvements have been made to the building, or the facility rather, which consists of two buildings. The facility is planned for replacement as part of the Chi-URL master plan but it's phased for 10 to 15 years out.
Okay. Good morning, Chair Lavagnino, members of the board. Again, Kirk Larroquist, Director of General Services and I'll go through the findings and recommendations. Finding one states the building is dangerous to the health and safety of the coroner's staff. The county disagrees with this point. The facility has been inspected by the County Public Health Environmental Health Services as well as the California Direct Department of Public Health and is in compliance with all health and safety requirements.
Recommendation 1A is in reference to replacing the roof, which has been implemented. Contracted to a roofing company has been completed. Recommendation 1B is in reference to mold abatement, which has been completed and work is underway and expected to be completed shortly. Recommendation 1C is in reference to termite infestation. A contract was awarded in spring of 2024 and work has now been completed with tenting of the facility to happen within a couple of weeks.
We have some photos here depicting some of the repairs that have been recently completed. The upper left photo shows areas where termite damaged wood has been replaced, the lower left photo shows where mold was remediated through ceiling replacement of drywall and the right two photos show the new roof and additional termite damaged wood that's been replaced.
Recommendation 1D is in reference to the ventilation system. This will not be implemented as the system was upgraded and the autopsy room was put on a separate system in 2016. Recommendation 1E is in reference to building an entirely new coroner's facility. The replacement of the coroner's facility as part of the CaliRail master plan is currently phase 5C, which is in 10-15 years.
A lot of money and effort has gone into the current facility to correct deficiencies over the past couple of years. While a new facility would bring updated capabilities, there are other more urgent capital construction needs identified in the master plan that have been phased ahead of the coroner's facility. Finding two is related to the safety and health inspections. And as stated with finding one, the County Public Health Department environmental health services inspected the facility in June, 2023, as well as regular inspections by the California department of public health.
Additionally, my general services facilities maintenance division conducts annual inspections of major systems and the facility which was last completed in October of 2023 and scheduled again for later this year. Recommendation 2A is in reference OSHA or CalOSHA conduct an inspection, and this will not be implemented as is not warranted due to other existing inspections that are completed routinely.
Recommendation 2B states that should OSHA or CalOSHA not be available within 60 days then another independent accredited entity be brought in to conduct an inspection. Again, this will not be implemented as County Environmental Health Services has inspected and acts with independence to ensure compliance with state laws and standards as set forth by the California Environmental Protection Agency.
Finding four is in reference to Facilities Maintenance Division of General Services not having a safety officer which is a correct statement we do not. Recommendation 4A is in reference to general services hiring an individual to function as a safety officer This will not be implemented as we have duplicate effort from other county entities that provide safety oversight.
Recommendation 4B is in reference to the safety officer conducting annual safety inspections of a coroner's facility, will not be implemented due to reasons given in response 4A. However, general services maintenance does conduct annual inspections of building systems to include heating, ventilation, air conditioning General building, electrical systems and a bi-weekly generator performance check.
Recommendation 4C is in reference to safety officer reporting findings to the Board of Supervisors. This will not be implemented as general services safety officer position is not warranted but the intent of this recommendation will be met by general services facilities maintenance conducting written reports of their annual inspections.
1:00 – 1:0921 turns
Thank you very much. So here you see the recommended actions, which are to adopt the proposed responses and authorize the chair to sign a letter back to the grand jury. And with that, that concludes our presentation. We're open to any questions. Thank you.
Questions from the board? Supervisor Hartman.
Let's see. I guess, could you explain just a little bit more about what is envisioned for our master plan 5C when we get to this facility where it is to be and how it is to be improved?
Supervisor Hartman through the chair. So phase 5C would be a complete replacement of the coroner's facility located in the same area that it is currently at, it would be a brand-new facility and then the old one demolished.
And sometimes the grand jury gets it really right and sometimes it's a little off target. It seems like this is the latter. I just wonder how much did they talk to general services and get more inside information about all the work we've done prior to doing this report?
Supervisor Hartman, through the chair, they did reach out to me. I did speak to them. I'm not sure that they spoke to any of my facility's maintenance team, but I did provide some information. We have made a lot of great strides over the last year plus to correct deficiencies and problems. Like I said, the termite wood that was damaged has been replaced in brand new roof. We've got termite tenting coming up.
We've made quite a few improvements there.
And I wonder, I'm not sure if the coroner's building requires any more transparency than other buildings in terms of their repair. But it seems that people, the grand jury is certainly focused on this and I don't know if there's any way to, if general services has anything that's available to the public about the kind of maintenance that we're doing or if that's something we could do in the future?
I mean, our general maintenance is not when we don't publish what we're doing. I mean, we just take care of facilities and hopefully it's kind of seamless and as far as our master plan that is publicly available and has been briefed back in September 2022 to the board as to the phasing plan. And we're currently still on the EIR process for that.
It might be something to think about. I mean, we do it on our roads map to think about how to make it more apparent to people all the work that your office is doing and what the breadth of Supervisor Williams, then CAPS.
Yeah, so I guess the everyone agrees the facility is run down and needs some replacement. You know it may not be the first one replaced but there are plans that are there to replace it and you say it's been inspected by both our public health division Environmental services, which is known for being kind of pretty stringent in their application of the state standards.
And you all said it's been inspected by the State Department of Public Health. Is that
the case? That's correct Supervisor Williams through the chair.
And it seems to me that I mean, that is an independent third party. So you know, I just I should have made this suggestion earlier but there's no time like the present if it's about to sail away. Why don't we just say that in 4A and other related responses where the grand jury has asked for an independent inspection. That independent inspection that the grand jury has asked for, has already taken place.
Supervisor Williams, we believe we did in the document under finding two and recommendation 2A. We could have maybe been clearer. We tried as much as we can to emphasize exactly what you said that independent organizations including the state and our county EHS department have reviewed the buildings.
Got it. Yeah, it's good enough for me I just was like maybe we should be putting it in the response at 4a because that's the direct response on that question.
Supervisor Caps?
Yeah, thank you I just wanted to again this whole process just highlights the limitations of responding to a grand jury report with these sort of preset reactions and it seems to me from looking into this that a lot of the work they There might have been gap between when they, like the roof for example. They might have said we need a new roof but then by the time that we agree so we replace the roof and then we say no to the recommendation but it's not quite right because we obviously agree with the recommendation We replaced the roof. They did a good job of pointing that out, but again there's a lag time in terms of when they assess things how they assess things and so I just think there's more agreement here than is reflected by the responses which has been the experience That I've experienced at least in terms of approving these responses that this sort of we have to say no because we've already done it.
But yet, of course, we agree with the recommendation because we did do it so I know I'm getting a little tongue twisted there but It sounds off-putting. If they say let's make sure we have a good roof on our coroner's facility, we're not saying no to that. In fact, we're saying we agree and we already did it so it's a good thing and I applaud that we have that roof. So just I'm answering my own question but if you could the one that we did it seems like we clearly disagree with is on this safety officer can you speak to how we're already achieving that role?
Maybe that's not, I'm not sure if that's general services or not. But that's their- Yeah,
Supervisor Capps through the chair. Correct. So RISC has a safety officer assigned to them and they look at a number of things throughout the county. That's not to say we disregard safety within general service. We absolutely adhere to safety but we don't see the need for a full time safety officer within general services when we have other capabilities in the county through RISC
The risk and then also to kind of to surprise a Williams point, there is an inspection that happens in terms of the health and safety. In addition.
Correct. So in this case, environmental health did an inspection back in 2023. I don't have the date for when California Public Health went through. Yeah, but it was after that.
Okay. Well, I just want to thank the grand jury for pointing this out. I understand that this is not the first time that the coroner's facility has been a subject of their reports and it looks like we've made some significant improvements under your tenure so... And we have a lot more to do with the master plan so I look forward to that. Thank you.
Thank you. Yeah, I think I toured the facility back when the first grand jury report was done and yeah there were some significant issues. I'm curious, I see we have folks from I imagine the coroner's office. Do you have anything you'd like to weigh in or?
1:09 – 1:1510 turns
Thank you Chair. Lieutenant Jarrett Morris, I've been supervising and now managing the Coroners Bureau for almost a decade now It is a very antiquated building. It does need to be replaced, however General Services has done a superb job and has been very responsive on getting a lot of the needs met for our personnel. It was noted in the report that it's unsafe for our personnel to be there I wholeheartedly disagree.
It is, again, antiquated but we have no health issues. We have nobody getting hurt because of the state of the building and we would like to see in the future part of the Coyote Rail plan it be replaced and we'll continue to put it on the list of capital improvements from the Sheriff's Office.
Thank you Lieutenant Morris. I think that really helps so all right we've got an issue it's part of the plan we're moving forward all right so any public comment on this item?
Chair Lavanino, members of the board. Yes we have two requests to speak from the public on this item and we are going to remain here in Santa Barbara and we will go first to Lynn Gibbs to be followed by Karen Howenstine or I'm sorry. No she's not on the next item. I apologize Gail Osherenko to be followed by Emiliano Campobello and those are on Zoom. Gail?
Can you hear me?
Yes we can please proceed
Um, my name is Gail Oshorenko and I'm speaking today on behalf of the League of Women Voters of Santa Barbara and Clergy and Laity United for Economic Justice from our criminal justice working group. We support the grand jury's recommendation 1E that's the only part of it we're commenting on And we ask you to place a higher priority on complete replacement of the facility.
Currently, it's not scheduled until 2034 and as the Sheriff stated in his response which we agree with the facility is antiquated in some ways substandard and needs to be completely replaced. We also understand it's probably not large enough to meet all of the possible needs that occur. You may remember That they actually did some autopsies outside when we had the conception tragedy and so many bodies at once. We also really encourage you to consider alternative locations in mid or north county when you do replace it, The grand jury reports from 2013, 2015 and 2020 have all called for replacement of the facilities.
11 years ago, the 2013 grand jury reported that the facility quote merits a long range strategic plan for the development of an accredited medical examiner department in an industry standard facility with the capability of being accredited by the National Association of Medical Examiners. Then four years ago, the 2020 grand jury found quote found there is still an urgent need for a new facility that meets the industry standards of the 21st century.
And then this year's grand jury recommended replacing the sheriff coroner's office with an independent board certified medical examiner In their April 15th report titled Potential Perceived Conflict of Interest for Death in Custody Investigations, we agree with that recommendation. Although this report has not come to you formally to your board, we urge you to ask for it to be presented to you at a subsequent board hearing.
We appreciate the time and effort of this board, as well as our administration and departments to work collaboratively to meet the challenging facility needs of our county and continually improve our criminal justice system. Thank you.
And we will now remain on Zoom with Emiliano Campobello who is our final speaker on this item. Emiliano?
Yes, hello. Thank you. Can you hear me?
Yes we can please proceed.
Wonderful thank you my gratitude to all our supervisors and to General Services for all their work on this time I'm also a member of the Criminal Justice Work Group with Gail Osharenko and member of the Board Clergy and Laity United for Economic Justice here in Santa Barbara. And I just wanna speak to an appreciation of the ongoing efforts to make progress, to protect these spaces very often.
The dead get last priority over the living. And this is a situation where there's a sacredness To to death and also how the dead is cared for. Is important to the living relatives, so I really I'm I just have deep gratitude for our deputies and the staff workers at our coroner's offices and want to recognize the sacredness of the work that they're doing in caring for our dearly departed in respectful ways. And we should get all support necessary To help them in that because it's not only environmental hazards that can be Detrimental in this profession, but also high amounts of formaldehyde for instance in different processes as well as the emotional trauma and the strength that it takes for these workers to perform these duties. So I'm speaking in support of our letter from the in conjunction with the League of Women Voters and just want to thank you and add my prayers for continued progress in this.
Thank you all.
1:15 – 1:229 turns
And that concludes public comment on this item.
Okay, we have three recommended actions. I'd like to entertain a motion.
I'll move A through C in today's board agenda letter.
Roll call, please.
Roll-call vote Passed 4–0 move A through C in today's board agenda letter. Roll call,
Show transcript
Motion passes unanimously.
That takes us to departmental item number four update on deferred implementation of SB 43.
Chair Lavinino and members of the board, departmental item number four is from the Behavioral Wellness Department, Treasurer Tax Collector Public Administrator. It is a hearing to consider recommendations regarding an update on deferred implementation of Senate Bill 43.
Good morning, Chair Lavagnino, Supervisors, CEO Miyasato and County Staff. Tony Navarro, Director of Behavioral Wellness here with Arlene Diaz from the Treasurer Tax Collector Public Administrator Public Guardian Office. We're here today to present to you on Santa Barbara's implementation of Senate Bill 43 an update in December 2023 ahead of SB43 official launch date of January 1 Myself and Arlene Diaz came before your board to ask for a deferment of implementation as allowed under the legislation. You approved our request to defer until January 1, 2026 and encouraged us to implement sooner than the deferred deadline as much as could be possible. You also asked for us to return in the summer to provide an update on our preparation and planning for SB 43 implementation so we are here today to provide you with that.
As you can imagine, a significant change to a system that has been in place for nearly 60 years is quite a challenge. However, it has also been a terrific opportunity for us not only here in Santa Barbara County but statewide to look at our entire systems of care and ensure that in this time of so much significant change in the operation and delivery of behavioral health care that we are aligning programs, strategies and treatment solutions to be their most efficient and effective for the people that we serve.
As you will see today Arlene and I along with teammates from our respective departments have been engaged in meetings not just locally but also statewide working collectively with subject matter experts from Mental health substance use disorder treatment public guardians office offices statewide and County Behavioral Health medical directors as well as behavioral health directors to ensure a shared understanding and Consistent practice as we create a new system of acute care response that is most supportive and effective for those most disabled in their behavioral health conditions in our county I In addition, the two counties that have implemented thus far San Francisco and San Luis Obispo counties have provided valuable data and insight all along the way to the remaining counties.
And we have been able to use this information and insight as we plan for the impacts and the potential needs and resources of our county moving forward. So Arlene's going to kick us off.
Good morning. So overview of SB 43. So SB 43 was signed into law last October and it's not only the most significant, it's really the only reform in the LPS Act since 1967 so it expands the criteria for involuntary detention again we're talking about involuntary treatment by creating new criteria. So it is no longer solely based on a person's mental health disorder, but it now also can include substance use disorder and in addition to due to that the inability to provide for food clothing and shelter, it also now includes personal safety and necessary medical care.
So these are, this is kind of the new and the old side by side. What's to be noted is again standalone substance use disorder otherwise known as SUD is now a basis for grave disability and grave disability food clothing and shelter but also necessary medical care which means medical care if not accessed is likely to result in serious bodily injury or death.
And then it also includes personal safety, which means to safely survive without involuntary detention or treatment. And those are the two new components of the grave disability criteria. So where we came from? LPS was first enacted of course in 1967 and it was in reaction to the misuse and abuse of involuntarily detaining and medicating people against their will.
Lanterman, Petrish & Short were the legislators who decided to codify civil rights through this act. And so the LPS law, which is in Welfare and Institutions Code, governs involuntary psychiatric care throughout California. This is a California law. Who is designated to make the decisions about who? We'll get involuntary psychiatric care and the rules and regs around where people who are involuntarily detained can be placed, meaning those who are not involuntarily detained cannot be placed in those same situations.
1:22 – 1:281 turns
So the next two slides are a little pithy here, for sure. But I think our goal here is to demonstrate the detail and complexity of the act and what is ahead of us in terms of making sure that we make the change consistently and in such a way that maintains the civil rights of the persons that we serve while at the same time creating systems that will be wholly effective for them. So this slide identifies the different types of Lannerman-Petras short laws that lead to involuntary holds so as you can see we move along a continuum someone is first placed on what is called a 5150 hold for up to 72 hours and then based on probable cause of continuing danger to self, others or the grave disability That is now changing definition. They can move to a 14-day hold and post that with ongoing danger to self or others and grave disability as well as unwillingness to accept voluntary treatment, they can move into a 30-day hold known as a 5270.
And it's around this 5270 mark between the 14 and 30 days where The professionals, the psychiatrists in our PUF, the psychiatrists maybe at some other facility including EDs or others recognize that stabilization is not possible. And this is often the time where we see a referral being made for an LPS conservatorship. This is just in a nutshell and a quick snapshot of course.
Once somebody has been identified as possibly qualifying for a Lannerman Petrus Short Conservatorship, there is an application that is made and one of two psychiatrists now assigned in Be Well completes an evaluation. which is then investigated by the public guardian's office. And then a decision is made at that level whether to put someone on what is called a temporary conservatorship, which then gives more time for investigation and may lead to what is called a permanent conservatorship but in reality it's only a one-year conservatorships that is renewed every year based on an updated evaluation.
So all along the way here, we will have new trainings and new definitions for staff who are involved in these holds and evaluations and investigations to learn moving forward. This next slide demonstrates a roadmap from 5150 to conservatorship. Again, just another way to present to you timelines as well as a process. So as we start in step one, you'll see that maybe the behavioral wellness puff or some emergency room department psychiatrists is anticipating that there may be a conservatorship. And so we move forward from the hold into the referral, but if they don't then a person after their 5150 hold and sometimes even after 5270 maybe released back to the community with care.
So if they get a referral to the public guardian as we talked about, there's a petition that is filed immediately and the public guardians office gives the conservatee five days notice that there will be a hearing to assess them for conservatorship. At that hearing, if the TCON is granted then the public guardian gathers more information and does an investigation. This can take up to a week. And placement is done. The difference between the file and the hearing is 30 days. Sorry about that. There's not a date in there.
So after that investigation of the TCON, we have five days. If it looks like that's happening, we go to the conservatorship, the permanent hearing. There are 30 days and if that holds then a person is placed sometimes they're placed at home with their family and I will defer to Arlene on the data on that in terms of percentage of folks that we currently have on conservatorships that are in facilities versus home.
But once they are placed wherever that may be, then they are actually then also assigned to a team in the Be Well long-term care team that helps conservatees to ensure that they are getting the care that they need. Working with them to engage them in ongoing mental health care and move towards hopefully stabilization to be stepped down at the end of one year.
So this next slide is an important one as it is part of the guidance we are still awaiting from the state and it's a piece of the legislation now that talks about 5150 or putting on involuntary hold or conservatorship persons who have severe SUD only. Currently there are no such facilities except the three, there's three listed here that can hold people they are potentially allowable for LPS designation because they can hold people in a locked facility. And that would be in a general acute care hospital, an acute psychiatric hospital with a chemical dependency wing or psychiatric urgent care or crisis stabilization unit that was specially designated designed or staffed for complex medical needs and detox.
These other facilities that are in black are other facilities that we use for LPS designation and conservatorship, and exist. But the ones in blue are the only ones that exist to date. There's currently a bill on the governor's desk, Senate Bill 1238 which is cleanup language from Senator Eggman who created Senate Bill 43 to look at potentially creating guidelines by December 31st 2027 that will allow PUFs in our state. The psychiatric health facilities as well as mental health rehab centers to become designated facilities for severe SUD only involuntary treatment. But to date we do not have guidelines for that and we are awaiting that from the state before we begin moving in that direction.
1:28 – 1:448 turns
Okay, local data observations and trends. So do you want to talk about the 5150s?
Right. So the 5150 holds, as you can see there's been a decrease in holds from 22 to 23 excuse me oops that's a typo I'm like wait a minute the numbers are higher we did have an increase from 22 to 23 of just about 10% and we're seeing from 24 to 25 much less at this point So in the first month alone, we've had 75. And I'm sorry that I don't have my math on me here but we are on track to have lower holds written this year as well. But what we're hearing however from our counties in San Francisco and SLO regarding implementation of SB 43 is that there has been not necessarily a significant increase in the number of holds written but the types of holds being written are different and there are more folks with severe Co-occurring disorder, leading with severe substance use disorder and or having substance abuse disorder that they are placing on a hold.
And so that is the data trend that we are seeing and so we'll talk a little bit more about the impact of that and what we're planning beginning this fall.
So in the public guardian's office, so we have had a steady increase. In ongoing clients, so 150 in 21-22 160 and 22 23 and 165 in 23 24 As far as the LPS investigations go that's really where we see the biggest increase Both 20 to 21 and 22 and 22 23 each year. We had 62 investigations and then That's a typo, sorry. And then in 23-24 we had 89 so that was last year.
What I hear from both San Luis Obispo and from San Francisco is that their referrals for LPS investigations have gone up 50%. Because of the broadened Criteria, people who may not have met criteria in the past are now meeting criteria. So although we don't have significant numbers yet because again they just started in January and these are multi-month things there's every reason to believe that the numbers absolutely will go up we just don't know at this point.
And to speak directly to SLOWS 5150 holds what I'm hearing from their behavioral health director is that in the past month They have consistently gone from seven or eight people being in their puff each day. They have a 16-bed puff, you know they are lower than us in population but they have now been consistently trending at 14 to 16 persons in their puff each day.
So okay so public guardian. So over the past three years, which is all the data that we had presented, investigations went up 44%. And we've absorbed it, we've absorbed the increase going from on every level. Again San Francisco saw a 50% increase in their referrals right now San Luis Obispo is attempting to double their public guardian office staff because they implemented without having any idea on what the impacts would be so In order to stabilize current staffing impact and allow capacity for additional referrals, we're calculating that the Public Guardian will need two new deputies and one financial office professional at a cost of $242,000 for 24-25 and then $458,000 annually going forward.
So, the expansion includes the need for office space and we have been working with the CEO's office and with general services to hopefully wrap our arms around that and get that going.
In regards to behavioral wellness, as the board is aware we have done some significant reevaluation and review of our crisis services system. As well as due to payment reform have been looking at our workload utilization across our clinical departments. And as a result of those findings and evaluations we have created some efficiencies and at this point are not anticipating any staffing needs at this time at least for the first year to two years of the implementation of SB 43. So therefore, we are not anticipating any costs additionally to our system as we have restructured and reorganized our crisis services and acute care response by our psychiatrists who also help us with LPS applications.
The anticipated departmental impact of SB 43 as noted prior to or following sending out this final PowerPoint to you all, SLO had reported in early July late June that they had not seen a significant increase in the 5150s but they had just seen a change in the quality of those. But as of last week they are seeing more people admitted to the PUF over the previous three weeks. And that is not yet reported in the data out to all of us statewide. And so we are anticipating certainly that there will be some needs to be gained in our system, but as I noted in the beginning, as we've been planning for SB 43 and looking at the workflows and what happens to persons once they're conserved and how are we following them in the long-term care team and within our own clinical system, we are identifying potential changes there as well to account for the fact that currently we only have a 16 bed puff.
But again, we have the other resources coming to us from the state under the proposition one and round one of the behavioral health continuum of infrastructure plan. And so all of the data and implications from SB 43 regarding an increase in the utilization of puff beds are being taken into consideration with that group. And we had a first meeting with the state yesterday on the application process and will be conducting some community meetings more to discuss what the options are and our intention to make sure that we can meet this potential need increase from SB 43.
More importantly though as I've talked about over the last few years when we talk about the acute care continuum, we are definitely looking at how we restructure And provide support intensively to individuals who are on conservatorship to keep them out of acute care hospitalization, which continues to be a bit of an anomaly in our county. The utilization sometimes of the PUF for those who are on conservatorships identifies some gaps for us in the outpatient system. that we are currently working on.
The impacts to SB 43 of course as noted by the lengthy presentation of the road map and all the different types changes to grave disability, personal safety and the access to medical care note that we will have a lot of training to do. So that will be the most significant piece is that there is significant training to be had for those who are currently in the system providing this care but then also to our public partners who are also providing care.
And as noted, the potential benefits that we have are of course that we really do hope that by bringing folks into the 5150 system and SUD treatment on those preliminary three-day holds that we can get them into some more long term care treatment on a voluntary basis post that. As we are hearing from our neighbors up in Slough. Of course the potential drawbacks and why we have taken our time and we are currently Arlene and I, we sit on a statewide meeting once a week. And with medical directors behavioral health directors and public guardians and we have come up with some drafts of consistent definitions or actually examples of what it means to be gravely disabled as indicative by your lack of personal safety, or your lack of access to medical care.
The goal for all of us across the state is to be consistent in these definitions and to use these effectively so that we don't get on the wrong side of unnecessarily placing people on holds and over utilizing the new LPS requirement ability to authorize a new level of treatment. This is just a highlight of the things that we have been working on here in the county for this implementation, just noted that we're working on the consistency.
We meet internally regularly almost weekly as a team to go over what we've learned from our partners. As Arlene stated she talks to the public guardian and SLO I talk to the behavioral health director We are also, again through that weekly meeting, identifying different needs and strategies. We currently also are working with our alcohol and drug branch chief who is helping to identify the appropriate training. We actually started a first training this week with a technical assistance expert.
We are evaluating that and we'll be rolling that out to public guardian's office, all of our crisis system services including the PUF and our psychiatrists. And then be rolling that out to all of those in our county who are currently authorized 5150 authorizations for us. While we have been called a behavioral health department for many years, the reality is that there are many who are still operating as alcohol and drug specialists in the drug medical side of our house and those in the mental health side of the plan that really know their own specialties best. And so when you have such an important change here it's vital that we bring in this high level training and make sure all of our staff across systems are cross trained. to identify appropriately folks that need this level of care.
We're also starting to plan for what the policy changes may be. We've pulled up our policies and looking at what we will need to do in terms of what qualifies for authorizing someone for care, what qualifies for authorizing someone for a TCON. or permanent conservatorship with these new definitions. So we're looking at policy changes, again as noted we're looking at treatment service changes and how we deliver care for those especially with severe SUD.
And then assessment is with all of that, a careful review of what we're currently doing and how we might need to change that. With Senate Bill 1238 looming up in Sacramento, we're already starting to look at what that would look like for us in terms of the trainings and the different programming types that would need to come to our PUF. There will be new requirements for specialized programming just for SUD-only persons. And so we're starting to look at what that training would need to be for that hospital personnel.
To date, we've conducted 13 community meetings with partners including law enforcement partners, our hospitals, stakeholders such as NAMI, internal departments again in B-Well, social services among others. I think Arlene—did I? I don't know if I missed any there.
APS.
Oh right. Adult Protective Services. We are starting to again determine staffing and fiscal impact with Arlene's team. And now with round one BCHIP as I noted in that final bullet point, really looking at what our bed expansion opportunities are for the acute level of care but then also making sure that we have applications for some of that step down level of care. Looking forward we have a local partner who A CBO who is looking to perhaps put forward an application in round one BCHIP that is specifically for substance use disorder residential treatment beds.
And we certainly, as is required in the application but wholeheartedly will support their application to gain that level of care. Based on all the things we've talked about today, here is our implementation guideline. Starting this summer we are honing in on the definition so we can begin planning the overhaul of our 5150 training for the county. We are starting to well actually I'm sorry those So, in the summer those are the things that we're working on. We are also again reviewing 1238 and waiting which goes into the fall to receive and formalize that final state guidance on facilities that may be utilized for SUD only and how we prepare for those.
Into the fall of 2024 and actually starting now we're beginning to train on severe substance use disorder only and co-occurring disorders to bring that expertise Across the house, and we'll be refining our own training on 5150. We plan to roll out the training, the new training in the spring of 2025. Hopefully we'll be able to secure the additional office space and staffing for the public guardian's office.
And in taking a page from the San Francisco playbook, we are looking to identify from our new familiar faces project that we have with probation and the public defender's office possible known SB 43 already candidates that we might begin to reach out to and to identify for long-term care. And then should all go well with the staffing, of course in the office space our intention is to go early on the implementation and begin on July 1, 2025.
Certainly any additions to our acute puff beds will not be happening by July 2025 but we do hope that the changes were bringing to the outpatient system will bring some relief there and allow for an easy flow Beginning this, we started last week and beginning in September we will both at the state level and locally be meeting more regularly with our community, with our local hospital partners to plan for the impact of their ED departments.
So that's our update on implementation and we're here for any questions.
1:44 – 1:515 turns
Questions from the board? Yeah, we can go to public comment first.
Chair Lavinino, members of the board we have three requests to speak from the public on this item. We are going to begin here in Santa Barbara with Lynn Gibbs to be followed by Karen Hauenstein.
Chair Lavanino and Supervisors thank you for the opportunity to speak. First I wanted to say that we're, well I'm a mental health advocate and we have been very aware of how under resourced the public guardians office is. We tried to statewide some of us tried to get an amendment to SB 43 that would have included support for staffing of public guardian's office, but we weren't able to get that. It was in a previous version of Grape Disability Bill that didn't pass so that was disappointing.
And then secondly yesterday I looked back at the presentation from last December requesting an extension And in its proposal to you to approve delay of SB 43 implementation, behavioral wellness projected a tenfold growth of eligibility for involuntary holds and mental health conservatorships saying the current system is stressed. It definitely is stressed by July 2024 We will bring forward a plan for an extensive array of new policies, procedures, workforce facility. Think Prop 1.
And treatment capacity to realize SB 43's goals. In addition, the report said that by adding physical health conditions as a basis for conservatorship counties must develop a new set of medical services to evaluate and assess physical health risks and status. So we were enthused that behavioral wellness pledged such a plan. Clearly we don't, this is not a plan. It's a plan to make a plan so the county still in the process and while this is really excellent primer on Senate Bill 43 and it's clear there won't be anywhere near a tenfold increase in holds and conservatorships. It's also clear that new policies procedures workforce facility And treatment capacity have been and are required for a successful program to treat the most still.
And we wonder how it's possible that with such extensive change and expansion, that behavioral wellness isn't projecting any increased program costs or staffing that are needed. And so we're struggling to understand this and how it will roll out with the same level of staffing at behavioral wellness. Thank you.
We will now go to Karen Hauenstein and then we will go to Zoom with Suzanne Rorden. Karen?
Yes, hello again Supervisors and Lynn I can tell you why you don't understand it because it doesn't make any sense. It's because conservatorships in Santa Barbara County in the public guardian in the past 20 years has been used to target elderly individuals who are wealthy, who don't have any viable heirs. The corruption that this dais This public dais has put up with since I started attending conservatorship issues being heard in front of the County Board of Supervisors when you were down in your other place, down below.
Remember? I was there. I actually attended a hearing for the Rosen family With Armando Isabel Perez. He, my mother and myself and Patricia Hogan attended a meeting where the Rosen family was begging for some protection And then today, how ironic is it that I'm standing here listening to behavioral wellness try to act like they don't know this is some kind of insane policy that's coming down from up high and on the state level that's been planned for a long time and they haven't really been forthcoming?
We've got Case number 21-PR00508, which is a conservatorship this county brought against my next door neighbor. We don't even know if he's still alive. The county has prevented everybody Who knew Armando and lived with Armando, or was involved in his life as a friend. They've prevented all of those people from having any contact with him for awhile. And now you guys wanna change this system to help a bunch of people who have no money?
So where's all the money coming from The reason why you don't have it in your budgets is because you always made sure they were covered by someone else's private money.
1:51 – 2:0616 turns
We will now go to Suzanne Rorden on Zoom, who is our final speaker on this item.
Yes, good morning Chair Lovenino and members of the board. On behalf of Families Act and countless families in Santa Barbara that have a member with severe mental illness or and or severe substance use disorder I want to just say that we are celebrating this day it's been far too long in coming But we are very, very grateful for this legislation that had to come from the state level.
And I hate to be dramatic but I just would like to give you a sense of the importance and the life and death implications of this legislation I would that you all could have attended the funerals, the many funerals that I have attended of often young adults. Adults in Santa Barbara County who died because they didn't get this level of care and I just attended a beautiful and incredibly moving and incredibly sad one last week of a young man 35 years old who was a client Of behavioral wellness in Santa Barbara County.
Somehow he ended up at the folding hotel, which was not the right place for him to get help. And he died at 35 years old of an overdose at the Falding Hotel. And it's just on behalf of all those families who have suffered incredible tragedies, I want to say that we are very, very, very grateful for this legislation coming from down from the state and for the fact that our county and our behavioral wellness And various departments are making plans to create treatment opportunities for people that are deemed to have primarily a substance use disorder. This was a very unnatural and unjust distinction that's been made for many, many decades.
And thank God it's going to turn itself around now. So thank you guys for all the work you're doing. Please listen to us, we're the ones that are feeling the brunt. We've experienced the brunt of this huge gap in our services but I thank each one of you. I know that you're listening, I know that you care and I hope that you can guide our behavioral wellness department in creating the opportunities that will really truly make a difference And the level of care that will truly make a difference. And if we sound a little nervous, it's because we've been at this for almost 20 years now and we're watching and we want to work with you.
Thank you so much.
And that concludes public comment on this item.
Thank you. Supervisor Hartman?
Well, first I just want to commend behavioral wellness for finding efficiencies internally that will enable you to move forward on this without new resources. That government keeps growing and I think sometimes we need to reorganize and reassign priorities and you're doing it and I think that really we need to recognize As far as the public guardian in the treasurer's office, I understand that we're going to need more personnel for investigations. But I would like you to help me understand once somebody is investigated and conserved what role do you continue to play? Do you need to oversee financial resources for people? Give me a bigger sense of What that role is.
So we do when we get a referral, we put someone on a temporary conservatorship and then we have 30 days to investigate whether they meet the criteria which includes whether they have Pensions or finances, apart from SSI. The majority of our clients are on SSI. If they meet criteria and they do have resources that need to be managed then we apply for person and estate and we do manage those resources.
If they don't, if they just have SSI, we don't apply for estate but we do become the payee So for all intents and purposes, we are managing their money. We're also responsible for making sure that they are on their benefits, they stay on their benefits. And then what the public guardian is... I hate to say impartial third party, I would say more oversight. So way back in the day there were times one behavioral wellness said well we think everybody should go to state hospital and so the public guardian is the one who reviews the recommended treatment options and approves it or asks for others just as you would listen to your doctors about what they recommend for your own care And so we, you know, when things kind of turned that way we said no.
We don't think everybody should go to state hospital and then the opposite has happened that everybody should leave state hospital. So we're the ones who really look at and work closely with behavioral wellness. They are great partners to us to look at what's What's most appropriate and then we're the ones who consent for both treatments, so we sign them into places. And medications, so we're the ones who sign the consents for the psychotropic treatment that the clients get. All the while because these are a one-year conservatorship, we're also doing all the court interface So individuals have the right to a rehearing where it's reviewed to see whether they're still gravely disabled, or a placement hearing to see if they're in the least restrictive setting.
And we have those with great regularity and so we're represented by county council. The majority of our clients are represented by the public defender and we are in court weekly So that requires a lot of filing paperwork, collecting information and data from facilities in addition to when things go sideways. That's kind of the nature of the population that we serve and so when someone goes AWOL or someone starts to decompensate It involves both behavioral wellness, working with facilities to look for what options are and for us to coordinate with them and make sure that happens. We're the ones responsible for making sure the paperwork goes to the hospitals for the involuntary hospitalizations.
Like I said we consent for treatment and all the while when the year starts, about three months before the year is going to expire. We work with behavioral wellness and facilities and say hey is this person still gravely disabled? We have those conversations and then we gather all the paperwork that's required because if they remain gravely disabled we have to start the legal process all over again.
So if I understand, we anticipate that we'll have lots of referrals coming in to investigate. Our hope is that we can get people plugged into systems that don't require a conservatorship and so you may not need so many resources for the ongoing but you need them for invest—that's our hope and based to some extent on SLO and San Francisco?
Yes, absolutely. Right now we have our referral caseload is growing. We got three new referrals on Friday. It's I anticipate this year will be substantially more than last fiscal year. So that is, that 30-day window to do those investigations, my staff hits the ground running. We are already well overtaxed. I have a person out on maternity leave which is fortunate for her but it does turn me and I mean we're small, we're really lean. I have two investigators that also carry full caseloads and then the supervisor who has the biggest caseload and I am now another investigator working to support our current clients in the caseload. So we're beyond the scope of what we can handle right now. And so even having one more person, I mean, we're not gonna know the numbers until the numbers come but even one more referral is overwhelming.
And then I have one other question and it's a broader question but I wonder if Director Navarro could answer. We had sort of behavioral wellness and drug separate, we think they should be combined And yet I think the two, the SUD population does require special and could you help us understand that? We currently care for people who are mentally ill. We care for people with coexisting mental illness in SUD. But if we and I know it's hard to disentangle but what this does is we have to look at SUD and what's a grave disability. And I know that definition hasn't come yet, but I'm struggling to get a better flavor for what that is.
There will always be a need for separate systems of care. For someone who has a severe substance use only disorder, there are specialized treatments certainly and the literature is very clear that involuntary locked treatment does not, is not as effective in long-term recovery for those folks with that type of condition as it is for folks with mental health conditions. And it was one of the reasons why this type of legislation took so long coming, because there were so many advocates saying wait a minute, that's not the best level of care. But what we are looking at now when we look at this piece about grave disability, when you're looking at the most severe disabled by their SUD condition just like those most severely disabled by mental health or co-occurring disorder It's about what types of programming can we do in that window, while this new legislation Senate Bill 1238 identifies is that even within a PUF now we're going to have to do some specialized treatment because this is a very specialized population.
So while the integration is more about One, if someone comes to the front door of a mental health clinic and they really are SUD only that that mental health clinic knows how to evaluate that and help them get to the right level of care quickly. I'm going to start by saying thank you to the Board of Supervisors. mental health disorder as the primary issue. So it's an integration of sorts, but it's also this heightened awareness of training that is necessary for folks to be able to not have the stigma, because stigma exists within our own system in behavioral health and we're really trying to eradicate that.
But the real hope I think with SB 43 is that we can get people, we can force them into initial treatment, we hope at that initial stage to get them into a voluntary, and we've never had that opportunity before.
That's right, and I think that is what we've heard from SLO already. About two times a month since they started in January are they seeing folks being put on holds for 50-150 due to severe substance use disorder but what they're finding is by the time they get to an investigation or evaluation for permanent conservatorship that folks have resolved enough Because they've been abstinent from use of drugs and alcohol, that they are able to willingly commit to therapy and treatment ongoing. And so they don't ever make it to the final conservatorship because they're willingly putting themselves into placement which is important again for us to make sure we're not only expanding our acute system level of care here in the county But that severe substance use disorder level of care as well.
So the research shows that involuntary doesn't really work so well for SUD but that initial choice, you know, do you want ‑‑ that's a choice. So that's voluntary and then we can ‑‑ I'm just looking for how we understand the promise and hope of this.
It's a time to start something new, right? For us. So it will be again involuntary treatment for three days on the 72-hour hold so it is going to give us an opportunity to maybe create some new treatment modalities that really work for folks in that short window to get them into voluntary care quickly. Thank you.
Supervisor
Williams. I kind of understand The way that this could work in a real positive manner or in the best case scenario, you could find as you're articulating that a lot of folks are shifted to voluntary treatment after the initial contact. We could have a non-profit that wants to try to set up a facility and we could of course contract for some beds, and then maybe the bed growth won't be as much initially that you feared.
But I'm hoping that we're also planning for maybe the more challenging scenario where it will come down to the county coming up with the beds ourselves. And so I think what a lot of the folks who wrote in are asking, and it's just the same question that I have is, are we gonna have an application by December for state funds to increase our bed count? That's appropriate for this type of patients.
2:06 – 2:118 turns
Yes Supervisor Williams we certainly are and we actually, the Be Well team along with Ted Tiber yesterday had our first technical assistance call with the state on round 1B CHIP and presented our thoughts and ideas and got some great insight from them. And so we definitely will have an application and we are definitely looking at a range of continuum beds that will Meet the needs of our county and what we've been hearing from our constituents and from our patients as well. Again, also very excited that a local CBO is putting forth an application that we will wholeheartedly support. And I'm really happy to say that our local partners in Ventura and SLO, we have been talking regionally for the last few weeks. They are going to be putting up some really great programs that will likely also help and impact our continuum of care.
So they are, Ventura is looking to add a number of locked beds to their continuum down there. Currently they use beds at the Champion Center so we're looking at getting some relief in our own county of beds you know that's been something we've talked about. We started with 32 here many years ago when And because other counties were so desperate for those locked beds as well, they've had contracts and we haven't been able to free up more. So as our partners on either side of us, SLO and Ventura develop their really relevant and necessary bond, you know, BCHIP round one projects, we think that regionally we're going to have a much better number of beds across the continuum for all of us to utilize and benefit from.
Thank you, Chair Lavagnino. I just want to again applaud Tony Navarro and the Treasurer Tax Collector's Office Arlene. You've done a great job in preparing all of this. As you recall the board asked for an acceleration of the deadline which is not until the end of 2025 to start six months earlier. And I just want to point out what the board letter states and what Supervisor Hartman was getting at. This will be for the positions, and the public guardian will need positions. They are asking for three positions.
The cost per year is $485,000 with increases that will probably more. To start them off, they're asking for about half that amount for half a year and we will come back to the board with that. The CEO's office has given up space of our risk management department which serves eight staff to the treasurer tax collector and we're just going Consolidating our space and having people share offices so that we can make way for this. This is mandated by the state, we know we have to do it but I want to just warn the board not just for the cost for the public guardian but to buy more beds.
Some of its Medi-Cal some of its general fund and so some of our precious discretionary revenue will be going to this as it is a mandate in some counties are investigating with the state that this is an unfunded mandate, and so hopefully we'll get some relief. And we appreciate Lynn Gibbs trying to do her part to help the state legislation get crafted in that way but unfortunately it's what it is today. So just a reminder, this sort of gets first taken of any available revenue.
Okay well since the department took a little bit of a hit today I would like to just I'll just relay a little. I had some interaction with Arlene's office this week, where we had a constituent that suffered from mental illness. The family was concerned. Went and did a wellness check and assessment. And he was in really bad shape to the point where after the assessment, which I think happened within an hour or two hours of the phone call, he was taken to the hospital He was stabilized, blood sugars off the chart, all types of things. And now he is being moved to Santa Barbara into a skilled nursing facility so your team saves lives and really helps those who can't help themselves so that's why we're all here.
I know not every case turns out that way but that one did and we appreciate it so thank you. All right, so we will now, we have receiving file So do we need a A and B? Okay. Let's get a motion on A and B.
Move A and D in staff recommendation.
I second.
Roll call.
Roll-call vote Passed 4–0 Move A and D in staff recommendation. I second. Roll call.
Show transcript
Motion passes unanimously.
Okay, we're now going to be recessing to closed session. County Council could you please read the items for consideration today?
2:11 – 2:135 turns
Thank You Mr. Chair and members of the board. The board is scheduled to meet in closed session on two items. First is conference with labor negotiators for all bargaining units, unrepresented employees managers and executives. We no longer need to meet on this item so there's just one item of existing litigation John Andrew Poe Lesney versus the county as the Santa Barbara Superior Court case and the time estimates 15 minutes
Okay. We'll be back 1145-ish, okay? Okay, we're reconvening the meeting of August 20th, 2024. County Council, could you please report out from closed session?
Thank you Mr. Chair. The board met in closed session on two items, conference with labor negotiators for all bargaining units, unrepresented employees, managers and executives, and one case of existing litigation, Podlesny versus the county, and the board took no reportable action.
Okay, so we are adjourned Tuesday, August 27th in Santa Maria.
Yeah.