UnGovr Transcript
iHow this transcript is madeUnGovr transcribes the official recording with automated speech-to-text, separates speakers by voice, and matches voices to the seated roster. Names and attributions are AI estimates and may contain errors.Verify any quote yourself: click anywhere in the transcript and the official video jumps to that exact moment, so you can check any quote against the recording.0:00 – 0:0911 turns
All right, good morning everybody. I will call to order the August 25th 2026 regular meeting in the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors. Madam Clerk can you please call the roll?
Roll call, called by Jacquelyne Alexander
Show transcript
Next item of business is approval of the minutes from the August 18th, 2026 meeting.
Hartmann moves approval. I'll second.
Okay a motion for Hartman, second from Kapps all in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion passes unanimously. All right before we move to the CEO report I want to take a moment to officially welcome Jenna Peterson to her first board meeting as Santa Barbara County's new CEO Jana comes to us after nearly three decades of public service in Boulder County, Colorado including the last six years as county administrator. She has led through many of the same challenges we have that we know well here, natural disasters, major infrastructure needs, organizational change and the day-to-day work of delivering good local government. Throughout our nationwide search, the board was impressed not only by Jana's experience but her collaborative leadership style, her commitment to public service and her belief in strong accountable local government.
Jana, we are very pleased to have you here and we look forward to working with you. With that I now turn it over for the first time for your CEO report.
Thank you, Jacqueline for appointing me to the equipment here. I appreciate it. I am just delighted to be here. I wanted to take a minute to introduce myself to everyone and I'll start off by sharing that my career in public service began a few decades ago as a temporary employee So I started in a role where local government was an opportunity to get a paycheck and over the course of my decades in public service it's become not only my career, it's also my calling.
And I am really grateful to the Board of Supervisors for giving me the opportunity to continue my service here in Santa Barbara County I am exceptionally grateful to Mona Miyasato for her leadership of this organization. I feel very lucky to be following in her footsteps and continuing what she has built around a legacy of collaboration, fiscal stewardship, business acumen and delivering really excellent services to the community.
I am excited also to bring my skill set and background, my focus on relationship building, communications, technical acumen and strategy to this organization. The bold vision of one county, one future really resonates for me. It speaks to the spirit of collaboration. It speaks to services that work for everyone who lives works or visits Santa Barbara County and it speaks to the important role that local government plays in improving quality of life.
I am committed to leading through the lens of the county values as they are stated. Accountability, customer focus, equity inclusion, innovation and trust and ethics are the way that I want to show up at work every single day and what you all can expect from me. I've been able to watch from afar how this team rallies to address big challenges in the organization, how this team succeeds in delivering results for this community and how this board sets a vision to make sure that everyone who lives here has the opportunity to be safe healthy and prosperous. That really generates enthusiasm in me for coming into this role I think it's important for me to acknowledge that it's a tough time to be working in government right now.
The fiscal challenges are present every single day, the community demands are significant and real and the challenge of delivering public service effectively is constant. It's also an incredible time to work in local government. I feel that so strongly because we can see every single day the results of our efforts, even though the work is hard, we can also see when it impacts the lives of a family, when it impacts the safety of the community, when it impacts the ability to make a difference In the infrastructure and how services are delivered here.
Local government is the place to do that and to be able to experience the joy of changing lives for the better, even in the darkest most challenging times. That's when local government is needed the most and that's what I see from this team and the excitement that I bring for joining this effort I will just also wrap up by encouraging particularly county employees to reach out to me, to share your experiences, to help get my feet under me in running this organization.
And acknowledging that you live and work and enjoy this community as well. And so your perspectives really matter to me, so for county staff please when you see me around when we connect during meetings please introduce yourself and I'm looking forward to working with you. I am also very excited that I get to share some great news about the county team this week.
So, the County of Santa Barbara received the Distinguished Budget Presentation Award from the Government Finance Officers Association, GFOA for the fiscal year 2026-27 recommended budget book This is the highest recognition in governmental budgeting and reflects the county's commitment to transparency, sound financial planning and clear communication. The county has earned this award for more than 20 consecutive years.
This year's recognition is particularly notable given the implementation of new budget software and the OpenGov interactive digital budget book. The county also received special recognition for performance measures with all three reviewers awarding the highest marks possible. The recognition highlights the collaborative efforts of departments countywide to produce a budget that serves as a clear policy, financial and operational guide for the public and decision makers.
I'm also delighted to share the Community Services Department's Pro-Housing Award. The County of Santa Barbara has been awarded the State of California's pro housing designation and 1.25 million dollars in pro housing incentive program funding, recognizing the county's efforts to expand housing opportunities, streamline development and support affordable housing.
The designation and funding will help the county build on these efforts and provide greater access to state funding opportunities for housing and infrastructure. And
that
concludes my report.
Thank you very much. Well done, glad to have you. All right
next item of business is the Madam Clerk do you have any changes today's agenda?
Good morning, everyone. Thank you for joining us and members of the board to do have a couple quick announcements this morning an addendum was posted on Friday August 21st 2026 amending today's closed session agenda adding an item under conference with legal counsel existing litigation paragraph one of subdivision D of government code section 5 4 9 5 6 0.9 2, 0, 6, 8 and Valley Crest farms LLC the county of Santa Barbara office administrative hearings case number 2, 2, 6 or 800 to 9. Additionally under conference with legal counsel anticipated litigation paragraph 4 of subdivision D of government code section 5 for 9, 5, 6 point 9 deciding whether to initiate civil litigation 2 cases. The addition included in this And lastly, for information on the Board of Supervisors methods of public participation and instructions on how to provide public comment on items listed on today's agenda or during general public comment.
Please refer to page 2 of the agenda. Individuals who wish to provide verbal public comment may do so via Zoom by registering in advance using the link provided on page 2. Please note that Zoom is available solely for the purpose of providing verbal public comment and is not intended for viewing the meeting. Alternative viewing options are listed on page 2 of the agenda. If you have any questions, please contact the Clerk of the Board's Office at 805-568-2240 or by email at sbcobcountyofsb.org and that concludes my announcements for today.
5, 6.9 regarding Suncoast bloom LLC fee County of Santa Barbara office of administrative hearings case number 2 0 to 6 0 8
0:10 – 0:1710 turns
All right thank you Madam Clerk. Items to be pulled from today's administrative agenda? Do we have any items being pulled from the public?
Chair Nelson and members of the board, we have one item pulled from the public and that's A1 our resolution to be presented.
All right any items being pulled by any my colleagues? I'm going to briefly just have a question about our A4 so we'll pull that item. And with that can I get a motion to approve the balance of the administrative agenda? Second. Motion by Hartman, second by Lee. Any further discussion? Seeing none all in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion passes unanimously.
All right let's go ahead and move on to a department or sorry administrative item number one the first resolution Madam Clerk will you please read that into the record
Chair Nelson and members of the board, administrative item number one is sponsored by Supervisor Capps and Supervisor Hartman. It is to adopt a resolution proclaiming August 26th, 2026 as Women's Equality Day in Santa Barbara County. And joining us in person today we have Commissioner Tracy Baird and Yolanda Vasquez. And if you can please make your way to the podium.
Anyone else who would like to join with you as well? And I'll go ahead and read the resolution, please. Whereas on August 26 1920 the 19th Amendment to the United States Constitution was certified granting women the constitutional right to vote after decades of activism and advocacy led by courageous and determined women. And whereas Women's Equality Day is recognized annually on August 26 to commemorate this historic achievement and to celebrate the continued pursuit of full equality and opportunity for all women in American society And whereas the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors recognizes the invaluable social, political, cultural, educational and economic contributions of women throughout history and today. And reaffirms its commitment to advancing equity, justice and opportunity for all women and girls in Santa Barbara County.
And whereas while significant progress has been made, women particularly women of color, LGBTQ plus women, immigrant women, indigenous women and women with disabilities continue to experience systemic barriers to equal opportunity, representation, economic security, health care access and personal safety. And whereas the County of Santa Barbara values diversity, inclusion and equity opportunity. It remains committed to addressing gender based disparities supporting women in leadership fostering inclusive communities and protecting the rights of all women to live free from discrimination violence and bias recognizing that Women's Equality Day serves both as a celebration of past achievements and as a reminder of the ongoing work necessary to achieve full equality Now therefore be it hereby ordered and resolved that this Board of Supervisors of the County of Santa Barbara does hereby proclaim August 26, 2026 as Women's Equality Day and encourages all residents to honor the achievements and contributions of women recognize the work that remains to achieve gender equity and reaffirm their commitment to advancing justice and opportunity for all women and girls throughout Santa Barbara County passed and adopted today.
Mister Beard would you like to.
I'm going to let our new chair start
please.
Good morning and thank you for giving me the opportunity to be here today. My name is Yolanda Vasquez and I am honored to serve as the Chair of the Santa Barbara County Commissions for Women representing the 5th District. I am here today to ask for your support in recognizing August 26th as Women's Equality Day in our community. August 26 commemorates the certification of the 19th Amendment in 1920 which recognized women's right to vote in the United States. But this day represents much more than a moment in history. It reminds us of the generation of women who fought to have a voice, to participate in our democracy and to create opportunities for the women and girls who came after them.
Here in Santa Barbara County, women are business owners, educators, healthcare workers, mothers, community leaders, public servants and so much more. They contribute every single day to the strength and success of our communities. As Chair of the Commission for Women Representing the 5th District I believe it is important that we not only recognize how far women have come but also continue creating opportunities for women to lead. I respectfully ask for your support in formally recognizing August 26 as Women's Equality Day.
So good morning everyone. It's truly an honor to be here today as Women Commissioner for 3rd District and to stand in support of
this important proclamation recognizing
women's equality day. Women's Equality Day is more than just a date on the calendar. It's a reminder of the women who came before us, who fought to have a voice, a seat at the table and the same opportunities as everyone else. Because of their courage, women today have the opportunities that once were denied to us. Equality is not something that we should ever take for granted. We have a responsibility to continue opening doors, lifting one another up and making sure the next generation of women know that their voices matter and that they belong at every table where decisions are being made.
So today I want to thank everyone who stood behind this proclamation and helped make it happen. Your work matters, this recognition matters and the message we are sending to women and girls in our community matters. As women we do not have to wait for someone to give us a voice. We must continue to use the voices we have to make our community stronger for those that come after us. Thank you for allowing me to be here today. Thank you.
0:17 – 0:216 turns
Thank you all for the opportunity for Equal Day, for Equality Day. For all women we know our work is still ahead of us and this year within the Commission we are going to work on Women's Financial Literacy with Alan Hancock for the North Districts. We are also going to work on immigration. We have some things ahead of us working with our Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the board. I want to thank our 5th district supervisor as he's moving on in that but we've always given our 100% and we want to thank you for making sure that women have housing, they have food security and that we are working for a more healthier community We've gotten ourselves out there. We know what our supervisors need we've listened to with their we try to be your eyes and ears, and we will continue to do that and I thank you very much for having Equality Day today for all women because we know as we've just heard from everyone We still have a lot of work ahead of us and thank all five of you for participating And working for your women and your children Thank You
Go ahead, sorry Supervisor Caps.
Sure thank you Chair Nelson and thank you to our Commission for Women for all the work we certainly as you said Tracy Beard that we do have work ahead of us and I know that Supervisor Hartman and I probably didn't plan this that your first resolution of the morning that we welcome Jana Peterson as our CEO is this fitting one but I will take note that although this is not the reason why we hired you, it's a wonderful bonus that we get to continue having a female serve in this role.
It is important. This is a massive job and the fact that it's run by a woman is significant and it does send an important signal. A quick look on the internet tells me We do have a long way to go in our 58 counties. Just 38% of them are headed up by women and it's even less on the city level for some reason, 27%. So it is still not the norm and we welcome you in this important role both for the work that you do and also for the signal that is being sent. Thanks.
Thank you Supervisor Caps. Supervisor Hartman?
Yes, well I wanted to thank the Women's Commission. We aren't supposed to have favorites but I would say the Women's Commission is one of our most active and engaged and that really matters and Tracy Baird with 15 years you're now bringing along the new people and I think that that's terrific Good morning, everyone. My name is Barbara County Board of Supervisors. Um you know Women's Equality Day was really about suffrage and today we're hearing people talk about whether women should have the vote on the fringe. There's ideas of household voting and a lot of effort to restrict voting layer on requirements so I think your message that this a really important one and one that resonates with me. So I'm glad I've got such good partners on the Women's Commission, and of course our new CEO we're extremely excited about so thank you.
Right Thank You Supervisor Hartmann and our public commenter was one of the women in our presentation so with that actually need to have a motion to approve A1. Supervisor Hartman? So moved. Supervisor Caps is that your second? All right. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion passes unanimously. All right and then our last administrative item, Item A4.
It's an item that I pulled
0:21 – 0:2617 turns
Thank you. Thank you. Thank you chair Nelson and members of the board administrative item number 4 is from the behavioral Wellness Department it is to consider recommendations regarding a services agreement with Meraki management California LLC DBA lightfully behavioral health for day rehabilitation
All right, I just pulled this to highlight it and ask a couple of questions. We have Director Navarro with us today. Director Navarro, I was just curious about this contract is a little bit different than normal and I think it's a program that you're excited about getting started here in Santa Barbara County this opportunity. One of the questions I had off the bat was it's a South County, it's available in South County but for telehealth all throughout the county and just wanted Good morning Chair Nelson, members of the board and welcome Janet Peterson.
Thank you so much for the opportunity to talk on this item. So the day treatment intensive, day treatment rehab services are required services to be within your system of care under the Department of Health Care Services contract that we have with them. Unfortunately, we have not had one for over a decade because despite repeated requests or proposals there has not been an operator that was able to operate in our county. So we've been sending those who need this level service to out-of-county providers via telehealth We had two adults that access that system last year and 12 youth.
This year we did another RFP and we were able to find two operators, one for the adult services which is what's before you today and one for the south for the adolescents as well. Lightfully just happens to have a location in Santa Barbara they are the operator that was chosen that met all the requirements for this contract here in county They will provide on-site as well as full telehealth countywide. And I do want to say that given that they are set times and dates for this service, it's multiple days, multiple hours, CENCAL Health as Medi-Cal providers, the managed care plan does provide transportation and should there be North County or West County residents that want to attend the South County session then we can help them to arrange and receive that transportation free through their Medi-Cal benefit.
Excellent, well that's great news. That was kind of what I was concerned about making sure these services were provided countywide they definitely are needed. I'm glad to see that we're having these in county now so
and we'll of course continue to monitor the need and as it is sometimes once you build it they come and we may have a greater need and um as a result will continue to monitor the need for additional contract RFPs uh to to further supply on-site in the west and north county
Do you anticipate to see if now that we have it, if we use it more often that there'll be other potentially vendors that might be interested in our county? I mean has that been driving the conversation previously?
Actually it's been driving the conversation statewide. There are many many counties over half that would not have this type of service in their county for the same reason. So this is now new for all of us, most of us now have them in our counties or accessible so it's to be seen but definitely something that we will be keeping an eye on and we can report back out on at the end of the year.
From your experience and knowledge of your other neighboring counties are those that have these services in county are they utilizing them more often than counties that do not? Does that seem to be a difference maker?
You know I haven't specifically to be honest and not specifically talk to Ventura County or slow about the utilization if there's been an uptick again since we've had such a focus on the intensive adult need. But I do think that having one that's more accessible and more. That is in person and allows person opportunity engage in community may result in in more folks agreeing to participate in this level of care despite it being multi days and multi hours
Thank you, Director Navarro. I appreciate it.
All right. Thanks.
All right. See any other lights on? Madam Clerk do we have any public comment on this item? Chair
Nelson and members of the board we have no request to speak from the public on this item.
All right with that I'll take a motion to approve this item.
Move staff recommendation.
Second. A motion from Hartman second from Lee. Any further discussion? Seeing none all in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Motion passed unanimously. All right, this time we will it's for members of the public to speak on items that are not on the agenda. Madam Clerk are there any requests to speak on general public comment?
Chair Nelson and members of the board, we do have two requests to speak from the public on general public comment today. We're going to remain here in Santa Maria and begin with Claire Sheebe to be followed by Brandon Vasquez.
0:26 – 0:3111 turns
Good morning my name is Claire Sheehy and I've been a volunteer with Care for Paws for about five years. My focus of service has been down in the riverbed with pets and their people. I'd like to reference one animal cruelty confiscation case however there are many more, I'm limited for time that I believe Santa Barbara County Animal Services has managed poorly.
A woman who's severely mentally ill, schizophrenic, has been known for abusing and actually killing animals and dragging them around town some of which we have been able to get out of the riverbed and into safekeeping. Mid-July she had a young puppy and two other stolen animals She went into a 72 hour hold. From there, she immediately returned to county where she got the puppy back. This was a highly adoptable young animal that was not sterilized before it left.
Regardless that animal has perished, there are other animals that have suffered the same consequences. In addition to a distorted return policy set forth by the county, there's no requirement for an individual to possess and address to adopt an animal. As a result we're seeing more animals living in the riverbed cars and on the streets. Not all but many of these animals are from county. They might be sterilized, but still contributing to the overall dysfunction of the population. It's a direct reflection of mental health. County Animal Services is encouraging and adding to the overall community problem at large. In addition an animal person can get an animal out from Foster Road without it being sterilized however in Lompoc it must be sterilize.
Animal politics distinguishes shelter performance from community performance. Shelter performance measures what happens after an animal enters the system. Community performance measures and asks whether a community is becoming more or less dependent on the shelter itself as well as its services, both matter. But they answer very different questions. A shelter can improve its outcome while a community becomes more dependent on the shelter and its services. So better shelter outcome does not necessarily mean better community outcome, all a manipulation of numbers and selected intake. Remember that selected intake?
I have been told directly by the manager out here on Foster Road, do not bring any animals in from the riverbed. While I understand the riverbed is approximately 95 percent San Luis County territory, the majority of its inhabitants are from Santa Maria, Santa Barbara County Both counties need to be working together towards change as our community is on a very rapid decline. Again, selected intake and this is what's being seen out at county. I just witnessed Good Samaritan bring in a kitten covered with oil. They wouldn't take it and that individual ended up going down to Santa Barbara with that animal.
Thank you
all for your service. You've got a big job and thank you for coming on board
Could I just, um, I would like to talk to you more about these issues so I hope you'll contact me in my office.
Thank you.
All right thank you.
We will now go to our final speaker Brandon Vasquez. Brandon?
Good morning Board of Supervisors. My name is Brandon Vasquez and I serve as the Senior Organizer for Future Leaders of America. I also am a proud supporter of the Youth Impact Coalition. Today, I come to thank you all for your allocation of $250,000 for the creation of a youth fund within the Santa Barbara County. Unfortunately most of the members weren't able to be here as they are in high school but I did want to come on their parts to thank you all. With that we still recognize that there's a lot of work to be done and we do wish to let you know that we are hoping to meet with you and that is pretty much it. We really, although we've met with some of you, we still wish to meet with all of you. With that thank you guys so much.
Thank
you.
And that concludes general public comment for today.
Moving right along, right to our departmental items. Madam Clerk will you please read departmental item number one to the record?
0:31 – 0:4648 turns
Chair Nelson and members of the board, departmental item number one is from the Treasurer Tax Collector Public Administrator. It is a hearing to consider recommendations regarding the Jeremy and Megan Raff appeal of the Treasurer Tax Collectors transient occupancy tax final audit determination.
All right Treasurer Hagan and Ms. Haggerty? Good morning. Before you get started, we'll go ahead and do ex parte on this. I know that we previously had ex parte prior to the last meeting so I guess I think it'd be appropriate to report out on any new discussions that happened since the last ex partes disclosures. Am I correct County Council on that?
Mr. Chair yes that's correct.
If there's been any new ex parte discussions, this would be appropriate to be discussed. Supervisor Lee?
I'll go first. I read the News Hawk article on August 24th about the Hick Camp and the RAFs were quoted in there.
Okay. Supervisor Labadino?
I received an email from I believe Megan Raff requesting if I had any other questions to reach out. I did not respond but it is in my email. Supervisor Hartman?
My Chief of Staff spoke with Jeremy Raff after the last meeting and then she emailed to Megan Raff about the date of this hearing.
All right, thank you Supervisor Irwin. Supervisor Caps?
Yeah I also
read the NewsHawk article about this Hip Camp app about short-term rentals here in Santa Barbara and I don't know if it should be submitted to the record but I'm happy to do so. Thank you.
County Council?
Mr. Chair, members of the board yes that's appropriate to submit it's okay
we'll do that to the clerk and I've had no communication since the last hearing from the RAFs or any other related parties in regards to this item so with that Ms. Rafferty please take it away
good morning this is the Jeremy and Megan Raff appeal of the treasure tax collectors transient occupancy tax audit its final determination Oops, went too far. This item was continued from the July 7th meeting. At that hearing, the board provided direction to staff to gather information regarding the community benefits of Dare to Dream's program and prepare findings related to the requested reduction of TOT penalties and interest and also work with the Department of Social Services and County Health Department to identify potential public benefit funding opportunities And future grant resources for dare to dream farms.
The responding information is as follows the alternate findings of the county of Santa Barbara. Board of Supervisors included in the memorandum to the board delineate various community benefits of the Dare to Dream Farms program. If your board decides to reduce the amount of TOT penalties and or interest determined to be owed, the alternate findings are for your boards consideration and the board would determine the amount owed to be included in the findings.
The county executive office discussed potential public benefit funding opportunities and future grant resources for Dare to Dream Farms with the county's Department of Social Services and County Health Department. Neither department could find public benefit funding opportunities for Dare to Dream Farms under their food programs. The Workforce Development Board staff was able to determine that Dare to Dream Farms could be a suitable potential work site for its youth program.
Dare to Dream Farms has agreed to continue the conversation and connect with program operators to begin identifying participants. The tax collector's proposed findings are as follows. The amount due from Jeremy and Megan Raff is $65,840.11 consisting of $50,664.25 in transient occupancy tax and $15,175.86 in penalties and interest. And this amount is assessed against Jeremy and Megan Raff and it's due immediately and payable to the County of Santa Barbara Treasurer Tax Collector upon the service of notice by the Clerk of the Board.
Alternate findings for this appeal have been provided in the memorandum to the board. The amount determined by the board will be assessed against Jeremy and Megan Raff, and it's will be due immediately and payable to the Board County Board County of Santa Barbara Treasure Tax Collector upon the service of notice by the clerk of the board. Here are the staff-recommended board actions, which are the same as the July 7th recommended actions.
And that concludes my presentation.
All right. Thank you, Ms. Haggerty. Any questions for staff before we have a presentation by the Raff family? Supervisor Lee.
If the appeal is denied, can we break that payment into different payments, say three or four payments instead of just one lump sum?
So Supervisor Lee through the chair, are you talking like a payment plan? Correct. So we don't have, the ordinance doesn't provide any kind of ability for us to have a payment plan. We'd have to change the ordinance but as I testified at the last hearing, I'm in the business of collecting money not refusing to accept money right so if they gave us a partial payment we would apply it to the outstanding amount and then bill them the rest.
But I think we start going down the road, we probably want to have more of a formal policy and change the ordinance to allow that in the future so that others could access it also. But that gets into a bigger discussion because if we're going to have payment plans then we're probably talking about staffing needs also within our office. So it's a little bit bigger discussion than what's on the table today just to be honest with you.
And I'll piggyback on Supervisor Lee's question with interest. What does interest look like if somebody is in a payment plan? So I guess they would the balance then therefore be accruing interest. That is correct Chair
Nelson, right? The balance would be accruing interest
and what's the interest rate that the county
charges? Yeah yeah half percent per month so six percent
five percent six percent
six percent per month
annualized yes okay not so
it's only a percent of us not the penalties in interest right it's not compounding on that so not compounding It's on the base tax only. Yes
and if they made
payments would go against the penalties in interest first.
Late payments would go to, the first payment would go towards the
balance? Penalties and interest first. I gotta pay down that first. Once that's satisfied we'll say then we'd start applying against the principal, the corpus. Understood thank you.
All right thank you for that clarification appreciate that yeah absolutely at this time uh we'll have a presentation by Jeremy and Megan Raff And welcome back and welcome into Santa Maria.
Thank you very much. Thank you for inviting us back today, thank you so much for all the hard work that you guys have done in searching for a way to move Dare to Dream Farms forward and continue its programs. We have prepared nothing because we have nothing more as we were waiting to see what the findings were from your time in searching but we do appreciate the efforts of staff and the deliberations of the Board of Supervisors. So
thank you Megan. All right before you guys leave, we may have some questions. So why don't you guys hold? And so and by my calculations about 30 seconds. So if they need more time there's plenty of it available for them. So you had 10 minutes if you needed it. Questions from the board let's start with Supervisor Hartman.
Yeah what will this mean if your appeal is denied to your business going forward?
If the appeal is denied, there's really not a way for us to pay back this amount. I know that it becomes a lien on the property which is Something that we could pay over time but obviously does accrue interest. As you've seen from the financials that we presented at the last board meeting, there really isn't much for us to pay over time even. We would need significant amounts this would probably result in what's already a small workforce being reduced even more and if we're unable to continue doing what we do because of the small workforce if we have to We have a There's we detailed all of the different programs that we have that really aren't making us a lot of money but do provide benefit to the city of Lompoc and anyone who passes through.
And a lot of those things if they're not if they are not creating a real benefit for us would have to be shut down if we have to start funneling whatever finances that we have into paying off this transient occupancy tax bill
And could you just remind me, you had some federal money that you got that is no longer available and what that is?
That was the LFPA Farms Together program. It was so each state was given money through the federal government to Do direct purchasing from farms and then provide to local communities. So in Lompoc we worked with Shelby through the Route 1 mobile truck so we, and we've known Shelby forever I was originally on the board with Route 1 when it first started she would purchase directly from us and we would deliver to the Dick DeWeeste Center for the senior classes and then through whatever other charity events she had during the government shutdown. She was out on the base quite a bit distributing produce and a lot of that came from us but that ended, that funding ended in the last week of June.
How much was
that? What our allocation was anywhere between like $1500 to $3000 a week just depending on what she could purchase and what we had available. So yeah, that was and we had purchased a tractor and hired another employee and everything so the employees already moved on but now we have the tractor that we are making payments on. The state did vote with their state funding to implement it again as a one-time deal but the funding is much much less than what they were asking in what the federal government was providing. And there's still I think the first meeting is next week on how that's going to work on the state level.
A long ways out from figuring out even who's going to get the money and how it's going to be distributed.
And how many farmers markets in the Lompoc region provide EBT SNAP benefits or accept that?
I think only one, I think Route 1 is the only one that does it.
Route 1 Farmers Market is the only farmers market available for EBT, for accepting SNAP EBT. We do accept SNAP and EBT online through we were able to get a grant to create an online website and allow people to get their EBT, SNAP EBT groceries purchased through that website and then we deliver for free in Lompoc so that they don't have to experience any difficulty with transportation and pickups and everything.
So through Ruan and through online you're one of the few sources available in the region that will accept that and provide farm fresh produce? Correct. Thank you those are my questions.
All right thank you Supervisor Hartman, Supervisor Kaps.
Well, thank you. Good to see you again and certainly have so much community support we certainly heard that last hearing and since then you've gotten a lot of media and I just was interested as I mentioned at the start of this conversation about the The press about this new app that connects private campsites and you're front and center on that publicity. So in that terms, I mean, you're good about promoting a wonderful farm. Have you thought about a GoFundMe?
Because you do seem well equipped within the community to really garner a lot of attention. I just wondered if you've thought about another way to bridge this gap.
I mean, to me that's like the final worst case scenario. We've chatted about it but I prefer not to. If we were to do a GoFundMe for something, I'd prefer it be something where you provide even more service to the community but if that's what we have to do then it's a possibility. We're just waiting to see how this all pans out first.
Okay.
It seems to me with the services provided by the farm being a direct benefit to the community It seems a little silly to ask the community to then pay for those benefits in a different roundabout way because we're trying to support them. I know that we might reach some people that have a lot of generosity just I haven't seen enough evidence of a GoFundMe, and I did do a search from farms to see if there are successful GoFundMes that have been fully funded or even partially funded that weren't creating new programs. That were just trying to stay alive. A lot of those are not received well so we could But the chances that it's actually successful and allows us to repay this is very slim.
0:46 – 0:5629 turns
So just to kind of connect that thought, you view that the taxes are really a way in which you can somewhat be reimbursed for just a partial contribution to the extensive and incredible services that you provide to the community?
I think that given the significant gray area that we were working in between the time that the Jeremy joined the board and was trying to find a way forward and make recommendations to Santa Barbara County and the time that it was actually I think this would be a nice way to do that, yeah.
All right, thank you. Supervisor
Lee? Yes, thank you. Can you state again why you decided not to pay your TLTs?
Because we didn't know exactly how it was going to pan out and we weren't collecting because we weren't collecting the TOT from the guests at the time, which we do now. Like that's how we pay the taxes that are due now so we weren't collecting it during that period because we didn't know how it was going to pan out like as a study in last meeting some municipalities don't even collect TOT taxes from farmstays because it's not like a short term but it's not a typical short-term rental So there was a possibility that in the end of ordinance, no taxes were going to be due. But I mean it came out that it's the 14% just like everyone else that's operating any kind of transient lodging so we're paying it now but I didn't know if that's how it was gonna end up being once the ordinance finally passed.
So since the meeting on July 7th, have you been paying?
Yeah I'm late this month but yeah we've been paying. Since the ordinance passed I think there was two months in that period of time but the rest of them we've been paying. Thank you.
All right thank you. Supervisor Lavenino.
Yeah I don't see anybody from planning but can anybody answer how long it took us to pass the Ag Enterprise Ordinance? I know it was years and years. It was at least four years, more than that? Seven. Could be yeah all right just wonder if we could get a thing on that but I think we can all agree it was over five correct yeah okay
All right any other questions from the board about this item okay alright thank you both
I have one for okay, sorry no for treasure tax collectors. Thank you Do we have is do we know of any other farmstays are we collecting house farm stays in the ag enterprise ordinance? How is do we know if we have others that are that were collecting from or is that able to be kind of singled out?
We do not know. I mean, we have sent letters to everybody we found and I know at least one has called us about it but one other than the RAFs and I'm not sure if they're paying right now but we don't know. We may be able to figure it out but right now we don'
Right. I understand. Thank you.
And just so I'm clear, we charge TOT whether it's permitted I think it's a little bit different. It's this isn't
But having somebody come and stay on your farm at that point I don't even think was, I remember when Supervisor Hartman was bringing it up. I'm like well who in their right mind would want to do that? But apparently there are a lot of people. I don't know if you would know if you're having somebody come and stay on your property and feed your chickens, and do all that stuff that you would need to pay a 14% collect out from them at the time. And I know ignorance is no defense. I'm just saying, I think it's a little bit different whether it's permitted or not permitted.
So I guess my question would be for staff when we adopted I guess the farmstay ordinance was there language in that to make it qualifying for that or what did it qualify prior to that under our county ordinance.
It would be considered at hotel because they're renting short term, it's if that's the definition of a hotel and the ordinance right and yeah so
And just so you know from the policy side on my direct or what I, the way I think about it is I know that one of the reasons why hotels have never really opposed to these is because they've always said as long as their plane, it's a level playing field. They're not. That's why we never had the other hospitality partners out against this, that ordinance because they assumed that they would also be paying and so it'd be a level playing field. So I mean that's something that should be considered as part of the conversation. Not saying it's It makes the decision, but that's another piece at least that I have been thinking about as the policy was put into place.
All right.
So by definition in the ordinance their place is a hotel. Okay so i'm just saying if you went out and you polled our county residents and said do they have a hotel out there? I'm not saying they shouldn't be paying TOT. By our ordinance they should but the definition of a hotel to me is different If I'm checking into a hotel and my wife books a hotel, and I find out I'm feeding the chickens and cleaning up the poop, we're going to have a problem. So when I was passing the Ag Enterprise Ordinance and when I was working on it, we were talking about farmstays.
I did think that there was going to be TOT collected But I didn't really classify it as a hotel either. So for me, it's still kind of a gray area but I get where everybody is going
right? Thank you Supervisor Hartman
Yeah, I just had a few points to make on this. I want to go back to short term rental and we created homestays and we did that for I'm going to talk about short term rentals and homestays. Short-term rentals in areas where we have boarding houses and hotels, and we allowed homestays in residential areas and Ag 1 properties. We held out Ag 2 properties for farmstay We were going to develop a farmstay ordinance independent of the ag enterprise. And then so we thought it would move rather quickly, but then the two got merged and it got very much delayed.
So the point of farmstay was always to get people out on the land appreciating where their food comes from Having an opportunity to interact with farm animals and see what rural life is like. Santa Barbara County is really well positioned to do exactly that between two large metropolitan areas where we still have a lot of agricultural land So the Ag2Farmers, it provides an additional source of revenue when there's a lot of up and down. As everyone up here knows farming is a very very hard way to make a living And if you're talking about hotel, we sent out notices to everybody about home stays in short term about what was coming and what period of time and how they had to get ready to start paying TOT.
What that they had to get permitted. I don't believe we did that for farmstay and when you're talking about hotel, that major business is visitor serving so yes they have a responsibility to know a lot about that but when you're talking about small farmers and ranchers They're trying to make a living on the land, which is hard enough. And they're inviting people to come learn about that but they're not necessarily sophisticated about the TOT and as was mentioned not everybody charges the TOT for this so it wasn't really clear at the time how this was going to unfold And, you know, I'm usually a really hard liner that this is the rule and ignorance of the law is no excuse. But we're dealing with people who don't, this isn't their main line of business so I would like to be as understanding of that as we possibly can.
I
appreciate Supervisor Hartman. I'm
sorry, I jumped in. County Council, did you want to just correct us real quick on our conversation and where we're going?
Sure. Chair Nelson I just wanted to make sure we're in
deliberation
process. I think we are. I just checked with the clerk and there's no public comment so then asking would be just whether the rafts have anything else to add and then we continue where we're at.
Well there was no okay.
I mean there's really nothing for them to rebut because there was a public comment
And Supervisor Caps, I'm sorry to cut you off but are we in deliberations or do you want okay so let's go ahead and make sure that we're check the rafts one last time as part of due process. Is there anything additional you'd like to cover? All right thank you I've gotten I think this is a key point and I am very deferential to you because it's your district.
0:56 – 1:0616 turns
I think that's a very important distinction. But the narrative you just described is not the one that I heard last hearing is that they did now and I do think that that is a very important distinction that they were paying taxes and then they decided not to. And so again, I think all of these things can be true at the same time. The public benefit. I mean, they testified that they were paying and then they decided not to pay. So they were clearly aware. And so if we decide, I'm not saying how I'll vote but if we decide not to, if we decide to forgive that, we have to do so knowing that they were aware which is different than what you just described.
Supervisor Hartman and then Supervisor Levine.
I would like to have them clarify this Thank
you.
I mean, I asked that last last hearing specifically and I think. Surprisingly just got at this again but I I specifically said were you aware and he answered and you can do it again. It was on record that they they were and they were paying and then decided not to because of the process
I don't think it was at that point. I don'
And if I might piggyback on that, for us it's clear the treasurer tax collector does this and planning and development does this. And they're separate and linked. For many people that isn't understood. And if you don't have a permit path, it's not necessarily clear that you're supposed to do the TOT. And if you do the TOT then are you going to get in trouble for not having your permit when it's not available?
I think in a catch 22 situation.
Again, you can maybe they've expressed that to you but that is not what we have heard in this hearing.
And I jump in just as part of this overall conversation. We set up this board and had other people with their short term rentals come to us that didn't pay their TOT and that didn't have permits either. And we said that it was still due. Because it's so qualified. So and they had no permit, some of them had no permit pathway. They were actually operating in areas that they could never get a permit and we still held them accountable for this TOT tax. And then there was others that were maybe in a permit pathway as we were developing our home stays and our short term rentals. And so I just want to make sure that that's part of this narrative and this ongoing discussion that we have.
Supervisor Lavinia.
Okay, I'm going to say that in the next budget cycle please I will not be here but please fund additional people in the Treasurer Tax Collector's Office because this is not what we're supposed to be chasing. We're supposed to be chasing second and third palatial estates on the South Coast that people are renting out for thousands and tens of thousands of dollars that we don't, we do our best, but we don''t have enough people doing that. And so Look, I've cited every single time against every single appellant on these two T challenges.
We got to keep a level playing field we all have to pay our taxes ignorance is not is not. Ignorance of the law is not an excuse and I really appreciate the treasurer tax collector there in a box they're like this is what it is this is what the ordinance says this is what it is they've done everything they're supposed to do to me this is such a unique case though because like I said it's I'm not comfortable. I do not feel good. I don't feel it's fair and if there's any wiggle room. I'm going to side with the appellant on this so This is the type of business we should be encouraging.
And so what I'm going to do is I don't know what the board's going to do it doesn't sound like. We're going to move in my direction, but will wait you know and a go fund me I'm not sure what the pitch would be. It's that we need help paying our taxes, everybody needs help paying their taxes so maybe there's a philanthropist that you could connect them with it would be willing to help with that.
I don't I'm not sure how successful that would be especially in the Lompoc Valley there's not a lot of people there that are going to be willing to or have the means This to me is one of those Solomon's cases. That's the reason why we're up here and I'm not going to disrespect anybody that's going to say that we have to hold their feet to the fire because, um, I understand that position as well. I just don't see it that way.
Thank you, Supervisor Levin. Supervisor Hartman?
Well, I'm in agreement with Supervisor Lavanino and all I can say is representing this area. They provide a unique service that nobody else does and if that goes away... And this is, I mean, a huge financial burden on a small family with young children and a lot going on in their lives And if they can't do this, the whole community suffers. And I don't think that's what this tax was meant to do. All
right thank you Supervisor Hartman. Supervisor Lee?
Well, Steve and Joe, I do get your point but as a business owner myself and when my parents first started our business without knowing the language and how things work They went out there and sought advice, and they paid their taxes because they knew that ignorance is not excuse. I do want to be supportive, but I just cannot find the findings to accept their appeal. I tried, and staff did a great job. They went out there really trying to make it work. But unfortunately, I can't support their appeal. So thank you. Supervisor Lee? Supervisor Kaps?
Yeah I'm torn. I mean, really, I do believe that this is your district Joan and Supervisor Harmon and you know the benefit you've... I want to support you on this. I don't think it's the right thing to do. I also don't think it's a huge amount of money and we should be going after things that are much more beneficial. On the one hand taxes I'm going to go ahead and open it up for questions. Thank you so much.
I just want to say thank you so much for having me. It's a pleasure to be here and it's great that we have a nonpublic board. A lot of our other appeals assessment appeals go too. So that's another inside baseball process discussion that I had with our outgoing CEO because it just feels inappropriate to spend this kind of time on people's very specific I'll vote with Supervisor Hartman just because out of deference to your district and the amount of money is not worth a split on this. I don't think it's the right thing, just because of the admission that they knew what they were doing and it wasn't out of confusion. I heard that plain and clear but I do believe fully in the mission of what you're doing so happy to support where you are.
All right. That leaves it to me, and I've struggled too because I see the benefit and I care about the Lompoc Valley quite a bit. I start my teaching career in the Lompoc Valley. Got family there, and i know how well thought the Raft family is but I also feel a necessity for me to be consistent with my previous votes on this and so that's why I was not going to be able to support The alternative findings, which I think that you now have a majority for. I was could potentially offer to offer district funds towards covering that if you guys started a nonprofit please come to me because I do support what you guys do don't take my vote as a lack of support. I just think for me and what I represent and what I'm trying to do up here this I need to be consistent with my voting pattern so sounds like there's a majority for with Supervisor Hartman's recommendation but again good luck to you all.
Supervisor Hartman you want to make a motion?
1:06 – 1:1017 turns
Yes, this is extremely meaningful to me. So I would move A and B but that we grant the appeal and we adopt the alternative findings.
County Council, is that satisfactory towards the board's intent to grant the appeal? Is that what we need to do?
Mr. Chair, I'm just looking him over right now. I think that is accurate. It would be adopting A and B except it would be to grant the appeal request for the waiver and to adopt the alternative findings and CEQA. OK?
All right. That's your motion Supervisor Hartman. So Supervisor Hartman with that motion do you have a second?
I'll second.
Is there any further discussion on that motion? All right, let's go ahead and do a roll call vote.
Roll-call vote Passed 3–2 motion? All right, let's go ahead and do a roll call
Show transcript
Motion passes 3-2
Congratulations All right, let's go ahead and take a super. Let's go to Treasurer Hagan here briefly before we take a five-minute break.
Thanks Chair Nelson I just want to be sure I'm clear on this so all penalties interest in tax has been waived right? So we know how to handle it on our end you have got it
thank you yeah thank you Treasurer Hagan all right Supervisor Lavigny before I take
a yeah can we get direct staff though to come back with a change to the ordinance so that we can kind of fix this and also look into I like your idea, I mean when we get a property tax appeal it goes to a different board. Yeah, I don't know where that's in our legal framework or whatever but it would be nice to take a look at that and and I think it's a good options Council looks
So Mr. Chair, members of the board so I understand this is for a future item direct staff to come back with proposed ordinance changes related to charging the TOT to farmstays whether you want to change that as well as changing the hearing board?
I'm not saying I don't want to charge it to farmstays. I just want to know what the options are and look at the ordinance and maybe talk about a payment plan to what the effect would be on the treasurer tax collector's office, all that kind of stuff so we can kind of bigger item.
So maybe the future item, and as chair I'll make sure it comes back. A overview on our short-term rental, our TOT, and as well as some of the options of those hearings so I
think... Yeah and so take P&D to be involved with the treasure task collector because I think there's some issues there about notice and that you know how a nexus and all of that.
Okay I think that could be part of the discussion. Is Kim okay with that? Come back because I can see Harry is like it's coming back in January.
We'll work on getting it back to the board here as quickly as possible, but at the same time with appropriate amount of research. All right? We don't need a motion on that. That's just direction from the Board. All right. All right we'll go ahead and take a five minute break and we'll be back for department item number two. Welcome back to the August 25th meeting of the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors. We're returning after a short break and we'll be starting off with item departmental, item number two. Madam Clerk will you please read departmental item number two into the record?
1:10 – 1:2213 turns
Chair Nelson and members of the board, departmental item number 2 is from the county executive office. It is a hearing to consider recommendations regarding responses to the 2025-2026 grand jury report on sheriff's office overtime.
All right I think we have a presentation by ACO Heitman and Ms. Bartley. Please.
Thank you. Good morning, Chair Nielsen and Supervisors. I'm Nicole Parmelee, Principal Analyst in the CEO's Office, and today I'll be presenting the responses to the 2025-26 Grand Jury Report related to overtime usage in the Sheriff's Office. On June 4th, the grand jury issued a report titled What's Up with the Excessive Overtime? A Look at the Overtime Issues in the Sheriff's Office.
The report lists several findings and recommendations of which some were addressed to your board, and others were addressed to the Sheriff's Office. The Board is required to respond to grand jury reports within 90 days of the report distribution. The Sheriff's Office has a shorter response window of 60 days, and as such their response has already been issued and is included as attachment C of the board materials.
The proposed board responses being presented today are in attachment A of the board materials. To place this report in context, in recent years the issue of overtime expenditures in the Sheriff's Office has been an ongoing and increasing focus of county staff and your board. Due to a trend of increasing unbudgeted costs for sheriff overtime, in September 2025 your board and the CEO's office requested that the auditor controller review and analyze sheriff timekeeping and payroll activity specifically pertaining to overtime for fiscal year 2024-25.
After completing their initial review, the auditor's office issued a report via memorandum to your board in December identifying eight observations as factors contributing to sheriff overtime usage. The report was presented to your board in February at which time your board requested for the auditor to provide a monthly report on sheriff's office overtime for the next six months as well as to review and report on the five county departments generating the highest overtime, which would include the sheriff's office.
Auditor monthly reports on sheriff overtime have so far been provided to your board on April 21st, July 7th and last week August 18th covering all of fiscal year 2025-26. These reports indicate that overtime costs and hours in the most recent fiscal year 25-26 have decreased as compared to the prior fiscal year and progress is being made in several of the identified observation areas.
There is still room for additional improvements, which are anticipated to generate further overtime reductions. The auditor plans to bring the remaining requested monthly sheriff overtime reports as well as the report on top overtime usage departments to your board later this fall. Finally there are plans to include a full overtime audit in the fiscal year 2026-2027 internal audit plan, although a specific department has yet to be identified for that engagement.
This decision may be informed by the outcome of the report on the five highest overtime usage departments. The objective of the audit will be to determine whether employee overtime is accurately recorded, properly approved based on documented and substantiated and correctly paid according to relevant county policies, MOUs and labor and wage laws. The design and operating effectiveness of internal controls will also be evaluated.
Turning now to the findings and recommendations, the first finding states that the MOU between the County and the Deputy Sheriff's Association or DSA contains provisions that compound the overtime issues in the sheriff's office. We agree with this finding. Accordingly, the grand jury recommends that your board negotiate with the DSA to revise the MOU to disallow the use of leave balances as time worked.
This recommendation has been implemented in part. On August 18th, your board approved a new DSA MOU that revises the calculation of overtime such that paid sick leave and compensatory time or comp time will no longer be treated as hours worked for purposes of calculating overtime. However, as is the case in other county MOUs paid vacation holiday and military leaves are all still included as hours worked for overtime computation purposes.
And although not directly responsive to this recommendation it is also worth noting that the new MOU also contains several other modifications designed to improve the administration and fiscal management of overtime. Including establishing an annual cap of 1,300 overtime hours worked. Limiting annual comp time accrual to 120 hours. Requiring periodic cash out of comp time balances and clarifying that employee drive time is compensable only to the extent required by applicable law.
Together these provisions are expected to reduce the growth of comp time liabilities and improve long term management of overtime costs. The next finding states that the current payroll system is ineffective for the Sheriff's needs as it does not allow effective tracking, analyzing or reporting of regular hours and overtime. While we do agree that the existing system is limited in its effectiveness, we also believe there are opportunities to improve the use of what the current system does offer until a better option becomes available.
We are therefore encouraging the Sheriff's Office to fully utilize the available tracking mechanisms to determine why and under what circumstances overtime occurs. The Grand Jury's associated recommendation is that the County and the Sheriff work together to accelerate the build-out and installation of Workday, the new countywide payroll and human resources management system for the Sheriff's Office by January 1st of 2027.
Although the Workday project is currently underway, it is not feasible to expedite completion within the time frame recommended by the grand jury. The county is currently preparing a request for proposals from Workday certified companies for the implementation portion of the project and implementation is anticipated to begin in spring of 2027. Given that Workday is a complex large-scale project with significant implications for the entire county organization Adhering to the currently identified timeframe is key to ensuring viability and success of the project implementation.
As I mentioned before, Sheriff's staff are working in the meantime to improve data tracking and reporting of overtime usage based on CEO recommendations to include the various drivers or categories of overtime. The final finding states that increased staffing costs are exacerbated by the administration of two jail facilities. We agree with this finding. Accordingly, the grand jury recommends creation of a South County Jail decommissioning plan by December 31st, 2026.
This recommendation will be implemented. County stakeholders are currently creating a transition plan for consolidation of jail operations to include decommissioning the South County Jail And staff anticipate bringing this plan to your board for approval in December. In conclusion, the county is aligned with the grand jury's intent on each of these recommendations and staff have already implemented or taken steps to implement each recommendation with the overarching goal of improving utilization and management of overtime in the sheriff's office.
For your board's consideration we have recommended actions A through C as they appear here on the slide And we are available to answer any questions you may have. Thank you.
All right, thank you Miss Harmon. Questions from the board? Supervisor Lavinino.
Thank you. So on the sheriff's, the ones that he has to have the recommendation, he has to answer to the grand jury. Do we get a copy of that as well?
Yes. Supervisor Lavinino through the chair, that is included with the board packet for this item as attachment C.
Okay perfect. Thank you. Supervisor Kaps.
I mean honestly, I'll just note. I really appreciate the grand jury report we we talk about over time it seems like almost every hearing so I don't actually have any questions at this point. Thank you.
All right supervisor Hartman
yeah, I was just I know All of us have borne some responsibility for the overtime issues that we faced. And part of it is a structural issue with the time cards and workday. And I wonder, phase one of work day there's a January 2027 date and then a spring 2027. So could you describe for me When we're going to get to a better solution with Workday so that our time cards, right now I think it's just we have to take what is given and hope the managers can oversee. But how will Workday improve that? And when will we see those changes going into effect?
Supervisor Hartman through the chair, Paul Clemente your budget director. I can speak to the timeline. I'm on the Workday Steering Committee. The phase two which is going to be the payroll and the HR management side of things. The RFP Nicole was speaking of we are close to being ready to issue that. We're trying to issue this fall, try to bring a contractor back a contract back to your board by early next year.
And start that implementation in the spring. It's probably about a year and a half implementation or so, so it's really right now the target would be summer of 28 that we'd be seeing that payroll system go live. I mean it kind of has to implement on quarters so July 1 is sort of that target of 2028 with a 12-15 month implementation period
And can someone describe for me what a difference this will make. I remember the auditor some time back was saying you know she's very limited in the information that's collected on the time cards so what are we now and how is it going to be different when we have workday?
So I'm not sure anyone from if anyone from HR or
1:22 – 1:3533 turns
The auditors Betsy Schaefer and Joel are in the Santa Barbara hearing room if you want to direct questions directly to them.
Okay so we could ask them and then also we can definitely I'll take that back to the steering committee and the item we're working on will be sure to discuss that in further detail.
Yeah, I just think people the grand jury members may be watching they'd be curious where are we headed? And so I'd like just a brief description.
Auditor Schaefer are you down there?
I'm
here.
Thank you.
We can thank you.
I have to say Chair Nelson and Supervisor Hartman, we're still working on exactly how the system is going to be put together and the benefits of the system. We do hope that there is better reporting just a lot of different ways of inputting data into this system I would say those are the key benefits right now.
All right, since we have Auditor Schaffer there, I had just a quick question. This is kind of related in part about the report coming back on other departments within the county on overtime. When is that potentially coming back to us?
Yeah, we're still looking at late September early October for that.
All right
and remember where yeah we're looking at fire next. And currently
thank you okay all right don't see any other lights on Madam Clerk is there any public comment on this item?
Chair Nelson and members of the board we have no request to speak from the public on this item.
All right any additional deliberations here or comments? Supervisor Caps and Supervisor Hartman
I did have a more general question for the Sheriff's Office. Just more broadly, you know again we spoke last week about 45% of time cards reflected that 45% of your staff work more than 12 hours and that undersheriff talked about how that is a concern Health of employees and so I just wondered with this report if what would the future look like if this. If you are up here, you know 2 years from now like what's what's an ideal is there a standard that a metric that is something in your in the industry or that you're that you're hoping to achieve if you can speak to that more broadly future forward Is it eight hour? You mentioned something about how we're moving down to eight hours and ten hours. I'm just wondering, using the opportunity of the grand jury's scrutiny which again very much appreciate what's the goal?
Well supervisor caps to the chair obviously I think the goal currently is to maximize our ability to control overtime to determine how that overtime is being spent and to make sure that it is absolutely necessary and. As mentioned, we have shown some improvement in that regard from the past. But we're rapidly approaching this stage where the overtime is We're going to level out in terms of the amount that we need to run operations both in the field and in the jail.
And you know there's going to be a point where it stops declining so we're still going You know I discussed with with Mona and her staff recently the fact that we still have this elephant in the room. With respect to the adequacy of the overtime budget based on historical purposes and even with the We've taken extreme measures that we've taken to try to reduce overtime and it's gotten quite draconian compared to what it's been in the past. We're still going to be over, and so you know we all need to be aware of that. It's not this isn't a solved problem at this point and it does as you know I mean we talked about this before much of this goes back to the number of staff hours that it takes to operate a jail or to run patrol operations I think we have shown that we can make improvements.
I think we have shown that there are there's better ways of doing things. Workday is going to be What was the. You know what what particular part of the operation demanded the most overtime and is that something that we can look at and should that be better resource perhaps in another way. The challenge that we have as you all know is that it's less expensive to fill We want to make sure that we don't burn our staff out as you say 12 hours.
Concerning and so it's all about balance like everything in life. I suppose and we need to try to work through that but it's going to take us all working together to To you just have some difficult discussions about this as we move forward into, you know to work towards Hopefully a you know incrementally perhaps You know filling some of the positions that would reduce the amount of overtime
Yeah, no thank you. Thanks for those comments and again the grand jury again really pointed to some key things that thankfully we're well underway and we will be even further once with this MOU and the agreement with your staff with the Sheriff's Association but so I hope that gets funded Also just want to point out while you're here Sheriff, there is a cover story on the Independent right now that is just incredibly inspiring and speaks to the rehabilitation in your jail that I know is such a priority for you. And I just want to give such a heartfelt shout-out because I was so moved by it and have been speaking with my family about it. Ryan Cruz just poured his heart into it and I know It has some substance to what we're doing here because in the northern branch expansion, I know that design conversations just happened and our new CEO is present for those.
There's going to be even enhanced room for this type of rehabilitation spaces to occur. And Eddie and others are just so dedicated. So I just wanted to acknowledge that here and encourage anyone to read Ryan Cruz's story And tell him thank you for being vulnerable and sharing his story, and just allow you to speak to it because I know again how much you have prioritized the beauty of second chances.
Well, thank you Supervisor Capps for pointing that out through the chair. I appreciate you very much doing that and I certainly appreciate Ryan Cruz doing the great job that he did on reporting and in-depth reporting about what is going on in the jail. And there are many other programs like that that are occurring in the jail that don't get, quite frankly we don't do for publicity, we do for effectiveness.
Yeah.
And I am just incredibly proud of Our staff and in this case, particularly with chaplain Eddie and his wife Alice who are incredible team and do great great work and the programs that they have or. And the care that they have for the people that are in our custody is second to none and so I appreciate that and I think there's a lot of A lot of good things that are in the in the in that are currently underway and that are actually in on the drawing board right now as well for trying to work to.
To provide opportunities for inmates to reflect as they do in this class upon Some of the traumas and some of the issues that they've had in their lives and being able to deal with that and move forward and be successful. And for that, we're grateful and grateful for the volunteer partnership that we have through Ryan Cruz in the writing class and also through the chaplains program and others that are really provided at no cost to the taxpayers and it would gain a great benefit.
You know it's difficult to quantify it with respect to recidivism reduction but I think they're all, it's all on that same track towards that.
Great thank
you.
Thank you.
All right thank you Supervisor Kautz for pointing that out. Supervisor Hartman?
Sorry.
You still? No. All right. Just a few comments from me. When I saw the title of this, you know what's up with the overtime? My response I wrote down was we know we're on it and when we are and I think that's really important here. I think we've been having a productive conversation and we just really appreciate Sheriff your department's efforts here. You know it's overtimes Kind of driven by three things, unplanned events which we can't ever budget for really. We can expect staffing shortages which has been a chronic issue in law enforcement not just in Santa Barbara County but elsewhere but and then MOU enabled practices and I think we've kind of got our arms around some of those. We've made some significant progress over the last year when this has been highlighted and I think it's something that's going to benefit the organization as a whole not just in the Sheriff's Department.
I think we need to take a look at this. I think we are trying to be better stewards of taxpayer dollars and I think What the grand jury is looking at here was important, but I do definitely think it's not necessarily something that we needed in the ring. It took us because we were really already trying to tackle that problem here locally. Just one last comment that I just thought about when you well actually two.
Right now salary and benefits are cheaper with overtime, but in a few years when we eventually retire the pension and we don't have the same contribution rate that may change. So I think that needs to be on the radar for the department and the organization because right now we're paying significant portion of your first 40 hours towards your retirement that would that will change later on when that number comes down it may be cheaper for us to hire new employees which i hope it does so we don't have burnout And then the other issue is that we at some point, and I know that the sheriff will appreciate this. We need to right size our budget for overtime. I mean, I know it's hard right now because we have unplanned events. We are running two jails one that were decommissioning.
It's a dynamic environment but I think that's something we need to do so we're not constantly back in this place where you're getting criticized every year as going over budget. We as a board know that you're going to go over budget. That's one of the reasons why we negotiated the contract, the DSA, the way we did and we gave them some credits for bringing down this overtime because we know it's gonna be a cost whether it's budgeted or not and I think some point in the future we need to get our arms better around that and hopefully do that in the next budget year so those were just my last thoughts And with that,
I just want to thank you and the board for the support with that. And thank the DSA because I think it's a great example of the entities coming together and working together to address this problem. And it's not going completely solve it but it's going to be it's step in the right direction and it took a lot for both to step up into to come to that agreement. So I appreciate that very much.
Thank you, sir. Brown supervisor caps
so I'd like to make a motion of the recommended actions accepting A B A B and C but I'd like to slightly amend a if possible just with finding three recommendation 3
give me one second me put up myself here. You can
it's it's very minor But I'd like to agree with the grand jury when possible. And this one is so technical, rather than saying this recommendation will not be implemented it's just saying this recommendation will be implemented three months after the listed time frame. It's just wordsmithing.
1:35 – 1:3919 turns
Before we do that, I guess I need a check because I know that some of these responses are required I know we're fairly prescribed in some of these, so I want to double check. I'm more than happy to accept the amendment for the intent of it but I want to make sure that that's appropriate. Ms. Parmalee or maybe County Council can chime in?
Yes thank you Chair Nelson. We would defer to council's perspective on that question. Mr.
Chair and members of the board, under the penal code On the recommendations, the options are the recommendation has not been implemented with a summary or another option is the recommendation has not yet been implemented but will be implemented in the future with a time frame for implementation. So I think that might be what you're addressing. I'm not sure of the timeframe from what we heard so I'm not sure how we would address that.
It's just time to frame it more positively since we are again, I try to look at these as the spirit of the recommendations as opposed to the technicalities. But if that's not again very minor but if we can just state it in the positive recommendation has not yet but will be or something that effect.
Chair Nelson if your board would like to make that change we'd recommend that the timeframe be summer of 2028
By the end of summer,
it was three. It was said in the report that it was just three months after. But anyway, OK.
Supervisor Caps, I believe that was when the implementation was scheduled to begin spring 2027. OK. All
right, so let's try that language here to make sure we have a good motion.
I don't want to make a big deal. No,
no, it's fine. The intent is appreciated. So what? What's the prescribed term we can use here, County Council?
The recommendation has not yet been implemented but will be implemented in the future.
Okay.
Estimated time frame is summer of 2028. 2027 or 28? 28. All right so
that's my motion.
Second.
All right the staff have that down? Are you comfortable there everybody's got nodded heads any further discussion on the motion seeing none all in favor signify there was a motion second by Hartman motion by Cap second by Hartman all in favor signify by saying aye.
Aye.
Opposed motion passes unanimously thank you all All right, moving on to departmental item number three. Madam Clerk will you please read that item into the record?
1:39 – 1:572 turns
Chair Nelson and members of the board, departmental item number three is from the county executive office. It is a hearing to consider recommendations regarding responses to the 2025 through 2026 grand jury report on emergency preparedness.
All right, Chief up a good morning turn Nelson members of the board. I want to address this question firsthand it's actually the title of the report is the county neglecting emergency preparedness and I feel that answer to that is no in fact the fire department has recently updating its mission statement and preparedness is now in the mission I do want to thank the Grand Jury for the time and effort they put into reviewing the County's Emergency Preparedness Program, and for highlighting and bringing to attention this important issue.
Emergency preparedness is critically important in Santa Barbara County, and I believe that the County and the Grand Jury both share the same fundamental objective making sure that we are prepared to protect our communities when disaster occurs. We also appreciate the opportunity this report provides us to take another look at our program. Recognize what is working and identify areas where we can continue to improve.
I'll keep my comments brief today and focus primarily on the county's responses to the findings and recommendations. That's me. The grand jury released its report on June 16th. The report primarily focuses on OEM staffing, resources and organizational structure including its placement under the fire department. The report includes five findings and eight recommendations, all of which require formal response by your board.
As we go through them you'll see that the areas where the county respectfully disagrees with the grand jury's conclusion are areas that we've already addressed and have existing county policies and practices but we believe that further analysis is appropriate in certain circumstances. Before getting into the findings, I think it's important to briefly clarify OEMs role. OEM is a division within the fire department but its mission is countywide.
It is responsible for preparedness mitigation response coordination recovery and continuous improvement related to emergencies and disasters. OEM also serves as the primary coordination point for the Santa Barbara County Operational Area. That means its responsibilities extend beyond county government and include coordination with our cities, special districts, education, non-profit, volunteer organizations and other public and private sector partners.
Its work includes all hazard planning, training exercises, public education, alert and warning, EOC operations. And again the operational area coordinator and disaster recovery that countywide mission and responsibility did not change when OEM was transferred administratively under the fire department in 2023 after analysis planning and deliberate action. I want to highlight that while OEM is housed under fire Emergency management is not solely a fire department responsibility, it's a countywide responsibility.
The county respectfully disagrees with finding number one, which has to do with its placement. I think it is an important distinction of what actually changed when OEM was transitioned to the Fire Department. That transition moved OEM's day-to-day and managerial support to fire. It did not change the countywide mission, its operational area responsibilities or the authorities it has under the County Chapter 12.
The CEO still remains the Director of Emergency Services, and OEM continues to coordinate emergency management across county departments and throughout the operational area. I also want to be very clear about one important issue to me. Our emergency managers and OEM staff are critical and essential members of the fire department. Bringing OEM into fire never intended to diminish Their profession, their specialized expertise or their unique mission of emergency management. In fact the intent was exactly opposite to support enhance and make them better.
Emergency management is a distinct professional discipline and we value it as such being part of the fire department does not make OEM any less of an emergency management organization nor does it change its countywide responsibilities The integration provides greater connection between emergency planning, operational response along with access to the Fire Department's administrative logistical communications GIS and operational resources.
That was part of the intent for the transition. For these reasons we do not believe that OEMs placement within fire negatively impacts its ability fulfill its mission. Recommendation number one The county will not implement this recommendation. This is a recommendation to move it back under the CEO's office. We believe that the current structure provides OEM with that administrative operational support from the fire, but preserving its countywide mission And it's operational area responsibilities and with its direct coordination with the CEO's office when needed.
As I mentioned before, the CEO remains the director of emergency services under Chapter 12 that authority did not change for these reasons we don't believe changing the reporting structure back to the CEO is office would improve the emergency management capability. We're not saying that the staffing level right now is necessarily the right level. Rather, we don't believe that the report provides Emergency management staffing should be based on the program's responsibilities, actual workload, service expectations and available resources.
And the ability to support across the organization to each specific county. We can also augment OEM with resources throughout the fire department in the greater county as a whole particularly during emergencies. That being said We believe the staffing question is legitimate and does deserve an objective evaluation which we'll discuss in the next recommendation.
Recommendation 2 recommends increasing OEM staffing to 12 full-time employees. The county believes this requirement requires further analysis. The grand jury identified 12 positions it believes should be compromised in the program, however the report does not provide the workload analysis or an established industry staffing standard that demonstrates 12 is the appropriate number for Santa Barbara County.
We believe that staffing should be based on the work that actually needs to be performed. That includes are mandated in our mission critical responsibilities again or workload load service levels available technology and shared resources across to sustain and support that program. For this reason, we are moving forward with the independent assessment of OEM.
That assessment will help distinguish between resources that are necessary to accomplish the mission and resources that provide measurable improvements to preparedness and enhance service levels. The staffing level may ultimately change. We want that determination to be based on an objective analysis on the needs of our county, Santa Barbara County. Once that assessment is complete we'll be much better prepared to have a position of what our staffing numbers should be.
Finding number three addresses our disaster service worker program and the county disagrees with this finding as written. I do want to acknowledge the underlying issue, maintaining a trained and capable cadre of employees who can support an extended EOC activation is absolutely important and requires constant attention. Where we differ is the consequences of not having 204 fully trained It is important to note that the EOC is scalable based on the incident size type complexity and duration. We also have a requirement in The county has over 2000 employees.
With departments, the departments are responsible for assigning positions in the EOC and provide depth in that staffing. We actually have over 244 trained employees just not rostered as such. Employee turnover, changing assignments. These types of things mean that this number is never static. Training, exercising, recruiting and refreshing the roster is a continuous process. The county has a policy and organizational framework in place that works Recommendation 3A calls for training and exercise program. The county considers this as already implemented.
We have a board approved disaster service worker policy, that policy establishes training requirements for county employees specifically those assigned to the EOC positions. OEM coordinates that training conducts exercises and tracks compliance. I do want to highlight that implementation does not mean completed. Maintaining EOC readiness is a constant process. Employees retire are promoted, transfer change assignments so we must continually train exercise and build depth within our organization. We believe the framework is there and this recommendation is already in place and we will continue working to strengthen our readiness.
Recommendation 3B calls for department heads to ensure their assigned disaster service workers participate in training and exercises. The county believes this recommendation is already implemented as well. Our existing policy clearly states that emergency preparedness is a shared county responsibility, Each department head is responsible for identifying employees assigned to the EOC positions, maintaining significant depth for multiple operational periods and ensuring those employees receive the required training. OEM's role is to coordinate the program, provide the training and exercises, and help track that compliance. The OEM cannot build countywide preparedness by itself. Every department is responsible for ensuring employees are trained and prepared to fulfill their county emergency assignments.
It isn't an OEM expectation, it is the responsibility of the board established policy that requires department heads to ensure required training is completed. Recommendation 3C calls for ensuring department head cooperation in training and exercises by adding a participation requirement and some language to their EPR. County considers this recommendation is also implemented.
OEM maintains overall roster and coordinates the system, but department heads are responsible for providing and maintaining the trained personnel assigned to their positions. We will continue holding ourselves accountable in our departments accountable for keeping it current and maintaining the readiness necessarily for necessary for an extended activation.
Recommendation 4 addresses The transfer of certain oil and gas responsibilities from OEM to the fire department, which puts us not in compliance with the oil spill contingency plan. The county disagrees with this finding. This meeting is being recorded and will be available to the public at any time. We have technical and operational responsibilities within the department which has the subject matter expertise response capability in response capabilities to manage them fire maintains hazards miss materials response capabilities specialized training and equipment. Fire protect her sorry fire prevention and regulatory At the same time, this does not remove OEM from an oil emergency. OEM continues to fulfill its county-wide role in coordination, EOC operations, public information and warning, consequence management, and recovery when an incident requires those capabilities.
We believe this structure puts the technical responsibility where the expertise exists while preserving OEM's broader emergency management and operational coordination role. For these reasons, we do not believe that the transfer has reduced the county's preparedness for oil and gas emergencies and puts us out of compliance. Recommendation 4A calls for the transfer of these oil and gas responsibilities back to OEM. The county will not implement this recommendation as I mentioned before We believe that the technical and operational responsibilities are appropriately aligned with FHIR, where the specialized expertise equipment and regulatory functions already reside.
FHIR will work collaboratively with our local state and federal partners to update the oil spill contingency plan and related emergency plans We recognize the need to update the planning documents and ensure the roles, responsibilities and coordination is clearly defined before the next incident occurs. Recommendation 4B addresses OEM's involvement in the unified command during an incident. The county will not implement this recommendation.
Fire is defined as that local on-scene government coordinator establishing its role in the unified command. This position is part of the incident command structure that the fire department operates in every day and on every incident. Santa Barbara County Fire is a founding member of Firescope. In the 1970s, we invented that incident command system. Being within the fire department gives OEM the appropriate level of access to the unified commander to support its specific mission.
Finding five addresses the county's use of volunteers and the county disagrees with the finding as written. Volunteers are an important part of emergency management system, and the county already works with several established volunteer organizations that provide specialized capabilities during emergencies. Our current model relies on those existing partnerships rather than maintaining one centralized county department service worker volunteer program. We don't believe that the absence of a single formal program by itself shows that the county can't support a prolonged or complex emergency.
Recommendation number five calls for establishing a formal disaster service worker volunteer program. The county believes that this requires further analysis. I want to be clear, we absolutely recognize the value of volunteers in emergency preparedness response and recovery. We already have strong partnerships with established organizations that provide these important capabilities during county emergencies. The question for us is not whether volunteers are valuable It's whether creating a new formal program would be meaningful and improve our capabilities or potentially duplicate programs and partnerships that already exist.
We also need to understand what it would take to train, recruit, credential, manage, and sustain such a program. A volunteer program requires staff time, oversight training equipment and ongoing resources to be effective. For these reasons we believe the next step is to include this in our independent assessment and determine where the gaps exist what capabilities we need and whether a formal county disaster worker volunteer program is the best way to fill them With that, the recommendations before your board today are to adopt the responses to the grand jury's findings and recommendations and authorize the chair to sign the response letter to the presiding judge and make the required CEQA determination.
I want to close again by thanking the grand jury for its work and attention on this item of emergency preparedness. While we may respectfully disagree with the report's findings, we share the same goal ensuring that Santa Barbara County is prepared for emergencies and disasters we know that we will face. The county is not neglecting emergency preparedness but we will continue to evaluate the program address the areas for improvement and ensure OEM and the broader county organization are prepared to serve our communities when they need us the most.
And I'm now available to take any questions.
1:57 – 2:0513 turns
All right, questions from the Board? Supervisor Capps then Supervisor Hartman.
Actually Supervisor Hartman can go because she's been here longer and maybe we'll answer some of my questions.
Well first of all I remember when EOC was put with FHIR and that was a really important thing because we weren't getting the kind of integration that we needed. And FHIR, I think of EOC as kind of The nervous system and fires the boots on the ground. And we didn't always have the connection that we needed so I think that is really important. I also wanted to ask you, we've made some significant investments in our EOC would you please describe those?
Sure, well the EOC itself, the main building was a significant investment considering what we were operating out of before some double wide trailers. We have a state-of-the-art EOC and we've recently added larger call taking center and a JIC for information sharing so the county's even continuing to make those investments to improve the EOC.
Right. So we have a state of the art facility and I know I sometimes have an opportunity to talk to employees at their halftime highlights after six months, and they all know they're emergency workers. I mean that comes with the definition of working for the County of Santa Barbara by law and they take that very seriously. I'm not aware of all the programs that we have to train them but, but I know that they do exist. I think there were two things that the grand jury highlighted that we are working on so I just appreciate their work. One is the assessment staffing assessment of the EOC and do we have adequate staff and doing a regular study of that? And I think that's a really great idea The other is the issue of the volunteer program and I'm glad that we're going to do further work on that.
I know that there, we've had since 2014 43 declared emergencies so were in a constant state of emergency and I think we are very experienced in how Manage emergencies and keep the business in the county going. But you built up a lot of relationships, but when it comes to the volunteer organizations for somebody from the outside looking in, it's kind of a morass. And I think you're gonna do a gap analysis. It sounds like But that would be really helpful to know what organizations are out there, have that listed and formalize it in some way. I don't mean necessarily MOUs but just you all have an understanding of those relationships but I think it would be great for the wider public to be able to see that and understand.
I'm really interested in Equine EVAC and we've had a number of meetings where EOC is Tried to help us in the Santa Ynez Valley, for example. But there's a whole array of volunteer organizations and I think we just want to make that more explicit.
Yeah, Supervisor Hartman through the chair. I totally agree. I think that a lot of these relationships are already established and it would be like like I said, a duplication of efforts in some cases where or a lot of those services are already provided so that gap analysis will come in very handy to show us were
I'm not saying we need a volunteer program coordinator or program, but just some way to list or make more explicit. It can be they're somewhat changing, but it's sort of a static thing who all do we look to the Red Cross and you know all the different organizations?
Yeah there's definitely some key players that are big there for sure. All
right thank you Chief Supervisor Hartman, Chief Supervisor Keps.
Yeah, thank you. I thought that's where you were probably going to go. Supervisor Harmon and I just wanted to because I wasn't here when they when the decision was made to move the Office of Emergency Management under the CEO's office. And so if you could just elaborate a bit more on how how fire The chain of command, what the operations center really looks like and how you really deal with much more than fire and what benefits are there to this staffing. And I just have to sort of editorialize it's a little unusual I think for the grand jury to have focused on sort of organizational charts they can do that in their purview but I did take note of that that it seemed rather narrow of a critique. So can you speak to the benefits?
Sure, Supervisor Capsley the chair. You know I wasn't also not in this seat when the transition was what happened but was definitely in the fire department but I've gone over the transition document I've talked to the key players and it was definitely a well thought out and coordinated transfer. The benefits that OEM gets is they're a department of seven people, and the fire department has over 319 people.
So we can add, we have a GIS section. We have logistics section. We have sections within the fire department that can help there and at the administrative day-to-day but also when there is an incident, we have people that are trained in ICS maybe not in the EOC so to say but examples like I can think of the activations that I've been a part of and responded to. But the COVID response was one of the biggest one way outside of our normal realm, and for everybody OEM staff or the fire department but with the fire department we have these greater We have ability to mobilize and get more resources than they do on their own. And so again, it's a collaborative effort was never intended to dismiss or to make them not as needed or diminish their expertise.
I understand so and then on the point about oil spill preparedness, can you explain why keeping those functions within the fire department is effective? Just if you can describe. I mean I know that the grand jury also recommended moving oil spill responsibilities back to Office of Emergency Management But you have that operational authority now. Can you just speak to the expertise of the fire department?
Sure. Supervisor Capps, through the chair. So I was actually a part of that transfer and we were basically duplicating a lot of efforts. There was inspections and trainings and things going on with the oil industry The fire department did too. So we were we're basically overlapping and bringing everything into one one point just it made sense to the kind of economies at scale.
We do have we had a regulatory, you know part And I think it's really important that we have the expertise to be part of that unified command system. Our department was one of the founding members of Firescope that actually created that, so it made sense to eliminate the duplication and what was not intended to do is cut off It was intended to be a better court coordination.
2:06 – 2:1212 turns
to have fresh eyes and a grand jury taking a look at areas where we can improve, particularly in the areas where community can get more involved and draw attention. So on the topic of volunteers I know you know VOAD is we rely on them and we're so grateful that Red Cross and other faith based organizations. I've gotten to know a little bit of them CERT and Listos they were so instrumental during the Thomas fire and debris flow Can you speak to what you anticipate, what's the future? I mean are we, is this, are you concerned? Are we seeing a lot of deterioration of that kind of energy out there in terms of the volunteerism?
I have not seen that. And it's again, it's the same people in all these activations that you see the same faces that will continue to show up. But I think it is a concern our culture as a society is changing and maybe volunteerism is not as high up as it used to be but I'm not noticing that at the level in the EOC And again we cannot, we can't manage these incidents without our volunteers. We just don't have the expertise, the staff all those things so we do really rely on all of the volunteer partnerships that we have to make things happen.
Yeah okay those are my questions for now.
Right thank you Supervisor Kaps. Do we have any public comment on this item?
We have no request to speak from the public on this item.
You guys are so much more than that. And I think it's been seen by this board for quite some time. That's why we were very interested in looking at EMS and ambulance service, you know that we as county taxpayers employ 24 hour service out of your department and we know that fires happen and need absolutely response but there's so much more that you guys do and I think this fits perfectly.
I also failed to mention that we have also our Fire and EMS Dispatch, which i think is another big piece of this whole entire story. We cited that directly next to the OEM on purpose right down from our fire headquarters so to me it's a natural fit for all these organizations to be under one roof and so I support what past boards have done and I support it moving on in the future.
So with that I think Supervisor Hartman were you going to make a motion?
I was A through C in today's board letter.
Second and I just want to make a comment that Chief Hoff, I fully support you and I trust that your team will do everything to protect our community so.
If I could just add a comment that I appreciate your comments today because while It's important for the grand jury to shine a light. I do think a lot of critical pieces were missing from this report and again we have the vantage point of seeing a lot of things like you just mentioned, the EMS dispatch which is literally saves seconds in terms of response which is lives and I know Director Hubbard is here there so much that happens and I'm so proud of our emergency responses see a question of, you know, neglect does not at all comport with what we see every day and what we fund. And sure there were every department had to take some cuts and so While I'm not critical of the grand jury for shining a light, I think it's always important for them to do.
I do see that it doesn't say tell a complete picture by any means and I have some I don't like what that sends to the community because safety is not just Something that you, I learned this as a school board member. Safety isn't just something tangible it's also how you feel and we want to make sure that our community feels safe because they should feel safe. We have a very robust, dedicated team of first responders not just those who wear the uniforms and do this as their day job but all these volunteers. And I'm so proud of them and I think this is an opportunity to thank them and to affirm the work that our county does. And i just know from our vantage point that it is the highest priority of what we do as a county government Our new CEO said it in her comments.
It's we're on the front lines here and we feel it so thank you Chief Huff for your comments by disputing the title because we are not neglecting, in fact we're fortifying. Thank you.
All right Supervisor Lavinio further comment on the motion?
Just real quick I just want to say too the proof is in the pudding. We're always getting tested here with emergency response. And I think I'd stack our team up against anybody and maybe it's something the grand jury could take a look at in three or four years and see the difference of how it's gone with different grand jury members, and maybe get a different perspective.
Thank you so again we have a motion and a second any further discussion? Seeing none all in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion passes unanimously All right. Thank you all. We'll be transitioning here to our next item, our fourth and final departmental item today. Madam Clerk can you please read that item into the record?
2:12 – 2:269 turns
Chair Nelson and members of the board, departmental item number four is from the County Executive Office. It is a hearing to consider recommendations regarding responses to the 2025 through 2026 grand jury report on property tax bill charges.
All right, Ms. Steelblossom.
Good morning Chair and Supervisors my name is Jessie Steelblossom and I'm a Principal Analyst with the CEO's office and today I will be presenting the response to the 2025-26 grand jury report entitled what are these extra charges on my property tax bill? A look into what they are and how they are spent On June 23rd, 2026 the Santa Barbara County Grand Jury issued its report.
The report reviewed the benefit assessment fees included in property tax bills and looked at how they were spent and whether residences were receiving the services they're paying for. The report includes three findings and four recommendations which the board must respond to within 90 days of report issuance. In some areas of the county, residents agree to pay fees for additional services provided by a special district. These include things such as street lighting, mosquito control, sanitary services, flood control and water conservation.
Funding for special districts is levied through benefit assessments which are reflected as additional charges on resident's property tax bills. Again, the grand jury reviewed how these assessment fees were spent and whether residents were receiving the services they're paying for. And the report recommends that the county increase transparency around how those funds are used and provide noticing to residents of special districts and community service areas or CSAs.
Under Finding 1, the grand jury report says that the Board of Supervisors acts as the board for the dependent special district and can provide additional services to residents appropriately at a local level but not all are transparent about how funds are used. And notably taxpayers in county service areas are not well informed about decision making. The county disagrees with this finding.
Transparent information is available for all special districts. Every five years, the Santa Barbara Local Agency Formation Commission or LAFCO conducts municipal service reviews for each Special Service Area. These reviews include specific information about services provided and a financial analysis for each special district in CSA. Reviews are published by LAFCO and are considered at public hearings.
In addition, for county-administered CSAs and special districts, annual budgeting is noticed to the community. It is balloted as appropriate and presented at a public hearing and posted online. For Recommendation 1A, the Grand Jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors create a page on the County's website that identifies all of the dependent special districts and provides links to projects funded by the taxes.
This recommendation has been implemented. A CSA and special districts page has been added to the Public Works website, and it provides district and service area information including geographic boundaries, an explanation of services, and links to additional information. Under Recommendation 1B of the report, the grand jury recommends that the board directly notify taxpayers in dependent special districts when an item is on the board agenda that would affect the amount of the assessment or expenditure of district funds.
This recommendation has also already been implemented as the county follows all noticing requirements for each special district and CSA. Though these noticing requirements vary by district and situation, items on the agenda that affect the benefit assessments are always noticed to property owners. For finding number two, the grand jury report states that the majority of new housing projected for the South County to meet the state's affordable housing requirements will be built in what is now CSA 3 and that will exacerbate issues of transparency in the use of CSA 3 funds.
We disagree with this finding and as mentioned previously, information is available for CSA 3 on the new Public Works webpage. Recommendation 2 recommends that the Board of Supervisors in consultation with LAFCO review the optimal structures for service provision in developing areas of CSA3. This recommendation will be implemented. LAFCO completed municipal service reviews for CSA 3 in both 2023 and 2024.
And during these reviews, LAFCO concluded that there were no obvious opportunities for structural changes in the governance of the district but they did note that there was value in local agencies collaborating and exploring opportunities to improve delivery of municipal services. The county is currently reviewing these services and the CSA boundaries in the context of planned development to optimize the structure and services provided to the eastern Goleta Valley and other areas adjacent to Goleta.
Finding 3 states more than 2,000 of the new housing units projected in the county to meet the state requirements will be built outside of what is now CSA3 and those residents will require services and LAFCO created agencies to provide services. We disagree with this finding. While the county agrees that additional services will be necessary to accommodate new housing units, creating a new LAFCO created agency may not be required for all housing projects.
There are currently three large housing developments in the pipeline. One which is currently within CSA 3 and that's the San Marcos Tatum project, one that is planned to be annexed into CSA3 and that's within the South Patterson area, and one which will be evaluated by LAFCO as the development progresses and that would be Glen Annie. For Recommendation 3, the Grand Jury recommends that the Board in consultation with LAFCO ensure that any agencies created to provide services to new developments provide a clear explanation of services to be provided and the costs to residents.
This recommendation will be implemented. Any agencies created to provide services to new developments would include an analysis and reports detailing services, a public outreach process, and would require a vote of the assessment payers. Implementation will occur concurrently with appropriate processes to establish a new CSA and or annex into an existing CSA.
The recommendation recommended actions for your board today are to consider the responses to the grand jury report, authorize the chair to sign the letter with the responses and forward it to the presiding judge, and also find that this action is not a project subject to CEQA And we're now available to answer any questions you may have. Thank you.
All right, thank you Mrs Steel Blossom. Questions from the board? I'll jump in for a moment. That was an interesting report and appreciate the Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the board. Maybe it's only because it exists in my district and nowhere else, but I think it's a huge amount of money that goes towards services countywide that are enjoyed by all county residents that are only paid by specific county taxpayers. So I think that should be reflected here as well. So it's something that should be added. I know it's outside of the grand jury's recommendation.
It's actually something I hope that they look into a little bit more that disparity just but That's not the issue here, but I think it definitely falls under the categories of additional services. The other thing I wanted to maybe see is if we could on that actually have the assessment amount? I know it talked about the range on the web page. I think its talks on the web page about From as low as $5.94 per resident per year on CSA 5 up to $467 per resident in CSA 41, I think having a list of all those rates on there, I didn't see them on that webpage and it'd be helpful for additional transparency but I do like what we did here with this and I think that's going to be an added benefit for me as a supervisor who has to communicate to my residents these things but also to the general public who may want to find out some of this information for themselves.
So those are just some comments that I had based on that. Supervisor Kepps.
Yeah, it's really my I'm all for more transparency with government and appreciate the grand jury points out. I mean, I think these notices that come in the mail with your tax bill. It's an opportunity to explain how our tax bills, how are taxes being spent? And when I looked at the example in the in the packet, you know CSA 3 which is in my district as well as Supervisor Lee's it just isn't acronym. It says CSA been I think it's a pretty good deal in my opinion. So if we could look, I know you obviously track this money really carefully in terms of CSA. It's a big amount of money.
If we could have a report, I talked to Supervisor Lee about this yesterday and we would appreciate a public report. It can be an A item so we don't have to spend a lot of board time on it but then we could communicate that report in various ways to the constituents that are actually funding this fund You know, we've done other events in the past about parks that have been funded by CSA funds and having that data every you know maybe annually would be a great idea. So in short I really appreciate the grand jury being so forward thinking you know they're as pointed out.
I'm sorry I realize there's no question here but here I go.
We're in deliberations it's
fine. Thank you. Thank you so much. There is a lot of new housing coming and it's going to be awhile till there's property taxes associated with that new housing because we haven't even, we just broke ground on one. So I just appreciated this huge heads up by the grand jury to start thinking okay we're gonna have a huge much bigger CSA 3 and how should we handle that? And I'm confident that we will handle it well because we're already You are the departments are already working well together and working well with the city of Goleta public works, et cetera. So I just want to assure the grand jury if anyone's listening from that previous grand jury that those conversations are active now but I as the supervisor that represents the bulk of the new housing appreciated Okay, let's start thinking about all the ways in which this fund is going to exponentially get bigger and not be caught off guard.
So thank you.
All right. Thank you Supervisor Kaps. Supervisor Hartman?
I'm reminded of a John Oliver show where he talked about special districts in these fees and said they're the most important government that nobody knows about, ghost governments. And there's a whole ecosystem of special districts dependent independent these fees in my district Sabata Canyon and Western Goleta have taken a lot of time from public works So there's different financing mechanisms and different structures. And I really appreciate the grand jury pointing its finger at this and trying to say it's very confusing because I think it's confusing to everybody.
You know, people look to the county and say we're having these problems. The county should fix it but really were just a local government on the same level as these others and so we don't really have that ability in Lafco doesn't really either. And it's just kind of a function of How our state government has organized these things that there's not a lot of visibility. And sometimes I would say that some of the people are being way overpaid maybe for what they're doing, but you know they don't get enough people to run for election and so it's just what it is. So in terms The county I think anything we can do to bring more visibility, I've certainly encouraged that at LAFCO but it's really kind of falls between the cracks. But the more we can do to help people understand and you know we don't have consistent financing mechanisms.
We sort of invented different things over time after Prop 13 to be able to fund parks and roads and services so Maybe something explaining the evolution and what we don't do anymore but we still have existing, what we plan to do in the future. Because I'm confused.
2:26 – 2:3226 turns
All right, thank you.
Director Sneddon? Supervisor Hartman and Supervisor Kautz to the Chair. Those are points well taken I think we do do the annual administrative item that comes with the board but we could put some added information in there about what we've done over the year in these CSAs and And I think also just, you know there's a lot of great work that's happening out there in the parks and some of the other things that the CSAs fund. And probably having this website but also probably boosting some of the outreach that we do would probably give people a better picture of what these funds are doing.
All right. Thank you very much. Supervisor Kaps. Well,
I'll just say I'm torn on the recommendations. You know, finding one says that they disagree that taxpayers are not well informed. I would agree. So I don't want to make a big issue subjective. I think we can do more and if there's a way to reword that, I could just vote against it. And either way, I don't think we have to belabor this too much but I think there's always more we can do to be communicating this report I just want to say that we have achieved its objective. I believe for my office, my team that we I want to do more to communicate to our constituents about CSA three but I'm just putting it out there that I probably will be voting against some of these findings not necessarily the Thank you for reminding me that you do the report.
I think again, I would wish our tax bill could be more creative and actually explain what this information is doing so I'll see where the board wants to go in terms of wordsmithing it's never the best activity up here from the dais but we can see how far it takes us
So your concern specifically is about finding number one that we disagree. Is that the one I'm looking at? Can you bring it up? I'd like to
see
if we can find something that makes everybody happy if we can.
I mean, I've seen a response and other ones that says requires further analysis
I'm pretty sure about partially disagree.
Mr Chair,
yes.
So there's specific responses for the findings and then their specific responses for the recommendations so on the findings if you either agree or another option would be to disagree wholly or partially so maybe you could partially disagree So those are the only two options. And then if you partially disagree, you specify which portion but in the findings either agree or disagree on the recommendations you have that implemented not yet implemented but will be or requires further analysis.
So Supervisor Caput your concern is about whether the information is properly getting out there about how these funds are being used and services?
I think if you did a poll of people asking if they understand how their CSA dollars were being spent, I think that the answer would probably be very low. If
you did a poll of supervisors it might be low.
So on the one hand we are doing a website and we have an A item every year so yes we are checking the box. On the other hand the way this is worded taxpayers in county service areas are not well informed. It's hard to disagree with that. So again, a lot of this is just the way we're boxed in on these reports. If there's a way to say require further analysis because I think I'm committed to finding further analysis of how we can communicate better.
So I think what you're saying is that you actually agree with the grand jury?
I do.
Okay so so we could change your recommendation to agree. Sure may not change our finding or yeah I recommend I should agree, but recommended action may not change because what we're doing is we are further educating and we have this now special district link. And that's part of our implementation of our agreement that people are not fully residents to a local level aren't or not fully transparent on that or we have not in the past so we agree and we are implementing as their way to get back there
Mr. Chair, members of the board that would be an option you could agree with the finding and then
keep your recommended
action recommended action doesn't
change what
we're doing still yeah it has
already acting in a in an affirmative pathway to go along with Supervisors Capps desire to be more positive okay in our relationship the grand jury we can agree that we haven't been there
yet And let me just see if there's one. If there's a way to also recommend that the tax collector improve the tax bills, if that's something that's appropriate for this board to include. Explore how?
2:32 – 2:3826 turns
Was there any direction from the grand jury to, did they direct any questions to the treasurer tax collector? I mean that would be his question. He's independent so I don't know.
Supervisor Labanino through the chair no they did not provide any specific recommendations for the treasurer tax collector. Okay
I think we can
like a website
I think we should be able to work with them. Hi everyone.
So not necessarily
a
director, yeah it doesn't change the recommended actions but.
And I think that's direction from the board for us to work closer with the Treasurer Tax Collector to get some further transparency in tax bills moving forward.
Great thanks.
Okay so I think the recommended action at this point would be staff recommendation with the exception of on finding one we changed that from disagree to agree Doesn't change what our ultimate recommended implemented action would be because it's the same, either way we agree or disagree. Is that acceptable for my colleagues and does that satisfy your concerns Supervisor Caps?
Yep.
Is that okay with Council? Okay I'm getting nodding heads everybody is happy here. Any further discussion on that? All right and again I think I checked already for public comment was there no public comment on this item?
Chair Nelson and members of the board, a great question. There is no request to speak from the public on this. Thank you.
Supervisor Kaps.
And then on
finding two it's I mean it's hard again hard to disagree with finding two if you could put it up please So maybe it's the same approach. We could agree with the finding I don't know how you could disagree with that. OK because it's going to be with with potentially you know three to four thousand more people paying. I guess that's units paying into these funds.
It's hard to it's hard to argue with the fact that transparency issues won't be exacerbated.
I'm still fine with going to agree. I think we're recommended actions are still prudent and again, I appreciate staff and further approach on those so I think we can agree with finding two without changing anything in a material way.
Are you good with that Supervisor Lee? It's in your district as well.
Okay it was good here We better check finding three real quick as well.
And then finding three again I'm not on LAFCO so I wanted to check with those who are, I could see it's again if with 2,000 more units if there needs to be again this is way down the line years down the line but would it be requires more analysis if there needs to be a new special agency? It seems like that's possible but.
So I would jump in on that. I don't think it's necessarily a LAFCO created, and somebody can maybe correct me if I'm wrong. If there was a new CSA, it'd actually be created by this board and it would be a condition of approval on those new projects. That's typically how that works either with CSA or CFD. That's typically how it's done is we actually create it not LAFCO so if it's something we wanted to do my understanding is that something we would need to develop and create Moving forward, and I look like ACO Horton is here. It might be a good subject matter expert to be able to speak to this
please. Thank you Chair in regards to the referenced developments we are currently analyzing whether those properties will be recommended into annexing into CSA 3. Okay and we are also in discussions and coordinating with the City of Goleta on that as well
yeah so we are analyzing So I mean again. But
it says disagree currently. It says partially disagrees. Oh mine just says disagree. Well, my board letter or okay.
Chair Nelson sorry I understand sorry I'm still back on finding two. I just want to be clear and the reason we disagreed is we meet all the requirements for transparency and LAFCO meets all the requirements for transparency so There's a difference between that we could do more communication and we could give people more information. But I just want to be clear that we, the county and LAFCO are meeting all the transparency requirements for the CSA 3 area which is the second part of that sentence there.
And also the first part of the sentence says that the affordable housing will be built in what is now CSA 3. That's only one of those three developments is actually in CSA3 right now, so it's a little bit semantics but that's where the disagreement came from with finding two.
2:38 – 2:4322 turns
Which housing project will be in CSA 3?
So the ones near San Marcos High School, the Tatum and San Marcos Growers projects are already in CSA3. The ones in the South Patterson area we're conditioning their approvals to annex into CSA3 Glen Annie is sort of an island away from the majority of CSA 3, but we do have CSA three zones out that area and what that would be something would be considering as that development gets farther along in the application process.
So it'd be all of the ones near San Marcos though would be
Eventually would be but they're not currently
Yeah, that's the semantics part here. It's they're not currently on CSA 3 annexation. Condition of their final approval which is once I think with the maps recorded at least a preliminary track map then they have to go to LAFCO to get added. They have to file an application there's a process that's involved but they have not yet gone through is what I'm hearing.
Chair Nelson that's correct.
But again, I try to look at the spirit of these questions. And I do fully relate to the concern of the grand jury of all of the new housing is coming to this area and therefore how are we going to make sure that these funds are communicated and spent with transparency? So I would just embrace that notion and not resist that notion.
Going along with Supervisor Capps is saying, and what I'm also hearing from Director Snedden is yes staff has satisfied the minimum standard. But I think what you're asking for Supervisor Capps is going above that we're not saying staff has not followed staff board direction. I think what we're saying is we as a Board want to elevate that conversation beyond the minimum that's required and so which you have not got that direction in the past but now this board is asking for that level of direction in the future so there's additional transparency for the public so there's additional awareness Is that accurate Supervisor Caps to land where you're at?
Yeah yeah but again it's there's no criticism in this. It's just sort of saying it's going to be big let's make sure we So I think the motion is going to be staff recommendation
with
a finding.
Did we want to agree with that one as well, Supervisor Caps?
Chair Nelson I'm just noting the memo in your packet does say partially disagree. The slide says disagree but the memo itself the draft memo says partially.
And so I guess what are in County Council how do i so the draft memo that we have was the controlling The PowerPoint is slightly off here. It says disagree when the actual draft memo and the recommended actions have us as partially disagree?
That's correct, Mr. Chair. So when the board takes action you can just clarify that it's partially disagree if that's how you want to keep it. That is what's recommended by staff.
And I think partially disagree is appropriate because LAFCO doesn't create that agency, it's actually going to be us. So we need to partially disagree on that one.
That makes sense.
OK?
Great.
All right so I'm going to go ahead and make the motion staff recommendation with the amendments of agree under finding 1 and finding 2. And we are going to further clarify that finding 3 is partially disagree as it is in the memo not in the presentation. So I'll make that motion just to get it out there Far from this discussion.
I second it. Thank you so much. Thanks for again, thanks for your willingness here to go along and also to the grand jury for thinking ahead a few years in the future.
Great thank you. So we have a motion and a second any further discussion on the motion? Okay seeing none all in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion passes unanimously All right, that concludes our departmental items for today. We'll be going ahead and moving into closed session. For those members of the public that are watching this meeting we will reconvene after closed session to report out from closed session but we have no additional public business to present or additional departmental items so this will conclude our regular portion of the meeting. So Madam County Council will you please read out for us the items we will be discussing in closed session today?
2:43 – 2:464 turns
Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the board. In closed session today the Board will be discussing existing litigation including Flying Goat Sellers v. The County which is a U.S. District Court case in the Central District as well as Sunclose Bloom LLC v. The County which is an Office of Administrative Hearing case and Valleycrest Farmed LLC vv. The County which is also an Office of Administrative Hearing case And then conference with legal counsel anticipated litigation, deciding whether to initiate civil litigation in two cases. And the time estimate is 30 to 45 minutes.
All right we'll be back in about
1245.
Welcome back to the August 25th, 2026 meeting of the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors. We're just returning back from closed session to report out. Madam County Council can you please report out on any reportable actions?
2:46 – 2:462 turns
Thank you Mr. Chair, members of the board. The board met in closed session on existing litigation Flying Goat Sellers v. County Suncoast Bloom LLC v. the county Valley Crest v. Farms v. the county and anticipated litigation deciding whether to initiate civil litigation in two cases and the board took no reportable action.
All right, thank you very much and with that we conclude or adjourn our meeting this week and we will be returning to Santa Barbara on September 1st. See then.