UnGovr Words

Board of Supervisors — 2026-08-25

Board of Supervisors — 2026-08-25August 25, 2026

Switch meeting
BodyBoard of Supervisors
MeetingRegular Meeting
Date📅 August 25, 2026

Click any transcript line to jump the video there.

Meeting Summary

  1. PendingQueued for transcription.
  2. AIYou are hereAuto-transcribed and summarized; not yet human-verified.
  3. VerifiedReviewed and corrected by a person.

Present: 1-Lee, 2-Capps, 3-Hartmann, 5-Lavagnino, 4-Nelson

This summary was AI-generated to save you time. It may miss or misstate details, so verify against the official recording and the transcript.

At a glance

CEO Report

  • Chair Nelson welcomed Jana Peterson as the new County Executive Officer.
  • Peterson highlighted the county’s receipt of the GFOA Distinguished Budget Presentation Award for the 2026-27 budget.
  • The Community Services Department received the State of California’s Pro-Housing designation and $1.25 million in incentive funding.

Women’s Equality Day Proclamation

  • Commissioners from the Santa Barbara County Commission for Women spoke in support of the proclamation.
  • The board recognized the historical significance of the 19th Amendment and the ongoing need for equity.
  • The board unanimously approved the resolution proclaiming August 26, 2026, as Women’s Equality Day.

Behavioral Health Services Agreement

  • Staff explained that the new agreement with Lightfully provides on-site day rehabilitation services in South County and telehealth countywide.
  • The agreement addresses a decade-long lack of in-county intensive day treatment services.
  • The board unanimously approved the staff recommendation to enter the services agreement.

TOT Appeal (Raff / Dare to Dream Farms)

  • Staff presented a proposed finding of $65,840.11 in tax, penalties, and interest due from the appellants.
  • The appellants testified they could not pay the full amount without reducing staff or shutting down programs.
  • The board voted 3-2 to grant the appeal and waive penalties, interest, and tax.
  • The board directed staff to return with options for TOT collection on farmstays and potential ordinance changes.

Grand Jury Report on Sheriff’s Overtime

  • The board agreed that the current MOU with the Deputy Sheriff’s Association compounds overtime issues and approved a new MOU with caps on overtime hours.
  • The board acknowledged the need to implement the Workday payroll system to improve oversight, with a target go-live date of July 1, 2028.
  • The board unanimously accepted the recommended actions with a minor amendment regarding the Workday implementation timeline.

Emergency Preparedness (Grand Jury Report Response)

  • The county disagreed with the grand jury’s finding that the Office of Emergency Management should be moved back under the CEO’s office.
  • The county rejected the recommendation to increase OEM staffing to 12 full-time employees, citing a lack of workload analysis.
  • The board unanimously accepted the recommended actions to maintain the current structure and staffing levels.

Property Tax Bill Charges (Grand Jury Report Response)

  • The board amended its response to agree that taxpayers may not be fully informed about how Community Service Area funds are spent.
  • The board agreed that new housing in CSA 3 could exacerbate transparency issues regarding benefit assessment fees.
  • The board clarified that the creation of new Community Service Areas is a Board function, not a LAFCO function.
  • The board unanimously accepted the staff recommendation with these amendments to the findings.

Closed Session

  • The board discussed existing litigation involving Flying Goat Sellers, Sunclose Bloom LLC, and Valleycrest Farmed LLC.
  • The board conferred with legal counsel regarding anticipated litigation and decisions on initiating civil actions in two cases.
  • The County Counsel reported that the board took no reportable action during the session.

Full summary

Meeting Start and Roll Call

  • The August 25, 2026, regular meeting of the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors was called to order by Chair Bob Nelson. The Clerk confirmed the presence of Supervisors Lee, Capps, Hartman, Lavinino, and Chair Nelson. The board pledged allegiance to the flag.

Approval of Minutes

  • Item: Approval of the minutes from the August 18, 2026, meeting.
  • Action: Supervisor Hartman moved for approval; Supervisor Capps seconded.
  • Outcome: The motion passed unanimously.

CEO Report

  • Discussion: Chair Nelson welcomed Jana Peterson as the new County Executive Officer (CEO). Peterson introduced herself, noting her prior experience in Boulder County, Colorado, and expressed gratitude to the board and the previous CEO, Mona Miyasato. Peterson highlighted the county’s receipt of the Distinguished Budget Presentation Award from the Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA) for the 2026-27 budget book, a recognition earned for over 20 consecutive years. She also announced that the Community Services Department received the State of California’s Pro-Housing designation and $1.25 million in incentive funding.
  • Outcome: No vote was taken.

Agenda Announcements and Changes

  • Discussion: The Clerk announced an addendum to the closed session agenda regarding existing litigation involving Valley Crest Farms LLC and anticipated litigation involving two other cases. The Clerk also provided information on public participation methods, including Zoom registration for verbal comments.
  • Agenda Changes:
  • Item A1 (Resolution to be presented) was pulled from the public agenda.
  • Chair Nelson requested that Item A4 be pulled from the agenda to allow for specific questioning.
  • Action: Supervisor Hartman moved to approve the balance of the administrative agenda; Supervisor Lee seconded.
  • Outcome: The motion passed unanimously.

Administrative Item A1: Women’s Equality Day Proclamation

  • Item: Resolution to proclaim August 26, 2026, as Women’s Equality Day in Santa Barbara County.
  • Discussion: The Clerk read the resolution into the record. Commissioners Tracy Baird and Yolanda Vasquez from the Santa Barbara County Commission for Women spoke in support of the proclamation, highlighting the historical significance of the 19th Amendment and the ongoing need for equity. Supervisor Capps and Supervisor Hartman commented on the importance of the recognition and the work of the Commission for Women.
  • Action: Supervisor Hartman moved to approve the item; Supervisor Capps seconded.
  • Outcome: The motion passed unanimously.

Administrative Item A4: Behavioral Health Services Agreement

  • Item: Consideration of recommendations regarding a services agreement with Meraki Management California LLC DBA Lightfully Behavioral Health for day rehabilitation services.
  • Discussion: Director Antonette Navarro explained that the county had lacked in-county intensive day treatment services for over a decade, previously relying on out-of-county telehealth. The new agreement with Lightfully provides on-site services in South County and telehealth countywide. Navarro noted that Medi-Cal providers would arrange transportation for residents from other parts of the county. Chair Nelson asked about potential increased utilization and vendor interest, to which Navarro responded that the county would monitor needs and report back.
  • Action: Supervisor Hartman moved to approve the staff recommendation; Supervisor Lee seconded.
  • Outcome: The motion passed unanimously.

General Public Comment

  • Speaker 1: Claire Sheehy, a volunteer with Care for Paws, raised concerns regarding animal cruelty confiscation cases, return policies, and sterilization requirements at County Animal Services. She cited specific incidents involving animals in the riverbed and alleged selective intake practices. Supervisor Hartman indicated she would contact the speaker’s office to discuss the issues further.
  • Speaker 2: Brandon Vasquez, Senior Organizer for Future Leaders of America, thanked the board for allocating $250,000 for a youth fund and requested a meeting with the board members.

Departmental Item 1: TOT Appeal (Raff / Dare to Dream Farms)

  • Item: Hearing to consider recommendations regarding the Jeremy and Megan Raff appeal of the Treasurer Tax Collector’s transient occupancy tax (TOT) final audit determination.
  • Ex Parte Disclosures: Supervisors Lee, Lavinino, Hartman, and Capps disclosed communications related to the item, including reading a NewsHawk article and receiving emails from the appellants. Chair Nelson disclosed no new communications.
  • Staff Presentation: Staff presented the proposed findings, stating the amount due was $65,840.11 ($50,664.25 in tax and $15,175.86 in penalties/interest). Staff noted that the Department of Social Services and County Health Department could not identify public benefit funding for the farm, but the Workforce Development Board identified potential for a youth work site.
  • Board Questions and Discussion:
  • Supervisor Lee asked about payment plans; staff explained the ordinance does not currently allow them, though partial payments would be applied to penalties/interest first.
  • Chair Nelson asked about interest rates; staff clarified it is 0.5% per month (6% annualized) on the base tax only.
  • The Raffs testified that they could not pay the full amount without reducing staff or shutting down programs. They explained they had not collected TOT during the audit period because they were unsure of the ordinance's applicability to farmstays, though they are now collecting it.
  • Supervisor Hartman discussed the history of the Ag Enterprise Ordinance and the distinction between hotels and farmstays, noting the lack of clear notice to small farmers.
  • Supervisor Capps noted that the appellants had previously stated they were aware of the tax obligation and chose not to pay.
  • Supervisor Lavinino expressed discomfort with the outcome but acknowledged the need for a level playing field, suggesting the board look into ordinance changes and payment plan options in the future.
  • Supervisor Lee stated he could not support the appeal due to the appellants' awareness of the tax.
  • Supervisor Capps stated she was torn but would vote with Supervisor Hartman out of deference to the district and the community benefit, while noting the appellants' admission of awareness.
  • Chair Nelson stated he could not support the alternative findings due to consistency with previous votes on similar TOT appeals, despite supporting the farm's mission.
  • Action: Supervisor Hartman moved to grant the appeal and adopt the alternative findings (waiving penalties, interest, and tax); Supervisor Lavinino seconded.
  • Outcome: The motion passed 3-2.
  • Post-Vote Direction: The board directed staff to return with a future item regarding options for TOT collection on farmstays, potential ordinance changes, and hearing board structures.

Departmental Item 2: Grand Jury Report on Sheriff’s Overtime

  • Item: Hearing to consider recommendations regarding responses to the 2025-2026 grand jury report on Sheriff’s Office overtime.
  • Discussion:
  • Initial Presentation: Nicole Parmelee, Principal Analyst in the CEO’s Office, presented the board’s proposed responses to the grand jury report. Key points included agreement with the finding that the MOU with the Deputy Sheriff’s Association (DSA) compounds overtime issues, noting the board recently approved a new MOU that disallows sick leave and comp time from counting as hours worked for overtime calculation, sets an annual cap of 1,300 overtime hours, and limits comp time accrual. The board agreed that the current payroll system is limited and is working to implement Workday. The board also agreed that staffing costs are exacerbated by two jail facilities, with a plan to decommission the South County Jail anticipated for board approval in December 2026.
  • Workday Timeline: The Budget Director provided an update on the Workday implementation. The Request for Proposal (RFP) for Phase 2 (payroll and HR management) is expected to be issued in the fall. The target for contractor selection is early next year, with implementation beginning in the spring. The estimated implementation period is 12–15 months, with a target go-live date of July 1, 2028.
  • System Benefits: The Auditor noted that the specific benefits of the new system are still being defined but are expected to include improved reporting and multiple data input methods.
  • Overtime Report: The Auditor indicated that a report on overtime in other county departments is expected in late September or early October.
  • Sheriff’s Office Response: The Sheriff’s Office discussed the drivers of overtime, including unplanned events, staffing shortages, and Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) practices. They noted that while measures have been taken to reduce overtime, the budget remains a challenge due to operational needs in patrol and jail operations. The Sheriff’s Office acknowledged the need to balance staff workload with budget constraints and mentioned that the current MOU with the Sheriff’s Association is a step in the right direction.
  • Future Considerations: The Chair noted that as pension contribution rates change in the future, the cost-effectiveness of overtime versus hiring new employees may shift. The Board discussed the need to right-size the overtime budget to avoid recurring overages.
  • Jail Rehabilitation: The Sheriff’s Office discussed jail rehabilitation programs, including writing classes and chaplaincy services, noting that these programs are provided at no cost to taxpayers and aim to reduce recidivism.
  • Board Questions: Supervisor Lavinino asked if the Sheriff’s response to the grand jury was included in the packet; staff confirmed it was Attachment C. Supervisor Hartman asked for clarification on the Workday timeline and how it would improve timekeeping oversight.
  • Action: Supervisor Capps moved to accept the recommended actions (A, B, and C), with a minor amendment to Finding 3, Recommendation 3. The amendment changed the language from "will not be implemented" to "has not yet been implemented but will be implemented in the future," with an estimated timeframe of summer 2028. Supervisor Hartman seconded the motion.
  • Outcome: The motion passed unanimously.

Departmental Item 3: Emergency Preparedness (Grand Jury Report Response)

  • Item: Hearing to consider recommendations regarding responses to the 2025-2026 grand jury report on emergency preparedness.
  • Discussion:
  • OEM Placement: The Fire Department Chief addressed the Grand Jury’s finding regarding the placement of the Office of Emergency Management (OEM) under the Fire Department. The County disagreed with the finding, stating that the 2023 transfer did not change OEM’s countywide mission or its role as the Operational Area Coordinator. The County argued that the integration provides administrative, logistical, and operational support (e.g., GIS, logistics) without diminishing OEM’s professional expertise. The County stated it will not implement the recommendation to move OEM back under the CEO’s office.
  • Staffing: The County disagreed with the recommendation to increase OEM staffing to 12 full-time employees, citing a lack of workload analysis or industry standards in the report. The County stated it is conducting an independent assessment to determine appropriate staffing levels based on actual workload and resources.
  • Disaster Service Workers: The County disagreed with the finding regarding the number of trained disaster service workers, noting that the Emergency Operations Center (EOC) is scalable and that over 244 employees are trained, though not all are rostered. The County stated that Recommendations 3A, 3B, and 3C (regarding training, department head responsibility, and EPR language) are already implemented through existing board-approved policies.
  • Oil and Gas Responsibilities: The County disagreed with the finding that transferring oil and gas responsibilities to the Fire Department puts the County out of compliance with the oil spill contingency plan. The County stated that the Fire Department holds the specialized expertise, equipment, and regulatory functions for these tasks, while OEM retains its coordination and EOC roles. The County will not implement the recommendation to transfer these responsibilities back to OEM.
  • Volunteers: The County disagreed with the finding that the absence of a formal county volunteer program indicates a lack of preparedness. The County stated it relies on established partnerships with volunteer organizations (e.g., Red Cross, VOAD) and that creating a new formal program requires further analysis to avoid duplication. The County will include this in the independent assessment.
  • Action: Supervisor Hartman moved to accept the recommended actions A through C. Supervisor Lee seconded the motion.
  • Outcome: The motion passed unanimously.

Departmental Item 4: Property Tax Bill Charges (Grand Jury Report Response)

  • Item: Hearing to consider recommendations regarding responses to the 2025-2026 grand jury report on property tax bill charges and benefit assessment fees.
  • Discussion:
  • Transparency: The CEO’s Office presented the response to the Grand Jury report on benefit assessment fees. The County initially disagreed with Finding 1, stating that transparent information is available through LAFCO municipal service reviews and annual budget notices. The County stated that Recommendations 1A (website page) and 1B (noticing taxpayers) are already implemented.
  • CSA 3 and New Housing: The County initially disagreed with Finding 2, which stated that new housing in CSA 3 would exacerbate transparency issues. The County noted that LAFCO reviews found no need for structural changes but encouraged collaboration. The County is reviewing services and boundaries in the context of planned development.
  • New Agencies: The County disagreed with Finding 3, which suggested that new LAFCO-created agencies would be required for new housing. The County clarified that new Community Service Areas (CSAs) are typically created by the Board of Supervisors as a condition of project approval, not by LAFCO. The County stated it will implement Recommendation 3 to ensure clear explanations of services and costs for any new agencies.
  • Board Deliberations:
  • Supervisor Lee requested that the website include specific assessment amounts for each CSA to improve transparency.
  • Supervisor Capps expressed concern that taxpayers may not be fully informed about how CSA funds are spent, despite existing transparency measures. She suggested that the Board agree with the Grand Jury’s finding that taxpayers are not well-informed, while maintaining the recommended actions to improve communication.
  • Supervisor Hartman noted the complexity of special districts and the need for better public understanding of financing mechanisms.
  • The Board discussed the distinction between meeting minimum transparency requirements and providing additional public education.
  • Supervisor Capps proposed changing the response to Finding 1 from "disagree" to "agree," acknowledging that while the County meets legal requirements, there is room for improved communication.
  • Supervisor Capps also proposed changing the response to Finding 2 to "agree," acknowledging the potential for increased complexity with new housing.
  • The Board clarified that Finding 3 should remain as "partially disagree," as the creation of new CSAs is a Board function, not a LAFCO function.
  • Action: Chair Nelson moved to accept the staff recommendation with the following amendments:
  • Change the response to Finding 1 from "disagree" to "agree."
  • Change the response to Finding 2 from "disagree" to "agree."
  • Clarify that the response to Finding 3 is "partially disagree," consistent with the draft memo.
  • Supervisor Capps seconded the motion.
  • Outcome: The motion passed unanimously.

Closed Session

  • Agenda:
  • Discussion of existing litigation: Flying Goat Sellers v. The County (U.S. District Court), Sunclose Bloom LLC v. The County (Office of Administrative Hearings), and Valleycrest Farmed LLC v. The County (Office of Administrative Hearings).
  • Conference with legal counsel regarding anticipated litigation and decisions on whether to initiate civil litigation in two cases.
  • Estimated time: 30–45 minutes.

Closed Session Report

  • The Board returned from closed session. The County Counsel reported that the Board met in closed session regarding existing litigation (Flying Goat Sellers v. County, Suncoast Bloom LLC v. the County, Valley Crest v. Farms v. the County) and anticipated litigation concerning the decision to initiate civil litigation in two cases. The County Counsel stated that the Board took no reportable action.

Adjournment

  • Chair Nelson announced the adjournment of the meeting. The next meeting is scheduled for September 1st in Santa Barbara.

Administrative Note

  • A brief statement was made regarding Suncoast Bloom LLC v. County of Santa Barbara (Office of Administrative Hearings, Case No. 20-0608), referencing items 5 and 6.9.