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.0:01 – 0:068 turns
Good morning everybody. It's my pleasure to call to order this meeting of June 3rd, 2025 of the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors. Madam Clerk please call the roll.
Roll call, called by Clerk of the Board
Show transcript
Okay, first up is the approval of the minutes. May I get a motion please? Move approval. Second. All right we have a motion to second all those in favor please say aye. Aye.
Abstain.
Okay so we have four ayes and one abstention CEO's report, Madam CEO.
Good morning Chair Kaps and board members this morning I am pleased to share with you another video from our county's 175th anniversary series it features videos that highlight the history of Santa Barbara County and are played on channel 20 throughout the week and are highlighted in our monthly county newsletter on CSB TV YouTube page and on our social media channels in both English and Spanish. This morning's video highlights the origin of the county of Santa Barbara how the boundary lines were created and how the name came to be So let's watch.
Welcome to Santa Barbara County, a place with immense natural beauty and rich history founded in 1850 as one of California's original counties. Join us as we acknowledge the 175th anniversary of the county of Santa Barbara. In this video, we focus on the origin of the County of Santa Barbara. How the county boundary lines were determined and how the boundary lines have changed since. Plus, the story behind the county's name.
The origin of the name of Santa Barbara County actually dates back to 1602, believe it or not. The exploratory expedition of Sebastian Vizcaíno. He was tasked by the viceroy of Mexico to explore the coast of Ulta California So Vizcaíno was traveling up the Santa Barbara Channel on December 4th, which was the feast day of St. Barbara. Hence he named this general area The Channel after St. Barbara. St. Barbara was a young woman who had lived in Asia Minor during the third century. At that time Christianity was outlawed in that area. Her father built a tower for her but when he went on a trip unbeknownst to him She had converted to Christianity. And so had a third window installed in the tower to represent the Holy Trinity. She was discovered by the local authorities and the authorities condemned her to death, and it was actually her father who executed her.
Right after the execution he was struck by lightning even though it is said that the skies were clear that day. She had been martyred for her faith. Her feast day was December 4th hence the name of the channel Santa Barbara. For most of the history of the county, I would say the population center was here in the general Santa Barbara area and there's any number of reasons for that. One, the Presidio was founded here in Santa Barbara then four years later you had the founding of Mission Santa Barbara And so the colonists would naturally be congregating in sort of this area.
California had been ceded to the United States in the aftermath of the Mexican-American War and the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. As the Constitution was being worked out, the organs of civil government were also being organized. A committee was established to split California into counties and to name them. And after some changes, the original 27 counties of California were established by the legislature in February of 1850. The original Santa Barbara County also included today's Ventura County. You have to remember this was way before the automobiles So if you were living in the Ventura area and had to get up to the county seat of Santa Barbara to do county business, it was really difficult. The only two roads were the Casitas Pass Road which could be at least torturous and then you had the road along the coast which oftentimes was flooded out by either storms, high tides, rock slides etc.
It took roughly even under good conditions about six hours to get from Ventura to Santa Barbara So he had this growing agitation that maybe, you know a new county was called for. In early 1872 the assembly of the legislature passed to have a new county formed which we know today as Ventura County and it officially came into existence in January of 1873
Santa Barbara County is not unique in being divided to form new counties. In fact, over the past 175 years of California's history the number of counties has more than doubled growing from the original 27 to the current 58.
0:06 – 0:094 turns
If you could once again thank our communications manager Kelsey Butita for that. That concludes my report.
That's amazing. I think we should get that out to the schools. Awesome. Okay, Madam Clerk are there any announcements or changes to the agenda please?
Chair Capsa and members of the board I do have a few announcements this morning. Administrative item number eight, there is a salary announcement for administrative item number eight. It is from the Behavioral Wellness Department regarding contractor on payroll services agreement renewals for Fred Burge MD, Mohamed Salman Alhaq MD and John Ancy Annis MD for fiscal year 2025 through 2026. Prior to the board taking action on this item government code section 54953 subdivision C3 The Brown Act requires a legislative body to orally report a summary of the recommendation for final action on the salary schedule, or compensation paid in the form of fringe benefits of a local agency executive as defined in Government Code Section 3511.1 Subdivision D during the open meeting in which the final action is taken.
And during Administrative Item No. 8, the Board has agendized to execute agreements for services of contractors on payroll Dr. Burge's total contract compensation for the period of July 1st, 2025 to June 30th, 2026 is in an amount not to exceed $154,000. And lastly, Dr. Anna's total contract compensation for the period of July 1st 2025 to June 30th 2026 is in the amount not to exceed $30,000.
And lastly for the Board of Supervisors methods of public participation and to provide public comment on general public comment or an item on the board's agenda please see page two of the agenda individuals that would like to provide verbal public comment may do so via zoom by registering in advance via the link available on page 2 if you have any questions please contact the clerk of the board's office At area code 805-568-2240 again that number is 805-568-2240 and that concludes my announcements for today.
Thank you Madam Clerk now we'll move to the administrative agenda any board members have pulled any items I have a couple already A19 pulled by Supervisor Nelson, A25 and A29 pulled by myself. Any others? Nope, okay. Madam Clerk any members of the public have requested to pull these items?
0:09 – 0:144 turns
Chair Kaps and members of the board we have one request to speak from the public on A3.
Excellent all right so now I will entertain a motion to approve the balance of the administrative agenda except for that the items I just mentioned A3, A19, A25 and A29. So moved. Second. Okay, all those in favor please say aye. Aye. Motion carries. All right let's go to our resolutions please Madam Clerk
Chair Caps and members of the Board, Administrative Item number one is sponsored by Supervisor Caps. It is to adopt a resolution of commendation honoring Yanaris Munoz as the June 2025 Employee of the Month for Santa Barbara County and if Yanaris can please join us at the podium? And anyone else that you would like to join you now go ahead and read the resolution into the record.
Whereas Yaneiros Munoz exemplifies the county's organizational values of accountability, customer focus, equity and inclusion, innovation, trust and ethics. And whereas Yaneiros Munoz 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, Yanaris joined the Behavioral Wellness Department in 2012 before being swooped up to the Office of Emergency Management in 2019 following her leadership in the Joint Information Center for multiple disasters including the Refugio Oil Spill, Thomas Fire and the 1-9 Debris Flow. During these events, Yanaris worked to ensure that emergency alerts and public information were accurate, timely and in both English and Spanish.
She worked with county partners to create the unique mass alerting generator, MAG, to support bilingual alerting moving forward. And whereas once with the Office of Emergency Management, Ineres took it upon herself to become a leading expert in emergency alert and warning practices, policies and systems, leading a transformation of the county's alerting practices with enhanced policies based on national best practices and lessons learned. Customer focused training prescripting dozens of bilingual emergency alerts and constant collaboration with private, local, state and federal partners.
And whereas Yanaris has led the development and upcoming implementation of Genesee's EVAC, the biggest change in community disaster information sharing Santa Barbara County has implemented since 2015. Project leadership included the coordination of 20 agencies to review and develop over 1400 data points. She is providing training to over 500 public safety staff to prepare for the launch of the newly developed 535 emergency zones. Now therefore, be it hereby ordered and resolved that this Board of Supervisors recognizes Ineris Munoz as the Employee of the Month for June 2025. Passed and adopted today.
Thank you so much. I am sincerely grateful and moved by this honor. A couple of folks reached out to me once they learned that I was selected for Employee of the Month, gave me a couple of tips to take my time and to Just share a little bit about me and what I value including being bestowed with this honor. It's been an amazing journey, 13 years with Santa Barbara County. I think some of you know that I started with behavioral wellness with the psychiatric health facility.
I learned a lot but what it means to serve our most vulnerable populations and the individuals that tend to be the most impacted during emergencies and translating that to the Office of Emergency Management. In this journey in serving our community, I've learned that public service is baked into my DNA. I love what I do and that's why I continue to stay committed to this work but I am shaped by the people who have supported me along the way. I actually still remember my first emergency was the refugio oil spill One of my first tasks was developing a press release and they told me to walk it over to the CEO, and I didn't know who the CEO was.
And then that's when I encountered CEO Miyasato. But to come from that point to being the administrator for the alert and warning system for Santa Barbara County And now supporting the implementation of Genesis and working with so many different agencies, stakeholders. It's been an absolute honor. Absolute honor. There are many people here as well as remotely who are watching and I want to thank them because they have shaped me into the professional I am.
have helped me understand what it means to be a public servant. And I've encountered so many folks along the way, and it's a testament that many folks from all over the county, all over the departments reached out to say thanks. It's great to see this acknowledgement. So thank you again. I also want to give a special thanks to the Office of Emergency Management team.
They're my ride or die. They've been with me through thick and thin, and I would not be here without them. Thank you.
0:14 – 0:218 turns
And I know we have the director of that office, Director Kelly Hubbard on Zoom hoping to weigh in here.
Yeah,
there
we
go. Thank you chair caps I just wanted to emphasize nurses work on this project for Genesis is just 1 of many things she's done that's amazing for our county but Genesis is probably 1 of the largest changes in our. Communication path to our residents during emergencies since ever bridge, which was about 15 years ago. So it's a pretty big change in how we provide information to our community hopefully and massive improvement and I think what the biggest consideration in this is she got every single public safety agency in our county to work together on this including our state and federal partners who have joined in.
And I just wanted to share one quote from one of our agencies who said, sent a very grateful email after her training last week and she said. She was particularly grateful that the city fire and sheriff came together for the exercise. And that while the three agencies may have started off a little rocky during the exercise, they had good relationships but we ended each session with smiles and most importantly, a renewed sense of mutual respect and teamwork. And I think that quote is just reflective of what Unaris was able to do through this project to bring our entire county closer together for future disaster response so thank you.
Congratulations. We'll move on to the next administrative item, please.
Chair Caps and members of the Board, Administrative Item Number 2 is sponsored by Supervisor Caps. It is to adopt a resolution in recognition and appreciation of Celesta M. Bileci's distinguished service to the University of California at Santa Barbara's arts and lectures in Santa Barbara County. And joining us in person today we have Celesta Bileci. I will go ahead and read the resolution.
Whereas Celeste has served with distinction as the Miller-McCune Executive Director of UC Santa Barbara's Arts and Lectures for 25 seasons, leading with extraordinary vision, commitment and passion that has profoundly enriched our community. And whereas throughout Mrs. Bileci's tenure, Arts and Lectures has grown into a dynamic and internationally acclaimed cultural powerhouse bringing global performances and programs to the Santa Barbara community. And whereas she has transformed the cultural landscape through her tireless efforts to present world-class artists, leaders and innovators to our community. And put Santa Barbara on the map as a vital hub for the performing arts and public dialogue. And whereas Mrs. Bileci's deep belief in the power of arts and thought provoking conversations has earned her the admiration and respect of colleagues, artists, patrons and residents alike.
And her warm and engaging style transforms her audience into a community. And whereas as Miss Bileci steps down from her esteemed position, she leaves behind a legacy at Arts and Lectures. An organization that is thriving, resilient, inclusive and poised to continue its mission well into the future. Now therefore be it hereby ordered and resolved that this Board of Supervisors of County of Santa Barbara does hereby commend Celestia M. Bileci for her outstanding leadership and her unwavering dedication to elevating the arts and ideas within our Santa Barbara community. The board extends its sincere appreciation for her 25 years of distinguished service, passed and adopted today.
Thank you so much I was very surprised when Laura offered this again because I felt like I was just in front of you last October, getting the leadership award up in Santa Maria so I'm very touched by the county board of supervisors to receive this resolution and When I was up in Santa Maria last fall, that was before I announced I was retiring. So for me this is very special to be in front of the five of you because I announced I was retiring the week after I was there and here now I'm at the very end and within two weeks of this and I do want to say how much I love Santa Barbara County. I am not leaving. I will be here. I'll be sitting with you in the hall I do want to thank and acknowledge some people before I step back though.
There she is, Elyse right there who's our Director of Development. But also the community Santa Barbara is amazing we couldn't do what we did with Arts and Lectures if people didn't come so folks have come out all over the years and we try to do lots of different things I want to start by saying thank you to all of our donors. The access for all mantra that arts and lectures has adopted. That's really what we're about, access for all so that everybody can sit at the table to enjoy the arts and that has been really what I've been trying to push forward over the last 25 years and I'm really proud of should be endowed hopefully by the time I leave here at the end of June. And that was been something I'd really committed to over the last year.
But I wanna thank the university also for their support and what we've done for students, my husband and son who I adore John and Alexander who could not be here today. My son is on that Dos Pueblos incredible baseball varsity team that does rocking it and we play for the state tonight. So they're doing that and I really wanna thank Sarah Miller-McCune I carry the name Miller McCune, Executive Director. You all know how great Sarah has been to the County of Santa Barbara and the things that she does. She couldn't be here this morning so I just want to acknowledge that one person who's done so much for Santa Barbara. So thank you Sarah Miller-McCune and I want to thank Laura. I want to thank Laura Capps because she has been a great friend to arts and lectures and I want to thank you Laura.
Thank you so much for being a friend to me and to the program and I know that you will be there always Thank you Board of Supervisors and thank you for the support you give the program and helping us make the arts accessible to everybody in our county. Thank you.
0:21 – 0:273 turns
I wanted to just add Celeste is sort of a one name person in this town, right? She just everyone knows Celeste and the 25 year you said Santa Barbara is amazing. And you're right but you have and your team have made it more amazing by the culture by the enrichment by the way in which you've strengthened the fabric of Santa Barbara. But the thing I like most about you as you'll be up there at that packed house in Arlington or wherever it might be with some incredibly famous renowned person and you're just real. You're just Who you are and it helps create this environment that we're all just having a conversation. And we're all just in it together and not this sort of famous person, an audience but you really create that bond so we're going to miss you but I know you're going to be around and congratulations to your son and thank you for being here.
Okay thank you will move on to administrative item number three.
Chair Kaps and members of the board, administrative item number three is sponsored by Supervisor Lee. It is to adopt a resolution of commendation honoring Jody Thomas upon her retirement as the Carpinteria City Librarian. And joining us in person today we have Jody Thomas and I will go ahead and read the resolution. Whereas Jody Thomas has served as an extraordinary city librarian and community leader, blending her personal passion with professional excellence. Sparkling as a beacon of public service rooted in compassion, accessibility, and inspiration. Offering every patron her time, her insight, and often the perfect book recommendation. And whereas with more than two decades of experience in library systems including the Montecito Library Santa Barbara Public Library and the California State Library, Jody brought unmatched knowledge of library operations policy programming and staffing while also serving as the leading voice on national issue issues such as banned books digital equity LGBTQ plus inclusion and literacy access.
And whereas Jodi was instrumental in guiding the historic transition of the Carpentria Library from a Santa Barbara County branch to a city-managed community library. Under her tutelage, the library tripled usage, increased circulation and evolved into a modern civic hub filled with books, digital resources, computer access and vibrant programming for all ages.
And whereas her career has been marked by an unwavering commitment to social justice exemplified by increased Spanish language and digital literacy programs, elevating and emphasizing marginalized voices with the CARP Reads program, and uplifting and amplifying diverse voices both on the shelves and in the halls of the library. Ensuring that every visitor from shy children to isolated seniors feel seen and supported. And whereas Jody's signature warmth, quick laugh, steady presence and sincere kindness traits grounded in her broad experience and values have made the Carpentry Library a place where all feel welcome safe and connected. Her thoughtful leadership has earned the admiration of staff the gratitude of the public and countless well-deserved halos for Jody Now therefore be it hereby resolved that the Board of Supervisors of the County of Santa Barbara does honor and commend Jody Thomas upon her retirement for her outstanding leadership, profound impact on the Carpinteria community and her enduring legacy of service and learning passed and adopted today.
Good morning Madam Chair and members of the board, especially Supervisor Lee. I'm so honored and privileged to work for public libraries throughout my career and at the state level locally and at the state level. The Free Public Library is arguably one of the most American of institutions Libraries, public libraries in America address community needs in real time. They support vulnerable populations.
They combat isolation and what is being called a loneliness epidemic. They provide resources and exposure to early literacy. They respond to crises They bridge the digital equity gap by navigating online forms and applications, teaching people how to use those devices and helping people avoid scams and frauds in particularly seniors. And they provide access to lifelong learning and enrichment as you are well aware.
Studies have shown that for every dollar invested in libraries, between $2 and $10 in direct and indirect benefits is created. A 50 to 500% return on investment. I ask you now to fund public libraries with dedicated funding. What we see nationally is the libraries that are most successful have dedicated funding like fire protection districts and water districts.
Libraries shouldn't have to fundraise to provide services. So this is my last call out as my role as a librarian here and I would be remiss if I didn't make the request. I'm very passionate about public libraries, I think they serve you and the community well. We are your social justice arm of government And I want to end here by thanking you all for your service and what you do and the impact that you make for all of us in the county.
And thank you for this honor.
0:27 – 0:299 turns
And before we go to Supervisor Lee, I know that our former supervisor Gail Marshall requested to speak
Yes, Chair Kaps and members of the board we have one request to speak on this item and that is former Supervisor Gail Marshall. Gail? Welcome
Good morning Madam Chair members of the board it's an honor to be here to support Jody this morning She is the very essence of a modern-day librarian And this is a parody that three of us did for her at a retirement party last night I'm not going to do it again although It was great Our modern-day Carpinteria librarian Jodi is a scholar, a mental health professional, a social services rep, an inspiration partner, plumber.
She's funny, welcoming, a visionary and as an aside she managed the budget and ran a library without enough space or staff. Jodi made our new community library into the place that most Carpenterians feel is the center of the universe We will miss her a lot. We were so fortunate to have her as our first Carpinteria community librarian, so we will not focus on our loss but our extreme good fortune to have partnered with her for three years.
We're wishing her the very best in her retirement. Now, as a post-grip I would be remiss. In general the modern day librarian in Santa Barbara County does more and more with less and less while our communities continue to regard the library as essential in the same category as street repair and public safety. As a board you are preparing to finalize the 2526 budget please keep libraries in mind thank you
Supervisor Lee.
Julie, I just want to say thank you for everything you have done. You have been an inspiration, a role model, a gem to our community. You have taken our library to what it is today, the center of town, the foundation of what we Carpinterians love everything so thank you for all you do. I'm very happy for you and Doug and your whole
family here.
So I'll see you around town and thank you.
Thank you so much. Okay.
Now we will move, I believe that's the end of the resolutions and we will move to the administrative items that have been pulled by the board.
0:29 – 0:4021 turns
Chair Caps and members of the board, Administrative Item 19 is from the County Health Department is to consider and approve the adoption second reading of an ordinance amending fees for environmental health services related to solid waste.
Supervisor Nelson.
Yes, thank you Chair Kaps. I was just looking for a roll call vote so I could be consistent with my earlier position on this item.
Thank you. Sounds good. No discussion let's just have a roll call vote please. Oh yeah thank you.
I'll second.
Okay
Roll-call vote Passed 3–1 · 1 under review
Show transcript
Motion passes 3-1-1
Okay. When we're ready,
we'll move to the next administrative item. I believe it's 25.
Chair Kaps and members of the board, Administrative Item Number 25 is from the Fire Department. It is to consider recommendations regarding an independent contractor agreement with Southwest Strategies LLC for development of community education and outreach products.
Thank you Chief for being here. I know Director Hubbard is remote but I pulled this just because as I have a background in these outreach campaigns, I understand how incredibly important outreach is especially getting people to sign up for ReadySBC especially Barbara County Board of Supervisors meeting
Thank you Chair Kaps. I do have Stacy here and Kelly is actually not remote, she's on vacation. As the director of OEM, I like to tell her when we have blue skies she needs to take her vacations or maybe drizzly skies. She would love to jump on and help out and I'm going to tell her unless we really need her. What I've done is I've gone back and looked at the procurement process specifically, and then maybe Stacy can address the deliverables on the project and how we're now adding another project to the originally bid agreement. So it was a competitively bid project that was put out late last year And then we had two bidders on the project and then they were scored with a panel.
And the points were totaled and then the award was given to Southwest Strategies just based on a multidisciplinary panel, not just the county of course in this case it was a collection of cities and the county as well because of the outreach as you mentioned.
And just in terms of, I guess deliverables and maybe Ms. Silva can speak to that but I know our one of the one of the objectives is to get people connected to our emergency services which we just honored the staff person who helps work with that so and our rates are you know we have a lot of room for improvement but could you speak to the deliverables of this project?
Thank you Chair Kaps, members of the board. Yes first I do want to address that none of our proposals came from a local firm so although it was put out the proposals that we did receive the one that was selected is out of California but we did not receive any local proposals for this effort The deliverables for this started out with a train the trainer. We know that individuals within our communities that are disproportionately impacted by disasters have trusted partners that they tend to go to.
And we wanted to tap into that resource and figure out how we better leverage those existing relationships in order to improve our resilience throughout the county by getting those individuals to be better prepared, and having them register for alerts. And getting information that will enhance their capability withstand events of disasters. So that's where this, this initially came from and that includes some outreach specific listening sessions that they've done within targeted communities including bilingual listening sessions in Santa Maria, Quiama mid-county in the Lompoc and San Ynez Valley and then also in the South County so those listening sessions were conducted including There were specific invitations to organizations serving those populations within our communities.
Additionally, there was a Spanish and mixed echo session that was held in the North County as well trying to ensure that we gain a better understanding of what it is that our community actually needs in our messaging in order for them to take action so outreach materials, making sure that the feedback that we receive as to what information they need and what's going to make them take action is actually put into the materials that we develop.
And so that is the other component and I believe you may recall we launched some AM radio stations this also includes developing messages for those radio stations And the addition, which brings us before you today. As you're aware we are getting ready to launch Genesis EVAC as a countywide platform and with that there's going to be a requirement to educate our community on how to utilize that system, how to get to know and become familiar with it and so this additional project that we've added to this, again that brings us here today is to provide public service announcements around the Genesis platform so that our community knows how to engage with it and what the benefit is to all of them.
Provide those public service announcements in both Spanish and Mixteco that will be played on the radio station. We know that that is most common how they get their information. And then of course developing the designs and the graphics to promote the use of Genesys throughout our community.
And on that, thank you for that explanation it's helpful is are there metrics of you know we're in the deliverables I didn't see it in the materials that were presented but are they on the hook to get us to X number of enrollment in these services? I would suggest that they should be With that amount of $275,000.
Yeah chair caps members of the board that's definitely something that we can look at with them. The focus is really building that resilience within our community which does include ready SBC And we do set a metrics for that every year. So I will circle back with our team and with our PIO Jackie Ruiz who's also on vacation, and we'll figure out what that metrics is and how we can inform all of you and continue to report on our achievement towards that.
Okay, and I'll go to Supervisor Harmon soon but I just want to make a broader point as with department heads here. I know it's impossible to get absolute coordination but I see so many kind of outreach campaigns we should be doing outreach where our whole goal is to serve the public engage the public but I feel as though when these come across in the form of contracts It's kind of too late for us to have much influence over them and say are you working with, I mean for example B-Well does a lot with the mixed eco community already. They're working with Promotoras.
Is this coordinated through Kelsey who has such a talent in how to do these campaigns as we witness all the time? So I just want I just want to make a quick comment on this. I know that the board has put out a plea that there could be more coordination so that a new firm you know not local doesn't have to sort of start from scratch every single time and do these listening sessions You charge for excess when you're a consultant and we can really, I think streamline and get some of these costs down. So I would always want to look at a contract if you ever gave me the time in advance to do so because again, I just come from that background of having done these kind of things myself.
Chair, that's a good suggestion and Kelsey does have a public information team pit crew that meets. And so I think putting this on the agenda for future meetings so that's where they would coordinate and let people know hey heads up we have these needs And then they could better coordinate within the county. That would be a great, that's a good suggestion. Yeah because it
could be honestly happening at the same time focus groups with same community that we're, I mean these communities are hard to reach so when we do reach them we could potentially be double dipping on a few different messages to try to engage and then A, that costs less money and B, it's more effective for the people that we're trying to reach. Okay point made Supervisor Hartman?
Okay. All right. Supervisor Nelson?
Yes, thank you Chair Kapsen. I was just going to reiterate what Chair Kapsen said. You know social services and public health have done a lot of work in these areas as well. SYNCAL Health others so it just seems that we should be piggybacking on them wherever possible and Don't know if we could just make sure that there's an addendum on this contract for some deliverables so that we can actually hit some targets. They're kind of breeze through the proposal and saw that there was definitely some room for some additions there, and so I hope that we can hold the contractor accountable to doing those things.
And then my other question would be when we have these proposals. You know, getting to Chair Kaps' concern about locals. Where does the local contractor find this RFP? You know when we publicize it I mean where are do we have a portal countywide that people are looking at? Do all departments feed into? a fire department emergency services question or maybe a broader county question. I don't know if CEO might be able to help us with that too, but is there a really easy place for people look on the county website to see RFPs that go out you know on a regular basis?
General Services just happens to be in the audience for another item so why don't we have them answer the question
0:41 – 0:437 turns
Supervisor Nelson through the chair just from the procurement standpoint we do have public purchase which is a countywide website vendors register and we do have it on our website under the procurement page on how to register and you know then you get access to all of the solicitations countywide.
Registering sometime might be a barrier of entry. Is there is it available just to be up there publicly, the list of proposals you have to get become a member first?
You do have to register as a vendor but then and you do select like Santa Barbara County you can select different commodity codes And then you do get notifications of solicitations once they're posted
yes Might be nice to find a way to get it out there kind of beyond that wall a little bit to make sure it's more public facing just so you know somebody may not want to go through the vendor process and might be concerned about that initially but if we're trying to remove barriers so that people can maybe want to become a vendor in the future, that might be a way to sort of then understand a little bit better what the county may or may not be offering out there as far as RFP is concerned. I know in my questions about this item only two firms responded Which seems very small for you know, a pretty generous contract here at public funds. So you know I would hope in the future we saw lots of competition because that hopefully drives prices down and better quality and so getting that out there more you know because it you know I've been here for Quite a few years now and I don't even know where to find that.
So, you know, and I'm one of these people up here that's supposed to be making some of these decisions so if I can't find it, I'm guessing a lot of other people can either. And so trying to make that a little bit more forward facing on that probably goes to my longtime grievance with our website in general but maybe there's some other ways to get this accomplished so that more and more vendors especially local vendors can find these materials. Thank you.
Okay, well I don't mind supporting this with those questions. Thanks for answering some of them and I hope just again going forward we can put an emphasis on local and put an emphasis on coordination so with that I will move to support staff recommendation.
And I'll second it.
Okay all those in favor? Aye. Motion carries next administrative item please
0:43 – 0:4810 turns
Chair Kapsa, members of the board. Administrative item number 29 is from the General Services Department. It is to consider recommendations regarding updates the county environmentally preferable procurement EPP policy and practices.
Thank you. Yeah, I pulled this one as well. I had an interest and I appreciate that this is moving forward and now we've become will become policy. We haven't updated the procurement policy since I think 2017 maybe Director Lagerquist can you just speak a little bit more to what we're changing how this came about the engagement? What were what we're accomplishing here today with this new policy?
Chair Capps, absolutely. So yeah the EPPP is the Environmentally Preferable Purchasing Practices Policy it's been around since 2017 you know a lot of folks didn't even know it existed and so you know we wanted to update it put a little more teeth behind it and encourage more you know green environmental purchasing of materials things that we purchase less packaging And then other type of environmental stuff that we buy, so more greening if you will.
Thank you, and I know I went and spoke to those across departments who do procurement about this. And so I understand that there is a network of information but how are they utilizing this new policy? And what's the plan to make sure that the people who are actually making big purchases know that this is the new policy?
Absolutely yeah we're looking at a getting the word out there through we're working with Kelsey as well to get this out to all the departments so they're aware of the policy. We do annual training with all the different departments through our procurement division and train them on you know different practices and this will certainly be one of those topics
Okay. And are there any, you said more teeth? Can you speak to that? I know the previous policy was just sort of a lot of, you know, you shall it's encouraged to, you know, for example by, you know, recycled paper when you're purchasing reams and reams of paper what's the, what's the teeth can you give an example of any new progress that we're making on really requiring
I mean it's not required. You know one of the items in the policy is like setting our printers to print double-sided, you know safe paper so you know our standard for purchasing paper like through Staples is 30% recycled content so you would have to select something different if you wanted You know, non-recycled. So you know just those types of requirements.
So that's preset for that example? Correct. Okay I mean this came up also too I think when we had the Tejiguas conversation about expanding it and then I wanted to ask more about what is our footprint how much waste are we producing on a regular basis so this really is an extension of that conversation I'm going to just pick on one thing to be a little nitpicky, but one of the examples was that we have a party pack in the county when people departments have you know office parties which is a great thing.
I don't think that's actually working. We tried it in our office so I just want to make sure that when we promote things that we think are good that they're actually exist and that we're not just kind of doing the easy route and going down and buying a bunch I know that's a small example. We make a lot of huge purchases, tens of thousands of dollars of things on a regular basis so again I just stand by to help to get the word out to those who are making these kind of decisions again with taxpayer dollars buying things that a lot of which end up in landfills our own landfill.
Okay well that was my concerns, I just wanted to call that out. With that I can make a motion to accept staff recommendation.
Second.
Okay all those in favor? Aye. Thank you. That wraps us up on the administrative items today and when you're ready Madam Clerk we'll move to general public comment
0:48 – 0:5822 turns
Chair Kaps and members of the board, we have four requests to speak from the public on general public comment today. We are going to begin here in Santa Barbara with Liam Gallo to be followed by Leon Martindale. Liam?
Good morning everybody I'm following up on a representation from my colleagues on May 6th last, on that last site Board of Supervisors meeting. My name is Liam Gallo. I work with the Northern Santa Barbara County United Way. I've been a program director for their AmeriCorps program for a few years. I've been working on it for a total of five. It has existed in the county for nine.
I'm reminding everyone that on April 25th $400 million in AmeriCorps grants were illegally cut A multi-state lawsuit is in progress. I think that news was delivered to you all back in May. That is still, we haven't gotten any updates on that yet. We were hoping for a quick preliminary injunction to restore the funding. We haven't gotten that yet so our AmeriCorps members in the county are still in limbo.
As a reminder to folks our local AmeriCorps program serves people experiencing homelessness My favorite thing about this program is that we were able to allocate federal dollars to our local jurisdiction here. So, we've been taking $675,000 of federal money and applying it locally. That was a decision made nine years ago because of gaps in homeless services and the payout has been huge for our county. There have been AmeriCorps members operating in every one of your districts.
The chaos has generated some positives. For me personally, I've been galvanized in this work and so I know that it needs to continue and I've been looking for ways to have it persist even if the federal government won't back us. Our partners have recommitted to us in spite of the chaos They've asked us how they can help. We've had funders come out to support our AmeriCorps members who are in limbo. The Santa Barbara Foundation has come and given us emergency funding to bridge their stipends while the lawsuit is in progress.
And we've had interest relayed to us in a local service core. So this is something that I'm going to be pursuing and workshopping and presenting to you all again, regardless of the findings of the lawsuit because it's clear that we need some sort of layer of support for our county in the case of the federal government changes its feelings about community service and its place in the funding scheme.
I also wanted to highlight the achievements of Ariana McDonald. She was accepted into law school using her AmeriCorps service and her education award at UCI. Gabriella Rigonotti got accepted into a graduate program at the Global Studies Department at UCSB. Melissa Horton was accepted into a School of Business at Pepperdine. All these people leveraged their AmeriCorps service experience clarify what they wanted to do with their life and they chose a life of service. That's what we are, we're a way for people to tease out a center part of their being that is committed to public service give them a bunch of skills, a living stipend an education award give him a leg up into the next thing to serve locally. And thank you also to Steve and Laura who have been champions of our program in the past thank you.
Supervisor Camps?
Yeah supervisor Lavanieux
And Liam, I just want you to know and this might be a good time to bring this up. I mean, I appreciate the Santa Barbara Foundation stepping up in a major way because I know it is also North County that's also affected so I do appreciate Santa Barbara Foundation moving in there. Supervisor Nelson and myself have also pledged some money out of our 990 accounts to try to help backfill some of the stipends that have Yes, but I am putting a challenge out to we'll do it publicly here that if anybody else would like to join in on that. I think it sends a good message to our I was going to say federal partners, but I will say our federal government You know, while we can't backfill everything that they're cutting, to me this is the most ridiculous program to attack.
It's people donating their time, volunteering in the community on some of our toughest challenges which is helping homeless and our veterans. It just makes no sense to me. So while it's a small amount of money, we hope it's symbolic of our unity together in this venture and if anybody else on the dais has anything left in their 990 account that I think it's great place to join together and I think it would send a strong message. Thank you.
Supervisor Hartman?
I had a question for you, Liam. I'm really intrigued by the idea of a local core and I wonder if you could expand upon that and are there other examples of that in the country?
Sure, so a classic example is up in Stockton. They developed the Service Corps because there were so many different impact areas that they wanted to reach in community they couldn't decide on a single one and there was limited amount of AmeriCorps dollars to pursue and so a coordinating body Stockton Service Corps was generated Give capacity for smaller organizations that we're looking for, say AmeriCorps members to tutor in their schools to apply. So the application to the federal government for AmeriCorps dollars is complicated. I have learned that the hard way it has taken me years to even get the surface level understanding so a localized service court in Santa Barbara County would look like Us, of course supporting the homeless services effort but in the case that there was a desire for disaster response to have capacity built for OEM we can place AmeriCorps members there who activate in certain moments.
People that want AmeriCorps members who are doing conservation work. We could build capacity in that way where we're able to give them that leg up. A service corps also has a bunch of other it's too much to explain I can get a package to you
Yeah, yeah. Let's meet about this because I'm very interested in what we can do from up here to help bring partners together for this. I think it's a great idea.
Wow! Thanks Joan. It's a lot of people that are interested. I'm really excited. I'll get you something.
And I'll just before you go, I'll jump on the bandwagon. Thanks for setting out the challenge happy to do that. I was thinking along those lines as well. Can you also just speak? I know I'm very familiar with the California Volunteers Program. I know that it works closely with AmeriCorps but we do have in our state a robust program as well. Are there funds that is there any opportunity there? I know the states making huge cuts as well so I just am curious how that works briefly and then we can meet further to discuss it.
What an alley-oop, Laura. So yes I am in conversation with California Volunteers. Those who don't know that's the state commission that helps programs in the State of California. An application goes to them and they become the prime applicant to the federal government for funding so they are another layer of support. They have asked us to do the service core. So they have helped start up the Stockton Service Corps to build that support in that region, they're looking at us for Santa Barbara County and maybe regionally just the central coast so that we are in collaboration with them and to the other implied part of your question, they are interested in committing funding too. So we'd be looking at matches at several levels state maybe county and maybe the cities as well.
Okay, great. And just for reference our installation speaker two years ago was Josh Friday the head of California Volunteers so there's definitely a connection and I know you have it already. I've seen him here at your events so...
Are you talking about Josh?
Yeah.
Oh yeah he's rad.
Great okay Supervisor Nelson.
Yeah I was gonna try to give you an alley-oop one who runs the volunteer course but uh there's also the California Conservation Corps have you guys been able to tap into that as all is that
Everybody is under threat. So the Conservation Corps, the American Red Cross had statewide AmeriCorps programs that serviced our county. They got cut. What we would be looking to do with a localized service corps is anybody who got affected by cuts now, we build capacity for them in the future. This seems to happen in an ebb and flow politically where AmeriCorps gets under the gun and then we have to activate into an advocacy mode I didn't have that skill set. I had to build it on the fly and so having that in a service core existing, in the case of this happens again because it will, I'm shocked by it. I shouldn't be shocked by it, I should be prepared for it.
We need a service core to advocate on behalf of smaller programs that just don't have capacity to like do policy analysis Why am I having to read a termination notice and find the loopholes within which I can still provide support to people who have living stipends that they use to pay rent? Smaller programs shouldn't have to do that if Service Corps could help us solve that issue.
Well I think it's probably right for us to have an item on this just, I know we're probably going a little far afield for public comment but there's an interest in all of our parts about service. You know I think it's the exact opposite the whole means test conversations happening at the national and state level. It's you know it's means first funding second and so you know or at least contributing having some work piece to it. So it's something I think we're all motivated because I think is a great bang for buck as well as for community. So you know something I'd like to hear from more in the future maybe I'm going to go ahead and turn it over to our next speaker. Thank you so much for your time. And we'll see if a board member or two can try to put together an item that we talk about this more robustly in the future.
Awesome. Part of my gap in this work is I didn't know how to agendize something, so here I am in the public comment taking up your time. We'll
do it. Okay.
Thanks everyone.
0:58 – 1:044 turns
Hello Chair Caps and members of the board. I'm going to follow up on, I'm the co-director with Liam for the AmeriCorps program and I'm going to follow up on some of the comments I made on May 6th. Currently we're awaiting a result as Liam said of the 25 state lawsuit. We are hoping for an injunction But we're still, as Liam mentioned, we're still in limbo awaiting that. And so the problem is that because of this action that was taken on April 25th many programs it left in its wake, the closure of many essential programs across the state and across the nation.
We have been able to... make our members volunteers under United Way, and we've managed to still support them with stipends. Santa Barbara Foundation stepped in for an emergency fund, and we're looking at other funders, and We have reserves that United Way but we can't continue just on the reserves that we have so And all of the members, even they said I might have to take another job but they all wanted to stay as volunteers.
The dedication of the members is really amazing. We live in paradise. Homelessness as you all are aware is one of our major issues here in Santa Barbara County and in Santa Barbara City. And this is after a week break, just in May I wanted to give you some metrics and some stats of what we've been able to achieve again this is only what we've done In-house at United Way, 354 services have been offered to homeless people experiencing homelessness. 45 services to veterans, 55 to youths. We've housed in the short amount of time 20 permanently.
86 homeless we put in transitional shelters off the streets. 13 vets we put in transitional shelters Eight youths permanently housed and 31 youths we put in transitional shelters. So that's again on a shoestring budget and that's with some members had to leave, they couldn't stay but most of the members have continued as volunteers and they've continued And we're hoping that we can at least get through the rest of the term until the next cycle.
The investigation into AmeriCorps by DOJ has completed, however, we still have this result so we're hoping that we will get a positive result soon. Thank you.
Thank you and we will now go to our final speaker Karen Hauenstein. Karen?
Yeah, it's interesting hearing the previous speakers. I used to work as a financial services coordinator for our Lompoc Valley United Way. We used to have our own United Way but I've noticed because I've kept up on these things that most of the funding that we secured never comes back to our own community. It stays down here in Santa Barbara yeah which is very very unfortunate We have very little services being provided in North County for the money that's being spent in South County.
But the reason why I'm talking to you today is because of this woman, Susan Ashbrook who you've seen sit in this room before Joan. This is my immediate neighbor who has been participating with Joan Hartman actively in lawfare of me for years. And this is still going on, being perpetrated by the district attorney John Savarnak prosecutes me for felonies when I am an innocent person I do not get representation.
The county has announced to me that the public defender is, has a conflict of interest so I don't get an attorney but I get one that's paid for by the county but they don't want to represent me either. So now I don' have any attorney now for over a month That places me in a very precarious and anxiety-ridden situation, but also with the fact that this person's Hand-walking of that rooster policy through planning has resulted in a fine from your animal services officer of almost $80,000 on my father.
My 85 year old father Gary Hauenstein has received a fine of almost $79,000 And it's very interesting that they're not linking it to the ranch address at 3333 Avena. They're linking this ticket to another asset that he owns in Lompoc. Isn't that interesting how they're doing that? Seems to me like the county is allowing people to hand walk ordinances through that specifically target their neighbors and people who are on the other side of their financial troubles.
And that's fact, so we'll be talking about these things more until they resolve Joan. And that concludes
general public comment for today. Okay we will move on to our departmental items. Department item number one.
1:04 – 1:0711 turns
Chair Kapsen, members of the board, departmental item number one is from the County Health Department It is a hearing to consider recommendations regarding a waiver of retirement exclusion for Dana Gamble for the Santa Barbara County Health Department Clinical Care Program Division, and there is a fourth this vote required on this item. And prior to the board taking action on this item government code section 54953 subdivision C3 of the Brown Act requires a legislative body to orally report a summary of a recommendation for a final action on the salary, salary schedule, or compensation paid in the form of fringe benefits of a local agency executive as defined in government code section 3511.1 Subdivision D during the open meeting in which the final action is taken.
And during departmental item number one, the board has agendized to consider the appointment of retired Deputy Director of County Health Dana Gamble as a consultant with an hourly wait rate of $100 effective April 1st 2025.
Good
morning Madam Chair, Supervisors. County Health is asking for a waiver of retirement exclusion. Mr. Gamble as many of you know has been leading our clinical section overseeing our health centers and also very much involved in CalAIM And the grants that are related to that. And with 20 years of institutional knowledge and experience, although we have now a new Deputy Director, that transition and the transfer of information is needed. We also had a operational site visit by HRSA who is our grantor for our FQHCs that he was very much instrumental in supporting and helping This is why we needed to keep that transition happening for a limited time and we ask for that waiver.
Supervisor Nelson?
Yes, thank you Chair Caps I just wanted to point out I really appreciated the department the way they presented this item in the board letter. Mr. Gamble is going to have his own LLC that's going to contract the county, there's actually dollar amounts of what's gonna be spent on there. I just thought this was really transparent and I think this is exactly what I'm looking for so for other departments that are evaluating this in the future I thought this was excellently done and I just wanted to commend you for doing that. I think it's a real step in the right direction when we're trying to balance You know, PEPRA and you know people coming off the payroll but they also have an expertise that has value to the county. And how do we access that without making them an employee again?
And I think this is an excellent way to do it and I appreciate it so I'm going to be happily supporting this waiver.
Okay with that would you like to make a motion?
Yeah go ahead and make a motion for staff's recommendation
I'm
sorry and we didn't ask for
public comment, excuse me. Chair Caps and members of the board just to note for the record we had no requests to speak from the public on this item.
Okay we have a motion and a second all those in favor please say aye. Aye. Motion carries okay moving right along to item number two the TOT appeal
1:08 – 1:135 turns
Chair Kaps and members of the board, departmental item number two is from the Treasurer Tax Collector Public Administrator. It is a hearing to consider recommendations regarding Ida Abelohar's appeal of the Treasurer Tax Collectors transient occupancy tax TOT audit final determination.
Good morning Chair Capsa, members of the board. This item before you is a TOT appeal and Leanne Haggerty, the Treasury Finance Chief for the county and the lead auditor on this will walk you through the presentation.
There we go, I'm ready now To start with will give you an overview of the Santa Barbara County transient occupancy tax or TOT code so every operator of a hotel or short-term rental in the unincorporated area of Santa Barbara County is required to collect TOT from transients who stay for a period of 30 days 30 consecutive days or less and Operators are required to register their short-term rentals with the county tax collector within 30 days after commencing business.
If any operator fails to collect and remit the tax to the tax collector, then the tax collector is to gather facts and information in order to determine and assess the tax interest and penalties due from the operator. So the overview of the Santa Barbara County, Santa Barbara South Coast Tourism Business Improvement District or TBID plan is that lodging business owners within the TBID pay an assessment and those funds provide services that increase demands for room night sales.
This assessment is levied upon in a direct obligation of the short term rental operator. The assessment along with the TOT is required to be remitted to the treasurer tax collector on a monthly basis So the overview of the Treasurer Tax Collector TOT Ordinance Enforcement is that the tax collector's website has extensive information on TOT collection requirements.
The tax collector conducts TOT audits primarily initiated by a change of ownership status, public complaints and general non-reporting of short term rental activity. In this case, this audit was due to a general non-reporting of short term rental activity. There is unreported rental activity noted on our TOT compliance software. A letter was sent to the operator with information on the TOT registration and collection requirements for short term rentals.
The audit overview is next. The audit covered the period of June 2021 through May 2024. We reviewed financial documents including bank statements and Airbnb reports. The final audit determination was that the amount due to the county is $31,170.72. The audit appeal request is that a waiver of the $6,997.33 assessed in the penalties and interest Our response to this request is the tax collector's website and the rental website used by Ms. Abolhar was, to advertise her short-term rental has clear instructions on who is responsible for collection and remittance of TOT.
In Santa Barbara County it's the operator's responsibility to do this Staff recommends that your board take the following actions. Conduct a hearing on the appeal of the final determination of TOT, TBID penalties and interest assessed by the treasurer tax collector on Aida Obalahar in the amount of $31,170.72. Uphold the treasurer tax collector's determination and deny the appeal request for waiver of penalties interest Totaling $6,997.33 and adopt the findings proposed by the Treasurer Tax Collector as follows.
The amount due from Aida Abolahar is $31,170.72 and this amount is assessed against Aida Abolahar It is immediately due and payable to the County of Santa Barbara Treasurer Tax Collector upon the service of notice by the Clerk of the Board. And finally, determine that the above actions involve government funding mechanisms and or fiscal activities are not a project under CEQA. And that concludes my presentation.
Okay. And I believe now we go to the, what's the right terminology? Applicant
appellate. Correct Chair, Chair Kaps, members of the board, the applicant appellant on this case that is correct.
1:14 – 1:2212 turns
Hello, my name is Aida Abolahrar. It's a big moment to be here in front of this public and talk about something but it is a big matter for me personally to defend myself for good reasons so I'm honored that I can be heard here. That's a bigh deal. I'm not looking at it lightly. Well, I am going to introduce myself a little bit because I think it has a big role. I am a member of this community I have become citizen of this country for about more than 12 years.
And one of the reasons I moved to this country is for following law and order, for my own safety and security, and living in reliable community and society. So that's who I am. I am a playground designer for children. I'm an architect. I design for children. I have moved, sorry. So here is my husband who is a native Santa Barbara person and he probably would have been talking this way better than me but this was my project. This is my responsibility.
I will do my best. So when we moved to Santa Barbara in 2019, we bought a house and it was a fixer-upper. We were both working everything on our own to make it a better place for us and for our neighborhood. To covering some of the costs, we had a bedroom. I had used Airbnb for my own travels. I felt like okay a bedroom it doesn't have kitchen We have visitors from family coming and say we can use this For something new Airbnb no one in our family knew everybody was like what is that? Do you feel safe someone sleeping next to you in the next room so This is who I am. Yeah, I tried it and if there was no Airbnb platform very visible, very clear on all aspects supporting this idea, I would have never jumped in on my own.
So I relied on them 100% on these other parts of the thing that I'm not aware of. I'm a homemaker, not business person or law person So these are the facts. I started my Airbnb 2021. I received a letter from tax office in 2023 about, oh we have heard you're running an Airbnb. We want more information. I provided information And every year I have paid my income taxes on whatever I made out of Airbnb, calling it on this section. I even hired for the first two years tax experts to file our taxes specifically because we were not completely sure of what is included and what is not.
So that is all I can say. I did my best to do the right thing. I do not want to be here. Believe me. Then the next thing happens, nothing. I don't receive anything. I just provided information in 2004. I received an audit letter for TOT tax which I don't know what TOT tax is. I get engaged to just figure out and explain that I have paid my income taxes. Anyways long story short I get on board with the emails back and forth that, oh actually I own a hotel.
When I started Airbnb, no one mentioned this is going to fall into hotel business category. I would have not done that if I had heard this whole thing earlier on more information earlier on. I don't know who could do that Airbnb tax office receiving my income taxes mentioning what it is coming from year after year. I would have not agreed to TOT tax from first place.
That's a different conversation I hope I can join another time. When some citizen of, a homeowner or citizen of Santa Barbara who is struggling with a lot of expenses tries to just compromise on their home to just earn some pocket money, some part of their loans, some part of their expenses they will be considered as hotels. That is very questionable I know you're not lawmakers, but I'm challenging that now here.
So what I'm here basically asking is okay, I understand I had a duty to collect this money from visitors who came to my house to pay for Santa Barbara Transient Department. I didn't. Now I am willing to pay that out of my pocket with A lot of problems, but I understand that is my not understanding. But I do not understand being punished for some service that I was not given for early because then the interest got built, the penalty got built up, the whole thing got built up and then interest has been adding on to it.
I feel tax office could have done whatever they said. I learned that they have sent me a certificate and instructions of how the TOT works. Well, I didn't receive that who's going to follow up? Why should I be the only person to be pointed at? And then the other thing in the world in this school in our lives when someone doesn't when you send the notice Nothing comes. Don't you give that person a good doubt that maybe the second time, maybe a second chance before giving a penalty, before giving an audit, before just putting a point at it's all fault on you?
I like to be considered as a decent person who wants to be a member of this community, give and provide. And also, I expect from my government who I vote for to protect me, to give me serve, serve me, serve me and help me not to be here, not to be here wasting your time and my time.
Thank
you.
That is your presentation time, but I did want to indicate Chair Kaps and members of the board as the appellant You do have two and a half minutes for rebuttal after any public comment on this item And I would like to note for the record We don't have any public comment on this item So if you would like to use your two-and-a-half minutes for rebuttal you can do that now.
I Didn't understand rebuttal What does rebuttal mean?
You can just continue with your presentation if you'd like.
If you'd like, you don't have to. You just have two and a half more minutes if you care to use it.
If I can maybe use it later? I would keep it because
I don't have any more. Okay that's good idea all right so no public comment we can turn to the board with any questions please.
Should I stay here or sit down?
Supervisor Hartman.
Could you explain what happens when somebody comes into the office? What is a TOT certificate and what kind of information do people get?
1:22 – 1:3358 turns
So this was actually a letter that we sent to them, so she didn't come into the office. So it was a letter saying that hey, we see that you're renting and that you need to get a certificate from us. So what the certificate does is it's something that needs to be posted on on the place that they're renting, and it says that we are allowed to collect TOT from you.
That's what the certificate.
So it's on the certificate? And then do you send any additional materials to explain this to people and could you describe what those are?
Yeah, it was also included with that the packet. They get their certificate and they get the letter describing when the amounts due and also we send the ordinance of a copy of the ordinance. The ordinances set was also sent with the original letter saying that we see that you're renting And on the application that was filled out, that gets filled out and that was filled out. There is a section on the bottom where the person signs saying we understand we need to collect TOT and we understand we need to remit it to the task collector. So this is something that she did fill out, they did sign at the bottom.
And then that's returned?
That's returned. That's how we knew to send her a certificate, yeah with the packet.
Okay so in your estimation there's adequate notice to people about what their responsibilities are does it also include the TBID?
The TBID is not in that packet. It doesn't describe that in the packet.
But we don't, and this action doesn't seek to collect those monies or enforce for not having paid those moneys?
It is part of it. Yeah because that was something that she should have remitted it not so much collected it from the people although oftentimes that's what's done is collected from the person who's renting but that is a responsibility on her part as the operator
So how would an operator learn about their TBID responsibility if we don't send that to them?
That is information that's on our website. And also it is part of the return, we do send returns with the packet which depending on the location in the county there is TBID included on that return so they would fill out the return and then there would be a line for TBID. I see
Okay those are my questions.
This is for Harry, do we have flex pay with interest that can be spread instead of just one lump payment?
So Supervisor Lee, through the Chair. You're talking like a loan? Like a policy. Like a loan situation where they pay over time? Yeah instead of just paying this $31,000 and these fees is
there a way we
can break it up into. So as the ordinance stands right now there is no provisions to make installment payments if you will. Right now The ordinance says it's due and payable once you make your determination, the board. But I've told people this before that my job is the tax collector. If someone can't pay then they maybe owe 30,000 and they can only pay 10,000 right now. I'm not gonna send it back to them. I am going to apply it to their account.
Now there's a lot of hand holding by doing that but it's not a payment plan interest still accrues. It's still a debt. And if it's not done within a reasonable amount of time, I'm probably going to have to file a lien on the property or something of that nature. But there, to answer your question, there is no loan provisions in the ordinance. Thank you.
Supervisor Nelson?
Yes, thank you. Mr. Hagan, what's a reasonable amount of time?
Supervisor Nelson through the Chair. Three months, six months? Less than a year. The longer I'll be honest with you if you decide you want to do some kind of loan option in the ordinance and you can have council work with you on that and figure out how we can help from a technical standpoint The collection of taxes certainly diminishes the longer the debt is out there. That is my expectation.
But to do something like this, you have to be thinking of okay so right now in the ordinance the longer it's a delinquency it's 6% interest. It's pretty reasonable amount. It is not exorbitant. On property taxation it's 18%. There's a real motivation not to finance your debt with the county when you're paying 18% interest. The point is this may become a popular option for people, which is fine. I mean whatever you guys want to do, I can administer. But like I said there could be degradation in collection but there certainly will be an increase in administrative costs that will have to come to you and say hey we're going to need some software and we're probably going to need a person because right now we spend about Two and a half FTEs on this project, this program.
And we get funded for one FTE. And so the more we devote to this, the more it affects our departmental budget.
Sure. So make sure I understand this correctly. You're saying that the outstanding balance will be charged at interest? Right now that's 6%. And that expectation is that would be done under a year or else there'd be potentially a lien that would be filed by Treasurer Tax Collector's Office. Is that kind of how the process works or am
I? Supervisor Nelson to the Chair. Not
trying to put words in your mouth, I'm just
trying to make sure
I understand
this. Yeah so right now once you make your determination... So the interest is not accruing right now during this audit process, right? Once you make your determination and you notify the applicant then interest will start accruing after what did we give him a month or something roughly
By the
end of
the
month. And so then interest will start accruing again. The filing of liens, we haven't had to do that yet but if we do I would think six months? Three months.
That's helpful to understand the tools you're using here. How many short-term rentals are you guys seeing come through your office that are paying taxes countywide as far as like the, on the, you know, VRBO, Airbnb? Yeah. We
have 500 active right now. At least that amount, yeah.
And you would say most of them are complying and participating in the program? Do we feel- I'd say.
Yes. Yeah, the ones that have got certificates, yeah.
Okay. And in this case was this homestay or was this, I guess this is a homestay? Or how do we figure this one out for us because typically it's in the county to be a homestay right and this-
If it's not on the coastal zone.
Okay. This one's in the coastal zone?
This one is not in the coastal zone. So she did not have a homestay permit?
Did not have a home stay permit, so there was also permits you she was supposed to have through planning development that she did not have on top of the tax piece here but we're not discussing that necessarily. That's just a separate issue especially if she hopes to continue on and $24,000 suggests that there was probably a significant amount of revenue that was accumulated over that period time probably well over I didn't do the math kind of did rough math, but probably over $200,000 that was accumulated in vacation rental income over that period
of time? Yeah. I don't know. But
yeah,
probably. You have to
go back into it. A number you got it based on, right?
We do have it, yes.
Okay. Do you know what that number is? Yes,
but we can't
say it out loud.
But it's 12%, correct? Sorry to jump in. Sure. 12% of the 24,000... It's 12% until
14%. Yeah, I went up to 14% January. Right,
but this was under the 12%
TOT.
That was my question. And then there's the T-BID on top of that so kind of... Yep. Okay. All right. Well those are my questions. I do have some further comments when we deliberate. Those were my questions. Thank you.
Okay, Supervisor Leibman. Thank
you Madam Chair. This is the second or third one that we've had like this, and they're all tough because obviously the people aren't trying to evade taxes or anything. And you have your job to do. I'm just curious if there's an... How much do we communicate with the organizations that these folks kind of work in that realm? Outside of our website how proactive are we In getting our information out, are there organizations that folks would belong to that kind of like minded individuals? Like what's going on in the short term rental market or do we know of those where we could post on their websites and say hey you guys should be aware of this.
Yeah, Supervisor Lovadino through the chair. I'm not aware of any kind of trade organizations or groups of that nature that work in this area. Now I can talk a little bit about short-term rentals with my wife and I have done a little of that and we've used a couple of the platforms and they all have are the two that we used had a lot of good information on that. Of course I come from experience in that area and so does Julie, right? I will be shocked if we see you in here with
a
hearing. So there is information there. I'm not going to say it's robust. These are for profit businesses, I can't really tell them what they should post on there and what they shouldn't but I'll say that I completely believe what the applicant is saying. If she knew what her obligation was she would have done it. I have no reason to believe that she's trying to pull the wool over your eyes. And most of these are like that. Most of these are people that if they would've known what their obligation was they would have done it.
It's rare that we see someone trying to hide the pee on us. Thank you.
Supervisor Hartman?
That raises a question, I mean we sent them information do we need different? Do we need something, you know a cover sheet that you will owe money on TOT?
1:33 – 1:4013 turns
Well I think we do a good job as far as notification but
So then where's the gap?
You know, Supervisor Hartman when you get a bill or something and they've got a lot of stuff in there you go to the bottom line. Okay how much do I owe what I mean things like that people don't like to read the details a lot of times their busy lives right it just you skim through things and you don't really see the details a lot of times We have a lot of information that we put online, but also that with the correspondence and links and printed copies too. And so can we do better? I guess we can always do better than maybe putting a buck slip in there that is specific to and glossy and colored that shows it make sure you look at your TOT obligation and doesn't get lost on the fine print
I would encourage that. I mean, I think anybody starting a new business would kind of go through and look to see what their obligations are but if people aren't experienced with working with remitting taxes maybe we need something that blares right on the cover sheet, right up front.
Yeah, but you have to remember a lot of the times when we're making contact they've been in business for many years prior to that So it's like any business you open up, right? You need to talk to either your CPA, your legal counsel, whoever it is that depending on what kind of business you're setting up and make sure you find out what all your obligations are and how to run that business because it has to be treated like a business. Especially if you're putting on your income tax return, it's a business not a hobby.
And so you really have to go through that process. Is it easy? Probably not. Is it a hassle? Probably yes, but these are steps that any small businessman has to go through.
Other questions from the Board? I think then we can go to the rebuttal period. Is that appropriate? So two and a half minutes.
Um, born and raised Santa Barbara. I just first want to say thank you so much for this time that this is actually I think for both of us an amazing dedication in your time to hear out a citizen and their individual case on what I would like To just go through, because I think we kind of hopped maybe quickly through the sequence of events. So as and I really appreciate Mr. Hagan and what he said is we're not trying to pull the wool over somebody's eyes. We did the best with it. I'm sure error so when we were to open the Airbnb we did Contact Airbnb and lean on them. We also, I believe I recall going to you know Santa Barbara County webpage city web page.
We did not think to go on the specific tax webpage and look there. Our error, we did however I want to say again, we did however file our taxes through a professional tax so a professional did not talk about that. We have been in contact on the phone with Airbnb this was never brought up to our attention when we got the first letter It seemed like an information letter. We would like to know who you are, what you are, your name, your email, your address that you're doing this. We responded to that and we gave that in.
I can't remember how many years or I'm not even sure what triggered that but we were doing our Airbnb paying our state and federal taxes. That's what we were concerned about. Then, then the audit came. And I just want to go back to some of the previous people we've heard here and some of the comments that you all made were about how do we get this information out more to our citizens? How do we make this more transparent available even from the RFPs? How do we make it more available?
Well in the first form we gave our phone number, our email and our address now They've sent a package that we've now heard, that we did not receive. So they have our phone number. They have our email. They could have called us as a new participant in this program to say, did something happen? Did you not understand the material you received and we could have said, we did not receive the material.
So I do think there were other ways to handle this case and save all this time, and penalty, and interest a long time back. I hear what they're saying that there were notes there that are we missed. Lastly, I will say that I think any of you Anybody in this room could imagine getting an audit. And we followed up quickly, we responded quickly to all the emails I will say I understand this office is busy. There were also some errors in what they then delivered us since that time we've been audited, they forgot to add attachments, they got dates wrong so we can all make error is what I'm trying to say. We're all in this together. We are just trying to rent and I want to stress a room in our house where we live every day not to be confused with a separate house or business like that.
This is a room. Thank you.
Thank you. Supervisor Lee?
Just a question for the appellant, do you have any copies of the letters you received? Yes
I do. Some are yes in the paperwork. Should I bring
them over? Yes, I would like to see- Supervisor
Lee if we just have one copy if my staff can take a moment to make copies for everyone.
Appreciate that.
1:40 – 1:551 turns
Yeah, do you want to take a five minute break while we get the copies of the letter? Is that all right, Madam Clerk? Take a five-minute break just have the copies of the letter. Okay, we'll come right back. Thank you! Okay and we're back to this item. Now we've had a chance to review the letters, thank you. Any comments from the board or questions? Deliberation?
1:55 – 2:007 turns
Yeah just some comments for me I do see their puns that they are sincere and really did not know and didn't want to do what's right and Harry Hagen and his staff is also doing the right thing This is the second or third time that we are hearing this type of appeal and I feel like there will be more coming down the road if we do something now. So, I am in favor of doing something to change the policy to have a flex payment plan but at the same time, I'm open to waiving the penalty fees and just focusing on the $24,173.39 as a way I just, I believe you and I want to do what feels right today for you. So that's where I am.
Supervisor Hartman?
Well, I have a lot of empathy but I'm looking at precedent and I think that I've had people come to me pleading to get some kind of relief. I don't want to be in that situation and it would not just start or stop with TOT. It would go to other taxes so I have tremendous empathy, but it does look like there is revenue generating options based on the room that the penalty and taxes can be paid by renting out the room.
It's not like there isn't an income-generating opportunity there. So again, while I have great empathy, I just think it's opening a big can of worms in terms of the precedent that it sets.
Supervisor Nelson?
Yes, thank you Chair Kaps. Actually, I don't think that there is revenue opportunity here. They don't even have the home stay permit so this is really they could get one but Get through our planning process. You know, it's a it's a difficult system and I don't really don't put the blame on you all. I really put the blame on some of these big companies that entice you all into this and then they're off. Not here today and you guys are the ones that there become the focus of this which is really unfair. They're the ones with all the attorneys, all the accountants, and you know, I really think there should be a greater burden Not even let you start on their platform until they're really satisfied that you fully know the taxes that need to be paid and the permits you should have.
And I don't know what that solution is. You know, I think it is really I get the feeling of unfairness for you both, and I really missympathize. I do absolutely know that you're decent people, but I do think we have some issues here as a board in trying to walk through this and have other people that have been in your shoes that are sat in those same seats that you have that come to us asking the same questions. And there's a ton of taxpayers that have already participated in this program, and there's kind of a fairness issue for them that have participated that did find A way through this and you know, ignorance isn't a defense unfortunately. And that's where we struggle here is as sympathetic as I am to you because I do really appreciate you both and know that you're both a lot already people completely believe that but we are stuck in the situation here where we have some tough decisions to make as far as forgiving the fees.
I think I need some legal understanding of that. I think that that's it. That's potentially a challenge for us because I think that I don't know if our ordinance gives us that flexibility. I don't know what's discretion of the board on there, and then also I am concerned about precedent because we've had others before us that have asked the same thing and we haven't done that in the past as a board.
I do understand where Supervisor Lee is coming from but I also am concerned about our legal ability to do so on top of the precedent that we might be setting by doing that today. So I was actually asking Council to opine
Supervisor Nielsen and members of the board, the County Code Chapter 32 does not provide for a waiver of penalties or interest. So if the Board were to determine that it wanted to do that I'd recommend having a discussion about public benefit of that waiver just to avoid a gift to public funds.
Understood. So for everybody else that doesn't understand the legal talk here, if we forgive something and it doesn't have a public benefit then it's a gift that we're giving you. And I kind of struggle with what the public benefit is. I know what the private benefit is to you absolutely. I think actually might be a negative public benefit because I think it will set precedent that's not good for the public in general so that's where I'm having a hard time meeting that standard that Supervisor Lee is really interested in.
But I think as a supervisor, I'm not getting anything I can grab on to at this point to make a public benefit determination for myself. So I would probably be leaning towards unfortunately for the appellant finding that these fees are valid.
2:00 – 2:0716 turns
I got a group of Supervisor Nelson and Supervisor Hartman. And I understand where Supervisor Lee's going, all these cases really tug at our you know the thread of just being human beings. I just got a letter from the IRS that said I had done something wrong and I have a CPA doing my taxes you know and so sometimes things happen. You know we also charge our tax collector with trying to do the most Most difficult thing there is and we're trying to maximize also at the same time, we're trying to make sure that there's nobody falling through the loopholes of STRs.
So it's a industry fraught with problems. It's people trying to run a business out of their own homes. You know, as you heard from the dais we're trying to figure out ways to try to increase the outreach and let folks know what's going on. But as much as I would like to do something, I just think it's just not in the public's best interest to try to go down a way to try to ameliorate some of this. I don't also think that it's wise... I agree with Supervisor Hartman once we get into TOT the next thing is property tax We have budgeting cycles, you know when taxes are due they're due and when they're not paid there are consequences unfortunately so.
Yeah I agree with the majority here unfortunately. I have concern for your personal situation but I just think our job is to uphold our rules and also send a signal this is an industry that people do this for income I understand it but they need I just hope this conversation and anyone watching who might be also having short-term rentals in their home understands that this is an industry that they need to play by the rules.
I'm prepared to make a motion if we haven't, I don't remember if we had public comment yet or not.
No there wasn't any public comment.
So I will move staff recommendation. And
I'll go ahead and second that. Parting shot to ourselves is, you know, I did. I searched real quick here on our county website and I'd search Airbnb it pops up as a, you know, TOT show pops up as the first result short term rentals. It's the second result BRBO it's the first result vacation rentals it's the sixth result and but I think one of the big problems that we have in communicating from the county is we say TOT and all of us understand this room what TOT Normal people don't understand what TOT is. And even when I have conversations with the public, I have to go oh hotel tax and then if you don't have a hotel you're sitting there going well you know I don't have hotel so it's really a language issue that we need to do better job communicating and so I hope that we find other ways to do in the future on our website so that we can make sure people don't you know find themselves in circumstance that the appellants do today.
So I will second the motion and I'm ready to vote.
Okay, would you like a roll? Supervisor Lee.
Just a discussion point can you amend would you be open to amending your motion to include looking directing Harry's Higgins office to look at options in the future meeting for us to possibly create a payment plan just be over-minded about possibility of such
Let's keep this motion. I think that's a big direction under this motion, so I'd like to keep this motion the way it is. I think that's another issue and has lots of... We could give direction outside the motion if we want to.
Right meaning just to check, Supervisor Lee could make that motion after we vote on the existing one. Is that correct?
I would, if I can speak to the comment and deliberation here. I would welcome an item come back on it if Supervisor Lee wants to bring it because I think we need to let the other departments kind of bring what that costs to us before we go too far afield on it because I do think as Supervisor Hartman is suggesting there's going to be some cascading impacts of staff time so maybe a smaller item that would come back briefly discuss whether we do direction or not.
After this would probably be more appropriate.
I agree and I just want to say I agree with your points, and I'm going to agree with the board because I want us right but we have to follow the policies and as a business owner, I do understand the challenges that you face so.
Okay well it sounds like so we have a motion on the floor in a second and it sounds as though we can just do we don't need a roll call vote all those in favor please say aye. Aye. Motion carries
Supervisors from my ad that we have been talking about this since the last appeal in my office Kelsey has been working with Brittany and our team They've contacted visit Santa Barbara to see what more outreach they can do As you know last time Kelsey sent out a news release reminding everyone will continue to do our I'm sure our materials are comprehensive, but I wonder if she might just look
at it from a layman's view and say is this package Do the relevant things come up to the front or is it sort of buried in the back? And I just would, somebody with a communications background might be helpful to look at our more business-oriented forms to see how a layperson would see them.
I think if the treasurer tax collector wants our help and helps us review their materials we'll certainly be happy to do it.
2:07 – 2:217 turns
Okay All right,
we will move on to the next departmental item. Thank you.
Chair Kapsa and members of the board, departmental item number three is from the Public Works Department. It is a hearing to consider recommendations regarding solid waste tipping fees, maximum franchise collection rates and new Quyama parcel fees for fiscal year 2025 through 2026. Okay.
When you're ready.
Good morning Chair Kaps, members of the board. Department of Public Works Resource Recovering Waste Management Division is pleased to present the proposed solid waste fees for fiscal year 2025 through 2026. Here today with me to present staff's recommendations is Ms. Gloria Alvarez our Fiscal Manager Mackie, excuse me McKenzie Forgey our Senior Program Specialist and available for questions is Leslie Robinson our Collection and Materials Manager.
With that I'll hand it over to Ms. Alvarez.
Good morning Chair Kaps and members of the Board. Thank you for providing this time to review staff's recommendations for next year's solid waste rates. The rates package that we have submitted for your review includes our proposed facility tipping fees charged at the scale houses And at the UCSB Household Hazardous Waste Collection Center, the Cuyama Valley parcel fees assessed on the tax roll and the maximum franchised hauler collection rates for the unincorporated zones. Additionally, the division is seeking the board's approval to pursue restructuring the maximum solid waste collection fee schedule for Isla Vista which has not been updated since 1999.
Our facility tipping fees are the rates charged to customers using the South Coast Recycling and Transfer Station, the Senate Enos Valley Recycling Transfer Station, the Tahegas Landfill, the Resource Center and the Community Hazardous Waste Collection Center at UCSB. The fees cover the cost to process municipal solid waste, recyclables, organics and hazardous waste at these facilities.
The facility tipping fees are evaluated annually, and are increased to the extent needed to cover the cost of service and meet our debt obligations. The proposed franchise solid waste and recyclables tipping fees will increase approximately 4% from $189 to 196.5 per tonne at our facilities. The mechanism to set these franchise tip fees is established in the material delivery agreements between the county and the participating jurisdictions.
The Cuyama Valley parcel fee support the new Cuyama and Venticopa transfer stations, and are included as an assessment on the annual property taxes. Staff recommends no changes at this time Staff recommends no change to the current fee of $77 per single family dwelling. However, the county will engage external consultants for a fee study in the upcoming year.
I will now turn it over to Ms. Forgy.
Hello, Chair Kaps and Board Members. I will now cover the proposed maximum franchise hauler collection rates for the new fiscal year. These are the rates charged to residential and commercial customers in the unincorporated areas by our franchised waste service provider Marburg Industries. As a reminder, the collection rates proposed simply outline the maximum rates that the franchise hauler can charge for trash recycling and organics collection service.
The maximum franchise hauler collection rates are comprised of three components. The first is the collection component which covers the cost for the hauler to pick up waste, recyclables or organics from customers. Given the differing nature of collection routes in each of our five zones this component is the most variable. Per our franchise agreements, this portion of the rate is subject to an annual CPI adjustment specifically the annual average CPI increase of the previous calendar year.
The annual average CPI increase for 2024 was 3.3 percent so that increase was applied to this portion of the rate The second component of the franchise collection rates is the tipping fee. After the hauler collects waste recyclables or organics from customers, they bring the material to a disposal or processing facility. This portion of the rate incorporates the current tipping fee costs at the relevant waste facilities utilized in zones 1, 2, 3 and part of zone 4 in the San Dines Valley. The trash tipping fee will increase by three point nine seven percent since these areas use the Resource Center and Tahecus Landfill to process their waste.
The other part of Zone 4 in the Lompoc Valley uses the City of Lompoc Landfill for trash disposal, of which the trash tipping fee will increase 4.76%. Lompoc Landfill has outlined further tipping fee increases which will continue to increase by approximately 5% each year until July 1st 2027 Lastly, Zone 5 uses the Santa Maria landfill for trash disposal for which the trash tipping fee will increase 5.26% when compared to current rates.
Tipping fees for recyclables across all zones will increase between 3.3 and 4%. And tipping fees for organic waste across all zones will increase between 3.4 and 4%. The third component is the Solid Waste Program Fee, which is used to support compliance with various state regulations and for supporting solid waste reduction and recycling programming in the community. Staff recommends no change to the current value of 11%.
I will now focus on Zones 1 through 3 shown by the blue, green and teal areas of the map which includes the Cuyama Valley and the unincorporated South Coast. Waste services in these areas will continue to be provided by Marburg Industries per the zones one through three franchise agreement approved by your board in May 2022. When the collection fees tipping fees and program fees are combined for these zones the overall residential and commercial rates will increase by an average of 3.87 percent Specific increases for individual customers will depend on the specific service level they subscribe to and the region they are located within.
This table shows the current costs versus the proposed new rates for three common service levels, 96 gallon residential cart services, two yard commercial trash bin and a two yard commercial recycling bin. I will now focus on Zones 4 and 5, depicted by the purple and pink areas of the map. These zones include the unincorporated Santa Ynez Valley, Lompoc Valley, and Santa Maria Valley, and waste services will continue to be provided by Marburg Industries per the Zones Four and Five Franchise Agreement approved by your board in July 2023.
When the collection fees, tipping fees, and program fees are combined for these zones, the overall residential and commercial rates will increase by an average of 3.21%. Again, specific increases for individual customers will depend on their service level and region. This table shows the current costs versus the proposed new rates for the same three common service levels.
You may note that there is a 0% increase in the commercial recycling rate for a two-yard bin in Zone 4 Lompoc. The county negotiated with Marburg to freeze the price of this line of service in the upcoming fiscal year 2025-26, to ensure that all diversion services are less expensive than the requisite trash service. Now in fiscal year 2025-26 all diversion services across all five zones are cheaper than the requisite trash service In addition to the standard rate adjustment process resulting in the new proposed customer rates for the upcoming fiscal year, there are a handful of additional miscellaneous rate adjustments proposed by staff.
Once every year, the franchise agreements allow for the county to contemplate changes beyond the standard rate adjustment process such as these which are presented as adjustments that will either result in a rate decrease for customers or one that will result in a rate increase. First, I will discuss the rate decreases. Manure prices in previous years have been the same as trash prices due to the relative heaviness of manure loads, need for further sorting before taking to the processing facility and the rural nature of manure routes.
However, to better incentivize organics diversion over trash disposal manure prices will be frozen at current costs for the upcoming fiscal year and then adjusted in following years leading to lower manure rates compared to requisite trash rates for the remainder of the franchise term. The second rate decrease results from reducing rates for a one and a half yard and a two-yard recycle bin in Zone 4 Lompoc.
As mentioned during the last slide, this was the last instance of diversion costs being higher than requisite trash costs and ensures diversion services are more affordable than trash in all five collection zones. The third rate decrease results from eliminating food waste only commercial rates which are effectively replaced with less expensive mixed organics commercial rates in Zone 4 Lompoc and Zone 5.
As food waste and yard waste should be commingled in these zones for both commercial and residential customers, it did not make sense to continue offering more expensive food-waste only service rates. The only proposed rate increase beyond the standard rate adjustment process for next fiscal year's rates results from the proposed elimination of cardboard-only blue bin recycling service, which only occurs in Zones 1 and 3.
Cardboard-only recycling bin service has been available in these zones since 2011 as a less expensive alternative to mixed recycling service. This was feasible at the time as the cardboard commodity values were high, making it advantageous for Marburg to collect and consolidate cardboard separately from other recyclables. However in July 2021 the county's resource center came online along with the material delivery agreements for that facility which stipulated that all franchise material must be processed there effectively prohibiting cardboard only consolidation and by extension made cardboard only collection from customers obsolete.
The last time a new customer signed up for cardboard-only recycling bin service was in 2019, and there are 17 total customers who still subscribe to this service. These 17 customers have been grandfathered in each year with these cheaper rates since July 2021 but since there is no longer an operational difference between cardboard only service and mixed recycling service we recommend elimination of cardboard only rates so all customers are paying the same rate for the same service If elimination of cardboard only recycling bin rates is approved by your board today as part of this package, there would be no change to customers' on-site containers or service schedule. The cardboard only bins would simply be used as mixed recycling bins and we charge the higher rate for mixed recycling service starting July 1st.
The increase from switching from cardboard only service to mixed recycling service would be large an average increase of 151%. It is important to note that only five of the 17 cardboard customers are currently subscribed to Mixed Recycling Service in addition to their Cardboard Only service, suggesting that the 12 remaining customers already use that cardboard bin for all their recyclables and should have always been charged a higher mixed recycling rate or that they have been diverting all other recyclables to the trash which is prohibited by county ordinance.
Notices were sent out to these 17 customers on May 13th as well as site visits and phone calls to all customers who had storefronts, to ensure they were aware this was proposed the impact of their monthly bill and that it would be up for consideration at this board meeting today. Aside from adopting the resolution and fee schedule for maximum franchise solid waste collection services, including those miscellaneous rate adjustments I just discussed.
We are also seeking the board's approval to pursue restructuring collection rates for Isla Vista. The collection rate structure has not been altered since July 1st 1999 and does not reflect the unique challenges or align with current service needs. Isla Vista's high density, student-based population leads to high turnover of residents and their belongings in addition to operational difficulties from limited parking, curb access and lack of sidewalks.
Our primary goals are to outline a rate structure that has more options and is better tailored to the specific needs of the community. Specifically, we aim to establish new cart rates for multiple unit dwellings as previously only can or dumpsters option have been available to these customers. Clarify which rates pertain to single-unit or multiple-unit residences as these are the defined customer types in for Isla Vista as outlined in County Code.
Clarify and define whether backyard service is built into specific rates or not and clarify eligibility for special Isla Vista services such as free weekly bulk item pickups Should your board give approval today, staff will negotiate updated competitive rates with the franchise hauler Marburg Industries and return with a franchise agreement amendment for your consideration if consensus is reached.
In summary, staff recommends that your board adopt the resolution and fee schedule for County Solid Waste Facilities, adopt to the resolution and parcel fee schedule for the Cuyama Valley, adopt the resolution and fee schedule for the Maximum Franchise Solid Waste Collection Services Direct staff to pursue restructuring of the fee schedule for collection rates in Isla Vista and determine that the proposed actions are exempt from CEQA.
That concludes our presentation, we are happy to answer any questions you may have.
2:21 – 2:2716 turns
Thank you so much! Any questions from the Board? Supervisor Nelson? Yeah I just
had a question about the Isla Vista rate restructuring. Can you provide us some more information? Have you guys done some outreach analysis on this? Worked with the CSD and others. Where are we at with that?
Supervisor Nelson through the chair. The effort to restructure rate structure was largely brought on by our conversations with IVCSD, the Isla Vista Community Services District. We do have regular meetings with them and they are a great resource for us as there are boots on the ground. They're the ones most up-to-date with current Isla Vista issues. They brought up photos of some issue properties where litter is often observed and one of the main things we all noticed was that There is an issue with 32-gallon cans.
They're the smallest service option a commercial customer can subscribe to, they don't have wheels and their lids are detachable so this leads to issues when the lids get lost, litter is easily blown about, and it's an issue almost of real estate for the same amount of space to store And we found that it wasn't really even an option for a multifamily. customers on that rate sheet because the structure is so old. It's from 1999 and perhaps carts weren't even available back then, so this effort was really brought on by our discussions with IVCSD as well as you know other things on the rate sheet we thought could use assistance more clarity on the rate sheet more options as well as aligning customer types to what are what is outlined in county code.
So make sure I understand so there's some sub zones within zone 3 And Isla Vista is one of them. And that's, and you guys would tinker in those numbers accordingly.
Supervisor Nelson through the Chair yes only Isla Vista we are seeking to restructure. The other areas in Zone 3 such as Mission Canyon or the Quiama Valley which is also in Zone 3 we are not seeking to restructure any of those solid waste rates it's just for the Isla Vista costs for customers within Isla Vista
Well, it makes a lot of sense to me but I would absolutely defer to the supervisor representing Isla Vista on that. But what you guys are proposing makes a whole heck of a lot of sense so thank you.
No, I appreciate that Supervisor Nelson and just to clarify a little bit more on Isla Vista. My office and I we met with Marburg probably about a year or so ago now and they were going to switch out the I mean the issue as you can imagine is that two bedroom house has eight people in it. And so the trashcan isn't big enough for eight individuals trash consumption. So they were going to switch out all of the lids The bigger ones.
Does this mean that our rates didn't reflect their ability to do that? Am I connecting the dots here correctly?
Yes, Chair Kaps, that's exactly right. We looked back at the rate sheet and we went interesting! This rate sheet really only has the options available for multifamily properties. The option to subscribe to either dumpsters or those 32-gallon cans so hence why we want to be able to restructure those rates to be able to then say yes, let's change these 8 32-gallon cans for 6 95 gallon cans instead or carts excuse me instead.
Okay so the okay that thank you for explaining that way and I know Eleanor has been on there on this as well but and again and this is coming from Isla Vista Community Service District which has a beautiful campaign focused on trash so thank you for them Other questions or comments? If not I'll go to public comment. Chair Kaps and members of the board we
have no requests to speak from the public on this item.
Okay, I guess I just did actually have one more question more generally beyond Isla Vista just how this rate increases will help us prioritize diversion if you could speak to that
Chair Capps, so officially now since we did negotiate with Marburg to make sure the only last instance of recycling service being more expensive than trash was that one and a half yard and two yard recycle bin in Zone 4 Lompoc. So that is no longer more expensive than trash it will be cheaper than trash. So now henceforth we can say for the remainder of the franchise terms for these franchise agreements All trash costs are more expensive than the requisite diversion costs. So a recycling bin, a yard waste bin, mixed recycling service that is all cheaper than the requisite trash costs. So it's all in an effort to diversion to excuse me incentivize diversion services over trash service.
Great
good to hear
Okay, well with that I'm not seeing any other comments. Supervisor
Nielsen? Is there no public comment? No public comment. Okay so I'll go ahead and make a motion to adopt staff recommendation with the direction what I guess because I think I heard concurrence from Supervisor Kaps on working on the out of Vista restructuring as part of the motion. Yes so staff recommendation A through E along with the direction on engaging on restructuring the island visitor rates.
2:27 – 2:529 turns
I think it was part of the, I think it was included so it just would be D. Let's see I have A3E.
And that includes D, which is directing staff to work on restructuring the Alavista rates.
And I'll second that. All those in favor please say aye. Aye. Motion carries thank you so much. Moving right along to item number four Foothill Community Wildlife Protection Plan
Chair Kapsa, members of the board. Departmental item number four is from the Fire Department. It is a hearing to consider recommendations regarding the adoption of the Santa Barbara Foothill Community Wildfire Protection Plan and receive and file the Santa Barbara Foothill Community Transportation Study.
Chief Hartwood coming to the mic here and Fire Marshal Tan. And a time check Madam Clerk should we do this one more item and then move to closed session?
Chair Kaps, members of the board we could see where we are once this item concludes perhaps we can take departmental item number five as well
okay let's see how we go All right, Fire Marshal. Thank you.
As you know, my name is Fred Tan, County Fire Marshal. We've been in the process of developing and updating the Mission Canyon CWPP. Sitting next to me I have Dana Link-Herrera. She works for DUDEC and she's been integral in part of this process in developing the CWPP. Not listed as one of our speakers is one of my captains, Dustin McKibben, a pre fire engineer. He also took part on the development team.
We'll go through the slides and Dana will probably take most of the meat of the development of the project, but we'll also take some questions and leave some time for questions as they come up. Table of contents. This CWPP update is a long time coming. The Mission Canyon was the first CWPP that came into the county, really homegrown. A lot of residents within the county took part and developed that document. This was made possible because of a block grant from the California Department of Housing and Urban Development. We received a $280,000 grant to develop this CDWPP.
And my predecessor looking into some of the best practices for CDWPPs also took some consideration and comments from the community to attach to it a transportation study. The Mission Canyon CWPP also had a transportation portion of it, a single page which essentially outlines what the transportation study, you know, the findings of it. So what is a CWPP? Locally for us, for the fire department, it validates a lot of our projects. We have a lot of projects in the Mission Canyon.
We have roadside projects, community defensible space, fuel breaks that we maintain within the Mission Canyon. It validates those projects. It gives us ideas for new ones but it's not a shall document It evaluates the wildland fire hazard in the area and also the risk to the communities. It also provides us an opportunity to engage with the community, to speak with them and address their concerns.
And with a successful CWPP process, it also gives us an ability to check a box whenever we're applying for grants either federal or state grants to identify that there's a CWPP within the area. One of the first large grants that the county fire received was a Mission Canyon Community Defensible Space Grant. That was obtained sometime in 2015 16 or 17, $360,000. And that area could still certainly use some work and potential for us to go get some grants.
What the CDOPP is not it's not a decision document. It's not a vegetation management plan. It's not CEQA analysis or a CEQA document but it is just a guidance document for the community and for our actions going forward with the fire department The county has CWPP requirements as well as best practices that are set forth. There's been regional collaboration.
We're developing and prioritizing the hazardous fuel treatments in the area. Developed strategies, I'm reading off of these, developed strategies to home harden and reduce structural ignitability. Plan approval is through the local government, through the Board of Supervisors, Santa Barbara County Fire, and then Cal Fire. And then as I discussed earlier, the benefits of their approved plan is it becomes a living document for the residents to use to give them ideas on home hardening. Who to contact for home hardening ideas?
We will over time update the document and also the associated story map that's within as maybe grants come up for residents to be able to home harden. Grants come up for us to conduct community defensible space. The Fire Safe Council is very active in this community as well, as far as education, firewise communities I'm going to You know, it's an education piece. I think most of the foothills, most of the residents of the foothills of Santa Barbara County have a very high IQ as far as wildland fires and what to do, what not to do. We still get several questions but this helps the community. It helps the fire department identify risk factors for homes and also the hazards.
We are able to, after 12 years, use better fire modeling to validate the things that we're doing out in the field and also as an updated document. Again, we have access to grants. We had the opportunity to speak with the Forest Service, have the Forest Service out in the ground, CAL FIRE out in the ground, Santa Barbara City. So it really was a very collaborative document and it helps to give us best management practices or ideas for best management practices so that we can alleviate some of the hazards and risks there are in that community.
This grant application process started in 2021. There was some outreach from the fire department to discuss with the community what their desires were for the CWPP, what their thoughts if they thought there was a value to updating the document. It took us a little bit of time to get through some of the initial paperwork for the grant and come to the board for approval because it was a fairly large amount of money But we were able to, in November of 2023, to really begin the development of the process.
We created a development team and reached out to several members of community stakeholders to county planning, Sheriff's Department, Cal Fire, members from the Botanical Garden just to make sure that we could get a really good group of people making comments on the CWPP. Almost two years of work and coming to fruition today. So as I said, the first CWPP, Community Wildfire Protection Plan in the county was in the Mission Canyon. This plan was intended to expand the Mission Canyon CW PP out to the west, so that it would now touch essentially shoulder-to-shoulder with the Eastern Goleta Valley CWPP. And then to the east, it does have... It touches a Santa Barbara City CWPP and a little bit of the Montecito CWTP. So it essentially completes from the Ventura County border with Santa Barbara County Completes a network of CWPPs across the front country all the way out to Gaviota.
In the plan area was almost 11,000 acres. 7200 acres of SRA which is state responsibility area. 164 acres of local responsibility areas and then another 3300 acres of federal responsibility area. This also covers population of roughly 3400 people This slide is, we'll discuss this more in the next item we're going to be bringing for the board. But the State Fire Marshal's designation for fire hazard severity zones in 24 for SRA and 25 for the LRA. In the SRA there's 23 acres of high and almost 7200 acres of very high designated in this plan area And then within the LRA, it's 43 acres of moderate, 40 acres of high and 26 acres of very high.
That probably is not going to change very much with the next item we're bringing up but there's definitely some significant areas of wildland fire hazard. These are the items that we're looking to address within the plan itself. We're looking at the hazard side of it with the vegetation, the shrub and the chaparral and also the risk side of it where ornamental vegetation might provide a risk or present a risk to some of the homes that are in the plan area.
And one of the reasons that the CWPP, this specifically was very important to the community and for the fire department to engage in is because of the fire history that's within it. 13 wildfires within a planned area. 21 fires have occurred within one mile of the planned area And obviously some very significant fires that are recent within the area. 2019 Cave, the 2017 Thomas Fire, the 2008 T-Fire and 2009 Hazeta fire.
And quite a few more if we wanted to keep listing those out. With that I'm going to hand it over to Ms. Frere.
Thank you. So I'm going to talk a bit about the analysis that DUDEC conducted in conjunction with the fire department. One of the pieces of the CWPP is looking at hazard and risk in the area, this helps us to prioritize areas for wildfire mitigation. The difference between hazard and risk we're trying demonstrate here in the image essentially the hazard is the wildland vegetation that is abutting your communities and then the risk is within the community themselves The mitigation projects that we look to identify come from this modeling are within the categories of vegetation management and fuels reduction, defensible space, structural hardening, evacuation and access, and education outreach.
So within the hazard assessment, we took a look at fire progression within the plan area. If you can see the yellow line across the top of that ridgeline there, we modeled fire ignitions along that point and as you can see most of the plan area would see fire reaching it within one hour. That's the red area there and then this is with 97th percentile worst case scenario sundown or wind conditions.
Next slide, this is also part of the hazard assessment it's the integrated wildfire hazard it takes a look at the probability and intensity of wildfire at a specific point so the red areas being your highest hazard areas this helps us to identify where there is vegetation that's most likely to produce the highest intensity wildfire This one maps wildfire exposure to structures. So we're taking a look at where we have concentrations of structures in the plan area and where they're most exposed to vegetation.
So it's measuring proximity to hazardous vegetation, and then this is useful for helping us prioritize where fuels treatment projects and defensible space projects should occur. And finally, a community relative risk assessment. So again this is relative so it's looking at the relative risk within the plan area not to say that these areas that are identified as low like the purplish and blue color don't have fire risk but relative to the rest of the plan area they have a lower risk than say those peripheral areas of the community So some key findings from that hazard assessment, probably not surprising but this area has climate terrain and vegetation that definitely facilitates high intensity wildfire. And it is in close proximity to communities within the plan area.
We do have sundowner winds of course in this plan area that can result in extreme fire behavior and it is likely to funnel fire toward the community. We have both natural and urban vegetation that can contribute to a fire within the plan area, and we do have a lot of opportunities that arose from this analysis to mitigate wildfire risk. And I should mention on the analysis all of the modeling that we've done it only takes into account your wildland vegetation so there is no model currently that allows us to model structure fires so it's looking at impact of that wildland vegetation, a fire occurring within there and as it approaches the community.
As mentioned, there is a transportation study included as part of this project. We worked with the subconsultant Farron Peers to conduct the transportation study. It helped to identify areas with limited access and egress within the plan area. Helps us to identify recommendations for improving emergency access as well as evacuations out of the plan area. We also took into account feedback from the community and recommendations that they provided as far as what they see as the biggest issues in the area.
The transportation study estimated the number of vehicles per building that would need to evacuate, it assigns vehicles to evacuation routes within the planned area to evacuate out of the planned area and then we compared demand and roadway capacity for each of those routes So the results of that analysis showed that we have some specific intersections that had the greatest delays. Those are Mission Canyon Road and Foothill Road intersections as you can see on the map here.
We also took into account the weekend versus weekday evacuation times weekends certainly had greater demand. That's with visitors in the plan area folks attending events maybe at the Botanic Gardens or visiting your recreational areas within the plan area. And then important to note that the location of ignition could impact the evacuation demand and evacuation times.
So throughout this project, we engaged a development team. The list here on the screen includes all the various members that were engaged so we had of course the County Fire Department, we had the County Fire Safe Council City of Santa Barbara Fire Department, Montecito Fire Protection District, Los Padres National Forest, Santa Barbara Botanic Gardens, CAL FIRE. We had community representatives from Mission Canyon, San Roque, Northridge and La Colina Firewise Community and then we had our consultant team present at all the development team meetings as well.
And then agency involvement. We had agency review and input from OEM, US Forest Service and CAL FIRE in addition to the fire agencies listed on the prior screen. And community input that was received during this process. It's a required component of a CWPP, so we initiated the project with field meeting where folks from the Fire Safe Council and County Fire Department attended this field meeting with the consultant team and provided input on areas of concern.
We had monthly development team meetings. We distributed a public survey to the community We developed a public-facing website in the form of a story map. This was built upon throughout the project, this included updates about our analysis that was conducted and results of the analysis as well as opportunities to engage. We conducted tabling at various public events. And then we held three public workshops for this project, two in person in May and one virtual in February 20, sorry, May 2024 and one virtual in February 2025.
And then we also invited the public to review the draft CWPP and we took comments and incorporated those that were deemed necessary to incorporate into the document. So some key issues identified by the community that we took into consideration were ignition potential, some key ignition potential along roads and gathering areas and parking areas, fuels and vegetation on private property.
Post-fire erosion and debris flow risks, so concerns regarding evacuation in a post fire environment. And then of course evacuation and lack of evacuation routes and difficulty for emergency response to reach community residents. Fuel breaks within the plan area and the importance of developing these and maintaining these. Defensible space and home hardening, there's a desire for more education and more information as far as who to use for these types of projects on private property, as well as funding for these types of projects.
Critical infrastructure including communication systems, signage and roads. And populations so special populations within the plan area including seniors and folks with disabilities as well as an influx of recreation and tourist communities within the plan area. So key actions that were identified by the community, the community was most concerned or wanted to see defensible space and creation and maintenance of fuel management projects on private and public lands. Those are the top concerns identified followed by roadside clearance.
And here you can see some of the, we had a group discussion activities where folks discussed the greatest opportunities and they saw community actions identified as the greatest opportunity. So those are like community scale projects like defensible space projects, chipper programs, structural hardening programs where a community can pursue grants on a larger scale.
And the action plan that was developed following all of the analysis as well as community input, it was divided into these eight categories that you see on the screen. So wildfire hazard, evacuation access, community participation and education, wildfire ignition, jurisdiction and land ownership, structure exposure, financial barriers and environment. So by dividing the action plan into these categories we were able to then prioritize within each of these.
So the, oh this is just a repeat of the categories. You can skip this one. Within the action plan, the vegetation management category we identified projects on both public and private property. These require collaboration with relevant jurisdictions. We also tried to identify projects that would allow for regulatory streamlining. And we want to ensure that there's code compliance when these projects are implemented, as well as ensuring that roadside fuels reduction is being implemented according to county code.
This map shows some of the priority projects that were mapped during our project. So as you can see on the screen, there's a number of projects within the plan area, some very specific as far as roadside fuels reduction, some a little more broad as far as larger community scale vegetation reduction and outreach and education. Within the community outreach and education category, this is just a summary of some of the points that were brought up in action items identified.
Some that I'll call attention to most important here creating a single hub of information with wildfire preparedness information for the community so a single place where folks can go to find out What they can do to improve their wildfire resilience And updating a quick reference guide with cost-efficient and cost effective home hardening and defensible space options So what people can do first and foremost the biggest bang for their buck folks really wanted to find that out Structural ignitability, we have action items related to structural retrofit programs. Evaluations and community education as well as seeking grant funding for structural retrofit programs.
We have underfunding continuing to partner with agencies and groups like the Fire Safe Council to pursue grant opportunities. Maintaining our position on the Cal Fire fire risk reduction communities list so that we are eligible for grants. Partnering with universities and research institutions, and seeking opportunities to bolster fire prevention staff. And then in the post-fire recovery category developing rehabilitation guidelines for a post-fire recovery.
And then also evaluating alternative access and evacuation routes.
2:52 – 2:586 turns
All right. So this, as I said earlier, you know this is one of the unusual. One of the items that's unusual with a CWPP is that it has a full transportation study associated with it. Most CWPPs do talk about challenges. The Mission Canyon initial CWTP had a three-quarter page 3 quarter page section that discussed the concerns of the community roads that were that needed to be improved or bolstered.
You know as a as a best practice idea and through community community feedback it was decided to add a transportation study into this into this project our recommendation for this piece of the project is that the CWPP be adopted, but the transportation study be received and filed but entered in so that it's continually be associated as an appendix into the item.
The findings generally you know there's a draft countywide transportation study. The findings generally Collaborate and confirm some of those findings. And provide us in the community with some ideas, potential ideas. And it's a really difficult area to widen. There's not a lot of areas to widen and get people out of the area but it does give us some insight into the actions that we have to take.
The major thing that we took away from county fire is that we have to continue to reduce fuels in the area, to make sure that impacts through wildfire are mitigated as much as possible to give people time to get in and out of there. I'm going to go through some recommendations. As I stated earlier, our recommendation is that the Board of Supervisors adopt the Santa Barbara Foothills CWPP and receive and file a transportation study inserted as Appendix C.
And also determined that this does not have any, adopting the Santa Barbara Foothills Community Wildfire Protection Plan and Transportation Study is not the approval of a project. That is subject to an environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act under CEQA.
Okay, thank you so much to the team for the presentation. Any questions from the board?
Supervisor Hartman? Well, it is a really great effort and I think everybody who's worked on this partnered on this is to be commended. I wonder if you would expand a bit on the concept of hazardous urban vegetation and we all understand I guess that we need defensible space around our homes but At the Fireside Council, we're planting oak trees around and eager to have orchards that are as a mosaic of protected buffer. So how do we know what's good and what isn't? And what we should be doing? What have you concluded here?
We certainly correct there are certain vegetation types that are more fire resilient than others. So in our analysis we took a look at kind of your broader urban vegetation, ornamental vegetation in the plan area where do we have Homes with urban vegetation much too close to the structure, homes with urban vegetation that is highly flammable. Those are some of your plants that contain high oils and resins. So really it comes down to outreach and education making sure that the community is educated on this component of what vegetation is good for fire resilience and which vegetation is going to-
We really need a plant palette.
Yes, a plant palette would be helpful. I think there is one that the county currently looks at but we were looking about potentially updating that. But yes so things like oak trees serving as ember screens agricultural or orchards serving as buffers between wildland vegetation and the community. We definitely took a look at all of that where we have agriculture, not a lot in this plan area but there is some and those do serve as buffers. So yeah within your urban vegetation you know you have good vegetation and bad so making sure that the community is aware of that and then the importance of zone zero so that 0 to 5 foot area around
2:58 – 3:0313 turns
And the transportation study, this is the first time we've done a formal transportation study. When do you think those are called for? I know Mission Canyon is a very distinctive I think you're probably on the right path there that we
You know, we're working on that as a county to identify an overall plan. But I think there was a call for this right around the time of the inception some of the ideas brought forth for CWPP is a best practice could be a traffic study just especially for areas kind of like a paradise, Mission Canyon, Topanga Canyon which is very narrow and very dense urbanization in there with a lot of fuels So but I think within the county, I wouldn't say that every CWPP update is going to require transportation study from here.
But it was an idea for a good idea for this
one. So as one of the recommendations to really try to clear vegetation away from the road as much as possible or not where it's a steep drop off or help me understand better?
Sure, so we do have 100 fires a year that County Fire responds to and reports to various processes including the state. 95% of those are less than 10 acres 99% of those might be like two by two but our experience with that in working with Caltrans working with County Fire and County Roads is that And through our chapter 15 amendment requiring that roadsides be cleared 10 foot on either side.
That a resulting fire can either put itself out, remain small or gives us chance to get there before it transitions.
And can we do that in Mission Canyon?
We do that in Mission Canyon. Okay. Yeah so the Fire Safety Council is very active. Even where there's steep
drop-offs I guess there's not...
Yeah, there's some steep drop-offs and then private driveways but we there is active tagging framework. The Fire Safety Council has been active in their chipping program.
And you worry about erosion so it's always kind of a balance.
It is a balance in there yes but but it is a concern that roadways are our main start of 85% of our fires start along the roadway
And I think my last question, this fills in a gap right that we had. You expanded the area and now we've got plans and projects and communities educated but we still need to do this in Goleta. I think we have an area so I don't know if you could speak to that or Chief Hartwig how what's the status of expanding and updating the Goleta wildfire protection plan?
I think the first two, part of it is fire department has to have a person on it. So right now we're involved in the Lompoc Valley CWPP so I have staff that's going to be participating in that project. It sounds like within the San Ynez Valley, whether it's just Solvang or San Ynez. It would be a good idea to expand upon the San Ynez Valley CWPP. So if we're working on two right away I think that's probably our two priorities to start working our way towards the north.
The Goleta CWPP we've had some I've had some initial discussions and I think Aleda City is interested in doing one. I would say that if they do one, it would be a good idea to somehow expand into it or get included into some of the other CWPPs because it's a little bit landlocked. That CWPP is a little bit landlocked so it doesn't really take into account a lot of the vegetation around it but it should be one of the items either included or updated
Right. So whether the Fire Safe Council or the fire department takes the lead, it's still a lot of effort on your part and but I think I've been told that Goleta you know because of the population there it's one of our highest risk areas in the sundowners and the population so I'm eager to see it completed in the Lompoc Valley Eager to get it going in Santa Ynez, but I just want to keep Goleta on the front burner because I think that's really critically important.
3:03 – 3:0913 turns
Thank you. I'll definitely echo that on Goleta, but I appreciate this report and again just appreciate how many community meetings you've done recently. Just have been so accessible and a common question is about fire hydrants and so I wondered if you could address that particularly related to the Foothill area, Mission Canyon area? Just people are really worried that fire hydrants aren't there or they might not be working. Can you speak to that please?
Sure, so there is a specifically in the Mission Canyon. There's quite a number of fire hydrants in the area they're serviced actually by the Santa Barbara City Municipal Water District okay so any piece of development that's been in the Mission Canyon where it's been required there's there's a really good network of hydrants in there now I should say that when we require hydrants for development, it's typically for the one or two homes that are right next to it.
It does present a challenge like during the Palisades when you have a conflagration type event there is no system in the world that can have that much water at one time, 1,000 fire engines plugging into the hydrants. But during the Hazeta fire, we were able to make early access because people left early. We were able to make access with our fire engines and save a lot of homes in that in the Mission Canyon being very careful with water and water usage.
We didn't have any issues with water in the area so...
Supervisor Hartman, did you want to jump in on that?
That raised a question. How effective... I have a 5,000 gallon tank for firefighters and I have a fire hydrant but we may lose electricity. How effective is that for firefighters if you see a water tank?
Having a water tank? We can typically when you're younger, not like me I'm getting older. When you're younger in the fire service you get told hey you can put out a fire an incipient stage fire with 15 to 20 gallons of water if you're using water correctly. Now once you start getting into vegetation fires You know, I was up on Spyglass Ridge after the fire front had passed.
And there was we were monitoring and we saw an edge of a corner of a house that had caught on fire with I didn't have to plug into a hydrant but I called the engineer over or I think actually I was the engineer But I drove the engine over and I applied water, about 20 gallons of water to be able to put it out. So as long as we can catch things and we're monitoring, yeah 500 gallons does a lot so.
And so you might encourage people who are concerned about a conflagration in a more urban area that water tanks are a good idea?
I would say water tanks are a good idea, but also in conjunction with zone zero. Yeah. You know it's not required right now, but over the next three years zone zero is going to be required phasing in defensible space supporting the fire safe council and the fire department when we're conducting fuel reduction efforts. Home hardening when that's a possibility removing wooden fences away from your structures All of that will make the survivability of the homes in Mission Canyon and this plan here much more likely. A lot of homes in the planned area are already very high fire hazard construction, I wouldn't hesitate to put firefighters in any of those areas. We just need to keep improving and making sure that we can protect these homes.
And some of the things, you know, I was talking to Captain McKibbin. He was doing a survey the other day. It's not always, you know, the vegetation but it's the things we might choose to put next to our houses as well. You know, so garbage cans or lights. Straw mats. Things like that.
My second question is, I know how organized the Mission Canyon area is. Neighbors, the association there and so I'm just curious about evacuation and resilience hubs if that's an element of these plans going forward we had this really great meeting recently with Director Hubbard and the Unitarian Society that's transitioning to I just wonder if that's an element of these plans. Could it be going forward? So at a minimum, the plan includes where evacuation centers would be closest,
Yes, thank you Madam Chair. If I could just specifically on transportation and I know Fire Marshal Tan referred to it there's currently a study out going right now through a P&E and Lisa Plowman in her office that we're participating in and I think we're gonna talk about those things maybe some rally points or some resilience hubs but that concept generally is really particular to the neighborhood and we're not really sure in this neighborhood, Mission Canyon specifically even though that came up in some of our conversations if maybe that area is best designed for those. But I think we're going to find out here shortly when we continue this and finish this study here with P&E and some of our other county partners
We have no request to speak from the public on this item. Okay. Anything else? Deliberation? Okay. All right, Supervisor Hartman.
I'll move A through D in staff recommendation.
Second.
Okay all those in favor please say aye. Aye. Thank you very much. And now we will move to closed session at 1215. We don't need the full hour I've been told so let's do about 45 minutes, I think 40 minutes?
3:09 – 3:123 turns
County Council? Madam Chair, members of the board. I think we can complete it in 30 minutes depending on how if the board wants to take a break beforehand but in closed session today the board is scheduled for three items and this is the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors also sitting as the Board of Directors for the county flood control water conservation district. The first item is Antoinette Whitting versus the county that's the Santa Barbara Superior Court case Also Santa Barbara County Flood Control Water Conservation District versus Francisco Gamma and Hilda Gamma, also Santa Barbara Superior Court.
And decision on whether to initiate civil litigation one case.
Okay let's come back at 1 o'clock and take just a bit of a break on the front end and so yeah we'll resume at 1 o clock to keep it even thanks. Okay, and we're back. County Council can you please read out closed session?
Thank you Madam Chair, members of the board. The board met in closed session on three items sitting as the Board of Supervisors and the Board of Directors for the Flood Control Water Conservation District Whitting versus the county Santa Barbara County Flood Control Water Conservation District versus Francisco and Hilda Gamma And deciding whether to initiate civil litigation, one case.
The board took one reportable action in closed session. The board considered whether to initiate litigation and authorized county council to initiate this litigation the details of which would be disclosed once the action is formally commenced to any person upon inquiry. The board voted for zero to initiate litigation with Supervisor Nelson abstaining.
3:12 – 3:373 turns
Okay. Now we'll move on to departmental item number five. Another fire focus, area fire hazard severity zones.
Chair Kaps and members of the board, departmental item number five is from the Fire Department, the Board of Directors Fire Protection District. It is a hearing to consider recommendations regarding the adoption of designated local responsibility area fire hazard severity zones LRAFHSC within the unincorporated areas of Santa Barbara County.
Thank you again for letting us make this presentation back to back. Today we're going to be discussing the adoption or our recommendation to adopt the fire hazard severity zones produced by the State Fire Marshal's Office. I think this cover page gives, we'll talk about it a little bit more as we go through the presentation but there is a good delineation here versus when we discuss hazard Hazard within the vegetation and then the things you can do to address the risk to your structures, whether it's through home hardening, defensible space or fuel reduction efforts or fuel treatments and fuel breaks. So that community because of its potentially Potential characteristics with 7-8 construction, a road there that firefighters can make a stand could make that community much more resilient to fire.
So fire hazard severity zones, a little bit of history on that. The Loma Fire on State Responsibility Areas, I believe that was in the 1990s or early 2000s. As a result of the Loma fire it was destructive. People had perished in that fire. A lot of homes were lost. The state assembly required CAL FIRE to generate zones that were very similar to flood maps. Flood maps that in the flood zones you might have like 50, 100, 200 year flood maps.
The fire hazard severity zones were required on State Responsibility Area and in this county we have 800 close to 820 thousand acres of State Responsibility Area to determine If the chance is that fire might touch a piece of dirt in the SRA. As a result of the Oakland Hills Fire and some other local fires within Santa Barbara County, We have local responsibility areas as well.
Local area's responsibility include Santa Maria, Los Alamos, Buellton, Solvang, Lompoc, Goleta, Santa Barbara, Carpagria, Montecito and other areas of unincorporated local areas. There's about 130,000 acres of LRA and as a result of the Oakland Hills fire several years after the state responsibility, the State Fire Hazard Severity Zones were required. The state legislature required CAL FIRE and the State Fire Marshal to produce LRA maps and these were the this is the result this presentation is a result of that government code Typically, the maps are supposed to be produced every five years.
It's just a very difficult process. The last time the local maps were adopted in our area and throughout the state was in 2009. So we've had about 16 years of time between the adoption of areas. Last year, 2024 went by pretty quietly. The state responsibility area fire hazard severity zones were adopted by Cal Fire within our jurisdiction and those are currently used for defensible space requirements, building requirements and other Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the Board of Supervisors. I would like to start with a couple of other development review items. The government code required that there's levels of hazard produced, three levels, moderate, high and very high.
And that existed for a very long time in the SRA and then for this past year Thank you. You know, one of the I think the reasons that the maps aren't produced every five years is there was a lack of technology and personnel. CAL FIRE was able to use the best available technology and science to develop the maps, the SRA and the very high fire hazard LRA maps.
The word on screen is that they use the Livermore Labs supercomputer to crunch the data, to produce these maps and then painstakingly verify their results. The factors that were used in this process were fire history, vegetation, flame length, ember cast, proximity to wild land terrain and weather. One essential element that's missing out of the 2025 product versus a 2009 product is that in 2007 to 2009, the state used evacuation challenges as a metric as well.
Some updates to the process included updated burn probabilities for wildland areas, updated fire environments urban and developed. So a lot of urbanization has occurred since 2009. Updated vegetation density for urban areas that would have been very difficult for people to really go survey versus a computer. Inclusion of slope and urban zoning models, localized fire weather using both wildland and urban models, and new fire ramp production and transport model using discrete local wind vector distributions.
In the previous presentation, Ms. Linker had spoken about the modeled wind that was used for the CWPP. A similar wind model was used for the very high fire hazard severity zone and the SRA maps. One thing that is really important to keep in mind is that the wind model was a 97% wind model that was used for this, for the maps produced by the State Farm Marshall.
So the 97th percentile wind models are somewhere in between the 35 to 38 miles per hour We know that if you move that up to the 99th percentile, you're going to start getting the 60, 70, 80 mile per hour winds. And the 99 percentile is what the winds are that were experienced during the Palisades fire. You know, being in that area there was sustained winds of 80 to 100 miles per hour. And those are the winds that I think personally I would have liked to have seen forecasted onto these maps but they used kind of the more moderate, the more common winds, the 35 to 40 miles per hour and speaking and developing Our proposal with the local fire marshals, county planning and the fire chiefs we took into consideration some of the higher winds that are present in the area.
The fire hazard severity zones took into consideration wildland versus non-wildland areas. They didn't take into, you know when the maps were developed it didn't take into account whether there was fuel breaks put in, whether there's roads or agricultural areas, whether communities were there. It just took the probability that that fire or fire brands might land on certain parcels.
In wildland areas, the minimum size of the study areas were 200 acres per section. They took into account the fire occurrences from 1991 to 2020 locally. Captain McKibbin here and the pre-fire engineers that have worked before him We meticulously take into our records every fire, the cause of every fire if they're determined where they happened and what the result of those fires. That data locally was used for these burn probabilities.
Fire intensity was forecasted based on the vegetation type of the areas, a slope, the local fire weather. Again, you know, the local fire weather, the 97th percentile is pretty high with that 35 to 37, 38 mile per hour criteria but we know that the 99th percentile which exists in this area that we've seen in some of the fires have occurred in the front country can be more devastating In the urban fire hazard severity zones we were able to, the state was able to focus in on 20 acre blocks.
Fairly obvious that there's not a lot of vegetation in those areas and as a result I'll bring up some maps that display the reason that the fire hazards severity zones receded from the 2009 product But based off the urban fire hazard severity zones, we're using some of the same metrics with their ember production, the transport winds. Again, the 97th percentile winds and then bands of moderate high very high areas were found or determined in the LRA. What's a map for? So The maps typically in the very high fire hazard LRA, Title 14 State Minimum Fire Safe Regulations really come into play.
And without that we have very little oversight if no oversight on some development review processes for building standards and building code and the upcoming new WUI, Wildland Urban Interface Code Anything in the very high fire hazard zones in the SRA, high and moderate in the SRA and the very high fire hazard LRA have to be built with 7a construction which is High Fire Hazard Construction.
Property development standards such as road widths, road lengths, how many ways in and out, water supplies signage have to meet the fire safe regulations. So those are standards that we apply to all of the SRA and the very high fire hazard LRA again. Defensible space requirements come into play in the very high fire hazard LRA, and the disclosure for natural hazard real estate disclosures come into play as well.
Some of the concerns that have come up, and I'll preface this by saying that we did post these maps with a press release with all the fire agencies in coordination with a lot of cities in the county. We have answered questions at town halls, you know via emails but we left a place all the agencies left places for comments for the public. And we mostly all received maybe two or three emails per agency and some of those emails didn't really even relate to the process but the concerns were related to homeowners insurance And what these maps determine is whether over a 30 to 50 year period, you might see some fire on your parcel. You might see some ember cast blow some fire on that parcel.
In relation to insurance, Commissioner Lara has directed insurance companies not to use the fire hazard maps rather determine risk of each individual home Whether a homeowner has conducted enough defensible space projects, hardened their home to an extent, maybe put in zone zero, maintained the areas around their home. Whether the fire agencies or fire safe councils have done any community defensible space projects to basically mitigate the hazard that the vegetation presents. So while it is a little bit of splitting hairs, talking about risk versus hazard because they're right next to each other, homeowners can do quite a bit of work, including gathering with the community and getting that firewise designation within their community. And we have about 38 communities now in the county and they're very, very busy engaging more communities in the firewise space.
But a lot of those are in these fire hazard areas but as long as you're mitigating risk around your structures and your parcels, you're still eligible to get Insurance and sometimes a discount because you're in a Firewise community. Kind of a chart on what is and doesn't, what applies and what doesn't apply within the Fire Hazard Severity Zones in the SRA and the LRA. Again in the SRA we have about 820,000 acres.
In the federal lands there's about 900,000 acres and we don't have any jurisdiction within those federal lands. And the LRA is about 130,000 acres. If you look across the top, what we're proposing today really is what we will have oversight on once we adopt the proposed fire hazard severity zones in the very high fire hazard LRA. So defensible space requirements will be...
We there's as a result, there's going to be a few more defensible space requirements for all the agencies. We're gonna scale those in but a lot of these, a lot of the homes that are new very high fire hazard LRA throughout the county are kind of in subdivisions within pretty good you know and manicured and are situated very well but we were gonna start incorporating those into our defensible space inspections But 7-8 construction is going to be a requirement in those areas, and they were likely required in those areas anyway because the county has a fire hazard zone of its own.
And you know the fire safe regulations was going to be very important for us to implement within this area that we're gonna look at for some maps. So this is the western boundary. I know the focus of this is we're not making any, in the North County, we're not making any recommendations to change the fire hazard severity zones designated by the State Fire Marshal and the LRA.
This is the zones, these are the high, very high and moderate zones that are suggested and designated by the State Fire Marshal And this is the zone that we are proposing to add. And it's not really an addition, because this zone was in existence from the 2009 process. So what we're really proposing is to keep the zones the same and that allows us some oversight on projects a little... Some more oversight on projects within these areas including whether the roads meet Title 14 requirements, water standards, defensible space.
We just want to be able to carefully develop in these areas. This is a center of the new area that we're making our proposal over. So this is the designated area by the state fire marshal and you can tell there's not a lot there but the next slide will show Well, it has been in existence here in the county for us to review and develop since 2009. And we're just proposing that we keep this zone in place.
So to the south is Santa Barbara City. That's an area that they already have within their own documentation as a high area. And they're going to submit that anyway, but down the middle part all the red areas that's designated on this map was previously designated in the 2009 process and we were just proposing to keep this 2009 map in this boundary within our jurisdiction is a very high fire hazard zone This is the eastern edge of the zone starting to hit Montecito and Summerland.
This is what the proposal is from the State Fire Marshal's Office. And this is what we are proposing to add back in from the 2009 process. There's there is a little bit of additional area that's added by the Carp Summerlin Fire Protection District because it is in the county LRA, County Unincorporated LRA but essentially this zone has no changes from from the 2009 process And we can skip this map, it's just an extra map.
So our justification for the proposed I guess the proposal to keep the additional or keep the existing boundaries that were designated in 2009 with some very minor changes is that 51182 government code 50182 cites that substantial evidence is required to make amendments to the state fire marshals maps You know one of the pieces that, one of the main elements that is missing out of the state fire marshals map in my opinion and the opinion of the fire marshals and the fire chiefs in our discussions is that they use the wins in that 90th. I don't know if I've been saying the 97th percentile, I apologize but between the 90th and 95th percentile you know that happens all the time but once we get to those higher percentiles those 30-50 year wins I would like to have more oversight in terms of and other items that are related to development including ADUs.
The areas affected in the sundowner wind speeds, these areas were designated by the farm marshal's office again we're 40 miles per hour but we're looking at that higher wind speed And in 2009, as I stated earlier, that process took into account evacuation challenges, narrower roads. And for some reason, I think it's just because of the difficulty of assessing that in every jurisdiction they left that process out.
And whether, you know, whether through just sheer luck or coincidence because we were developing the Santa Barbara Foothill Community Wildfire Protection Plan and the associated traffic study. We were able to validate that this area has a significant challenge for evacuations I'll have that on the next chart The area is also characterized by a lot of narrow roads, along with the long evacuation times.
That makes it challenging when if there's a fire ignition that's similar to the Hayes-Zeta Fire and it's starting to blow down the canyon, firefighters trying to access through narrow roads battling You know, really kind of battling residents are trying to get out. It makes firefighting efforts and evacuation efforts. It really makes that those efforts much more complex. So these are the justifications that we are using to recommend that the maps stay with the same zones.
This is a chart out of the Santa Barbara Foothill traffic study. Again, it wasn't adopted. It was received in file but it shows anywhere from an hour up to five hours to evacuate a fairly small geographic area. And in that time period, you know, an hour can feel like a day for a lot of residents. And I think we saw a lot of videos coming out of Eaton and Palisades to display that. But, you know, I think this is one of the main arguments that we have is that The times that people are going to need to evacuate, it's gonna be a significant challenge for them to do so in the result of any wildfire that occurs in the area.
And then firefighting efforts are gonna be much more difficult because of that. The timeline for this process, so we received our maps for review on March 10th. Within 30 days of receiving the maps, we reviewed the maps, just had our internal discussions and discussions with county planning and all the local fire agencies. Within 30 days, we posted the maps and provided a place for the community to comment on our websites From there, we have 120 days within receiving the maps from March 10th to adopt.
or either adopt the maps that the State Farm Marshal will produce, or adopt maps that we are recommending today. So we're still about 35 days at this point to review the maps and consider if the board chooses to do so but we still have plenty of time. We're still within 120 days if we adopted today to get these maps up to the Board of Forestry. Within 30 days of adopting the maps, we just have to transmit a copy of the resolution or the ordinance and our maps to the Board of Forestry. So if that happens, if the board does adopt a map today, we will get and adopt the ordinance. We'll get that to the Board of Forestry as soon as we receive it.
Can't see it through here but this link was made available for the public if they wanted to access a digital, the maps digitally. Our website www.sbcfire.com has a landing page for the fire hazard severity zones. This link is on it to be able to really dive in put your address and take a look and see what zone that you're in. And then this page is available. The QR code takes you to the state fire marshal site to answer additional questions on the development of them and also there's an email address at the top if there's any additional comments or questions that can come to County Fire.
3:37 – 3:4533 turns
Okay, thank you so much. Supervisor Nelson did you have a question?
Yeah I have a few questions. One is What's the process? So if we adopt this, but later on we come back and we say hey this is a little you know might be too restrictive on this property. Is there a process to remove it later on or is we got to wait till the next iteration of this process in the future?
Excuse me so the Santa Barbara City Fire Department through their CWPP was able to adopt and name differently their zones. We certainly, if we have a finding that things that maybe the zones don't match what or we need to expand further or we need to recede I think it's well within our code you know to be able to amend it in Chapter 15. We just have to submit that to the State Fire Marshal's Office so the next process is hopefully in five years now that they and I think we're all going to have better practice at it but Within five years or within local amendments I think we can make some changes.
So the CAL FIRE LRA zones, do we have input on that? Or is that just we have to take what they're giving us?
We would have to take back yeah we would have to take if we don't adopt the proposed maps so we're proposing today we would just have to take whatever Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the board. It's that it'd be this map, this portion of the map. This is a state fire marshal's designated area and then this as well. So these would be if we don't adopt the proposed amendments, it would just be those maps.
I guess I'm more concerned understanding the North County ones?
Yeah.
And so you had these maps, you didn't have any of these maps for the North County but I've kind of played around with the map that is online And there's different moderate CAL FIRE LRA areas that are on farm fields.
Yeah
and so just trying to understand how that exactly works and
so those farm fields. Is the likelihood that there could be some fire? You know, a moderate chance over a 30-50 year period that you would see some fire on those zones. That land, you know, some ember of fire results and it might spread into those areas in the LRA.
Broccoli doesn't burn. What's that? Broccoli doesn't burn. I'm sorry. Broccoli doesn't burn.
Yeah, understood. So yeah that we probably could have looked into but we had to accept whatever you know whatever the state that's why we didn't designate anything up in North County. That's what
I'm trying to understand. I've been looking at some of these different maps and I guess I'm concerned about having designation on certain places And that's why I'm asking about how can you opt out of it later on, because if there is something they want to develop on there and now this triggers some kind of development pathway that's excessive. I don't want us to go oh well it's in the LRA so we just have to go through this process because we have to be kind of a slave to this policy when it's really unnecessary in some of these areas because it's kind of obvious that.
That you might not have.
You're surrounded by hundreds of acres of active fresh produce, cold water.
Sure. Yeah, the next iteration we can't take back. We've been told we can't take back what the State Farm Marshall produces, but that doesn't preclude people from being able to develop. And most of the 7A construction, most of those characteristics which is fire-resistive roofing, fire-resistant siding, dual pane windows already exist in most developments so then we're looking at access and water which is pretty common you know in a lot of the developments that we're looking at.
So
I guess we need to figure out what we're adopting here today. Are we adopting CAL FIRE's LRA? Or are you adopting our proposed
amendment? We are adopting CAL FIRE's LRA maps, including in North County and then these additions in the South County.
But we don't have a choice about the state maps, right? We
don't have a choice about the state maps and we don'y have a choice about the LRA designated by the State Fire Marshal's Office.
So then why do we need to adopt if we don''t have
a choice? By ordinance, by state law, even if we didn't make any changes, we would have to adopt them into our The county is required to adopt the ordinance and the maps and then produce them and submit them to the Board of Forestry. Sorry,
I'm confused by
that.
Supervisor Nielsen? So I think the confusion is The county may, by local map, adopt a more restrictive standard. But we can't go less restrictive than what the state's established. So I think what the staff is saying is that in the northern part of the county, that's what the state established. That's sort of the minimum. And then there's a few areas that this fire is designating as needing to be more restrictive.
More restrictive. Do we have an ability to ask them to remove some of these areas that are potentially not applicable?
Supervisor Nielsen, members of the board. I don't think through this process through our ordinance process that I don't know if there's a way to request it as of the state and that's something we could look into separately but I don't think as part of this process we can make it less restrictive than this.
And that's fine. I just I guess then I would like hear how when we saw areas on here that you know I see avocado fields you know I guess it was a really drought year maybe there might be some fire there
And those areas are areas that might see an ember cast. Not necessarily the fields may, but it didn't take into account like I said a lot of human made improvements which would be agricultural improvements.
Supervisor Nielsen, having to do with the fields when I go out and review different lands for the state one of the things that they do take into consideration is those annual crops like picture a vineyard that's a permanent crop versus broccoli. That farm could choose to not farm that it just turns into national And a good example of that is out in the Quiama Valley. I went back and looked through the historical maps of some years, depending on drought and water conditions, they would grow carrots or they'd just let it go to natural grass. So year-to-year those plots could be changing and that's taken into account.
Yeah, I get Quiama. I mean, Santa Maria Valley is a very different animal And one's a desert, one's very fertile agricultural zone. Okay but again we're not making that decision here. That's not what we're doing here. We're just take it or leave it with the state's offering us and then we're gonna add some additional in the South Coast.
Correct.
3:45 – 3:5912 turns
Other questions from the board? Okay let's see if there's public comment Madam Clerk.
Chair Kapsch, members of the board we have no request to speak from the public on this item.
Okay
I move A through C in today's staff recommendation.
Okay thanks to you both all those in favor please say aye.
Aye.
Thank you very much for the presentation
thank you
Okay now we'll move on to our next three items which are related to cannabis. Item number six amendments to the cannabis business licensing.
Chair Kaps and members of the board, departmental item number six is from the county executive office it is a hearing to consider recommendations regarding amendments to the cannabis business licensing fee ordinance
Good afternoon Chair Kaps. My name is Brittany Oderman, I'm the Deputy CEO and I oversee the Cannabis Business Licensing Division in our office. I have with me today Carmella Beck and she will be introing and presenting a couple of the first two items for cannabis.
Thank you All right, good afternoon. Thank you Ms. Wetterman, Chair Kaps and members of the board. Today we have three cannabis agenda items before the board I wanted to provide some context before we get started. The cannabis program consists of several components permitting and land use handled by planning and development and their staff costs are covered by permit fees. We are not discussing these fees today Business licensing and compliance with licensing requirements are administered through the County Executive Office and includes work by the Ag Commissioner, CEO, EHS, Fire, Sheriff, Sustainability, and the Treasurer Tax Collector Office.
These costs are covered by license fees and we're bringing an update to these fees today. In addition, the licensing program is governed by Chapter 50 of the County Code and the second item we will talk about are the proposed changes to Chapter 50 regarding criminal background check requirements and further direction on adjustments to the acreage cap. The third component is enforcement of illegal criminal activity which involves Sheriff, DA, County Council, Ag Commissioner and Planning and Development. These activities have to date been funded with cannabis tax revenue. Cannabis tax revenue dollars also cover line items that cannot be allocated to licensing fees and some items entirely unrelated to cannabis. Additional departments that receive these monies include B-Well, CHD, CEO County Council and TTC.
The third item will recommend some reductions to these ongoing uses of cannabis tax revenue to close an estimated budget gap in the fiscal year 25-26 budget. I'll be sharing today's amendment to the Cannabis Business License Fee Ordinance The proposed amendments for consideration by your board today are intended to achieve the following five objectives. Adjust the annual flat rate fees to reflect time spent on compliance and renewal activities, and to adjust new applicant deposit fees for time spent processing initial applications.
Reflect changes in salaries and benefits for each of the licensing team department job classifications These amendments will also adjust the indirect cost rate for each licensing team department. Similar to salaries and benefits, these overhead rates have not been updated since the last fee ordinance in May of 2023. Secure the cost recovery for 1.5 full-time employees in the CEO's office representing one business license specialist and 0.5 for the cannabis program manager. And lastly, the ordinance is intended to withdraw the fee recovery measure associated with the external data platform that analyzes the track and trace system also known as metric which tracks cannabis inventory from seed to sale.
As you'll recall, your board adopted the Cannabis Business Licensing Ordinance Chapter 50 and corresponding business licensing fee ordinance in May of 2018. The license fee has since been amended five times. As part of the original fee ordinance, three unique fees were established in order to fully recover the costs associated with a business licensing team's review of initial applications, review of annual renewal applications and mid-year compliance activities.
The fees were initially established as deposit fees, meaning that applicants are charged based on actual labor hours conducted by the licensing team using the established reimbursement rates for each job classification. The 2022 fee study added County Fire and the Carpinteria Summerland Fire District to the reimbursement rate structure as both were omitted from the initial fee study and existing fee ordinance. And the annual renewal and compliance fees were converted to flat fees While initial application fees remained a deposit, as staff anticipated very few new initial applications to be submitted.
The 2023 fee study achieved similar goals to today's goals and updated salaries benefits overhead costs and work to achieve full cost recovery for two cannabis business license specialists in 2023 as in prior amendments Today's proposed amendment looks to update fees to current staffing and cost levels for licensing. In September 2021, the board executed a joint exercise of powers agreement with the California Cannabis Authority that included a data analytics platform subscription. The data analytics platform provided live access to all cannabis operators' seed-to-sale inventory, data analysis and reports accessed with an API key.
At the July 18, 2023 board meeting there was a continuance granted until the August 22nd, 2023 board meeting where the board approved an amendment to include fees for the cannabis licensing program to recover the cost for the use of the platform. Cannabis tax revenues paid $500,000 annually for the subscription for two years from 2021 to 2022 and 2022 to 2023. For fiscal year 23-24 and 24-25 cannabis operators paid quarterly invoices to cover the bulk of a subscription fee because staff now has direct access to the state's metric data through MetricViewer for seed to sale records that data platform access is no longer required Staff intends to terminate use of the data platform and delete the fee recovery mechanism.
As part of the fee study that was conducted to inform today's proposed amendments, staff took the following five steps to develop fees to reimburse each of the licensing team department. First we performed a thorough review of all available data including a historical look back at the labor hours spent on each application by the following seven departments including Ag Commissioner, CEO, Carpentry of Fire, County Fire, Environmental Health Services, Sheriff, Sustainability and the Treasurer Tax Collector's Office staff for each of the three core review functions previously mentioned.
This labor data was then used to arrive at the average time spent on each application. Next, staff updated the salaries and benefit costs and indirect cost rates for each of the licensing team's department job classifications to develop updated hourly reimbursement rates. Average labor hour assumptions and the updated hourly reimbursement rates by department for each of the three core functions were then reviewed and vetted by each licensing team's department operational and finance staff to ensure accuracy.
And lastly, the fee study was thoroughly reviewed by auditor staff who provided their concurrence as to the reasonableness of the fee methodology and equitability of the resulting fees. In summary, the last licensing fee ordinance amendment took place in 2023. The current fee study was conducted in order to update the business licensing team salaries overhead costs and more accurately reflect the labor hours associated with each initial renewal and compliance activities The proposed fees are designed to secure full cost recovery for 1.5 FTEs in the CEO's office, for the cannabis business license specialist and a cannabis program manager assigned to the initial license review, renewals and compliance activities.
New fees are estimated to generate approximately $600,000 in revenues to cover licensing and compliance activities for all seven participating departments. Planning and development staff are not included in this fee study because they bill separately for all cannabis licensing related activities. Now that the new fees include a small $10,000 annual membership fee to the California Cannabis Authority to stay engaged in their lowest available participation tier titled keep our county informed providing regulatory and legislative updates semi-annual participant forms policy office hours a monthly newsletter and weekly news clips.
Labor hours will be monitored annually, along with hourly rates and may be adjusted pursuant to changes to the Consumer Price Index. Fee analysis will transition to a three-year schedule starting in fiscal year 2526 to ensure continued program cost recovery and accurate program reimbursement rates. In the next three slides I'll present the new fee schedules included in both the board letter and in Attachment A.
So here we show the initial applicant application deposit fee schedule, the existing deposit fee range from $5,180 to 10,450 and the newly proposed deposit fees range from 8,731 to 17,723. A fee range has been established and varies based on the license or licenses being applied for, the area of operation and whether the applicant is subject to an energy conservation plan or not.
For example, an operator that is applying for outdoor cultivation in the unincorporated area would pay a deposit fee of $17,622. This deposit fee would reflect labor costs for county fire since the proposed operation location in this example falls within their jurisdiction. This deposit fee would exclude the sustainability division's labor costs given that the project is outdoor cultivation and therefore not subject to an energy conservation plan.
but would include the balance of the licensing team's labor costs as they all would have review responsibilities relating to this specific license type application. In this next slide, we show the proposed flat rates for compliance activities. Fee varies based on type of license, area of operation and whether energy conservation applies. The existing compliance flat fees range from $4,031 to 6,327. The newly proposed compliance flat fees range from 4,813 to 6061.
Compliance fees cover mid-year compliance site and desk inspections, follow up in compliance team meetings. Lastly, this final slide shows the proposed flat fees for renewal applications. The existing flat fees for renewal applications range from $2,952 to $4,649. The newly proposed renewal flat fees range from $3,128 to $4850. Fee varies based on type of license, area of operation and whether energy conservation applies.
Note that compliance and renewal fees switched from deposit fees to flat fees in 2022. At that time the existing deposit fee model was administratively burdensome and cost approximately $60,000 annually for the cannabis program administrative staff to recognize revenue to the eight different licensing team departments for each of the three core review functions. Additional reasoning for the deposit to flat fee switch included that the fixed fee model was currently used for other processes throughout the county and transitioning to this fixed-fee model would provide applicants certainty of the total fees charged for annual renewal application review and compliance efforts.
This year's fee study analysis did not contemplate reverting back to deposit fees for either renewal or compliance fees. While not all applicants will undergo yearly compliance activities by any or all departments, the expectation is that the compliance fees support the successful execution of a robust culture of compliance across all cannabis operators. The recommended actions for your board today are as follows. Consider the introduction of an ordinance of the Board of Supervisors of the County of Santa Barbara amending and superseding Ordinance 5181, an ordinance establishing the Cannabis Business License Fee. Read the title and waive further reading of the ordinance in full and set a hearing on the administrative agenda for June 10th 2025 to consider the second reading and seek a determination.
This concludes today's presentation and we're happy to answer questions.
3:59 – 4:0514 turns
Questions? Supervisor Nelson.
Yes, thank you. The California Compliance Authority that we were part of the part of that was making sure we collected the right amount taxes right and especially with our tax scheme being around gross receipts I thought that relationship there helped us with some of our pricing and making sure that we're collecting the appropriate amount of taxes can you just help me with that and making sure that if We're no longer going to be able to have access to that information that they may have had. Has that been helpful in our audits and collection? And if we're not going to have that anymore, what will we be relying on?
Thank you, Supervisor Nelson through the chair. That is correct. The original idea was with the California Cannabis Authority was a membership in order to see the data that that the operators were providing through metric. We did not have access to metric this data analytics platform was the only opportunity to see into metric The state has since offered Metric Viewer for free to every jurisdiction that has cannabis operations. And so we're currently using Metric Viewer.
I say we, the county, the Treasurer Tax Collector's Office uses Metric Viewer as well as, I believe, the Sheriff's Office and some of the other compliance And they're able to see the same information. They have to run their own analytics and do a little bit more work on that end, but we interviewed and talked is such that they believe that they no longer need the data platform. And so we were running dual platforms and the data analytics platform through the California Cannabis Authority is quite pricey, and so this is a reduction in cost.
I understand that. And the metric viewer if I'm using that term right? Yeah. Are we only able to see our county or are we able to see statewide?
Supervisor Nelson through the chair, we are only able to see our own county. And the same was true for the data analytics platform. We weren't able to see other counties information.
Okay and that would have I think would have been helpful especially if were in the gross receipts model knowing what was going on other places if we weren't getting that from CCA then or is that right? CCA's another abbreviation of cannabis so okay so I guess I'm satisfied by that answer
Thank you. So when did we get access to MetricViewer? When did they give us that?
Supervisor Leavenworth, the Chair, I believe it was summer of 2023. All right
and we adopted Chapter 50 in May of 2018 so they delivered it five years after they told us it was going to be available basically correct all right and cost cannabis growers. I mean, they were the one paying for our license at CCA?
Supervisor Lavagnino through the chair. They were in direct... Originally they were indirectly paying because we were using cannabis tax revenue for the first year and a half.
So it's either growers or users. What I'm trying to get a point is it's not that it's not the taxpaying public that was paying for CCA. Okay. So basically, the state came in five years late with Metric Viewer to the cost of a couple million bucks or so. A million and a half to two million dollars late. Just pointing out that the promises made by the state at the time was that Metric was gonna be available to everybody and it was gonna be this awesome product that never materialized. Well now I guess it has but all right. I'm in support of the staff recommendation
Thank you, I am too. I just appreciate that we are right sizing and making sure that we have cost recovery and the fees are aligned so I appreciate the analysis that went into this. Other questions? Comments? Let's go to the public then.
Chair Kapsen, members of the board, we have two requests to speak from the public on this item and we're going to zoom to begin with Kevin Wilson followed by Amanda Clark.
Good evening Supervisors. My name is Kevin Wilson, I'm the Chief Financial Officer of Leaf Brands. I'm here today to express our full support of CEO's recommendations regarding the Cannabis Control Program adjustments Leif is committed to a compliant, sustainable and community-driven cannabis industry within Santa Barbara County. We believe, and I know this is item 7 and 8 as well but we believe aligning background check policies with DCC standards removes unnecessary barriers and helps strengthen the regulated market and it's consistent with Prop 64's intent.
We also appreciate the thoughtful and fiscally responsible approach to rebalancing cannabis tax expenditures. As the industry contracts, it's appropriate that enforcement resources scale proportionately. Reinvesting these dollars into community benefiting programs and smarter oversight reflects both economic reality of the cannabis industry and policy maturity. Thank you all for your leadership in helping Santa Barbara County remain a model for responsible cannabis governance.
4:05 – 4:1011 turns
We will now go to Amanda Clark, who's our final speaker on this item. Amanda?
Good afternoon Madam Chair and Board Members. My name is Amanda Clark and I'm the Compliance Manager of Coastal Bloom Nursery, a cannabis business operating in Carpinteria. We respectfully request that cannabis business license compliance fees be changed from a flat fee structure to an hourly cost recovery based model. The current model charges nearly $6,000 per license regardless of time spent for compliance leading compliant operators to subsidize non-compliant operators and smaller operators to subsidize larger operators. Based on detailed invoices from the past three years we estimate our actual compliance costs are an average of $1,500 for cultivation operations although we pay $5,916.
Our actual compliance costs reflect increased efficiency and ongoing compliance by our team over the years. We believe a time-based billing structure would be a fairer and more accurate approach, and help incentivize compliance amongst all cannabis operations in an effort to lower costs. Thank you for your consideration.
And that concludes public comment for this item.
Thank
you. Just a question on that because that was that was the question I had when we were discussing earlier like environmental health fees, the idea of hourly versus flat which one's more fair to people whether you're putting in a septic tank if it's an easy one or it's very complicated. You know it's a flat fee so in cannabis you have these compliant folks that you guys are routinely working with might be a lot shorter time.
What kind of thought process went into that and why did we land on a flat fee as opposed to an hourly?
Supervisor Levenson, through the Chair. I think that we reverted to flat fees in 2022 and there I think there's the reasoning was at that time that it was somewhat cost prohibitive to be staying in the deposit lane so they switched to flat fees and also felt that that was a common tool used in the county so he switched to that and today we've heard concerns from the operators like we just heard and have considered whether or not it's the right move or not. And I think we're trying to figure out whether to rightsize it and continue to, you know, consider whether there's an opportunity to switch back. We wanted to give it enough time to kind of see it play out and go from there.
All right so we're keeping an open mind just monitoring the program great thank you
Supervisor Hartman.
I just wanted to follow on that is the flat fee more administratively easy? I mean, I assume the hourly is a bit more of an administrative burden on our side. Is that correct or not?
Supervisor Hartman through the chair. That's one piece of it. The flat fee takes into account the entire program The world of cannabis, right? And so we have a program that's big enough to support a base level of staff. But at the charging individual operators for each, you know, for example 10 or 12 minute increments that you're spending answering questions and doing the various things related is part of the administration, right? And so we can't really...
We aren't able to get there with the size of the program currently. And so, we look at the total of the program, the staff that's there to support it and we developed the flat fees to support that staff that are integral to the program.
So I'm just trying to understand if we did it the other way, what would be involved? I think of P&D for example and my assumption or my understanding is they build an hourly rate. But when we look at the cannabis program, we have so many different agencies departments involved that trying to track all of that and pull it together Thank you Supervisor Hartman. It is, but I think the bigger issue here is
4:10 – 4:127 turns
The program is evolving and we're seeing a lot of attrition, and we're losing operators. And the staff time that's spent on the cannabis program needs to be reimbursed. In planning and development for example there is almost an endless amount of permit applications coming in. So they know that they need a certain base level. They can fund a certain base level of staff with the time that they associated with all those various permit applications We've seen our numbers go down and down and down for cannabis. We went from 125 active applications, now we're down to 46 operators for renewals. And so we're trying to find that balance.
So you are right that administratively tracking the time, but I But I know that we could do that and we did do that in the past. So that's not the only reason it's really about The program and the staffing levels that are needed and being able to reimburse all of the departments that are doing this work without reducing their base their staff that they need to do their other functions and
So you've come up with this number that you're recommending based on how many operators we have out there to help support our program.
OK, that's correct. Supervisor Harmon. Supervisor
Nelson Yes, so I guess I'm hearing is that there's a significant amount of fixed costs in this and very little veritable cost. Thank you. All right. Thank you.
OK. Are we ready to rock and roll on this one? I'll entertain a motion.
I'll move A through C on today's board letter. Second.
Okay, we've got a motion and a second. All those in favor? Aye. Aye. Motion carries. We'll move on when you're ready to item number seven
4:12 – 4:233 turns
Chair Caps and members of the board, departmental item number seven is from the County Executive Office. It is a hearing to consider recommendations regarding amending chapter 50 of the county code licensing of cannabis operations acreage cap reduction discussion.
Thank you Supervisor Capps. Carmela Beck our Cannabis Program Manager will also be presenting this item today.
All right, good afternoon again. So I'll be presenting amendments to chapter 50 licensing of cannabis operations This overview summarizes the key focus areas of today's discussion, which will cover three separate topics. I'll present two proposed amendments to Chapter 50 pertaining to options for revising criminal history check requirements and removal of the metric application programming interface or API requirement.
Thirdly, I'll present acreage cap reduction options for the board's consideration and request additional board direction regarding the cannabis program. In the following eight slides, I'll present the background discussion and options to consider criminal history check revisions. As a refresher, Chapter 50 was originally adopted by the board in May 2018. Since that time, Chapter 50 has been amended multiple times to address emerging issues.
When the program was first established, the county determined that all owners and employees working in the new cannabis industry in the County of Santa Barbara should undergo some level of criminal history background check including high-level security live scan fingerprinting. to include the Department of Justice and FBI record checks or lower-level criminal history checks utilizing valid identification cards and Social Security numbers. The original requirements were proposed at a time when Chapter 50 was being developed, and the County had no experience with licensed operators.
The Board directed a Criminal History Check Review in June 2023 to address restrictive provisions that presented operational challenges and deterred farm labor participation. The program has matured over the seven-year period from 2018 through 2025 and has afforded many opportunities for program improvement, including the opportunity to scale down the criminal history check requirements to align with the State of California's Department of Cannabis Control or the DCC to business owners and financial interest holders only.
In response to board direction and operator concerns, the CEO office collaborated with the Sheriff's Office to explore revisions to criminal history requirements. However consensus could not be reached today we present two options one aligned with the Department of Cannabis Control and one proposed by the Sheriff's Office Current Live Scan and Criminal History requirements under Chapter 50 fall into the following three categories. The first category of individuals requires all owners, individuals with 20% plus financial interest, managers and supervisors to undergo live scans. This highest security criminal history check involves live scan fingerprinting to include Department of Justice and FBI criminal history record checks.
The second category of individuals requires all permanent employees not referenced in Category 1 to complete a criminal history check that is equivalent to and may include the use of live scan fingerprinting. The third category of individuals require seasonal, temporary or third-party workers who move from premise to premise during the cultivation season or work for four months or less to complete a criminal background check which does not include fingerprinting.
The aforementioned requirements have raised concerns for both the board and operators. The first category of concerns pertains to operational constraints. Live scan mandates result in reliance on third-party labor who must be supervised at all times across the entire farm or facility, which is untenable. Third party laborers, seasonal or temporary workers are prohibited from working in sensitive areas and are disallowed from using metric inventory software tracking cannabis from seed to sale because metric is considered a sensitive function.
Metric staff is by default required to be live scanned although the Department of Cannabis Control does not require metric life scans. The second category of concerns pertain to managerial restrictions. Third-party workers cannot serve as supervisors or managers because they are disallowed from working in sensitive areas. This limits the pool of eligible supervisors and managers, and requires permanent managers and supervisors to oversee all third party staff at all times across the entire farm or facility which is untenable.
The last category of concerns pertains to disincentives to farm labor. Background checks and live scans for managers, supervisors and metrics staff deter participation in the cannabis industry especially for the farm labor community concerned about federal cannabis policy conflicts. This one slide covers the first of two options presented today titled Option 1, DCC for the Department of Cannabis Control. The CEO's office recommends aligning Chapter 50 with DCC standards by removing criminal background check requirements for all employees other than owners and persons with at least 20% financial interest.
Goals of this proposal include simplifying the application process, reducing restrictive requirements and staff time associated with administering live scans and to consider the farm labor community. Current Chapter 50 language requires criminal history checks for three categories of individuals. New Chapter 50 CEO proposed language requires criminal history checks for one category of individuals and states the following two requirements.
Requirement number one, only owners or individuals with at least 20% financial interest must be live scanned. Requirement number two, live scans must be conducted by entities authorized by the California Department of Justice. Note that current code requires live scans to be conducted by the Santa Barbara Sheriff's Office. Both the CEO and sheriff offices agree that live scans can now be conducted externally. The Santa Barbara County Sheriff's Office in Santa Maria and the Santa Barbara Police Department are both listed on the California Department of Justice website as authorized live scan providers.
The next two slides cover the second of two options presented today, titled option number 2 SBSO for Santa Barbara Sheriff Office. The sheriff proposes a more restrictive model that retains most current requirements but removes background checks for manual labor only. It would still require live scans for any supervisorial role or access to sensitive areas.
Goals of this proposal include keeping people with criminal records from working in cannabis and limiting some of the crimes seen more frequently in other jurisdictions. Current Chapter 50 language requires criminal history checks for three categories of individuals. New Chapter 50 sheriff proposed language requires criminal history checks for two expanded categories of individuals, and states the following six requirements.
Requirement 1 of 6. Live scan requirements would expand to include metric staff. Additionally, any person with access to sensitive areas such as storage, sales, camera rooms and preparation zones would be subject to a live scan or live scan equivalent. Any person is open to interpretation and could include third party vendors, contractors, buyers on farm persons or non-labor visitors.
Requirement number two of six. Manual labor would be restricted from sensitive areas, must always be supervised by a permanent staff member at all times across the farm or facility and would be explicitly prohibited in code for managerial or supervisorial roles. Requirement number three, the proposal adds a definition for four unique sensitive areas. Manual labor is excluded from sensitive areas and anyone with access to sensitive areas must conduct a criminal history check equivalent to a live scan. Sensitive area number one include locations where cannabis or cannabis products are stored prepared for sale or displayed for purchase.
Sensitive area number two include cash handling areas. Sensitive area number three includes surveillance system rooms and sensitive area number four include other designated areas identified as sensitive during the application process. Requirement number four of six, live scan forms must be obtained through the Sheriff's office. Requirement number five of six, operators must keep records of all persons identification excluding manual laborers and provide these upon request to conduct criminal history checks.
Requirement number six of six scans must be conducted by California Department of Justice authorized entities. To provide some background context, we've included this current slide to show sample live scan language from the Department of Cannabis Control and from the County of Monterey. Both require live scans for owners or individuals with 20% or greater financial interest only. No other criminal history checks are required.
Of note, the County of Mendocino originally required live scans of owners and employees but has entirely removed the live scan requirements for any parties from their regulation. They reasoned that local jurisdiction owner live scans are a duplicative administrative burden because the DCC also requires the exact same owner live scans. These examples reinforce the proposed alignment under Option 1 with broader regulatory norms.
This slide concludes today's first topic for discussion pertaining to options for revising criminal history check requirements. Today's second of three topics for discussion pertains to the removal of the metric application programming interface or API key requirement. In 2021, the board executed a joint exercise of power agreement with the California
4:23 – 4:2930 turns
Yes, just a point of order. Could we discuss it after each because I'll get lost?
Sure So we'll discuss it after each one so we can go down yeah Yeah sure we can do that now Is that okay if we interrupt you to go back and just focus on the live scan before we get to the acreage cap
And the API key removals, I'm sorry Chair. The API key removal is pretty simple because you already had this discussion about removing metric so we can... I'm just saying this is a pretty simple issue this one if you could let her get through this and then we'll get to the meaty part about the background checks please. So if you could just get through the metric really quick.
Okay okay so briefly in
2021... Could you go back on the slide Brittany?
Okay, thank you. All right, thank you. In 2021 the board executed a joint exercise of powers agreement with the California Cannabis Authority to include a data analytics platform subscription. The data analytics platform provided live access to all cannabis operator C2 sale inventory, data analysis and reports accessed with an API key. From 2021 to 2023, the subscription was paid with cannabis tax revenues. In 2023 a fee was adopted to recover platform costs paid for by licensed cannabis operators. Staff now has direct access to the state's metric track and trace Data through metric viewer software for seed to sale records and this separate data subscription is no longer required. Staff proposes eliminating the data platform subscription participation and delete the fee recovery mechanism, making the metric application programming interface API key requirement in Chapter 50 obsolete.
Staff proposes removing API key references from two sections of Chapter 50. The first change is in 50-8, where the API key will be removed as a required component. The second change is in Section 50-25, where the requirement to provide an API key within 10 days will be eliminated.
So we can go back now to the issue about the background checks.
Okay so any questions on the background checks? Supervisor
Hartman? Let's see, I had a couple. So does the state itself require LiveScan to be submitted to them?
Supervisor Hartman through the chair yes the state requires LiveScan fingerprinting for owners
And can we get the same one or does it have to be done? It has to be done. So now the sheriff would like them, who does them now and who are you proposing would be allowed? You went through that quickly I missed that.
Supervisor Hartman through the chair. So we, the CEO is proposing to simplify the process and simply do live scans for owners or folks that have 20% financial interest in the business so that is what we are proposing and the live scan could be conducted through a California Department of Justice authorized entity that can do live scans. So if I
were
a 20 percent owner I could do one and satisfy both? No, you have to do one with the state and you have to do one locally.
Okay. And again, who can under the simplified proposal? Who is able to do them for our county requirement.
So the California Department of Justice website lists several authorized entities that can do that and the County of Santa Barbara Police Department and the city police department there are several entities that are authorized to do this.
They're all law enforcement though
No, there's also like I don't you could do it at like the local. I don't know box stores that there's other addresses that are on their other entities they're capable of doing the same activity.
Okay. Thank you. I think those are my questions.
Okay supervisor Nelson. Yes. Thank you chair caps The 20% number what's that come from and is there another number that's used elsewhere? Is there sometimes 10% or how we choosing that on the ownership number? On the threshold.
This is just an industry standard that I've seen, I have not, I don't have specifics. Okay,
I thought we might had a different number in the past or maybe the state did? Okay.
President Nelson through the chair, not that I'm aware of it could be that we had a different threshold but the 20% is used by the state right? The Department of Cannabis Control as well as some of those other agencies that Ms. Beck referenced Monterey and Monterey in particular I think
So somebody with a 19% interest in the business who has a criminal record would not necessarily need to go through the live scan process. Or multiple owners with 19% interest potentially would not need to go through the live scan process.
Mr. Fraser Nelson through the chair, that's correct if someone has less than 20% financial interest they wouldn't need to go through that process in the proposed.
I'm inclined to probably support the CEO's recommendations but I do think that it's important to hear from the Sheriff's Department though so if I could ask I guess
Mr.
Rainey come up and give us his side of the story. There's always two
sides to this
story.
4:29 – 4:366 turns
Supervisors through the chair, I appreciate the opportunity to speak on this matter. The Sheriff's Department, Sheriff's Office strongly advocates for continued more stringent background checks for most cannabis industry workers. We recognize that the background checks play a vital role in public safety, crime prevention and the integrity of this highly regulated and still federally illegal market.
We also understand that the desire for a more streamlined process and the concerns of those in the cannabis industry, that the current process may deter some laborers from working in the business. So we also recognize that aspect of it. Our existing process has been successful in limiting crime in our jurisdictions. We communicate regularly with other jurisdictions and note that they have a higher crime rate in their regulated industry.
And that process has successfully prevented individuals with criminal records from entering into our legal market. Cannabis industry is a very unique industry. I know we equate it a lot of times to just another agricultural business, but it does remain highly regulated due to its psychoactive nature of the product and its evolving legal status. It is still federally illegal which presents some interesting challenges to the cannabis industry.
and exposes them to some other vulnerabilities that other industries aren't exposed to, and so that demands more robust security measures. And there still exists a pervasive criminal illicit market, and it creates strong incentives for those that might want to exploit the legal business and turn it into something illicit. Despite our current more stringent background checks, we still have seen some illegal activity and people that have entered into the business with lengthy criminal histories. We've had juveniles entering into the business as workers, people with direct cartel ties and the current background check process helps deter that and it also because we follow up on those background checks, it allows us to discover those things when they're happening.
And we just believe that ultimately if we lessen our standards, we'll see more criminal activity involved in our licensed businesses. We've sat down as the Sheriff's Office and I know the CEO's office has as well with cannabis industry advocates and participants and we've listened to their complaints You know we can see that there is an issue for their labor force.
So we well would prefer to maintain our existing standards as is. We have no interest in changing them. concede that there might be some tweaks that we can make to benefit the laborers as well. But we really think that it should be a targeted tiered approach allowing lower level employees who have direct supervision while they're on the premises to be exempt from the background checks but we still think that we need to retain those live scans and background checks for employees with access to sensitive areas, the critical inventory, have supervisory or managerial responsibilities because those are the roles in the industry that pose the highest risk for diversion theft or other criminal activities.
We're committed to robust oversight and protection of the community and the integrity of the regulated market. But I know in our next agenda item that you'll be considering in terms of the budget there's some proposed cuts to our cannabis compliance team namely two positions that are potentially going to be eliminated one through the enforcement side and one through our licensing And so with the possibility of having a reduction of two additional staff from our compliance team, I'm not sure now is the right time to lessen the criminal history checks and lessen our ability to maintain compliance over this industry.
It's Commander, right? Yes sir. I want to make sure I got the rank correctly. So your proposal would say workers in sensitive areas What are those non-sensitive areas that you guys would think would be appropriate for somebody without a background check? Because my understanding is nearly every location on a cannabis farm is considered a sensitive area. So can you help me understand what the tweaks you guys are looking at?
Sure, Supervisor through the Chair. I think the non-sensitive areas would be considered those areas that need to be cultivated by the labor force. So the fields, trimming, areas like that where And there are certain areas that will have supervision and as long as they're being supervised then they don't need to be subjected to the background checks. But there are a lot of I think it's probably easier to define the sensitive areas as being those areas that have a high likelihood for diversion of cannabis, have cash finished product access to the metric system you know those areas that have a high likelihood of potential illicit diversion.
Thank you for that.
Supervisor Lavinier.
Thank you, Madam Chair. So you mentioned I think right off the bat still federally legal psychoactive nature. Does the sheriff's office approve of illegal cannabis industry?
That's a pointed question. But I think if we went back to 2018 we would have those discussions. You know we could look back at the record and see that Most law enforcement agencies, including the Sheriff's Office were not advocates for legalizing. But the movement across the country and in California you know we realized that we needed to get on board with it and try to do our part to maintain public safety despite this movement to legalize what has always been an illicit substance.
4:36 – 4:417 turns
And a lot of this illegal activity that you talked about with juveniles being involved in direct cartel ties to other folks where these Things that I've just heard about right now, were these reported to the district attorney and charges filed or what happened?
So the individuals that were part of a licensed business we held accountable through the license process. So we would issue a notice of violation. But
it wasn't criminal then? Correct. Okay so illegal but not criminal
And then how long does it take now for somebody to get through a live scan? If somebody applies right now to your department to get a live scan done, what's the turnaround time? It's just a scheduling question really. We have an AOP that will go out and do field visits with a portable live scan machine and do them on the premises or they can make an appointment in the office, and I'll clarify Supervisor Hartman you were questioning about where they can do the live scans. The benefit of doing them with us and then we request that they use our forms is that Live Scan provides for subsequent arrest notifications so if a cannabis industry worker who's live scanned through our process with our essentially agency code will then get notified if there is a subsequent arrest after they've been live scanned and if it's one of those prohibited So I want to
get back to convictions and how many because. First off on the length of time you to live scan this is not I don't know if anybody else's hearing from industry. Because that's not, I mean, Commander Rainey said that's not what I'm hearing. But like you said there's two sides to every story.
Supervisor Lavagnino through the chair. Anecdotally, I was just asking Carmela what we hear is it takes forever. Now what is forever? I think it varies. It depends on how much history this person has because if you have a clean record it usually turns around and comes back pretty fast so there's that piece of it but it's also getting an appointment and actually getting With the sheriff's office to get the live scan performed, I think can take some time.
The staff person that they have dedicated is in Santa Maria and so if you have an operation in Carpinteria they have to travel either either the staff person travels to the farm or the farmer travels to Santa Maria, has to set up an appointment. So that can take time so I don't have the average length of time but I understand that it takes more time than they would like
If you're trying to hire employees to do work, some of these operations now. I mean the fact that, granted when we started off, we had a couple hundred operators. We had Illegal Grows in Tippiscay and Sabata Canyon. It was all over the place. It was the Wild West. And that was actually even before we had an ordinance. So now the program as you mentioned is maturing. It's over seven years old. We're down to 46 producers I really don't, and this idea of live scanning anybody in any sensitive issue is I think overreach.
But based on what I heard early, I understand now why we're in this position is because honestly, that's your lane that you're in. I understand that is avoidance of crime but it's also hard for me to put I think it's important to look at what we're avoiding. And when we talk about protecting You know, folks that we already know have committed felonies and I've talked about this a number of times. I want to free up as many sheriff's resources to going after people that are out in the community that have already been convicted of a felony that aren't being brought into justice instead of live scanning folks that are you know in the back of a room in a cannabis facility so I can't support Sheriff's recommendations on this unfortunately.
4:41 – 4:5413 turns
Supervisor Harmon. I'll be eager to hear public comment on this question as well, but you mentioned the federal cannabis policy conflict so what happens when a laborer for example somebody works at a cannabis operation is live scanned and How does that if they are undocumented, if they have unsatisfactory immigration status what are the consequences to them of this?
Supervisor Hartman through the chair. In my experience from having worked on a farm, farm labor will not want to undergo a live scan. That would jeopardize their immigration status and criminal background checks which don't require fingerprinting You know are of lesser concern but they are still a concern because it can show up as their place of employment and because cannabis is not federally legal, it could also jeopardize other status. And so neither are looked upon favorably and that is why it is a disincentive to work in cannabis.
So if I can elaborate, if they come in contact with law enforcement later then the fact that they've been live scanned for cannabis which is not recognized as it's still a serious drug for the federal government. They could be in trouble just by virtue of having worked at a cannabis operation?
Supervisor Hartman through the chair. I think that is the concern. The answer is we don't know for certain but what we do know is that this community is The third party laborer, how does that, a contractor hires and how does that work with LiveScan? Is that any different
than if the cannabis operation hires the laborers directly?
Supervisor Hartman to the chair. Can you restate your question? If you have
if I'm a cannabis owner and I get my labor through third party contractor, does the live scan process differ that way or if I hire them labor myself?
Yes, so the if you hire a farm labor contractor that third labor party they're currently under code required to have a criminal background check which is not fingerprinting and it's still a disincentive because it shows up as cannabis right now. And that's why operators default well They don't, and then if you hire them directly they're required to be live scanned or a live scan equivalent. And so that's why operators default to farm labor contractors because it's a lesser security level.
Other questions from the board?
Okay are we going to break this up where we hear public comment on this item or no just all together okay
yeah So let's continue with the presentation of the last third of it, focus on the acreage cap and then we'll take public comment. We'll see if there's any questions from the board and then we'll take public comment.
All right
okay so the final topic pertains to acreage cap reduction options for the Board's consideration In March 2025, the board directed staff to explore options for reducing cannabis cultivation acreage caps. Currently the cannabis cultivation acreage caps are set at 186 acres in the Carpinteria Agricultural Overlay District and 1,575 acres in the unincorporated area. Currently the cannabis cultivation acreage has not reached the cap in either area. While the acreage caps are defined in Chapter 50, cannabis cultivation acreage is determined through the Planning and Development Department's land use entitlement process. A cannabis operation must obtain an approved land use entitlement defining the number of acres allowed for cultivation. The operator then requests acreage in the business license application for no more than what is designated in their land use entitlement.
If there is capacity in the cap, the license can be granted for the entire acreage. Cannabis cultivation acres are organized in three planning and development categories. Issued, approved or submitted. These three categories inform the three cap reduction options presented for discussion. Issued acres include all acreage with issued and vested land use entitlements. A land use entitlement can only be issued after it has been approved, and certain conditions of approval satisfied.
Approved acres include applicants with approved but not yet issued entitlements. Submitted acres include application acreage under review, but not yet approved or issued. There are three acreage cap reduction options presented today. The first is to maintain the status quo. The second is to reduce the acreage cap to the issued and approved acres. The third is to reduce the acreage cap to the issued approved and submitted acres.
The acreage allocated to each of the three proposed options is shown here. Option one, the status quo is 186 in the CARP overlay area and 1575 in the unincorporated area. Option number two proposes cap reduction to include the issued and approved acres, totaling 138 acres in the Carpentaria overlay area and 1,357 acres in the unincorporated area. And option number three proposes reduction to include the issued, approved, and submitted acres totaling 140 acres in the Carpentaria overlay area and 1,411 in the unincorporated area.
Note that option number three provides a buffer for projects that are still in the pipeline, accounting for long-standing applicants and pending approvals. Option number two and option number three numbers will shift slightly depending upon the inclusion or exclusion of processor acres discussed shortly. The board may also direct alternative modifications. Here is a side by side comparison of three proposed options, including reductions by region and percentage for option two and three.
Note that this slide was updated yesterday with some small changes and numbers were rounded up for efficiency. We also took the opportunity to break out the processing acres in an extra slide for discussion. No, not now. The second column on this slide is titled option one and again that's the status quo. The third column is titled Issued with one asterisk. These acres have issued and vested land use entitlements.
There are around 138 acres in the Carpinteria overlay, and 1,190 issued acres in the unincorporated area. Currently nearly 74% of acreage in the Carpinteria overlay and 75% of acreage in the unincorporated area is already issued. Note that planning and development includes processor acres in their land use entitlement process and reporting. The issued acres in this chart therefore include processor acres.
The fourth column is titled approved with two asterisks. These acres have an approved but not yet issued land use entitlement. This column indicates that there are zero approved acres in the Carpinteria overlay area, and 167 acres in the unincorporated area. The fifth column is titled option number two for issued and approved acres proposing cap reductions to include both issued and approved acres. Land use entitlements have been issued and approved for 1,495 acres. There are 138 acres in the Carpinteria overlay area and 1,357 acres in the unincorporated area.
The sixth column is titled Submitted. These acres are in the permit application process pending land use entitlement approval and issuance. This column indicates that there are two acres in the Carpentaria overlay area, and 54 acres in the unincorporated area. Most of the 54 acres are in the Cuyama Valley. The final column is titled Option 3 for Issued and Approved, Approved and Submitted Acres proposing cap reductions to include these three categories.
This option takes into consideration that some applicants submitted their application based on space being available in the cap and may have been working through their application process for several years. This option would result in a cap of 140 acres in Carpinteria and 1,411 acres in the unincorporated area. I'd like to switch now to the extra slide that was provided today Okay, so this extra handout provided today shows the full scope of approved and submitted processing acres.
As a reminder, processing acres are not included in the status quo cap per the board's prior request. However, the issued acres on this slide do include processing acres because planning and development does not break out processing acres. We do track the processing acreage in the CEO office There are 4.69 issued processor acres in the Carpinteria overlay area and 1.3 issued processor acres in the unincorporated area.
Additionally, Carpinteria has .57 approved and .02 submitted processing acres And the unincorporated area has .39 approved and .39 submitted processing acres. The final column on this slide titled option number three with processing acreage is an example of the total acres that can be capped to include cultivation and processing acres. Note that these numbers may shift slightly as appeals get approved or operators withdraw from the application process.
The board can direct us to include or exclude processing acres in the cap production and can direct staff to review other options. Staff did not propose reducing the cap to a number below what is currently issued and approved in land use entitlements because this option would involve developing a process to reduce the number of acres currently secured in the acreage cap with an issued or in progress business license. Such a process would require a reduction of the number of acres and issued business licenses either upon the effective date of the ordinance, or as renewals are processed.
However if the board wished for further review of this option staff could return with more information Finally, if the board reduced the cap to a level lower than the recommended options planning and development could continue to approve new permit application acreage. However future cannabis business license applicants would remain on the eligibility waitlist and be invited to apply for a business license when an existing operator surrendered their acreage back to the cap.
Should we talk about yes? Yes please. Do you want me to do a summarize now? OK. In summary, so it's OK. Should we talk about this now before I summarize?
4:54 – 5:0213 turns
Chair Kaps, would the board like to discuss this item before we summarize all three items? That concludes the acreage cap discussion.
Sure let's do that. Questions comments about the cap, acreage cap? Supervisor Lavender.
Sure I can let supervisor Lee go first it's carpentry anyways so go for
it. Can we include processing in the cap
Supervisor Lee through the chair, yes we can.
Chair Caps and Supervisor Lee just to clarify we would have to do some additional changes to chapter 50 because the board had previously asked us to pull processing out of the cap but we could put processing back into the acreage cap.
Could that be specific to Carpentria or it has to be the whole county?
Supervisor Lee through the chair. We do handle the acreage caps in those two areas separately and so we could look at that I think we would have to consult with council and think about the reason for limiting processing I'm sorry, limiting the cap including processing in Carpentria versus the rest of the county and whether there was a good reason for doing that.
There is a concentration of cannabis activity in Carpentria in a small area and so I think we could look at that justification.
Thank you.
Supervisor Lavender.
Thank you Madam Chair. So it's really I don't really know what we're doing because with its I don't think we're gonna fill this cap anyway. So, I don't have a problem with lowering the cap. What I do have... To me it just seems like it's kind of like a press release that we did a 25% reduction in the cap and that sounds good but the reality is we're not really lowering it. Those businesses don't exist anyways so if everybody feels more comfortable that the cap is smaller, I guess I don''t really have a problem with that What seems weird is that the last time we were here changing Chapter 50, which by the way.
We adopted it May 1st 2018. We changed it April 9th 2019 August 27th 2019 December 17th 2019 February 2nd 2021 November 2nd 2021 March 1st 2022 November 29th 2022 July 18 2023 and April 1st 2025 and then today we're doing it again So we're keeping you guys gainfully employed, that's great. However if you're trying to run a business in that kind of environment and these are not just minor tweaks, we keep making major changes and we keep going back and forth it's difficult but what I find strange is we just passed the most stringent odor control anywhere in the state and probably in the country and we're mandating multi-million dollar carbon scrubber And we're going to be looking at a number of different control systems.
And if we really believe in those, we should be expanding the cap not shrinking it because if there's no smell involved what is the industry? If there's no smell, the industry has jobs and revenue. So I understand that this sounds good and which is really not true, we reduced an empty cap that no one's clamoring to get into because we keep changing the rules.
So until we get to where we kind of get the playing field and maybe we're getting there I feel like we are getting there that you know where everybody understands what the rules are and where we're going And I'm not saying that all of the downfall of the industry is because we're changing the rules. I understand it's a changing market environment, everybody got in in the beginning and now we're getting down to the real people that really know how to do what they're doing. But it does seem strange to me that we're doing odor control and we're saying there's not gonna be any smell at the property line but then we wanna reduce the cap. So if it makes everybody feel better to reduce the cap I'm okay with it.
I just had to say my piece that I don't really think it's going to make a heck of a bunch difference.
Yes, thank you chair Caps and I have similar thoughts about the cap because if there's a problem Let's solve it. And I felt like that's what we did on April 1st with in Carpinteria, I'm not sure what the reduction in the cap does especially in those areas that we have already acute issues this doesn't solve those in my opinion so I'm not sure what we're accomplishing if anything it might actually where we have conflicts now because of potentially inland of cannabis next to, let's say a winery or there might be some conflicts with maybe legacy agriculture.
You're more likely to see those stay there because they're now more valuable because your cap is now smaller and so somebody is going to want to invest in making sure that stays there. So I don't know what the, what we're trying to accomplish by reducing the cap here and maybe I can hear from my colleagues on that cause The way I see it, and I haven't been the biggest fan of cannabis. I don't see this accomplishing conflicts issue. I just think this is right now reducing a number and I'm just trying to wrap my brain around what we're actually accomplishing by reducing that so I know Supervisor Hartman you had brought this up as one of those issues at the last hearing on April 1st to have this come back and I'm interested to look these numbers but I'm not sure what we get by bringing it down.
So
so I think the original cap that we had was to some extent arbitrary, it was we selected that because we wanted to have we had a deluge of applications and we had kind of felt overwhelmed and so we said who this what we have now is what we're going to do I think that the industry is downscaling and I think that ratcheting back the cap would, you know, the more applications we have to process, the more staff time that takes.
And so I think ratcheting the cap Thank you, Mr. Chairman. encourage processing here rather than elsewhere, capture that value. And it seems to me to have made that adjustment and then to change it back violates my sense of fair play. So I that's where I'm coming from.
5:02 – 5:1229 turns
Well, let's see. I'll just weigh in too. I appreciate the comments. I had the same question as how you know odor is the real problem and how will this impact odor if we're not even at the cap? But I was motivated or moved by the fact that we did get a fair amount of letters in support of option two to reduce the cap and if it does as Supervisor Lavagnino said like it makes folks who've been dealing with the odor I'm happy to support this recognizing that it you know doing it now doesn't have a huge impact.
It's sort of symbolic but it is, I think what we're doing today with these three items is really a reality check and kind of right sizing things when it comes to fees when it comes to acreage cap it's just sort of putting things back in order next item when it comes to our budget or over. So let's let's rightsize it to where of here's where we are now in 2025 with this program. So I'm fine with that, I defer to those who have processing in their district about whether or not it should be included in the cap. It seems like it-I can see why it should be because it does cause odor.
Yeah.
We're processing, I would like to direct staff to bring both options before the board for consideration so do you have?
I'm confused because I thought that was what this is. Option 3 with processing or option 2 so maybe I'm reading this wrong doing aren't we not including processing in there?
Supervisor Lavinino through the chair. The new slide is, I agree it's a little bit confusing. It was hard to kind of represent this information. The issued acres do not have their processing acres excluded and so because that's how it's represented with the land use entitlement. So the numbers will shift ever so slightly. We're down
to, yeah less than a handful I think. It's two acres acre something like that so I mean it's doing between 138 and 140 down from 186 so you get a 25% reduction instead of a 26 percent reduction
That's correct, Supervisor Lavanino. Okay. There's it's a... Ms. Beck did include the amount of acres that are currently issued in both of those categories and then the and then of course the ones that are approved and submitted so it is a very small amount.
I honestly I could go to the I just don't want to go back and forth we keep going back and forth on things I'll go along with the reduction all the way down, you know 25% reduction in carpentry that gets you down to 140 and a half acres. And the other side of this is processing is where the money is made correct? That's where we get our revenue from.
Supervisor Labadino through the chair, that's correct. A processed product has a higher value than a raw product that would leave the county to be processed.
Could I tag on to that? We see it for example in the wine industry whether you get grapes or whether you get wine. You see it if you're exporting timber or you're exporting lumber or furniture So we had this discussion and that's why we kept it out. We wanted to encourage processing because we weren't seeing it in our county or it was going to the cities and not in our unincorporated area, and we wanted to try to incentivize and it's my understanding that the processing facilities are really tight that there is the highest level of odor control. So it and again we made this decision and then to change it, that to me makes the board seem erratic.
Supervisor Nelson?
So are we moving forward as an option of still Reducing the cap but still exempting processing from the cap so we don't, somebody comes in with an application wants to process. We don't go oh sorry cap can't do it that's what we want to create sure there's that pathway for that is that what I'm understanding? Does that make sense?
I think we've got both options before us and if you're asking my opinion, mine is for what you described.
So Supervisor, a staff has presented your options 2 and 3 they already do not include processing in the cap or how we calculate to calculate for the cap per the board's direction What we have on this included because there was a conversation about whether we want to put processing now in the cap. That's this last column on the handout.
Does that recapture any other processing that is going on there? That doesn't, that's not included in the cap right now?
Supervisor Nelson through the chair. It only captures what's currently in the land use entitlement process, so nothing that's out there an idea or something that someone might propose in the future if you include processing. You would be limiting future
processing. But you still have 48 acres to play with? Sure. You have 140 that we're using right now. Oh no I'm sorry you were reducing it down to 140. We do
need to go to public comment at some point so just
one more question can we hold off any new processing until our new ordinance takes effect next year? Is that something that we can do? Just hold off on the processing for now until we get the new order abatement plan in place.
Supervisor Lee through the chair Processing is in the land use code, processing is exclusive to indoor facilities and they require odor abatement. So you're suggesting that we would hold off on additional processing until the odor The new odor requirements come in. I think the timing on that, I don't think that'd be necessary because I think the timing of getting a processing facility up and running would take more time than when the odor requirements are coming into effect.
Got it. My issue with processing is saturating carpenteria, it's next to homes, next to schools. It's right beside your fence so if we can put it somewhere else where it's more in the middle of nowhere that's fine.
But isn't it aren't we requiring those processing facilities to have all the odor abatement technologies now?
The odor in carpentry I still consider, I drive there every single day. The smell is still lingering. It strong every single day. I smell it
But aren't we hoping that we're getting there with these scrubbers to be able to accomplish that over the next year? That we're hoping that these all get installed and required that.
And we're hoping, that's the word.
I'm with you too but yeah.
Director Plowman can maybe clarify what actually the board had recently approved and when
So I think what Brittany is pointing out is that when you have a processing facility, you already have to do the odor control. Right? So that's already built into our code. We, the board authorized odor control or required odor control for the actual growing portion of the facility. And that's what we're waiting to see implemented in the coastal zone which we hope to happen soon but there was a 12 month amortization period that was given to the growers to install that equipment. So I think there, the odor is coming from the grows not so much the processing facility because they are required to control that.
Got it and is not just the order is also the traffic impacts. Is there a traffic study that deals with processing that's different from growing
So I guess what I would say to that is when the original cannabis ordinance was adopted, they considered those factors and they did an environmental document. And there had been existing agricultural operations that included processing already. And so that was a baseline essentially for that area. So it's not new. That traffic isn't new. It's been in the Carpinteria Valley for decades
5:12 – 5:196 turns
I know we have some members of the public that want to speak.
Good afternoon, Madam Chair and Supervisors. My name is Whitney Colley. I'm the Vice President of Compliance at Coastal Blooms Nursery and operator in Carpinteria. I am speaking today in support of option one regarding the background checks to align background check standards with the state and Department of Cannabis Control. Agriculture is the largest producing industry in the county, and as a result is home to many agricultural workers. Amongst these workers are those that have found consistent employment within the cannabis industry in Carpinteria because of its higher salaries, benefits and year-round growing season in comparison to traditional agriculture.
It is well known that agricultural workers throughout California have complicated immigration statuses. While the county welcomes agricultural workers, its current cannabis ordinance has unduly targeted them. The live scan standards in the current ordinance and the stronger standards proposed by the sheriff in option two jeopardize citizenship while cannabis is federally illegal and can deter agricultural workers from seeking employment in the cannabis industry. Citizenship has been denied in some cases after background checks revealed individuals' involvement in the legal cannabis industry.
The Department of Cannabis Control's live scan requirement is limited to owners and any persons with 20% or greater financial interest. This protects non-decision making employees from the requirement of a live scan report that could negatively impact their immigration opportunities. Business owners are responsible for their operations and their employees regardless of the industry. It is in the best interest of all owners to hire employees they trust to work compliantly following state and county regulations. Cannabis operators are required to have advanced security that includes cameras, fencing, lighting alarms, and an inventory tracking system that is accessible by the state and county. Given these advanced security requirements cannabis employees do not pose a risk Over the eight-year history of legal recreational cannabis in the county, crime has remained extremely low even before business licenses were issued and live scanning was required for majority employees.
Therefore it can be concluded that live scans are an unnecessary burden on the industry Lawful permanent residents and other non-citizens authorized to work in the United States may be denied citizenship if their live scan records reflect involvement in the legal cannabis industry while local communities gain no benefit from the language proposed in option two. Please consider amending chapter 50 per the CEO office recommendations in option one, thank you.
We will now move to Grant Trexler to be followed by Ana Carrillo Grant.
Thank you, Madam Chair of the Board. I'm also talking about criminal background checks. Cannabis operators continue to struggle to make a profit. Any additional requirements on live scan and background checks pose an undue burden to our operations. Prices are down significantly in the last year And due to that and other issues that we face, the state assembly passed unanimously yesterday a delay in the planned increase in the state excise tax scheduled for July 1st through 2030. Hopefully that will pass and allow us to move through.
There was a question earlier about how long it takes for LiveScan to come back. Last year, we submitted a LiveScan application for an employee. It took more than eight weeks for the LiveScan application to come back. So it is a deterrent to workers to go through that process. In addition, we also as the previous speaker discussed have employees that have had issues with criminal background checks and struggling to find workers that still wanna work for us out here on the farm while having to do that area of application.
Thank you for your time today and look forward to future conversations with you.
We will now move to Ana Carrillo to be followed by David Bamben-Gordon, who is our final speaker.
Ana? Sorry, okay. Thank you. I'm on a career and I'm talking if I'm going to talk about the caps so the 186 acres was just, you know, a subjective number that was discussed at the time it was set but when in March of 2022 when the cat when the processing was taken out of the caps. Um, I you know the list that I was given at that time was there was like 8 acres. That was in processing because there is only 5.
Addresses in Carpinteria that do not have a processing little room or of separate processing building so I'm not sure where the 4.69. Um, acres came from because my numbers came up larger. We have a large parcel of 14 acre parcel that has not even begun cultivating yet so and that's right near Sandpiper Homeowners Club. So that's why we need to lower the caps because we haven't even seen you know seeing all of our acreage that's been submitted In in cultivation, so we have 120 acres currently that's in you know cultivation. So I think we should be going either to option two. I mean I can go ahead with option three but I feel like the processing is was included in the 130 acres 38 acres that's on the chart that have been the opt-in option too.
You know I understand there might be there are a couple of places that maybe they need Okay, with the you know the option three but specifically in Carpinteria we should include the processing and that list that is done for the business license that has the cultivation lists and it will list everybody's acreage that they have. There are three processing facilities listed on that that are only do processing. Carp Red Barn, 3784 Via Real and there's one on Appeal so those three separate buildings don't have any cultivation with them they're just separate processing buildings plus like I said most of the growers except for five addresses because some of them have two different operations Are there only five that don't have to do their own processing?
So I just wanted to make sure that for Carpinteria, and I support Supervisor Lee when he said well maybe Carpinteria needs to include their processing because it's a really different matter. We don't need any more processing because we have plenty already in Carpinteria so thank you very much.
5:19 – 5:2512 turns
We will now move to our final speaker David Van Wingerden David.
Good afternoon, can you hear me?
Yes we can please proceed.
Okay good afternoon Supervisors thank you for the opportunity to speak. Forgive me I didn't have a chance to write a formal speech today so i'm kind of working off some notes here. I just wanted to talk about mainly the background checks life scans our company has spent tens of thousands of dollars every year putting time into live scans and background checks And we have had never had a single issue with any employee come back as an eligible to work in cannabis.
Yeah, I'd like the county to remember too us as farms many of us are family farms as well. We don't want dangerous people criminals working in our farms. We never have as cannabis and we never have as flowers as well when you're growing flowers. In fact, we have less crime on our facilities now that growing cannabis. We have increased security with security personnel. We have cameras, we have physical fences locked barriers and we honestly had more issues with theft at pesticide theft in the past when we were growing flowers and that is a fact.
I wanted to speak a little bit too about the timing for live scans. A several month wait time on live scan return. We have asked for in-field, you know visits, live scan visits at our farm and we've been told that it's not available so I'm glad to know that that's available now but it has not been in the past. So I just wanted to kind of bring those thoughts to the Board of Supervisors.
Additionally on the caps, you know I feel As Lavinio mentioned, I appreciate this Steve that you know we keep talking about this. We keep adjusting it. I feel it's very inefficient use of the supervisor's time everybody's time in reality. I think we need to stick with option one. You know the cannabis industry for last few years has struggled yes but like any industry it will bounce back There will be more opportunity.
We are everyone is putting scrubbers in they do work. We're living proof of that and it just seems inefficient that in so many years when the industry bounces back that we need to come back to the Board of Supervisors to get the acreage cap increased so that the industry can thrive and the community can thrive and the county can thrive. So thanks again for giving me the opportunity to speak and have a great day. Thank you.
Okay. Let's see, let's come back to questions
before deliberation. Yeah just on the way we do this is there a chance to break these up so that we can do because I think we have difference of opinions on it seems it's all thrown together which is great because there's one presentation but I'd like to vote on business license fee acreage cap and whatever the other one was I can't remember. Oh background checks yeah
Supervisor Lavagnino through the chair. We already completed the business license fee, right? We got we voted through that so we're good there on them on the back. Sorry I just want to I don't want to confuse anyone so I want to be clear on that. On the background checks we do have some separate recommendations rights you can choose And then you would direct us to come back for the second reading.
And then recommendation D is to direct staff related to the acreage cap so we could certainly break this up.
Let's do that, so let's just talk if there's any more questions about background checks and any more questions about that? No. Deliberation on background checks. Option one option two. Option one is the CEO's recommendation.
If there's no deliberation, I'll make a motion to move up CEO's recommendation option one.
One, I guess comment on the motion? Sure. Someone wants to second?
I'll second.
So, you know I want to support the Sheriff's Department but I really do think that the concern is mostly with the ownership. If there's gonna be organized crime with it it's going to be at the ownership level and I think the owners have the most need to keep that Keep their employees accountable, and I think that's with almost any business. And so I do think you know this is kind of my warning to the industry is if we see an uptick in crime that's based on farms and operations that we might consider reducing The percentage of you know equity that you would have to get a background check. So maybe we bring it down to 10 or 5 so that we get further controls if we see it starting to get out of control here, that might signal to us that there's a criminal element involved in that company and it may be somehow by circumventing The background check on their owners, because I really think that that's where potentially the crime is most likely to be happening in these businesses.
So I'll support this motion but I also just want to make sure the industry knows if at least as myself as a supervisor, if I see that crimes begins to uptake after this then I'll be looking towards putting additional pressure on ownership on additional background checks and accountabilities.
5:25 – 5:3229 turns
Yeah, I just agree that it's a rational to make a change here. We've heard this from the industry and it makes sense so I'm happy to support as well. So we have a motion in a second all those in favor please say aye. That's on the background checks.
Now we'll move. Thank you Chair Kapsch I just want to clarify that both of those options had the inclusion of removing the requirement for operators to provide an API key and so with your option one, that is also inclusive in our change thank you. Thanks
for clarifying yep So now we can move to acreage cap any further questions on that front?
I do. I'm still kind of confused on the number. So, so I know what status quo is. So this is the issued and approved option to okay. So if it issued approved and submitted is 140 but then do we know? So then what we're saying is that's 140 but processing is not included in that correct? Okay. Thank you.
Madam Chair, so I know we're moving on to the acreage cap but we are noticing that what's printed in the agenda is numbered slightly differently than what's in the board letter. So just want to make sure for the last motion it was A, with option one. B, read title and wait for the reading. C, provide other direction. And then D, it's a portion of D which is directing staff to come back with the second reading and the CEQA determination.
So that's the motion for the first one.
Yeah, that was the motion for the first one, thank you. Thank
you.
So I'll say, I support. I'll go ahead with the reduction with my qualifiers, I guess and I'll go to option three.
Can I clarify your motion? Yeah
so it's in CARP
it's
a 25% reduction Everybody that's issued, approved and submitted is still included. We reduced 46 acres correct? And there is no you know if we want to talk about processing later at some point but as I think Director Plowman told us that that's the thing that we're worried about his odor and anybody that has a you know the odors coming out of the grows not the processing facility at this point.
And I'll second that
That's option just to clarify that option 3 option 3 which is.
Issued approved and submitted.
I mean, I was more inclined with option two. I know there's not that big of a difference between the two. I'm also wanting to support Supervisor Lee's point about processing because I do know that it has created a lot of nuisances for Carpinterians. Other noises that processing that there's 24 seven currently at some places so I just want to be supportive of your effort there to include it in the cap if you feel that that's the best way to move forward.
I would prefer to have processing in the cap, but I won't keep open mind. Maybe I'm wrong. I hope I'm not but we can always come back and amend it as needed
Again right now it's a theoretical point because we're not even at the cap But
Okay,
so you're fine with option three
correct
And you seconded the motion and so,
yes. Chair Caps I just want to clarify with option three it's with the issued approved and submitted acreage under current ordinance language it does not include processing so these numbers aren't where we're going but it's those three categories that were including okay thank you. Issued, approved and submitted.
Okay. Supervisor
Nelson? So I'm going to go ahead and support this although I'm concerned that it's not accomplishing what the goal of it is. I think in some ways if any areas that we especially inland that we have conflicts if we reduce the cap just basic economics it becomes more valuable And then they're more likely to stay in those areas where there are potential conflict.
That said, I can see the other side of it is that you want to send signals to—the board wants to send signals that we may one have a reduced footprint countywide and so like I said, I'll go ahead and support this but I think that they may potentially backfire in the future.
Yeah, I agree. I mean, I think if especially if we're doing trying to reduce odor and in other we made a strong strong step forward to that in Carpinteria Valley but if in other parts of the county if we want to reduce odor I think there's other tools to be doing to be looking at so I don't want us to think that by reducing the cap that this is check that box necessarily but I do think it I'm supportive of the effort and it does send a signal that there's too much of it, and now we're trying to right size.
Well, to piggyback on that I think also that once we show that if we can show that odor control works this number is always as it's been changed before. It's changed or unchanged by us so I am kind of curious at that point you brought up of how much more valuable it makes an existing cannabis business though because if there's no room for anybody else sits to submit you're sitting on You're sitting on the only, you know there's no more room in the cap. So
we didn't get any opposition to this.
Yeah exactly right.
5:32 – 5:494 turns
Okay so it sounds like that we have consensus for option three. We have a motion and a second all those in favor please say aye. Aye. Motion carries okay we are moving down the line on cannabis provisions I think we've done four and now we have One more.
Item number eight. Chair Caps and members of the board, departmental item number eight is from the county executive office it is a hearing to consider recommendations regarding the tax the cannabis tax revenue and uses budget direction.
Okay Ms. Oderman you're still on. Thank You chair caps okay
The final cannabis item today I will be discussing with you is the cannabis tax revenue uses and looking for some budget direction for the fiscal year 25-26 budget. Just as a quick overview, the bottom line is that cannabis tax revenue is in decline and has been since fiscal year 22-23. So the result of that is that ongoing county program expenditures exceed annual estimated revenue.
At the April 25-26 budget workshops staff presented the Cannabis Tax Revenue Budget which includes funding for ongoing and one time uses The board directed the county executive office to return with a recommendation to reduce ongoing expenditures funded by cannabis revenue instead of relying on the fund balance to mitigate it. Board direction included review of all ongoing uses with specific emphasis on enforcement costs and identify potential efficiencies between County Health and the B-Well departments in cannabis education.
Staff met with all affected departments to discuss potential cuts and the associated impacts to address the budget gap. So here's the information that was presented at the April workshops, the estimated revenue for 2526 cannabis tax revenue is approximately 5.53 million dollars The proposed budget for next year's ongoing cannabis tax revenue uses totals $6.72 million, resulting in a $1.2 million budget gap.
The largest category of funding is for enforcement totaling approximately... Can I do this? Yeah. on these five lines here, totaling approximately 3.3 million. Originally ongoing uses of cannabis tax revenue were focused on enforcement activities against the illegal market to ensure the new regulated program could prosper. Funding was also allocated to activities related to education and administration of the program in the CEO's office and the Treasurer Tax Collector's Office including auditing that could not easily be funded by permit or license fees.
Additionally, the board funded ongoing positions and uses that were a priority and for which other revenue sources were not available. This includes the 18% transfer to deferred maintenance fund balance. This is funding that Public Works General Services and Community Services Department Parks Division uses for deferred maintenance as well as a position in County Council and appeals costs associated with cannabis projects.
Another component of cannabis tax revenue uses are one-time uses. Currently, there's a Cannabis Tax Fund balance of $5.07 million. That's shown on the top line there. There are several one time project or program expenditures budgeted against that reserve for a total of 2.68 million dollars. There is capacity in the fund balance for fiscal year 25-26 to cover the ongoing use budget gap of $1.2 million and that would leave approximately an additional 1.2 million dollars to keep in the prudent reserve, which is slightly less than the goal of the 25% of projected revenue.
However as mentioned the board directed a review of cannabis tax revenue I'm sorry cannabis tax revenue enforcement and other ongoing uses to right size program expenses So as a bit of a background, I just want to set some additional context. The Cannabis Program was first established in fiscal year 18-19 as you know and associated ongoing uses were covered by tax revenue for the first four years of the program through 21-22 In 22-23 revenues declined and there has been sizable program shrinkage and program costs have exceeded revenue for the last three consecutive years.
Enforcement activities have the largest allocation of resources, that's $3.3 million as I previously mentioned. So with that in mind, our review took a look at the original staffing approved and budgeted for enforcement to respond to unlicensed cannabis operations in the county compared to current fiscal year 24-25 and then proposed reduced staffing for next fiscal year.
These staffing levels and associated expenditures were originally intended to assist in enforcing against illegal unregulated cannabis operations in the county. Staff developed a staffing plan and budget to respond to unlicensed cannabis operations that include several departments. Early enforcement actions focused on illegal cultivation without state licenses or historic unlicensed cultivation.
The high activity necessitated cross-departmental cannabis enforcement team bimonthly meetings to coordinate efforts and large amounts of illegal product were seized. The two departments with the largest share of cannabis tax revenue for enforcement activities are the Sheriff's Office and the District Attorney's Office. The Sheriff's Office continues to perform illegal activity investigations and coordinates with the District Attorney's Office on prosecution of illegal cannabis activity. However, the cases have transitioned from predominantly large illegal cultivation sites to cases that involve alleged diversion of a legal product through resale outside of regulated spaces and transport across state lines.
It seems that this shift in enforcement activities and decrease in cannabis tax revenue warrants a reduction in program expenditures. So a way to realize these reductions is through a reduction in staffing levels. So, in lines two and three here, in rows two and three, four and five you'll see the original staffing levels for district attorney and sheriff. The district attorney had 1.5 total full-time equivalent employees.
The current is up to 2.65, and then it proposed for this recommendation today is 1.45. On the Sheriff's Rose they originally had 3.5 staff dedicated to enforcement. Current levels are 4.15. Staff and the proposed is 3.15. I'm sorry, excuse me. I was reading the Egg Commissioner's line along with that. I apologize. Sheriff started with 3.5. They are currently at five staff one sergeant and four deputies. And the proposed level is now for one sergeant and three deputies.
There are no proposed changes to enforcement costs for County Council or the Ag Commissioner's Office. These two departments have already reduced their staffing levels over time, as you can see here. The Ag Commissioner went from one originally in 18-19 down to .15 full time equivalents and County Council has reduced there on the top row from one originally in 18- 19 down to .6 FTEs County Council leverages the .6 full-time equivalents to provide legal support for enforcement cases within the licensing framework as well as other litigation involving cannabis.
A proposed reduction to this line item would result in county council's office holding one funded position vacant. which recently became open and is in the recruitment process until additional funding was available. The Agricultural Commissioner's allocation includes funding for the .15 FTAs I mentioned, which helps support a position that is partially dedicated to cannabis-related pesticide and weights and measures enforcement directly tied to the Cannabis Program.
And then finally, the Planning and Development Department receives funding for zoning enforcement activities. The 2.5 full-time equivalents are dedicated to code compliance with the cannabis, code compliance and enforcement including code compliance with the cannabis odor abatement requirements recently adopted by the board. Staff recommends no change to the budget for these three departments.
The other ongoing uses were considered in addition to enforcement and the recommended reductions are summarized in this chart. The Cannabis Education Program, shown here, provides cannabis use prevention education to perinatal and youth populations. County Health leverages their work in tobacco use prevention and best practices to inform youth anti-smoking and vaping campaigns.
Be Well contracts work to community based organizations to provide education to prevent and reduce cannabis use in adolescents. In coordination with County Health and B-Well, staff identified potential overlap between County Health Clinic's perinatal education and B-Well's perinatal education with treatment providers. So staff recommend a $41,000 reduction in B-Well's allocation for perinatal education with treatment providers for perinatal cannabis use prevention education.
B-Well will continue to provide materials to the treatment providers however quarterly workshops provided by B-Well staff for perinatal education will be eliminated. County Health will continue to provide services and information to the perinatal population regarding risks of cannabis use. Midway down on this chart, the CEO's office is listed. The CEO's office administers and coordinates the cannabis program licensing process for all regulated cannabis activities.
At the height of the program I had mentioned in our last item we had nearly 125 business licenses in process and the CEO's office had three full-time equivalents. One cannabis program manager charged with overseeing interdepartmental coordination and policy directives of the program And two business license specialists that supported all day-to-day efforts of processing license applications and compliance efforts.
Today with approximately a third of that number of licenses, the CEO's office already reduced the licensing program by one staff. It is proposing to reduce its share of cannabis tax revenue by $76,800 by shifting half of the cost for the Cannabis Program Manager to the license fees adopted earlier today. The other two departments included for reductions are the Treasurer Tax Collector's Office.
They currently have two staff responsible for cannabis tax reporting, collection and compliance. Early in the program, the treasurer tax collector had limited resources available for Cannabis Tax Administration and the program struggled with some discrepancies in their reporting and payment from various operators. Current staff assigned continuously work with operators to ensure accurate and timely tax payment However, the total Treasurer Tax Collector budget of $588,000 includes not only two staff but also a contract for national pricing data at $18,000.
As well as a line item for cannabis independent auditing services for $90,000. Treasurer tax collector staff recommended reducing expenditures by eliminating the contracts for independent audits and national pricing data resulting in $108,000 increase so that's shown on those two lines for treasury tax collector The 90 and the 18,000 reduction. Treasurer tax collector staff will continue reviewing quarterly reporting and performing analytics but external auditing work will pause.
Finally every cannabis operation in the county requires a land use entitlement as we have been talking about or a permit that is processed through the planning and development department. Cannabis permits are discretionary and subject therefore subject to appeal Given the controversial nature of cannabis, a large majority of cannabis projects were appealed to the Planning Commission and Board.
There's significant staff time associated with appeals that is not recouped from applicant permit fees and so the board approved an ongoing allocation of cannabis tax revenue in the amount of $370,000 to cover this expense to the department In the last two years, appeals have reduced to just a couple of outstanding cases. So the recommendation is to eliminate the ongoing appeals cost allocation to planning and development resulting in a $370,000 decrease and then any balance from the current fiscal year 24-25 allocation will be set aside as a one time use for future cannabis appeals costs.
The CEO office recommendation for reductions shown in this slide totals approximately $1.38 million. So I wanted to pull all of this information together so you can see it all in one place, so that is what we're showing here on this table. It's also included as attachment A to your staff report. This table shows each associated use and the current staffing dedicated for that purpose in column one.
And then the original preliminary budget proposed for 25-26 in the second column, totaling the $6.7 million that we talked about earlier. Column three is the proposed reduction in dollars for those staffing reductions and the other associated program costs that I discussed in the last slide Proposed full-time equivalents or staffing levels are the new number of staff proposed for that purpose with changes to staffing levels for Sheriff and DA. So that fourth column, proposed FTE, the numbers that have changed for staffing are under the third row for the District Attorney and the fourth row for Sheriff.
Reducing from 2.65 district attorney to 1.45 staff and from five in the Sheriff's office to four Finally, the recommended amount of funding for board consideration. So the final column is the associated amount of funding recommended for each of these line items including staffing reductions and other program cuts that I discussed. For proposed total reduction of $1.38 million and a budgeted amount of $5,338,000 closing the $1,200,000 gap with approximately $190,000 estimated balance.
There are some other options the board could consider to close this $1.2 million gap, and they were suggested by some of the departments and so I wanted to present them today. One is to reduce the 18% transfer to deferred maintenance fund balance that I mentioned goes to Public Works and General Services in County Parks to address the deferred maintenance backlog.
That could be reduced to $370,000 gain the 1.2 million. We could also again use the one-time cannabis revenue fund balance, but that effectively depletes the fund balance and potentially lowers the cannabis revenue prudent reserve below the goal of 25% of projected revenue So today the recommended actions are to direct staff to adjust the recommended fiscal year 25-26 budget, to reduce cannabis revenue ongoing uses. We're recommending in accordance with attachment A that table that final table I displayed preliminary and titled preliminary and proposed ongoing cannabis revenue use provide any other direction as appropriate and of course find the CEQA recommendations Thank you. That concludes my presentation.
5:49 – 5:559 turns
Thank you, Ms. Oterman. Questions? Supervisor Lee.
Thank you Chair Kapsch. So on your proposed budget of $1.5 million so you began for between four deputies that's about $376,000 for each deputy. So the same cost as a CRD right?
Supervisor Lee, through the chair. I'm told that the average cost of a deputy is about $242,000. There are some other costs associated with the enforcement team. There's a separate building that they lease as well as some other overhead and office supplies included in that total amount.
So with that said, can we recalibrate or restate the missions for the sheriff's deputies to be community resource deputies instead of just cannabis enforcement deputies? Is that something that's possible that we can consider?
Supervisors, if you might, through the chair. So I think anything is possible but a couple of things just to keep in mind. So when the board first put cannabis tax revenue towards the Sheriff's Office and the other departments it was for enforcement of cannabis for to ensure the regulated market was working As you heard throughout this morning, times have changed and progressed. So I think it's up to your board if you want to recategorize the allocations. We do have a board policy and I think this would fit within the board policy. The budget director and I've been going back and forth about this. This came up In 2021, you said no new allocations beyond those already adopted in that budget will be made towards ongoing expenditures with the exception of expenditures to support the cannabis program or to cover costs of negotiated labor increases related.
Remaining cannabis revenues will be used towards one-time expenditures are held in fund balance. So of the positions you have allocated to the sheriff for cannabis enforcement, you can discuss whether you want to recategorize this and then not have as much cannabis enforcement. You I think have that option to do that and we can reflect on the budget but as you recall the board's relationship with the sheriff is you appropriate his budget but the sheriff has control over how he deploys those resources and directs his staff so just remember that
Thank you. Because I think it's important that we talk about fentanyl, that I remember Supervisor Navarro talking about. That is important that we should address. Having resource deputies are important to deal with homelessness, help our businesses, schools. So having those extra hands to help with multiple districts being San Ynez, Corita, Orchid, Santa Maria area, those would be vital.
Be more successful than what they currently do with cannabis.
I appreciate that and I and I I'm struggling trying to figure out exactly. What's the vehicle to you know redirect resources on You know, we got a lot of other things going on besides cannabis. And to tie four or five, four now, a sheriff sergeant and three deputies to just these illegal activities just in cannabis, to me seems it doesn't seem productive. So I don't know how to have that conversation.
I've got my ideas of what I'd like to do. But as the CEO said, you know when we when the money goes back to the sheriff it's going to be basically how he wants to allocate it. So I'm really struggling with how to think the whole landscapes changed and I appreciate this conversation we're having because it was about time that we kind of discussed the new way forward.
I don't know. I don't know if we do that in budget This is the budget inside the cannabis. So, I mean, I can support this as long as we have the idea that we still need to have a conversation about how we're going to kind of police this in the future.
And Board Members, if I might. So the reduction that we asked from all the departments including the Sheriff and to their credit they proposed this reduction so I want to thank them as well as all the other departments part of it was also to eliminate any of the overtime that was associated with the cannabis program for their the sheriff enforcement and the sheriff himself agreed to do that and we said we would need some mechanisms and documentation in place for my office so that we could track that and make sure that the time was spent appropriately For today what we're asking for direction is if this seems about right as far as the allocation to the different departments, we would go forward in the budget. But I think there needs to be conversation with the Sheriff's Department about what you're requesting as far how to use those four positions that are now assigned to cannabis enforcement.
Yeah, so that's the thing. I don't know when to have that conversation or how to have that conversation but for the sake of sticking with what we're doing today, I can support this but I do want to have that conversation and I donno if it's in the Sheriff's budget or how we do that separately but you know, we just... We have limited resources and we got to do the biggest bang for the buck. So whether that's guys going out there and chasing this or not I mean, under Sheriff Bonner. So how's it going?
5:55 – 6:0515 turns
Well in general exactly what CEO Miyasato said right you guys give us the budget and the sheriff decides how to use it. The one caveat to that is when the board has set aside specific funding whether it's for the Isla Vista Community Resource Deputy or in this case the Cannabis Compliance and Enforcement The board told us specifically what you wanted to do, and we don't go off and spend it however we want to. We're going to spend it the way that you tell us to do it as it relates to that specialized funding. And I think this is a conversation that we can have with your board But obviously, and you know I've got my team here to talk about it. There is the workload out there. There are people selling cannabis to juveniles. It's in our schools, it's impacting our children and we do need to have resources there to address it.
And when there are complaints from community members, we need to have resources to address it. So we do need to be careful, but we are absolutely here to listen to your board. And again, this is funding that your board has specifically set aside. This is funding that we don't utilize just any old way we decide to do it.
I appreciate that and I totally get what you're saying and but I'm curious wouldn't just like OK, for example, let's talk about the one that happened at Cabrillo High School There was a press release that went out which I found, I mean it says suspect in illegal cannabis sales linked to medical emergency at high school. But then when I read the article there was also psilocybin, alcohol, codeine, nicotine and a lot of other things but that doesn't get the headline. The headline is cannabis. But it was a school resource deputy that actually discovered it So question is, is that the cannabis team doing that or is that the school resource officer that actually figured it out and then alerted the parents?
Fair question. So School Resource Deputy may have initiated it but he brought in the Cannabis Enforcement Team we bring in those detectives that specialize in that type of enforcement to handle it.
Yeah, I don't know what is just specific cannabis. That's why I mean, I want to see that broadened somewhat so that it's fentanyl. It's psilocybin. It's what's going on in the drug world? Are we going after the people when we find out that they I mean this particular individual is gonna get charged with a felony And they're going to go and then probably not show up for their court date. He's going to be in Lompoc, and he's not going to show up or we're not gonna go get him. So it's to me is just frustrating that we've got a cannabis team that's going out and doing all these things with the end of the day. The real problem in my mind is we don't go get the people that we know are doing this so I would like to see this money redirected to let's go start up So I know I see in the back of the room that I'm kind of getting the not often.
That's Anyways, it's very frustrating. We're spending money where I think honestly, when you say that there's plenty of work to do, I don't see the result. I don't see the result of how many people have gone to jail from your cannabis team busting people? I mean we heard about the one case that we couldn't hear about. That turned out to not be what was presented to this board That was not what was presented to this board, was not factual.
And so honestly I mean let's be frank. I'll zero out the damn thing. I don't care. You know you guys are the experts but explain to me why we have 1800 felons running around in my hometown and think it's funny? I don' think it's funny
at all. We have lost positions over the years. I'd love to get a felony fugitive enforcement.
Here's the money right here, that's where it is.
Supervisor Nelson?
Yes thank you Chair Caps and it's hard to talk. But I hear your frustration and I share it too. That's why I brought up during the budget workshops, you know, I'd love to hear about busting somebody selling to minors and a couple weeks later we got a press release where we were doing that so thank you for that. I like to see that on more regular basis because that is something that I see with my constituents and they're mostly impacted. As far as checking up on some of these illegal grows, I know that's a big part of this and if you're saying that you want to hear from us where are we going to see these dollars spent?
You know you heard from me and you responded I appreciate that. What I'm hoping maybe that can get us to a place where this board can be working more cooperatively is maybe taking these cannabis dollars already with your other drug enforcement dollars and maybe more comprehensive instead of having them all siloed, maybe there's a bigger conversation there instead of having that as separate teams because we want to keep that in a category. I don't think this board is that concerned about it just being strictly to cannabis is what I'm hearing.
We want to make we want this to be a tool So that you guys can do more leverage and that's what I would hope. And the frustration you're hearing, it's not just cannabis out there and I know that's where this category has been because these were where this board set this in that direction but I do think this board is saying let's maybe pivot that and see if we can use these dollars a little bit more effectively out there instead of just focusing strictly on cannabis or we have issues out there that might be a big win for a cannabis enforcement team but may not be the best thing The buck for the county as a whole on actual public safety and actually going after the real bad guys. So I think we're all willing to have that conversation and want to have that with you guys at department.
Supervisors just want to, and we can have that conversation. I don't feel the sheriff himself isn't here and I know the undersheriff you want to consult with him but also want to remind you to step back and when Brittany showed the allocation from 2018 or whenever it was till now it was because the board at that time wanted to do enforcement to minimize the black market as much as possible And I'm going to throw something out that's going to get the sheriff and everyone else really mad at me.
But if that isn't really the concern of the board anymore, if you want that enforcement for drug enforcement or thing, the board actually could use it for anything not for the sheriff. It could be for anything because it is really up to you and your yeah the board at your discretion of how you want to use those funds. So I just want to remind you those listing of things because we've been under the impression this whole time everyone trying go with enforcement, all the different departments still need to do some work. But in truth if it's not as significant an item for the board you really have discretion to use that funds in whatever way you wish.
I appreciate that. Supervisor Harmon? If we can target them for law enforcement and get reports back. I mean I think accountability for me would be right up there at the top. Would you put slide 7 back I want to switch gears and go in a different direction for a moment. Cannabis education is really, really important to me and we didn't have that much money in the budget for it and now we're reducing it by $41,000 but is that...
I guess I'm wondering if public health has enough money? For me, dealing with kids and pregnant women and cannabis in the young brain and education. That's a top priority for this money.
Thank you Supervisor Hartman through the chair so in the current proposed budget County Health would maintain $100,000 and they've been able to successfully use that. They're leveraging their tobacco prevention programs I know I know we have County Health staff here. They can speak to this more directly. The $41,000 reduction is specifically in the line item for behavioral wellness. They have $160,000 budgeted.
The 41,000 dollar reduction has to do with the contract that they have with treatment providers for perinatal education and there was some overlap between what County Health does in that space and what B-Well does And so the remainder of the money that behavioral wellness has is for youth adolescent education prevention. And it works in the three various regions of the county with nonprofit organizations to train young people, to be peers and mentors and do education programs around that. OK.
Thank
you.
Hi everyone, Jack Moore County Health. I supervise our tobacco prevention cannabis education program.
Thank you.
6:05 – 6:1010 turns
Showing off that it's my first time. Thank you for the question, Supervisor Hartman. So we have been able to do a fair amount of work with that budget so a good portion of that covers about 40% of the time for the program coordinator for that program. Some of the work that we do with that, so a real focus on provider education for perinatal population and youth We have brought in experts from USC's Maternal Cannabis Program and UCLA Pediatrics to talk about some of the health impacts of cannabis use and vaping for both perinatal population and youth.
To some of the presentation earlier, we've incorporated Part of that cannabis education with the work we already do around tobacco education. So for instance, we do an annual youth tobacco prevention summit that started to incorporate some of the health impacts of youth vaping and things like that from both cannabis and tobacco. Similarly, we've been able to reuse some of the resources we developed earlier with this funding. So we had a campaign called My Best Life that was co-produced with Be Well and local youth to focus on sort of positive activities outside of using cannabis. And we've continued to reuse those campaign materials in our in person education and our online outreach.
And I think last thing to highlight is we do a lot of work with a lot of nonprofit organizations across Santa Barbara County, Future Leaders of America, Fighting Back Santa Maria Valley. And a lot of that work overlaps somewhat when we're talking about health impacts of tobacco and health impacts of cannabis. We know vaping is really an issue for youth in particular both with tobacco and cannabis. And so you know sometimes when we're out in the community and we're talking about health impacts We're able to sort of talk to both of those issues at the same time.
So you think you have enough money?
Well, I mean we can always use more money should the board like to devote it. You know we have gotten creative with our budget I think where we see the biggest limitation is bringing in those outside experts to provide provider education We've gotten our staff credential to provide CME credits to make those presentations more enticing to the medical community to engage with, but we've also been looking at things like partnering with local experts so that it reduces the costs that we might have there. But you know we're very happy with this budget and then we're going to continue to have money to do cannabis education through our program.
Good, well thank you so much for being here and explaining that. And I think we did at least find some money that was duplicative with B-Well and you've sorted that out. So I'm happy about that. So thank you. The other issue I have is the HDL auditing contract on slide seven there was something else from the treasurer tax collector. Let's see. Yeah, the program administration and the auditing contract. So what are we losing there?
Thank you Supervisor Hartman through the chair. The $18,000 is with I believe it's called New Leaf is the provider and its pricing data at the national level in various data points In talking with Treasurer Tax Collector staff, this is the recommendation that they offered up saying that's just one data point that they're now using. Since they've been able to staff their cannabis compliance team in the tax collector's office, they've been collecting data locally and they believe that the pricing data locally is The most relevant so they'll continue to do analytics. They'll continue to review information But they won't have access to this national pricing data if we eliminate this contract
and in the administration was just oversight on that contractor or
Supervisor Hartman, the administration is there are two staffing. Oh I apologize Cannabis Program Administration the $18,000 is included in the line item for Treasurer Tax Collector. The admin is the two full-time staff that they have in their office that perform the function.
So you can assure me that cannabis audits will continue?
Supervisor Hartman, the next line item on this slide is actually eliminating the HDL auditing contract. Those are the external independent audits and those would be proposed to be paused in 2526. The Treasurer Tax Selector staff will continue like I said to review and perform analytics on cannabis tax reports and payments but those independent audits would pause if we eliminate that contract.
And I guess what I'm trying to understand is, what is the impact? What have they provided for us to date and...
6:10 – 6:1511 turns
Supervisor Hartman through the chair. I don't have that information. I haven't been provided that information. I know the board has asked for that in the past and I don't see anyone from the Treasurer-Tax Selector's Office here to speak to that.
I mean since you asked, it's been a disappointment sort of from the beginning. The promise of these audits and all we're going to learn and You all, the previous board was going to learn so much from them and then really there hasn't been any. So then he just sort of forewent the funding year after year so it's now officially gone.
Do we want that information public?
It's been public because I've raised it many times just questions of what were you learning from it and the answer is not much
Okay well I guess I'm willing to go with what's proposed and have a little more to say after public comment.
Yeah, I just had a couple questions. I appreciate where this conversation is going with enforcement. I'm intrigued because we have very little funding and we just want to make sure it's effective and that we're stopping the black market if that's still the goal, if we're going after those who are selling it illegally especially to our kids. And I see future leaders of America here they have a campaign to make sure that enforcement is instead of enforcement We make sure that it's targeted towards education and I can attest as a former school board member how prevalent cannabis is in our schools. It's crazy the number of suspensions on a daily basis related to cannabis far more than, in my anecdotal experience, far more than alcohol so I'm interested in making sure that we Keep cannabis education, keep the funds that would go towards kids.
And I think that's still here if I'm reading correctly through B-Well and other programs and the perinatal. I had some similar questions as Supervisor Hartman but it sounds as though there was some overlap potentially with public health so we're okay. I'm okay with that having received the information but I just want to make sure that we're still focused with Small funds that we have, that we keep our focus on kids not getting such exposure to this product at a young age.
And just to affirm you're nodding but the small programs that we do have are still intact correct? Thank You Chair Kaps.
Yes those programs directed at youth prevention of cannabis use are still
intact But then more broadly to Supervisor Lavinio's point, I mean if we want to blow this up and really rethink, I don't know exactly when we do it. If we do it today, if we do next year with our budget next year, I mean its going to be dwindling It looks as though it's going to be dwindling. The promise of federal legalization doesn't seem even on the horizon currently, as it might have been with a different administration. So I think it's important that we keep our eye on the ball. It's a smaller ball than we anticipated and I'm quite interested in making sure that the enforcement dollars are being effective how we do that. I'm looking for guidance.
But I'm happy to accept that. I think we should move forward with the proposal we have in front of us. We can continue to talk about it going forward. This is not a one time conversation.
Supervisors and Chair, so thank you for that. And Brittany just show your slide I just want to make sure that by doing this, the positions That we have in there is what we would be bringing forward at the hearings or be in our recommended budget. So you would still have four positions in the Sheriff's Office, it's I think three deputies and one sergeant. And so that conversation about the focus of their work, you can have that at the hearings and we can have some conversation with the sheriff at that time.
Okay. We have to go to public comment. We get to go to public comment, excuse me before we keep moving here so Madam Clerk.
Chair Kaps and members of the board we have five requests to speak for this item. We will begin with Amy Steinfeld via Zoom to be followed by Angelica Torralba here in Santa Barbara.
6:16 – 6:225 turns
Yes, good afternoon supervisors. My name is Amy Steinfeld and I represent several local cannabis farmers and also sit on our Chamber of Commerce. I also represent cannabis farmers in other counties like Santa Cruz and Ventura County. In those counties the Sheriff's Department works closely and collaboratively with the cannabis operators generally employing a total of one to two sheriffs for their program.
Those programs in our neighboring counties are efficient and safe. In contrast, our sheriff's office focuses on enforcement against legal operators instead of compliance. We have a culture issue whereby our sheriffs are biased against this legal plan which results in an incompatible program whereby our sheriffs are actively looking for ways to shut down legal farms.
I'm concerned about their overreach. For example, we've witnessed the Sheriff's Department taking the most draconian interpretation of our ordinance. Instead of working reasonably with operators, the Sheriff's Department prefers to erect hurdles and roadblocks. This simply increases the cost of doing business. For example, our Sheriff's Department has been known to stop in question random cannabis employees while on site for inspections. This causes unnecessary stress and anxiety with our workforce further increasing our competitive disadvantage.
In addition, the sheriff's department regularly brings four to five sheriffs to cannabis compliance site visits which is completely unnecessary. Instead of harassing legal business owners who employ hundreds of residents we'd like to see our sheriff's fighting crime destroying illegal grows in our national forest and addressing the fentanyl crisis. As you heard, the Santa Barbara County Sheriff's Office is already consuming more than 40% of the locally generated cannabis tax revenues for less than 46 licensed grows.
In addition, the sheriff office received a multi-million dollar grant from the state. As a result we believe the sheriff's department is overstaffing inspections. I'm here today to support the reduction in budget to the sheriff's office by not just one FTE but by several. Due to the now significantly reduced number of cannabis operators, we believe the Cannabis Task Force can be responsibly reduced to one or two sheriffs. We also request that as to their scope of work that many of the sheriff's compliance duties be transferred to the CEO's office such as is done in other counties like Monterey and Sonoma.
This will allow the important cannabis tax funds to be redirected to fund educational and mental and behavioral health programs. Thank you.
We will now go to Angelica Torralba to be followed by Corima Morales.
Thank you. Good afternoon everyone, Board of Supervisors. My name is Angelica. I serve as the Lompoc Youth Organizer for Future Leaders of America. I'm here today to advocate for more equitable and a forward-thinking use of our county's cannabis tax revenue Currently, a significant portion of this revenue is directed towards law enforcement including the Sheriff's Department and Code Enforcement. While public safety is important it's critical to remember why Proposition 64 was passed. It wasn't just about legalization, it was about reinvestment in communities disproportionately harmed by the war on drugs.
We believe it's time to shift this funding towards what truly creates long-term safety and opportunity, programs that support and empower our youth. In 2021 the City of Santa Cruz voters overwhelmingly supported Measure 8 passing it with 82.74% approval This measure directs a portion of the cannabis business tax toward the Santa Cruz Children's Fund, which provides vital resources for child care after school programs and scholarships for summer and outdoor learning opportunities. This is the kind of community investment that strengthens futures and breaks cycles.
Let's follow that lead. Let's invest cannabis revenue in programs to help young people thrive, giving them support opportunities and resources they need to build bright futures. Thank you.
Karima Morales to be followed by Ivan Vega
Good afternoon Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors. My name is Coralma Morales, I am the Santa Maria Senior Organizer for Future Leaders of America. I am here to highly encourage you to realign the county's cannabis tax revenue and not increase the licensing fees. Cannabis revenue presents a unique opportunity, a steady stream of funding that can be invested in prevention development and long-term community wellness. Currently much of this revenue is directed into the general fund where its impact on youth support is diluted sorry but it doesn't have to be this way We can look at the City of Vista in 2021, their officials decided to cap cannabis tax revenue for the general fund at $4 million annually. Any revenue above this threshold was then allocated specifically to specific projects including youth development programs, city parks initiatives and other community resources.
This model allowed the city to maintain financial stability while meaningfully reinvesting in its residents. We could do the same, or better. Our youth need access to safe spaces, mentorship, after-school programs, mental health resources and educational opportunities. Santa Barbara County has allocated approximately 55.2 million in cannabis tax revenue from mid 2018 through mid 2024 however only a small fraction of this 100,000 in the 2023 and 2020 our physical year was allocated to youth programs Reallocating just a portion of the cannabis tax revenue could strengthen youth prevention efforts, especially in underserved communities and break cycles of poverty and harm that cannabis loss once contributed to.
This is more than a budget decision it's a reflection of our priorities let's show our youth that they matter and deserve real investment thank you
6:22 – 6:286 turns
We will now go to Ivan Vega to be followed by our final speaker John Esteban
Good afternoon Board of Supervisors, my name is Ivan Vega. I'm the Associate Organizing Director for Future Leaders of America and I am here today to urge you to reexamine how cannabis tax revenue is being used and to consider a more just and effective path forward. I understand that we are facing a decrease with cannabis tax revenue however we must remember that when voters passed Prop 64 it wasn't just about legalizing marijuana It was about a promise to invest in communities that have been devastated by the war on drugs. Today we are asking the Board of Supervisors to honor that promise by creating a youth fund to support, that is supported and funded by cannabis tax revenue.
Since 2018, Santa Barbara County has collected nearly $55 million in cannabis taxes. Unfortunately the majority of these funds have gone to the Sheriff's Department and law enforcement rather than to prevention education and youth development. Only a small fraction of these funds about $100,000 have been allocated to youth program and that's great. But youth deserve more intentional investment into their well-being.
The cannabis tax revenue being applied to create a youth fund has the potential to support the mental health and emotional well-being of youth, prevent and reduce homelessness, prevent and reduce youth substance abuse, prevent and reduce youth violence, support healthy development of children ages 0 to 5 and guaranteed basic income for foster youth. It's time to shift our priorities from punishment to prevention, and from enforcement to empowerment Other California communities are already leading the way. In San Diego, approximately $500,000 in cannabis tax revenue is invested in youth cannabis and substance use prevention. In Sacramento voters have approved a measure that directs 40% of cannabis tax revenue to children and youth services Focusing on communities most impacted by poverty, violence and trauma.
Santa Barbara County has an opportunity to do the same or even better. Let's use these funds to support mental health services after school programs youth leadership development and early investment in early intervention strategies let's honor the spirit of Prop 64 and invest in preventing healing and youth empowerment because young people deserve more than just enforcement. They deserve investments in their future. Thank you.
We will now go to our final speaker, John Esteban.
Good afternoon, Board of Supervisors. My name is John Esteban. I serve as the Santa Barbara Community Organizer with Future Leaders of America. I'm here today to speak on how the county's cannabis tax revenue is being used and why it's time to realign our priorities. When Proposition 64 legalized recreational cannabis, it came with a promise. I promise to begin repairing the harm done to communities most impacted by the war on drugs, a series of cruel state and federal policies and tactics to disproportionately incarcerate black and brown men for minor drug offenses.
That promise must be fulfilled not in words but in funding. So we urge you to create a youth fund using cannabis tax revenue. This will directly support underserved youth through community-based programs that promote leadership, education and healing. In my work with youth across Santa Barbara I've seen firsthand the impact of disinvestment from lack of access to mental health care to underfunded schools and community programs yet have also seen the power of investment when young people are given opportunities mentorship and safe spaces they thrive Public opinion is clear. Communities want investment in prevention, not punishment.
In opportunity, not over-policing. It's time to shift our priorities from criminalization to care. From enforcement to empowerment. We have the power to build systems rooted in justice, healing and equity. We don't need more funding for systems that criminalize poor black and brown communities. We need affordable housing, mental health treatment, restorative justice, and youth-led solutions. Please honor the spirit of Prop 64, invest in our future, and invest in our youth. Thank you.
Thank you to all of our speakers. Okay let's bring this home are we have we deliberated? We needed to deliberate a little bit more. Supervisor Hartman
I'm thinking that at least the law enforcement piece of this needs more discussion in the budget perhaps as a special item if it's First of all, I want to say I think staff did a tremendous job on the cannabis Just mapping it out issue by issue option by option. It's really easy to get tangled up and lost it's pretty complicated but I think that this was extraordinarily well done today and I just wanted to say that.
But it sounds like we may be switching gears on you up here in terms of how we want the law enforcement, and I think we need more discussion. For myself, I'm very much persuaded by what I heard from future leaders from America We keep talking about investing, and we have done a fair bit of it. But it seems when we look at our budget that the priorities are jail and law enforcement.
And so I think this is a chance to look at that and see where to allocate. But I think we need a richer fuller discussion and we need some more direction options like the good ones that staff laid out for us today.
6:28 – 6:3418 turns
I think today was a great day for reimagining and rescoping the whole program. I know the sheriff isn't here today, you know so I don't want and I think we're kind of at the end of the day. But I think the board is ready to shift our priorities. And, and I don't blame the Sheriff's Department or the enforcement team that's what we originally that was for the last seven years. That's our focus.
And so but I think we have five votes up here now that I think are willing to kind of change the focus a little bit education yes mental health yes youth fund yes resource deputies yes we just got to figure out what that mix is For me it's probably, and I know the budget is what next week or the week after. But you know we could carve out if it's not even a half hour of just really kind of figuring out what we're gonna do with the money and how we make those decisions going forward. I don't think we can wait an entire year to come back but I don' really wanna do it today either but I think we're all in agreement we just have to have the forum to be able to do it.
Yeah I agree. Supervisor Lee, did you?
No. Anybody ready to make a motion?
Well yeah I mean I'll just weigh in. I think that's right. I think we've unearthed some this is a even though it's not an exciting conversation because there's not much to work with it's it I feel a sense of relief that we're being realistic about what we have and I appreciate the priorities you outlined.
The difficulty of the tabling is we have hearings in a couple of weeks and lots of departments are on this list. And I think they want, and Paul Clemente's online, they want some assurance okay are those funds for their things and their staff because my office included we have staff tied to some of the funding recommendations. So if it's... If you're saying because the direction is for us to adjust the recommended budget to reduce the cannabis revenue ongoing which I think we were in agreement with And I think what you're saying is what's remaining of it, you want to have discussion about.
In the departments that are on here that if we go back to that slide, Brittany, I think if you know there are certain areas that you want us to have greater discussion at the hearings That's good, but for everyone else I'd ask that you say yes it's okay for everything because we need to make sure that they know that their budgets are secure. So if it really is enforcement and if it really just is the sheriffs about what use of those deputies or if that's what we want to use them for at all then that would help us narrow the focus of the hearings because some of the things were going to have to continue like we said there are fixed costs involved in some of the other programs
I'm about to throw a wrench in the works. I think that 18 percent, I'm wondering if that should not go towards the jail this year to reduce our interest there? I
just hate to have that conversation without Supervisor Nelson here and I know he had to leave but I know when that item came up His hackles went up so I think I would say that I'd like to my motion would be that we accept all of the framework outside of the sheriff's enforcement costs and we just figure out at the budget time. At least for this year, what that looks like.
And whether that's reduced and the money is reallocated to different programs or we go status quo, whatever it is. But there's a lot of money still sitting there. I mean each deputy position is quarter of a million dollars so...
Right, but I'd like to have it on the table. Sure yeah that's to discuss. I'm not committed but I do think as we look at the whole budget and what it's going to mean anything we can do to ratchet down interest
got
it we need to look at.
Sure so board
members
I'm here willing to discuss
The direction is for us to go ahead and, to direct staff to adjust the recommended fiscal 25-26 budget which we'll bring to you in a couple of weeks. To reduce the ongoing cannabis revenue and what we've proposed as in the ongoing budget it sounds like that's what we will propose except for you'd like to have conversation about the sheriff's enforcement. And the 18%, and the 18% having a conversation. We
can have a conversation I mean yeah And in the context of the bigger budget and what the general
is going to be first going forward.
I'll second that. Chair Kaps, can I? CEO Miyasato, I just want to clarify what you just said to make sure that with the sheriff, the proposal is a reduction of one FTE in this recommendation. We can move forward with that? Or do you wanna leave sheriff at the higher staffing level which is five
for the- I think we're saying because we want the reductions. The reductions that we've proposed are the board is agreeing to those reductions. What's remaining The sheriff's enforcement and the deferred maintenance money is what the board wants to have further conversation at the hearings. Thank you
6:34 – 6:3813 turns
Yeah, I support that so is it as a motion clear You made the motion I'm just double-checking or
I made I Made the motion but if it's clear to our County Council then it's clear to me she's the
Supervisor Leveneau you are okay to have the discussion about the sheriff enforcement and deferred maintenance at the hearings? Sure.
Okay so we have a motion, we have a second. All those in favor?
Aye.
All right, we got through it. Thank you.
Thank you.
Supervisor Hartman? Oh then there's a
tribute.
Yes so we have two, we lost two cherished members of our county this week, two that we're going to highlight and I'll first turn it over to Supervisor Lavaneno
Thank you very much, Chair Caps. Unfortunately we lost Allison Wales passed away on May 19th she had an 11 year battle with cancer it's kind of strange that when I heard she passed away it was very surprising because she had such a long battle she'd overcome so many difficult unfair circumstances kinda look at the way Allison fought was basically how all of us would like to think we deal with the adversity of a long battle like that, but the reality is few of us would have the strength, composure and positivity that she did.
Her work ethic was unparalleled and she was working up to five days before she passed away. Allison was one of my women's commissioners for the 5th District and she did outstanding work as an employee in North County Rape Crisis Center and Child Protection Center She did so much more for our community. She was also involved with the League of Women Voters, the American Association of University Women and other organizations and she will be deeply missed in our community.
Thank you. Supervisor Hartman? I just wanted to add just a little bit, Allison passed away on May 19th after living courageously with breast cancer as Supervisor Lovenino said for 11 years but that illness never defined her and what did define her was her lifelong commitment to lifting people up Wherever a woman or girl was exploited, trafficked or simply in need of someone to believe in her, Allison showed up with patience, with kindness and with an unshakable resolve to help transform pain into strength and victims into survivors.
She lives selflessly in service to others and her legacy is going to be an inspiration Thank
you. I'll add my tribute to her and her service to our community. I also wanted to acknowledge and close out our meeting with a tribute to Barney Branningham, who also passed away recently. Local legend and household name that's particularly in my house growing up and Jerry Roberts had in his beautiful obituary. I'm going to read from it. Barney Branaham captured the human stories, sentiments and spirit of his town pounding out a real time history of Santa Barbara on deadline day after day year after year in his must read On The Beat column.
He was he's been compared to the Herb Cain from San Francisco here locally and from all accounts just a wonderful decent human being who brought so much to his service both at the Santa Barbara News Press and the Santa Barbara Independent. We close out our meeting in gratitude and honor of Alison Wells and also Barney Branningham. And with that, we'll be adjourned until next week in Santa Maria. Thanks everybody!