Board of Supervisors - Regular Meeting

Good morning. I will call to order the June 9th, 2026 regular.

One moment. All right.

We'll try that again. Good morning.

I will call to order the June 9th, 2026 regular meeting of the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors. All right.

Let's go ahead and pause for a second while we figure that out. We good? Excellent. Okay, Madam Clerk, will you please call the roll?

Supervisor Hartman? Here. Supervisor LaVenito?

Here.

Supervisor Lee?

Here.

Supervisor Capps? Here. And Chair Nelson?

Here. At this time, please stand and join the board in pledging allegiance to our flag. Before we get started this morning, I just want to take a moment. On Sunday morning, there was a tragic single-car accident that took the lives of six San Marie Valley youths. While loss of life is tragic, but when the loss of life is of some that are so young and so many, It's a sobering reminder of the fragility of life. And I just want to take the moment here, although the names are not released publicly, they are our youth in our community. And I just want to take a moment of silence in their memory and our thoughts and prayers with their family and friends. Thank you. All right, onto the business of the county. First item of business is the approval of the minutes from the May 12th, 2026 meeting. Can I get a motion?

Hartman moves approval. All second.

All right, all in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion passes unanimously. The next item of business is our County CEO's report. CEO Miyasato, do you have any report this morning?

There's no report this morning, Chair.

All right.

I have a report about the CEO.

Okay.

Supervisor Lavagnino, the floor is yours. This past week, Supervisor Lee and I were lucky enough to be present while our CEO was honored. Mona Miyasato was honored by Girls Inc as one of the bright leaders of our young women in Santa Barbara County and had an amazing event over at the Santa Barbara Club and just wanted to acknowledge our CEO, did an outstanding job.

Well, thank you, Supervisor Lavagnino. I'm sure it's the first of many recognitions that we'll be bestowing on our CEO over the next couple of months. So thank you for bringing that up and sharing that with the public. Next item, Madam Clerk, are there any announcements or changes to today's agenda?

Joe Nelson and members of the board, I do have a few announcements this morning. The first announcement this morning is regarding compensation items associated with administrative item numbers 40 and 41 from the human resources department. Administrative item number 40 is regarding an appointment and employment employment contract for incoming county executive officer Jana Peterson and administrative item number 41 is regarding the performance-based salary adjustment for county council. in accordance with government code section 54953c3a of the government code prior to taking final action the legislative body shall orally report a summary of a recommendation for a final action on the salaries salary schedules or compensation paid in the form of fringe benefits of any local agency executive during the open meeting in which the final action is to be taken The oral reading of the recommendations with this action is intended to satisfy that requirement. For administrative item number 40, the recommended action is approval of the appointment and employment contract for Jana Peterson to serve as the Santa Barbara County Executive Officer with an annual salary of $380,000 an annual deferred compensation contribution of $20,000, one-time relocation support of up to $30,000, life insurance of up to one-time salary, professional development allowance of up to $10,000 per year, and other benefits as may be provided to appointed executives under existing county policy, including but not limited to pension, family health benefits, car allowance, and paid time off, effective August 20, 2026. Additionally, for administrative item number 41, the recommended performance-based salary increase for County Council results in a 4.97% increase and a biweekly salary of approximately $13,147, effective June 22, 2026. Additionally, an addendum was posted on Friday, June 5th, 2026, amending administrative item number 58. Administrative item number 58 is from the Public Works Department, Board of Directors, Flood Control, and Water Conservation District. It is to set a hearing on Tuesday, July 7th, 2026, to consider recommendations regarding the Flood Control Benefit Assessment Program from fiscal year 2026 through 2027. The recommended actions have been revised to reflect the addition of the language acting as the Board of Directors, Flood Control, and Water Conservation District before recommendation A. This addendum has been posted and made available online to both the board and the public. Additionally, we received a request to withdraw administrative item number A54. Administrative item number A54 is from Supervisor Hartman. It is regarding a board appointment of Steve Oakes to the Fire Board of Appeal. This withdrawal request has been posted online and made available to both the board and the public. 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 two 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 two. 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 two of the agenda if you have any questions please contact the clerk of the board's office at area code 805-568-2240 that concludes my announcements for this morning all right thank you madam clerk next item of business is the administrative agenda are there any items that the public is pulling

Are there any public items?

Chair Nielsen and members of the board, it doesn't appear that we have any requests to speak from the public on the administrative agenda.

All right. I've asked to pull items 20, 23, and 27. Are there any other items that any of my other colleagues would like to pull? All right. So I'll ask for a motion on the balance of the agenda. with the corrections that were outlined by the Madam Clerk to be wrapped up in that motion. So it's all items except 20, 23 and 27. So moved. All right. Second. A motion from Lee, a second from Hartman. Any further discussion? All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? The motion passes unanimously. All right, before we get into those items, we'll give a moment for those staff members that were here just in case. Thank you guys all for being here. We'll go ahead and move on to our resolutions. And Madam Clerk, will you please read administrative item number one to the record?

Chair Nelson and members of the board, administrative item number one is sponsored by Supervisor Nelson is to adopt a resolution of commendation honoring Margaret Santamaria of the Sheriff's Department as the June 2026 employee of the month in Santa Barbara County. And joining us in person today, we have Margaret Santamaria. If you can please make your way to the podium. I see we also have Sheriff Phil Brown with us. I'll go ahead and read the resolution. Whereas financial office professional three, Margaret Santamaria exemplifies the county's organizational values of accountability, customer focus, equity and inclusion, innovation, trust and ethics. And whereas Margaret Santamaria has consistently demonstrated the highest levels of professionalism, intuition and commitment to her duties within the Santa Barbara County Sheriff's Office. She tackles every task with creativity, a genuine willingness to help and a get it done attitude, producing solid results when faced with complex issues. And whereas Margaret Santamaria has worked diligently to develop more efficient methods for tracking credit cards, expense reimbursements, travel, and other miscellaneous costs, while continuously identifying and recommending process improvements that benefit the business office and the sheriff's office as a whole. She effectively assists staff with expense reimbursements, travel, purchase requisitions, claims, and various other matters while maintaining strong working relationships with outside vendors, county staff, and coworkers. She is highly skilled in reviewing and understanding contracts and effectively analyzes and communicates the consequences of proposed changes to supervisors and coworkers. And whereas Margaret Santa Maria has demonstrated outstanding leadership and teamwork through her willingness to train and mentor financial office professionals, serve on an interview panel for a recent financial office professional vacancy, and foster a work environment where all staff feel included, valued, and supported. and whereas margaret santa maria's knowledge skills and experience contribute greatly to the overall professionalism and the goals of the santa barbara county sheriff's office as well as the overall objectives of the county of santa barbara now therefore be it hereby ordered and resolved that this board of supervisors of the county of santa barbara does hereby acknowledge financial office professional senior margaret santa maria as the county employee of the month for june 2026 passed and adopted today

this distinct honor on our very much loved and valued employee. It's my distinct privilege and honor to be able to recognize a truly outstanding member of our team, Margaret Santamaria, as the June 2026 Santa Barbara County Employee of the Month. Margaret joined our agency in June of 2019 as a financial office professional one, She was promoted to FOP2A in 2020 and to her present position as a FOP senior in 2022. If you know anything about the financial realities of our agency, you know that we operate with an extremely limited financial contingent. And combine that with a season in which we experienced several critical staff vacancies, and you have a recipe for some immense pressure. But it was precisely during such challenging high stress times that Margaret did such a stellar job for our agency. She stepped up and she became an absolute cornerstone for us. Known for her professionalism, her creativity, and her unwavering can-do attitude, Margaret not only kept our financial operations running smoothly, but she actively strengthened our processes and improved overall team efficiency. What makes Margaret truly exceptional is that she achieves these massive operational wins while supporting our staff with unmatched kindness as well as with her amazing expertise. She has become a trusted resource, a thoughtful mentor for others, and a steadfast champion for an inclusive and supportive workplace. Margaret's knowledge, leadership, and unwavering dedication makes a profoundly meaningful impact on the Sheriff's Office and on the entire county organization. We are incredibly grateful to have someone of Margaret's caliber and pleasant nature working for our agency, and we are so pleased to see her recognized with this great distinction. And congratulations, Margaret, on this great and well-deserved honor. We're very proud of you.

Hello. Thank you, Chair Nelson and Board of Supervisors. I really appreciate this acknowledgement. And to my colleagues, I'm very grateful. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right, Madam Clerk, will you please read administrative item number two into the record?

Chair Nelson and members of the board, administrative item number two is sponsored by Supervisor Lee. It is to adopt a resolution honoring Dr. Amrita Som, PhD, for her exceptional leadership and enduring contributions to the mental health and well-being of the Carpinteria community. And if Dr. Amrita Som can join us at the podium, I'll go ahead and read the resolution. Whereas Amrita Assam, PhD, is a longtime community leader in the Carpinteria area, widely recognized for her dedication to mental health awareness, suicide prevention, education, and local advocacy. And whereas in 2012, Dr. Som co-founded HopeNet of Carpinteria and has served as its co-founder and president, providing sustained, compassionate leadership to advance community mental wellness and suicide prevention efforts. Through her leadership, HopeNet of Carpinteria has brought education, resources, and community-based support to residents, emphasizing collaboration as the foundation of its impact. And whereas Dr. Som has played a key role in organizing and presenting community education events, including the annual World Suicide Prevention Day Candlelit Vigil and Community Mental Health and Wellness Fair, which honor lives lost, support survivors, and provide accessible bilingual resources. And whereas following her retirement from higher education, Dr. Salm devoted many years to volunteer leadership, including service on the Carpinteria Unified School District Board, youth support initiatives, fundraising, and local advocacy. And whereas through decades of partnership with the Santa Barbara County Department of Behavioral Wellness and other community partners, Dr. Salm's advocacy helped expand access to mental health services, including the launch of the START school-based counseling program within the Carpinteria Unified School District. Now, therefore, be it hereby ordered and resolved that this Board of Supervisors of the County of Santa Barbara hereby recognizes and honors Amrita Som, Ph.D., for her exceptional leadership and enduring contributions to the mental health and well-being of the Carpinteria community. Be it further resolved that as Dr. Som steps away from her leadership role at HopeNet of Carpinteria, the community expresses its sincere gratitude and appreciation for her lasting legacy of service, collaboration, and compassion. Passed and adopted today.

Chair Nelson, members of the board, on behalf of the Department of Behavioral Wellness, I would like to thank Amrita for more than two decades of partnership with the department and for serving as an advocate and leader for mental health awareness within the community of Carpinteria. Thank you, Amrita, for so many years of leadership and change.

Thank you.

I'd like to thank the Board of Supervisors for this recognition. In turn, I would like to recognize many of the individuals and organizations that have allowed HopeNet of Carpinteria, a grassroots organization, to provide resources, training, information, and connection in Carpinteria. We were formed after the suicide of a local friend who suffered for years from depression unbeknownst to any of us. The community came together to determine how we could provide support and resources to others to lessen the number of attempted or completed suicides. To those of you who helped us develop our suicide prevention cards, Gina at Glendon Association and other organizations, to Salud Carbajal, while first district supervisor for paying for the printing of our cards for the first time over 13 years ago, to Suzanne Grimacy of Be Well, for her insight and continued support through the years, to Anne Marie Cameron of Mental Wellness Center for allowing us to fall under their financial umbrella and being a constant supporter of our work, to Rachel Stettle for working with us for the last few years, and to all the Carpinteria organizations and businesses who supported us along with the city of Carpinteria for providing us with a small community service grant for the last 13 years. I would especially like to recognize all of the HopeNet board members who gave their time, passion, and encouragement for many years. Some of our board members will continue to work with the city of Carpinteria and local agencies in spreading the message about suicide prevention, mental health resources, and the 988 toll-free national crisis line. Our website will list local mental health resources for the next two years. Individually and collectively, all of us must continue to support our own mental health and to assist our friends, neighbors and community with warmth, kindness and support. Let us pledge to do so today and every day. To all of you, thank you for your support, kindness and consideration over the years. I offer this recognition to you along with my heartfelt gratitude and appreciation for your support. Thank you.

All right, Madam Clerk, I think we have a third and final item to be presented. Will you please read that in the record?

Yes, Chair Nelson and members of the board, administrative item number three is sponsored by Supervisor Nelson and Supervisor Lee. It is to adopt a resolution declaring the month of June 2026 as Elder Abuse Awareness Month in Santa Barbara County. And joining us in person today, we have District Attorney John Savernock and DA Chief Investigator Christina Perkins. Whereas June is recognized nationally as Elder Abuse Awareness Month, enrolled Elder Abuse Awareness Day is observed annually on June 15th to raise awareness of the abuse, neglect, and exploitation that can be experienced by older adults and to reaffirm our commitment to protecting seniors and promoting safety for all older adults. Whereas Santa Barbara County values and honors its older adults for their lifelong contributions to families, neighborhoods, and the broader community, and remains committed to fostering a safe, supportive, and inclusive environment where seniors can live with dignity, independence, and respect. And whereas elder abuse, including physical abuse, emotional and psychological abuse, neglect, abandonment, isolation, and financial exploitation can affect older adults in every community. And through increased awareness, education, outreach, enforcement, and access to supportive services, Santa Barbara County continues working to strengthen prevention efforts and ensure that older adults receive the protection and care they deserve. And whereas protecting older adults requires strong collaboration among public agencies, advocates, caregivers, and community partners, including the District Attorney's Office, the Sheriff's Office, Adult Protective Services, the Public Guardian, and the Long-Term Care Ombudsman Program, all of which work together to prevent, investigate, and respond to elder abuse and exploitation while providing support and advocacy for vulnerable seniors. And whereas Elder Abuse Awareness Month serves as an opportunity to encourage our community to recognize the signs of abuse, support older adults and caregivers, promote reporting and prevention efforts, strengthen community partnerships, and reaffirm the shared commitment that every senior deserves to age safely, independently, and with dignity and respect. Now, therefore, be it hereby ordered and resolved that this Board of Supervisors of the County of Santa Barbara does hereby proclaim June 2026 as Elder Abuse Awareness Month passed and adopted today.

Chair Nelson, Supervisor Lee, thank you for the recognition. This is such an important topic that we actually need to discuss, needs to come to the public light. Our seniors are the people that built our community. They built us, they cared for us, they developed us, and now it's our turn. It's our turn to watch out for people when they need us. And as you can see, we've thinned out a little bit, but during the photo, all the agencies involved, and I can tell you the APS, Adult Protective Services, Public Guardian, the Ombudsman, Law Enforcement, the District Attorney's Office, in true County of Santa Barbara fashion, We all cooperate. We all work together on this issue. We work together to keep people safe. We work together to address people who haven't been properly cared for, who are being abused or being taken advantage of. And this proclamation gives us a wonderful opportunity to highlight one of the fastest-growing crimes out there, and that is financial abuse of elders. In the FBI database, those are people that choose to report scams. Last year alone, they received approximately 350 complaints in Santa Barbara County alone totaling over $34 million. And of that $34 million of those complaints, over 70% of the people complaining about being victimized were over the age of 60. The unfortunate part about financial abuse of our elders is oftentimes it has occurred by actors who are not, not only not within the state, maybe not within the country. So oftentimes people that have no ability to replace the money because their earning capacity, their years in the workforce are long since passed. They suffer tremendously as a result of this. So the best thing we can do as law enforcement, as people caring for our older citizens as a community is to educate, to inform, to communicate, to talk. To that extent, we have a hotline, reportfraud at countyofsb.org. I know the DA's office is willing at a minute's notice to any community group, any entity, any group of neighbors that want a presentation on financial crime, financial fraud, we're willing to present. Because until we talk, until we put this in the public consciousness, We'll never stop it because the only way to stop it is to prevent it from happening in the first place. To those who commit physical elder abuse, I can assure you our law enforcement, our care agencies, and the district attorney's office will respond. But with financial abuse, we need to stop. We absolutely need to stop it before it happens. If somebody in your life is older, maybe a little bit isolated, I encourage everybody to reach out, to talk to them, to have contact with them, to show them how to do online banking. Whatever you can, show care and concern. And then if something bad is happening or about to happen, your concern may prevent from occurring in the first place. So thank you for giving us a public forum to highlight this issue in this problem. And I know the caring is in the DNA of Santa Barbara County, and I know together we can make a huge difference.

Chair Brown?

Chair Nelson, members of the board, just let me echo some of those sentiments. One of the things, two things I'd like to say. One is that we have this terrible problem that occurs in our community and across the nation where people prey on the vulnerable, the most vulnerable, and oftentimes people who are senior citizens, in many times going after potentially their life savings, making life incredibly difficult for them. I'd like to say that they are kind of a new low of lows in terms of lowlifes. And I just want to send the message out to those who think that they can do this and not be held to account. The reality is that we are very aggressive in our approach to addressing this problem and this issue. And although we're very tolerant in many ways in this county, we're very intolerant of this crime. And I want to just let that message be known. Don't think about coming to Santa Barbara and taking advantage of our seniors.

Thank you, Sheriff. All right, we will now take up the administrative items that were pulled in numerical order. Madam Clerk, will you please read item A20 into the record?

Chair Nelson and members of the board, administrative item number 20 is from the Clerk Recorder Assessor Elections Department. It is to consider recommendations regarding a request for waiver of competition in the purchase of a ballot sorting system from Blue Crest, Inc. All right, thank you.

Do we have anybody from? the elections office here. All right, thank you. I have a few questions about this item. I pulled it. I think also Supervisor Hartman may or may not have some questions as well. Anytime I see an item that is asking for the waiver of bids, I'm always gonna take a deeper dive into it as a supervisor, just because the reason why that we go out to competitive bidding is to make sure that the taxpayers get the most value in the most transparent way possible for the purchases that we make. And so this is for, I believe, a voting sorting machine. And I had some questions about it. It seems that from my research, I know that in the board letter it says that it's unique, but it does seem that with only, you know, most of the counties and, you know, we actually use a different machine now, some different software. Other counties use different software. I GUESS I'M CONCERNED WHY WE DIDN'T GO OUT FOR ADDITIONAL BIDS IN DIFFERENT PROPOSALS, WHY WE WOULD JUST HAVE A SINGLE PROPOSAL BEFORE US.

NEW SPEAKERS. NEW SPEAKERS. NEW SPEAKERS. NEW SPEAKERS. NEW SPEAKERS. NEW SPEAKERS. NEW SPEAKERS. NEW SPEAKERS. NEW SPEAKERS. NEW SPEAKERS. NEW SPEAKERS. NEW SPEAKERS. And they both have information regarding contracts and the machine, the equipment that we're purchasing. So they can answer some of your questions and I can assist with answering some of those questions for you as well. Regarding the going out to bid, we do have, basically there's three companies who, provide this kind of service to us, Pitney Bowes, Runbeck and Blue Crest. And we did do some research and decided on or the best service would be through Blue Crest. And Matt Niblick could answer some of those questions for you.

Well, thank you. Please, Matt. And I have no objection to the selection of a specific vendor what i have an objection to is a sole source process where we need to waive that and so i guess my question is not necessarily about the product is more about the process and why are we asked to waive that today when we could have gone through a procurement process that would have vetted these things so it was transparent to the public that we evaluated all three through some kind of scoring metrics or by price or all those types of things. So again, my issue is more with process here.

So Chair Nelson and members of the supervisors, thank you for offering or allowing this opportunity to address you. One of the key things that we looked at when going this is looking or valuing our existing vendors and then also looking at what our similar county folks are using with their systems as well. The current Blue Crest device which is integrated with other elections information management systems that we use in-house is about two-thirds. That's including our county who currently does not use that. If you look at statewide, that percentage goes up. It's about 75% of counties are using this device statewide. So I just wanted to make sure that we let you guys know that too. That's one of the reasons we're looking at this. Additionally, for other products that Blue Crest has, they are a member of the NASPO which is a national association of procurement officers or purchasing agents essentially who look at that. So we are aware of those and are wanting to make sure that we're getting the best value for it. I also would like to emphasize too that the device that we're proposing to replace would significantly relieve some of the constraints that we currently have with the existing machine. The Agilis machine that's currently in use was designed to handle about 40% of vote by mail.

um throughput we're currently handling about 90 of that so we are definitely using more volume on that machine i'm more than satisfied that it's probably a good product my issue is about the competitive bidding process and why we didn't go through that because we could know it's a good product and gone through that process so that we didn't have to waiver have to approve a waiver today And I guess that's what I'm asking is why didn't we go through the competitive process? Why did we? We have procedures for a reason so that we just don't have to say, hey, trust me, it's the best thing out there so that we don't have to do our individual research. Again, my issue on this item and is for all departments is that, you know, if there's time, you should go through a competitive process. And I guess I'm not getting an answer that I want to hear on why we get into the competitive process. When I looked at the proposal, it seemed like the proposal you guys received was in March of 2025 for this machine. We're sitting here in halfway through June of 2026. It seems like you guys had more than ample time. I know you had an election, you know, you guys had to prepare for, But I really don't like it when people come and run to us the last minute and say, hey, we have to purchase this. We have no other process when we've had plenty of time to do that. So that's why I'm looking for some justification.

Allow me to weigh in a little bit on that, too. We actually were taking this back in December, January. of this year once we had some information, and it was delayed by the EITC process. So we were sitting there for months waiting for that to go through, which is being evaluated by other ITD, the CISO, and several other agencies. So it's not like we're just sitting here twiddling our thumbs doing that. I don't mean to be antagonistic or disrespectful on that, sir.

And I don't either, but my point is that we have a procurement process.

Yeah.

And I guess that's what I'm trying to understand why we didn't go through procurement process. Again, especially around elections, we need to have a lot more faith in our elections. And so that's why there's a lot more eyes on it. But this should be true for any department that comes to the board is that, you know, I know that there's exceptions that we can make on waiver of competitive bidding, and that's absolutely the purview of this board. And that's why we have a transparent process to do that. But it's my preference that we don't do that. And again, I'm looking for an explanation on why it wasn't done.

fiscal stuff i'm i'm not the expert on that hi chair salary for the uh delay but um ultimately this equipment is 12 years old agilis and because of the timing and how long it took to get through these other uh... official processes uh... which took many months uh... there was limited time and because of the time constraint and the very severe demands of time uh... during the election this is you know march twenty fifth is right in the swing of things this is when they're doing candidate filing they're doing many preparations and i think in the future we're going to take note I think that the hope was that we could we would pursue this because it had been vetted by many counties and many of our peer counties that were comfortable with and because it had been through that process so many times and two-thirds of the county using DFM or our other system we felt that it was appropriate. But it is noted, and we will take that into consideration going forward.

Thank you, Ms. Green. And I have full confidence that that will be a fix in the future. And just for the record, it wasn't March 25th of 2026. It was actually March of 2025 that this proposal originally hit the elections office. So, again, I know you guys might have been tied up since December, but there was time before that to go through a procurement process before it went through the evaluation. So, again... I think I've made my point. I hopefully that it's heard by your department and others that, you know, make sure you've gone through the process. Again, we are more than happy to approve things that if there's urgency, I think as a board. I mean, we're not anti-approving things, but these are exceptions for a reason. And so we shouldn't just make that the rule. So anyway, supervisor Capps.

I think so.

Oh, sorry, Supervisor Hartman and Supervisor Capps.

Thank you. Well, as I understand it, you said that we went from 40% to 90% vote by mail in our county. And because you have to verify each signature on the envelope to make sure that the person who's voting is actually the person who they say they are, you use this machine. And I guess my question is, if we get this new machinery, will that make things faster?

It's anticipated that it would, yes. And I want to reiterate, too, that the machine's really just flagging signatures to help us assist in ones that are obviously something we want to look at. Every vote-by-mail Ballot envelope is still going to be looked at by person for reviewed as it still goes through as of now through procedurally But this will significantly help with that processing through but the the bottleneck and processing ballots is our current agilis machine and

Thank you. I think, again, while there's delay, it gives people opportunity to be uncertain about the results. So anything we can do to get results more quickly I think is very positive. Thank you.

Supervisor Hartman, through the chair, I also want to add that by using this other software or equipment it would enable us to open up to other printers right now with the gillis we are limited to one printer and so it would increase the opportunity for competition which we understand that competition needs to be very public and transparent thank you thank you supervisor hartman thank you miss green supervisor caps

Well, it's interesting to hear about the technology and the new printer, and I think it's always interesting to hear more, to go behind the scenes and hear more about the elections division, which is good that we learned a little bit more this year than we have in the past. But I don't think we are talking about the product. I agree with Supervisor Nelson on two points with the chair that, This really is about process, and especially on something like voting, we need to have as much transparency as possible. So my question is, it's too late at this point to go out for a competitive bid?

Ms. Green, you're late. There you go.

Supervisor Capps through the chair. Yes, it is. The monies need to be spent by August 31st. So that puts us, it's our state voting system replacement funds grant. And so we do have time limitations.

Okay. Well, I guess I appreciate the Chair bringing this forward because I do think the signal needs to be sent that these aren't just rules for rules' sakes, that we have to be very transparent that this, again, is people's money and we need to have these systems upheld. So, thank you.

I got one last question. Do we know if they use this in LA County or not?

I believe they have their own. I'm sorry. Excuse me, Chair Donaldson. They have a different equipment. LA County is completely different from some of the other counties because of their size.

Perfect. Thank you.

Chair Nelson, if I may, we hear your point and your perspective is absolutely right. And just last week, department heads got together and we talked about things we need to improve and one is purchasing, having more consolidated centralized purchasing so that there's one source of looking at everything is more helpful. So thank you for those comments. All right.

Thank you. Can I get a motion on this? I'm not going to oppose it because I know we have a grant. I don't want to spend these dollars twice because we don't get it done this time around, but I think in the future. My point has been heard, so.

I'll move election staff recommendation.

I'll second. Okay, motion by Hartman, second by Lee. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion passes unanimously. All right, thank you. Madam Clerk, can you please read item A23 into the record?

Chair Nelson and members of the board, administrative item number 23 is from the Community Services Department. It is to consider recommendations regarding the county loan to FLT San Simeon Oaks LP for development of a multifamily affordable housing development in the unincorporated area of Eastern Goleta Valley, an agreement to provide affordable housing, and this is in the second district.

All right. Thank you. And I pulled this item as well. As I was reviewing this project, our office had some questions about the source of the in lieu funds. And so again, for the public, in lieu fees are charged to market rate homes as a fee to help subsidize affordable housing. And with that being said, we have these different housing rate market areas where these funds are generated. I asked for a little memo that all the board members got where I asked where the source of these funds were. And I was disappointed to find out that most of these funds are coming from the North County to pay for a South County project. And I think that there's something inherently wrong with making North County housing more expensive to subsidize these projects down here where developers get a higher level of rent and there's other economics involved. Ironically, you can't use South County funds in the North County. So we have an unfair process. I don't think that we should continue that. and so i guess i'm going to personally oppose this at this time and i think that we should be looking i'm asking staff to maybe look at someplace else to find funds but then to raid north county in lieu funds for south county projects so that was my my point on this and director armis if you'd like to maybe provide some additional context for the board.

Chair Nelson, members of the board, I appreciate that pretty straightforward and direct question. Let me speak to a couple of elements that maybe puts this in context. As you know, the county does have the inclusionary housing ordinance that provides developers an opportunity to either provide the units or pay a fee. And if we think of what's taking place prior to our current situation, It was felt that in the north county it was more advantageous to pay the fee than it may have been to dedicate the units per se, whereas our experience in the south coast has been the opposite. We're seeing really an abundance of units coming down the pipeline that ultimately will allow us to address our affordable housing goals. There is obviously an imbalance here, as you rightly point out. If the board would like, we could, in our next round of reviews of inclusionary housing ordinance, speak to that point more directly so that, again, if the board deems it appropriate, the manner in which those funds can be used and can be allocated can be revised. So we're open to that direction. It's a valid point. We recognize that.

And so it's still within the board's discretion on whether we approve this today?

It's entirely within the board's discretion as to whether or not the loan should be provided. I would note that the board did consider this approximately a year ago. We've spent a lot of effort. The developer is really on the verge of building, of pulling building permits to start the project and its whole financing package assumes this source of funding.

again i think it's uh just i'll just you know i'll love to hear from my colleagues as well but i just think there's something very inherently and unfair and inequitable um in our county if this is the route that we're going to go for these types of housing projects um We have projects in the North County that our office is working on and trying to facilitate. These funds are gonna get exhausted by being sucked down to the South Coast. And again, this is the issue that I keep bringing up on this North-South imbalance that we have in our county on how we operate and do business. And I think this is a glaring example. And so again, I'm gonna vote against this today. Supervisor Hartman.

Well, I thank you for bringing this forward. I guess what I interpret Director Armistow have said is that this is really a board responsibility when we failed in the inclusionary ordinance to bring this up. So I think he and his department has been operating and invested a great deal under the rules. I'm prepared to support it this time with direction that we come back with revisions to the inclusionary housing ordinance going forward to take account of what you've very significantly raised.

Thank you. And I'll just point out sort of bigger picture. I appreciate that you pointed this out. And I would be open to changing this for the future. But just to zoom out a little bit, this is an important project in the South Coast because so many people do work in the South Coast and live in the north. And so we're trying to we all we are one county and we're trying to make it so that people can live closer to where they work. And that's sort of a bigger picture perspective.

And I appreciate those things as well. You know, I'm working with Director Armas and others on trying to find, solve some of our problems you know North County problems on affordability not only for you know our residents and people who live there that are having a hard time as well so we're just trying to solve all of our problems maybe something that you know I don't think again I'm not going to vote for this today but something to think about and maybe chew on is find a way to maybe repay these funds back to the North County to make them available I would hate to just

transfer them down south and then not have find a way to maybe bring them back up north before as we have projects that we hope to move forward in the north in the future if that's the board's wishes chair nelson that's an excellent suggestion so that we could make note in all our records that indicate that the funds when the loan is repaid should be reserved for the hma in which the funds have been collected

Well, I mean, these funds aren't due till 2081, so I figured I'll be 102 at the time. That's good. And I might still be on this board. God willing. No, just teasing. But again, I think that there might be some other avenues that you guys could bring these funds back up north instead of exhausting those, and so they would not be available for some of the future things that we're working on in the north. I just, again, hate to not be able to move some of our innovative ideas that we have forward because these funds were exhausted somewhere else.

We'll take a look at our other funding sources that come in through the federal government and see what kind of opportunities are available.

Right. Thank you, Director Armis. Supervisor Lavagnino.

Well, thank you. I didn't know if that was a motion that Supervisor Hartman was making, but.

Okay.

I agree with Supervisor Hartman and I appreciate the chair bringing this up, but I think we've got to move forward, but fix it in the future.

Yeah.

All right. Can I get a motion on this item and then I'll do a roll call?

so i i will move staff recommendation with direction to look at our inclusionary ordinance uh in terms of regional equity in our county and i'll second all right um madam clerk can you please do or actually i can do this by voice as well so um all those in favor signify by

Oh, actually, sorry. Is there any public comment on this item?

Thank you for catching me. I'm getting a little rusty up here.

All right. Well, thank you, Madam Clerk. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? Nay. Motion passes four to one. All right. Our third and final item, item 827. Madam Clerk, can you please write 827 into the record?

Chair Nelson and members of the board, administrative item number 27 is from the County Executive Office and the County Health Department. It is to consider recommendations regarding precision health strategies, LLC agreement for indigent care program, consulting services, and there is a four-fifths vote required on this item.

All right. So I pulled this item. just for i guess a question so um again for my colleagues and for the public we're having some deep discussions this day california on um indigent care something with the impacts of hr1 there's a potential liability that we have in our county of significant expenses to address healthcare for those that are no longer on Medi-Cal is the way I understand it. And so I think we're being very prudent in our approach. We're putting money aside this year and next year to address that. But also I wanted to report out to all of you as your CSAC representative and your representative on RCRC. I have been busy at the state working on trying to push alternative plans for funding of this and there's, hopefully significant momentum behind a PATH proposal, which would be a lower level Medi-Cal product that would be available for those who are falling off of Medi-Cal. And again, people are falling off of Medi-Cal in part because of work requirements and other requirements that will now be in place after H. R. one and again those responsibilities ultimately fall in the county previously these things were funded by the state in the past when the portable characters past those stuff funding went away and was I was rejected to other things and has not returned back and so. All of us as counties, all 58 counties with one voice, have been asking the state to step up and continue their responsibility and their obligation to pay for indigent care. We think this PATH proposal that is getting some momentum, we believe it's in the Assembly's version of the budget, and hopefully that it will be reconciled. If that's the case, it's a temporary kind of pilot project that would last for two years. So I have high hopes. for that this might move forward. That said, staff is moving forward with potentially hiring a consultant to get us prepped up. And so I guess my question here, and I read in the board letter is if we move forward with the PATH proposal, you guys will be able to downgrade this contract and do less. But obviously we need to approve it just in case we need to move forward. So I'm supportive of moving forward. But I guess my question to you is what is downshifting look like? You know, it's a $270,000 expenditure. Is downshifting 25% of this cost, you know, or is it 90% of this cost? Because $270,000 in a tight budget like this year is something I don't want to necessarily give up quite yet. This is tobacco settlement funds that can be used for a lot of other things that we're cutting this year. And so I want to be very careful before I commit to expending these funds that if we do move forward, if the state does move forward with the PATH proposal, that we won't expend much of these funds is my hope. So Assistant CEO Heitman.

Chair Nelson, thank you for that question and for raising the importance of this issue in the contract before you today. As you are well aware, excuse me, this is a very complex area with a lot of nuances to it. We are, like you, very optimistic that the PATH proposal will make it into the final budget. However, we recognize that it will not cover all of the county's obligation under indigent care. So if the PATH money goes forward we will immediately engage with this contractor on reassessing the totality of what the county does we know that the underlying resolution needs to come back to the board and we need to do a lot of analysis of what should be included in it what changes should be made and what are the financial implications of each of the decision points that the board would make. I would anticipate that that would be the first item that would come back before your board for consideration and that that will allow you another opportunity to look at this contract and consider to what degree we should use their expertise to further prepare us and make sure that we're making fiscally sound decisions. Because although the cost of the contract itself is a fiscal decision, how we proceed with the remaining program is an even greater uh fiscal uh decision and we want to make sure that we've uh wisely provided all of the facts to your board before you make that uh any changes to the program thank you as aco heightman and i also i guess my other question is um as part of this contract i know we've gotten some data from cincal about their ability to maybe help bridge some of this gap and and be a part of the solution is are they going to be a part of some of this uh this data that we're looking into and and the potential partnerships that they've offered chair nelson that is correct we have been in discussions with sencal they're aware that we're bringing this contractor on we're actually trying to time it that they will be the contractor will be available to sit on in on the meetings with sencal and provide a lot of the extra data and analysis that we'll need for those discussions with sencal

okay thank you i'm satisfied with that and i'm i'm okay to move forward if anybody have any additional questions all right just wanted to check in on that before we approve that so thank you um for indulging um i'll go ahead and make the motion prove a27 second actually is there any public comment on a27 john nelson members of the board we had no request to speak on that all right thank you seeing no public comment no further discussion all in favor signify by saying aye aye opposed motion passes unanimously We had a late public comment request on item 832, which we have already approved, but I think this is going to be, I think, a happy public comment. So I would like to go ahead and make public comment available on 832.

Chair Nelson and members of the board, that is correct. We had a request to speak on administrative item number 32, which was previously approved with the balance of today's administrative agenda. Administrative item number 32 is from the County Health Department. It is to consider recommendations regarding an acceptance of in-kind donations to Santa Barbara County Animal Services from the Santa Barbara County Animal Care Foundation X-ray machine and related equipment in the amount of $31,108.76. and there is a forfeits vote required on this item, but the item was already approved. But we are going to go to Santa Maria with Linda Greco. Linda?

Welcome, Linda.

Thank you. Hello, my name is Linda Greco, and I'm the president of the Santa Barbara County Animal Care Foundation. I'm here on behalf of the foundation, but most importantly, on behalf of the animals who cannot speak for themselves. Today, I want to share a simple message, and that is thank you, and this is what community looks like. The Santa Barbara County Animal Care Foundation was founded in 2002 with a purpose to provide a literal lifeline to the most vulnerable animals in our county shelter system. The animals who arrive injured, sick, frightened, or simply out of time. Our role is to bridge the gap between what county resources alone can provide and what those animals actually need to survive, heal, and find living homes. That work is only possible with the generosity of our community, which is why I stand before you today. That generosity allowed us to purchase a fully operational X-ray machine, along with the equipment needed to put it to work. This remarkable addition has already enhanced the level of medical care available to shelter animals throughout our county. Think about what that means to the animal that arrives after being hit by a car, a dog surrendered with an unknown injury, or a cat who is suffering with something hidden inside. An x-ray is not a luxury in those moments. It is a difference between a guess and a diagnosis, between pain that continues and pain that is treated. When a donor gives to the Santa Barbara County Animal Care Foundation, they are not simply supporting an organization. They are helping an animal that they will likely never meet. They are saying that life matters, that suffering should be prevented when possible, and that every animal deserves compassionate care. The foundation serves as a bridge that makes that connection possible. We receive the gift, direct it where it will be most needed, and then the animal receives what they do need. That chain of donor to foundation to animal is what saves lives every day in this county. This x-ray machine is one of the most powerful examples of community partnership, and we are profoundly grateful to everyone who helped make it possible. We'd also like to invite everyone to join us in June with our Pet Calendar photo contest. June and July for our Camp Hope program, which is open to children 8 to 12 years old. And then in July on the 18th, we'll have a comedy show down in Santa Barbara at Little A Winery. And you can find more information at our website at sbcanimalkiller.org. And on behalf of every animal whose life will be made better by this x-ray machine and every life the foundation will help save in the future, we thank all of you.

Thank you, Ms. Greco, and thank you for all of your time and commitment to the animals in our community. All right, that concludes our administrative agenda. Madam Clerk, this is now time where we have general public comment. Are there any members of the public that would like to speak on general public comment?

Chair Nelson and members of the board, yes, we have eight requests to speak from the public in general public comment today. We are going to begin here in Santa Barbara with Wade Cooper to be followed by Fred Razo. Wade?

Welcome, Mr. Cooper.

Thank you, Chair Nelson.

I guess we'll go ahead and close public comment at this time.

Okay. Chair Nelson, members of the board, on behalf of Supervisor Lee and American hero Landon Donovan, I would like to invite you all and the entire community to our World Cup watch parties at the library pavilion right here at 40 East Annapamoose Street. on Friday, June 12th at 6 p.m. That's USA versus Paraguay. And Thursday, June 25th at 7 p.m. That's USA versus Turkey. We encourage the community to come downtown, go to happy hour, get a drink, get something to eat, come down and cheer on the U.S. team as they seek to be the 11th nation to win the World Cup. Thank you so much.

Thank you, Mr. Cooper. And thank you, First District.

We will now go to Fred Razo to be followed by Dorian Lee Johnson. Fred?

Good morning, Supervisors, Chair, I'LL START AGAIN. GOOD MORNING, CHAIR, SUPERVISORS AND SUPERVISOR HARTMAN. MY NAME IS FRED RAZZO AND I'M A SAN DIEGO VALLEY RESIDENT, RETIRED EDUCATOR, FORMER PUBLIC SCHOOL ADMINISTRATOR AND LONGTIME SANTA BARBARA COUNTY RESIDENT. THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE AND FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK TODAY. I respectfully ask the Board to consider a review of Santa Barbara County's rural apiary regulations contained in County Code Chapter 7, Article 5. Under the current ordinance, beehives in rural areas generally must be located approximately 600 feet from neighboring dwellings and 300 feet from roads and property lines. By comparison, the City of Santa Barbara's Municipal Code Chapter 6.28 permits regulated beekeeping in far denser residential neighborhoods with setbacks measured in tens of feet rather than hundreds of feet, provided responsible stewardship standards are followed. I believe that comparison deserves thoughtful consideration. If responsible beekeeping can safely coexist in compact urban neighborhoods, it may be appropriate to explore whether rural communities with larger parcels and greater separation between homes should be afforded similar opportunities under balanced and responsible stewardship standards. This is not a request for unregulated apiaries. IT IS A REQUEST FOR CONSIDERATION OF MODERN SCIENCE-BASED POLICIES AND PROTECT NEIGHBORING PROPERTY OWNERS WHILE SUPPORTING POLLINATOR HEALTH, AGRICULTURE, BIODIVERSITY AND ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP. HEALTHY BEE COLONIES BENEFIT EVERYONE. THEY SUPPORT POLLINATION, FOOD PRODUCTION, VINEYARDS, ORCHARDS, NATIVE ECOSYSTEMS AND LONG-TERM AGRICULTURAL SUSTAINABILITY OF SANTA BARBARA COUNTY. I RESPECTFULLY LEAVE YOU WITH SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION AND RESEARCH THAT I COULD NOT FULLY ADDRESS DURING THIS BRIEF PRESENTATION. I ASK THAT THE BOARD AND STAFF REVIEW THESE MATERIALS FOR POSSIBLE FUTURE CONSIDERATION. I WOULD BE GRATEFUL FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO RETURN IN APPROXIMATELY 60 DAYS TO LEARN WHETHER THERE MAY BE A PATHWAY FORWARD AND WHETHER ADDITIONAL INFORMATION WOULD BE HELPFUL.

thank you for your time your leadership and your service for santa barbara county respectfully fred razo thank you mr razo supervisor hartman uh yes thank you and uh will you reach out to my office please absolutely thank you very much all right thank you supervisor hartman for that request yeah make sure we get your personal information madam clerk we have uh can go to the next uh public speaker

We will now go to Doran Lee Johnson to be followed by Joanna Romo. Doran?

I had to choose. Good morning, Honorable Bob Nielsen and honorable members of the Board of Supervisors. Can you hear me? Okay. My name is Doreen Lee Johnson and I serve on the Montecito Sanitary District Board of Directors as a treasurer and the district legislative representative. I'm here today to inform and invite our ratepayers and public to our MSD board meeting tomorrow, June 10th at 2 p.m. to hear the Prop 218 process and hearing. Ratepayers and the public are welcome to attend in person at 1042 Monte Crystal Lane, which is our main district office. MSD has sent mailers out regarding the rate, and the meeting will provide another clear explanation of the proposed rate adjustment, the district essential services need, and the Prop 218 protest process. The new rate will pay for the necessary improvements that address essential health and safety priorities, including aging infrastructure. our system's reliability, environmental protection. Until the close of the hearing on June 10th, ratepayers may submit a written protest in person or they may use the protest form available on our website. Our website is www.monsand.org. Our phone number is 805-969-4200. MSD has not requested a rate increase since 2019. This is seven years of no increase rates during a period of significant increased costs. The proposed rate adjustment will be effective as of July 1st, 2027. We respectfully invite our community and ratepayers to attend and participate in this important Prop 218 process to hear in more details. The three items that we will be discussing at the board level will be the rate history and proposed adjustment, why this adjustment is proposed and also the MSD commitment to all our rate payers. Thank you for your time and thank you Board of Supervisor for all your hard work throughout Santa Barbara County. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Johnson. Okay, thank you.

We will now go to Joanna Romo to be followed by Cressida Silvers. Joanna.

Thank you and good morning. Good morning, Chair Nelson and supervisors. My name is Joanna Romo and I am a resident of an unincorporated area of Santa Barbara County. I am here today because like many tenants throughout our county, I am struggling with the rising cost of housing and the constant fear of displacement. Back in January, I reached out to Supervisor Hartman to share my concerns about housing affordability and the lack of tenant protections for residents in the unincorporated areas of Santa Barbara County. I greatly appreciated her thoughtful response and her willingness to listen. It is in part because of that invitation and ongoing dialog that I am here today to speak about an issue that affects thousands of renters across Santa Barbara County. A FEW MONTHS AGO I LEARNED ABOUT THE RENT FREE PROTECTIONS CURRENTLY AVAILABLE TO TENANTS IN THE CITY OF SANTA BARBARA. I ALSO LEARNED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL IS ACTIVELY WORKING TOWARD A RENT STABILIZATION ORDINANCE. HEARING THAT WAS BOTH ENCOURAGING AND FRUSTRATING. IT WAS ENCOURAGING BECAUSE IT SHOWED THAT LOCAL GOVERNMENTS CAN TAKE MEANINGFUL ACTION TO ADDRESS HOUSING AFFORDABILITY AND PROTECT TENANTS. But it was also frustrating because renters in the unincorporated areas face many of the same housing pressures without access to those same protections. The reality is that a tenant's housing stability should not depend on which side of a city boundary they happen to live on. I KNOW THIS FIRSTHAND. I HAVE LIVED IN MY HOME FOR NINE YEARS. DURING THAT TIME, MY RENT HAS INCREASED BY APPROXIMATELY $1,000 PER MONTH. TODAY, NEARLY 45% OF MY HOUSEHOLD INCOME GOES TOWARD RENT FOR A SMALL TWO-BEDROOM HOME. WHAT MAKES THIS EVEN MORE DIFFICULT IS THAT DURING THOSE NINE YEARS, THERE HAS BEEN LITTLE TO NO MAINTENANCE OR MEANINGFUL UPKEEP OF THE PROPERTY. YET, THE RENT CONTINUES TO INCREASE YEAR AFTER YEAR. Like many tenants, I am expected to absorb rising housing costs regardless of whether my wages increase at the same rate. My experience is not unique. Renters in unincorporated areas face the same challenges as renters with city limits. Rapidly increasing rents, extremely low vacancy rates, limited housing options, and the growing risk of displacement. while the state's tenant protection act provides important baseline protections it has not prevented rents from rising dramatically over time leaving many families struggling to keep up across santa barbara county thousands of renters are considered rent burdened meaning they spend more than 30 percent of their income on housing many spend more than 50 percent Housing experts generally consider housing affordable when it costs no more than 30 percent of a household income. Yet for many working families in our county, that standard is out of reach. Housing stability should not be determined by whether someone had the opportunity to buy a home decades ago. Teachers, health care workers, service workers, nonprofit employees, students, seniors and families all deserve the ability to remain in the community they help sustain. Therefore, I respectfully ask the Board of Supervisors to place countywide rent stabilization and tenant protection measures on a future agenda. Residents of unincorporated Santa Barbara County deserve the opportunity to participate in a public discussion about reasonable limits on annual rent increases, stronger protections against displacement, and policies that promote long-term housing.

Thank you, Ms. Romo. That is your time.

Thank you for your time.

We will now go to Cressida Silvers to be followed by Mary Michael. Cressida?

Thank you. That was the first time I got to use that. Good morning, Chair and supervisors. My name is Cressida Silvers, and I live in unincorporated Santa Barbara County in Ms. Capp's district. I'm also an entomologist, so I'd just like to support the earlier comments. I thought I didn't realize that that was the case, and I think that he makes a terrific point. So my husband and I, we've been raising our family in the Santa Barbara and Goleta communities for almost 20 years. And even though we ourselves are no longer renters, our family very much feels the effects of the crushing housing situation here and the lack of renters protections countywide. Because instability for renters means instability for the entire community. We are all impacted by the constant churn of neighbors and friends and classmates and office mates, businesses and service providers being forced to relocate, taking with them the relationships and the institutional, the organizational, and the communal knowledge that help our communities thrive year to year and decade to decade. So I'm asking you to please move forward on community stabilization with agendizing a rent stabilization ordinance. Thank you.

Thank you.

We will now go to Mary Michael to be followed by Mrs. B. Mary? Mary?

Hi, good morning. My name is Mary, and I'm also here to ask you to consider establishing countywide rent stabilization and tenant protection measures. I'm a grad student at UCSB. I moved here eight years ago to get my PhD. And since then, the savings account that I carefully built from over a decade of working several jobs and living very cheaply has been reduced by more than half. And I've also had to take on two additional jobs on top of the main job that I have on campus, just to keep up with the cost of rent and the cost of living in Santa Barbara. On campus, I build a lot of trust and relationships with grad students who are also trying to live through similar difficulties. AND WE TRY TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO CREATE BETTER GRAD QUALITY OF LIFE EVEN AS THE UNIVERSITY IGNORES OUR VERY CLEAR DEMANDS FOR MORE AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND WAGES THAT ACTUALLY ALLOW US TO AFFORD THE COST OF LIVING HERE. BUT WHAT I'VE LEARNED FROM TALKING WITH THESE OTHER GRADS IS THAT I'M ACTUALLY RELATIVELY LUCKY. I'VE TALKED TO TOO MANY GRAD STUDENTS WHO ARE LIVING OUT OF THEIR CARS who are skipping meals so that they can feed their children, who are not renewing their much needed prescriptions because they need that money to support their family members. And I've also had conversations with graduate students who have given up and have decided to move over an hour away because they can't afford to live here. And that makes it even more difficult for us to build the professional and support networks that we need to thrive here. WHAT WE NEED IS WE NEED TO KEEP BUILDING ON THE MOMENTUM IN THE CITY COUNCILS THAT ARE TRYING TO CREATE RENT STABILIZATION ORDINANCE AND TENANT PROTECTION MEASURES. THIS IS ESPECIALLY IMPORTANT FOR GRADUATE STUDENTS WHO ARE LIVING IN UNINCORPORATE AREAS LIKE MYSELF, PEOPLE WHO LIVE IN ISLA VISTA AND people who are left unprotected by these measures going through city council. So I'm asking all of you to act on this urgently, to please consider making this a county-wide move for people who, like myself, who are really struggling to find a way to survive out here. Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Michael.

We will now go to Mrs. B, then we will go to Stanley, who is our final speaker on this item, on general public comment, excuse me. Mrs. B?

I'm almost 100 years old, so thank you for your grace.

Good morning, Chair and honorable board.

It's a pleasure. It's a privilege to be here and talk to you. I'm Mrs. B. I'm a resident of Goleta. I'm also a member of the National Low Income Housing Coalition. I'm a board member. And I'm also a member, a proud member of SBTU, the Goleta chapter. I want to give you some information about who I am. And Chair, I suffer with intellectual disabilities with TBI, traumatic brain injury. And so if you'd be gracious enough to give me the extended time, I'd appreciate it. Of course. Thank you, sir. I am a five-time cancer survivor, and I lost my home to medical debt prior to President Obama becoming president and ACA. So I had had to rely on resources provided by the county to live my best life. I'm here to support Joanna Romo and residents who reside in the unincorporated areas we have to be mindful that they are taxpayers and they vote and i'm asking that you amend the county's tenant protections to provide stronger protections for the residents and also There was mentioned earlier about the cuts that we're experiencing. And we need to look to the administration about these cuts, health care and housing. And it's up to us. We're a small community and we can do better when we know better, we do better. And thank you for your time. I appreciate your leadership and your hard work. And I want to say congratulations to Supervisor Capps for your hard work. and an astounding victory. We appreciate you and all that you do for all of us. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. B.

And we will now go to Stanley, who is our final speaker and general public comment. Stanley.

Thank you. Good morning, members of the Board of Supervisors, to the staff and to folks in the public here. My name is Stanley Tsenkov. I'm a co-founder and volunteer of the, tenant organizer volunteer with the Santa Barbara Tenants Union. And I just wanted to share that and echo what we just heard. Every week since 2020 when we started this organization, we've been hearing from tenants who are dealing with their own situations, their problems with the housing landscape as it is. And it's been one of my greatest honors to get to organize alongside folks like Joanna and Cressida and Mrs. B and Mary. But it's been some of the most difficult stories to hear, right, of folks who are having to pack in tighter, commute longer, move away, or make these excruciating decisions about their daily needs and what they can afford to pay. And I guess with all of the truly momentum that I see our municipalities like the city of Santa Barbara take in terms of trying to get a handle on runaway rents and bad actor landlords and property management companies. I think it's important for, you know, we oftentimes get this question of like, well, am I in Is the rent stabilization ordinance applying to me? I live right outside of the city or in Goleta. You all know this, of course, but for everybody else, the county is responsible for passing things like tenant protections or looking out for renters. in areas that are unincorporated, right? So these are areas within the county that are not within the city limits. I'm really impressed and proud of as a county what we've done to address some of the issues related to housing production. But I do really think it's long overdue that we start working on actually protecting tenants against like 8%, 9%, 10% rent increases each and every year. and truly some really bad actor sort of businesses that I think we need to rein in when it comes to discussing something as basic as our right to a safe home. I'm so sorry. I just noticed the timer wasn't going. I was like, three minutes? I'm flying through this. But thank you so much for your time and look forward to discussing this further and want to work collaboratively on it. Thanks.

Thank you, Stanley.

And that concludes general public comment for today.

All right. Moving right along, we'll go right into our departmental items. Clerk, can you read departmental item number one to the record?

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 California Municipal Finance Authority financing of tax exempt facility bonds on behalf of Santa Maria Orchard Terrace Associates LP.

Treasurer elect.

Good morning, Chair Nelson, members of the board. Thank you for that. We're here today to have a tougher hearing for the California Municipal Finance Authority and the Orchard Terrace Housing Project in Santa Maria. The Internal Revenue Code provides a process for, qualified nonprofit organizations to access the municipal market. Part of that process is for the jurisdiction in which the project is located to hold a hearing so the public can comment on the project and the tax exempt use, bond use for that project. The county has no responsibility or liability related to the bonds or the repayment of those bonds. And here today we have a couple members from the project team and the financing team who are available to answer any questions for you.

All right. Any questions from the board? Madam Clerk, are there any members of public?

Chair Nelson and members of the board, we do have one request to speak from the public on this item, and we could go to Zoom with Marnie Klein.

All right.

Marnie? I was just here as part of the financing team if anyone had any questions to answer, but I don't have any public comment.

All right. So my quick question is, Does this project need the board's approval to move forward with the financing, or is this just a hearing? What is our...

The resolution requires the board's approval, although the county has no responsibility or liability for this project, and we are basically approving the financing, but the county has no responsibility for it.

But for the project to move forward, the financing to move forward, it needs county approval. Yes. Okay.

All right.

So we see no questions from the board, no public comment. Does anybody like to make a motion on this item?

I move staff recommendation.

Second. All right. Any further discussion? I'm actually going to abstain this one. So all in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? And I will abstain. All right. Madam Clerk, can we read Department item number two in the record?

Chair Nelson and members of the board, departmental item number two is from the Public Works Department. It is a hearing to consider recommendations regarding solid waste tipping fees, maximum franchise collection rates, and new Quiama parcel fees for fiscal year 2026 through 2027. Welcome, Ms. Gonsalves-Knight.

Good morning, Chair Nelson, members of the board, Public Works, Resource Recovery and Waste Management Division is pleased to present our solid waste fees for the fiscal year 2026 to 2027. Here to present staff's recommendations are Ms. Mackenzie Forgey and Ms. Emily Lashane.

Please proceed.

Good morning, Joe Nelson and members of the board. Thank you for providing this time to review staff's recommendation for next year's fiscal year's solid waste rates. Next slide, please. The rates package we submitted for your review includes our proposed dipping fees for the facility. These fees are charged at the scale houses and at the UCSB Household Hazardous Waste Collection Center. The package also covers the Cuyama Valley parcel fees assessed on the tax roll. It also includes the maximum franchise hauler collection rates for all unincorporated zones. Additionally, the division is seeking the board's approval of a restructured maximum solid waste collection fee schedule for Isla Vista. This schedule has not been updated since 1999. Approval of the restructuring will better support recent ordinance amendments to Chapter 17 of the Santa Barbara County Code, approved on February 24, 2026, which require mandatory waste service in Isla Vista. Next slide, please. Our facility tipping fees are the rates charged to customers using the South Coast Recycling and Transfer Station, the Santa Ynez Valley Recycling and Transfer Station, the Tahigas Landfill, the Resource Center, and the Community Hazardous Waste Collection Center at UCSB. The fees cover the cost to process municipal solid waste, recyclables, organics, and hazardous waste at this facility. The facility tipping fees are evaluated annually and are increased to the extent needed to cover the cost of service and meet our debt obligations. The proposed franchise solid waste and recyclable deep fees will increase approximately 3.54% from $196.50 to $203.45 per ton at our facilities. The mechanism to set this franchise deep fees established in the material delivery agreements between the county and the participating jurisdictions. Next slide, please. The Cuyama Valley parcel fees support the new Cuyama and Ventacopa transfer stations and are included as an assessment in annual property taxes. Staff recommends no change to the current fee of $77 per single family dwelling. No change is recommended at this time. However, a fee study is being considered for the next fiscal year 27-28 to align with the current economic conditions to cover the increasing cost of providing waste services to the community. I will now turn it over to Ms. Forgey to discuss the next components of our rates package. Thank you.

Hello, Chair Nelson and members of the board. I will now cover the proposed maximum hauler collection rates for the new fiscal year. These are the rates charged to residential and commercial customers in the unincorporated areas by our franchised waste service provider, Marburg Industries. As a reminder, the collection rates proposed simply outline the maximum rates the franchise hauler can charge for trash, recycling, and organics collection service. The maximum franchise hauler collection rates are comprised of three components. The first is the collection component, which covers the cost for the hauler to pick up waste, recyclables, or organics from customers. Given the differing nature of collection routes in each of our five zones, this component is the most variable. Per our franchise agreements, this portion of the rate is subject to an annual CPI adjustment, specifically the annual average CPI increase of the previous calendar year. The annual average CPI increase for 2025 was 3.2%, so that increase was applied to this portion of the rate. The second component of the franchise collection rates is the tipping fee. After the hauler collects waste, recyclables, or organics from customers, they bring the material to a disposal or processing facility. This portion of the rate incorporates the current tipping fee costs at the relevant waste facilities utilized. In Zones 1, 2, 3, and part of Zone 4 in the San Ynez Valley, the trash tipping fee will increase by 3.54% since these areas use the Resource Center and Tahigas Landfill to process their waste. The other part of Zone 4 in the Lompoc Valley uses the City of Lompoc landfill for trash disposal, of which the trash tipping fee will increase 4.55%. This increase is part of a five-year customer rates and landfill tipping fee package passed by the Lompoc City Council in early 2023, which outlined an approximate 5% increase in tipping fees each year, of which the last planned increase remaining is slated to go into effect July 1, 2027. Lastly, Zone 5 uses the Santa Maria landfill for trash disposal, for which the trash tipping fee will increase 15% when compared to current rates. In February 2026, the Santa Maria City Council passed a higher tipping fee for unincorporated waste delivered to the city's landfill. Tipping fees set by externally operated facilities are not within the county's control, and directing Zone 5 trash to the Santa Maria landfill remains the least expensive in-county option for these customers. Tipping fees for recyclables across all zones will increase between 3.2 to 3.5%, and tipping fees for organic waste across all zones will increase between 3 to 3.5%. The third component is the solid waste program fee, which is used to support compliance with various state regulations and for supporting solid waste reduction and recycling programming in the community. Staff recommends no change to the current value of 11%. I will now focus on collection zones four and five, which includes the unincorporated Santa Ynez Valley, Lompoc Valley, and Santa Maria Valley. Waste services in this region will continue to be provided by Marburg Industries for the zones four and five franchise agreement approved by our board in July 2023. When the collection fees, tipping fees, and program fees are combined for these zones, the overall residential and commercial rates will increase by an average of 3.91%. Cost increases for individual customers will depend on their specific service levels and region. This table shows the current cost versus the proposed new rates for three common service levels, 96-gallon residential bundled cart services, a two-yard commercial trash bin, and a two-yard commercial recycling bin. I will now focus on collection zones one through three, which encompasses the unincorporated South Coast and the Cuyama Valley. Waste services in these areas will continue to be provided by Marburg Industries per the zones one through three franchise agreement approved by your board in May, 2022. When the collection fees, tipping fees, and program fees are combined for these zones, the overall residential and commercial rates will increase by an average of 3.38%. Again, specific increases for individual customers will depend on their specific service level and region. This table shows the current costs versus the proposed new rates for the same three common service levels. I will now focus on the Isla Vista service area of Zone 3. On June 3, 2025, the Board directed staff to pursue restructuring of the fee schedule for maximum solid waste collection rates within the Isla Vista service area of Zone 3 in order to provide additional services and clarify existing services for customers in that region. Existing single-family costs are based on an outdated and complicated structure taking into account the overall volume of trash and yard waste subscribed to. Existing multifamily rates only outline 32-gallon trash can costs, so these customers aren't able to sign up for trash cart service of varying sizes. The new requirements of the Isla Vista Mandatory Service Ordinance Amendments passed by the Board on February 24, 2026, are not supported by the current residential customer rate structure, which in many cases only offers these 32-gallon cans for subscription. Staff negotiated restructured maximum rates with Marburg for Isla Vista customers, which offer more service flexibility, better support the recent ordinance amendments, and come with additional customer benefits. Because the Isla Vista fee schedule is proposed to change in the middle of the franchise term, this departmental presentation is also serving as a protest hearing for the restructured Isla Vista maximum customer rates. I will now go into the cost comparisons of the proposed restructured rates for Isla Vista. While proposed small single unit residential bundled rates would increase between 8 and 20%, which depends on if the customer currently subscribes to yard waste or not, this comes with added benefits. Specifically, this includes weekly instead of biweekly recycling service, which would make this the only bundled residential rate in the unincorporated area that provides weekly recycling. This also includes insured access to Isla Vista special services, such as weekly bulky item pickups and daily pickups during the IV move-out period, which it was discovered during this effort were services these accounts were receiving but not paying into. Lastly, it achieves the goal of phasing out 32-gallon cans which lack attached wheels or lids. It was negotiated that small, single-unit residential customers would be auto-enrolled in backyard service for all containers at a fee of $45.05 per month to capture rentals in this customer category where tenants will not properly roll out their containers to the curb for service. Should these restructured maximum rates be passed today, a letter will go out to all these customers, alerting them to this fact, in addition to explaining the rate adjustment and any necessary container swaps, and informing customers if they do not want backyard service and the associated $45 fee, all they have to do is call Marburg before July 1st and it will be removed from their account. Additionally, there are 66 residential customers identified just outside the boundary of Isla Vista per limits defined in the recent ordinance amendments that were previously charged Isla Vista customer rates. These customers are those located in west campus faculty housing just west of Camino Mayorca but are functionally and now technically separate from the rest of Isla Vista. As a result, these 66 customers don't fall under the newly restructured Isla Vista residential rates and don't benefit from special IV services. Therefore, it was determined these customers should be charged the Zone 3 unincorporated Goleta rates to match other nearby customers. This will result in a cost decrease for 27 of these customers, a cost increase of $4.17 per month for 39 of these customers, and a cost increase of $10.93 per month for one of these customers. While proposed multiple-unit or large single-unit residential rates would increase as shown here, these costs also come with added benefits. For these restructured rates, in-place or backyard service is built into the rate, and as a result, these customers will not have to roll their carts to the curb for service, something typically expected of residential cart customers. Due to the lack of parking or open curb space in the multifamily areas of Isla Vista, it was determined that standard curbside service was unrealistic and this additional service needed to be built into these rates. Additionally, these costs also achieved the goal of phasing out 32 gallon cans and have ensured access to Isla Vista special services such as weekly free bulky item pickups and daily pickups during the IV move out period. Should these restructured maximum rates be passed today, a letter will go out to all of these customers explaining the rate adjustment, how and when carts will be swapped, and how and when cans will be swapped with carts. Per the recent ordinance amendments passed in February, Isla Vista waste service must be consolidated and recycling is now mandated as part of the minimum service requirements for these customers. As such, these customers will be informed that their existing trash cans will be swapped with the consolidated equivalent volume of trash carts, and if found to be lacking the required recycling volume, may be subscribed to additional recycling services to ensure compliance with the ordinance amendments. Isla Vista commercial customer costs are proposed to increase around 3.4%, which is in line with increases across Zones 1 through 3, with the exception of recycling cart costs, which will increase by slightly more. This is because existing costs only offered 95-gallon recycling carts for subscription, while restructured costs for the upcoming fiscal year will now offer flexibility in the form of 35, 65, and 95 recycling cart sizes. In summary, staff recommends that your board adopt the resolution and fee schedule for county solid waste facilities, approve the adjusted per ton processing rate at the Resource Center MRF, adopt the resolution and parcel fee schedule for the Cuyama Valley, adopt the resolution and fee schedule for maximum franchised solid waste collection services, including holding a protest hearing for the restructured Isla Vista rates presented before you today, and determine that the proposed actions are exempt from CEQA. That concludes our presentation. We're happy to answer any questions you may have.

All right. Questions from the board? I just have a quick question on D5, sorry, Zone 5, not D5, rates. They're going up the most countywide, and I just make sure I heard correctly. That's driven predominantly by the 15% increase by the City of Santa Maria. Is that correct?

Chair Nelson, that is correct.

All right, so that's outside the control of your department. It's just a cost that's being passed on from the Santa Maria City Council to eventually to the residents in the Santa Maria Valley.

Chair Nelson, that is correct. We did look at other in-county disposal options for those customers, and it was determined that staying with Santa Maria Landfill for disposal of those Zone 5 customers was the cheapest in-county option for them.

All right. Thank you for your diligence on that. Any other questions?

NO, JUST A COMMENT. I JUST THINK YOU DID A GOOD JOB OF DESCRIBING THE INCREASE OF SERVICES PREVIOUSLY AS SEVERAL WEEKS AGO, AND NOW THESE RATES CORRELATE. SO THANK YOU.

ALL RIGHT. MADAM CLERK, ARE THERE ANY PUBLIC COMMENTS ON THIS ITEM?

CHAIR NELSON AND MEMBERS OF THE BOARD, WE HAVE NO REQUEST TO SPEAK FROM THE PUBLIC ON DEPARTMENTAL ITEM NUMBER TWO.

I'LL GO AHEAD AND CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS ITEM. I UNDERSTAND THAT WE MAY HAVE

least a protest vote is that correct can you please count up the protest votes on this yes chair nelson and members of the board the clerk of the board received one protest uh in relation to departmental item number two all right and that protest is now on the record that is correct this uh protest is now uh made a part of the record as well all right for

A county as large as ours to have a single protest countywide is fairly remarkable. So we've now closed the hearing. We've reported out on our protests. So we now have the information necessary to go ahead and move forward with this item if the board so chooses. Is that correct? We don't need to trail this. All right, staff, do you guys have any additional comments or you guys are all good? All right, so make sure we do the right motion here if we wanna move forward with staff recommendation, recognizing the single protest. We'll be adopting resolution. Let's see if I can get the A through E.

Chair Nielsen and members of the board, I might be able to help a little bit here. Yeah, please. So if the board wants to proceed with approving this item today, you will want to take a motion to approve staff recommendations A through C and D1. D1. So no action will be taken on D2.

Okay. The motion I'm looking for is approval of A through C, D one, and then E, which is I believe our CEQA determination.

MEMBERS. MY APOLOGIES, I WAS LOOKING MY APOLOGIES, I WAS LOOKING AHEAD AT THREE. AHEAD AT THREE. THAT IS CORRECT. THAT IS CORRECT. WE WANT TO APPROVE A THROUGH C WE WANT TO APPROVE A THROUGH C AND D, ONE THROUGH TWO. AND D, ONE THROUGH TWO. AND THAT IS GOING TO BE, EXCUSE THAT IS GOING TO BE, EXCUSE ME, ONE THROUGH THREE, ONE, AND ME, ONE THROUGH THREE, ONE, AND NOT TWO. NOT TWO. THIS ONE IS A LITTLE TRICKY. THIS ONE IS A LITTLE TRICKY. APOLOGIES. APOLOGIES. AND THEN E. AND THEN E. OKAY.

OKAY. SO I'M JUST GOING TO CLARIFY. SO I'M JUST GOING TO CLARIFY. UNDER D, I It's this little low case I, and so the double I and the triple I and the triple I-1, but not triple I-2.

That is correct.

Is that clear?

That is clear.

Okay, everybody's clear with, I'll go ahead and make that motion so that it's in the record that I've made that motion. Can I get a second on that? Second. Second by Supervisor Hartman. Any further discussion on the board? All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion passes unanimously. All right, thank you all. And continuing on with Public Works Day. Madam Clerk, will you please read item number three into the record?

Chair Nelson and members of the board, departmental item number three is from the Public Works Department. It is a hearing to consider recommendations regarding accounting service area 12, Mission Canyon Sewer District, resolution relative to collection of sewer service charges and sewer connection charges on the tax roll, and this is in the first district.

Thank you, Board of Supervisors, to the chair. We're here today to talk about Mission Canyon Sewer District. It provides an essential service for residents in the Mission Canyon area. It was in 1983 there was an order from the Regional Water Quality Board to require that mainly residents in the southern area, as shown on this map, were to be converted to public sewer instead of septic, mainly due to reasons to public health. The northern area remains on septic, at least for now. We serve 886.1 residential unit equivalents, which is equivalent of 808 parcels. and wastewater travels through our pipes to the city of Santa Barbara for further collection and treatment and disposal. Sewer service rates are proposed to increase. We did send out public noticing as required by Proposition 218, and this is based on a cost of service. The rate is proposed to increase by $20.62. And the City of Santa Barbara bills for, as I mentioned previously, for city sewer services on the city water bill, the reserve balance is approximately 1.95 million. And the target is 2.7 million, which is comprised of three categories, emergency reserve, operating reserve, and replacement reserve. And so we're targeted to reach that in about 10 years. The recommended actions are shown here. I won't go through them individually. They're also shown in your packets, but we're happy to take questions.

All right, questions from the board? All right, is there any public comment on this item?

Chair Nelson and members of the board, we have no requests to speak from the public on departmental item number three.

are there any protests on this item joe nelson and members of the board uh yes the clerk of the board did receive four protests in uh relation to departmental item number three am i understanding four protests is not a majority that's correct okay so what's the what's what is the total number just for the record 808. okay so they fell short by about 400. All right. With that, any further discussion? OK, I'm going to close the public hearing, the protest hearing. And no additional comments from staff? Seeing none, I'm going to go ahead and just move this along by making the motion. It's going to be item A, B, C, D, 1 through 3. So it's D, 1 through 3.

did i get that right this time and was there a secret determination on this one yes chair nelson members of the board it's d little i one two and three that the board will be approving and no action will be taken on d okay i i two

and that this is not a project on the CEQA as part of my motion. Okay, gotcha, thank you. So that's my motion. Second. Thank you, Supervisor Hartman. Any further comment? All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion passes unanimously. All right, continuing on to item D4. Madam Clerk, will you please read that item into the record?

Chair Nelson and members of the Board, Departmental Item Number 4 is also from the Public Works Department. It is a hearing to consider recommendations regarding establishing benefit assessments for County Service Areas 3, 31, and the Santa Barbara North County Lighting District.

Thank you, Board of Supervisors to the Chair. I'd like to introduce you to Aaron Maker, Project Clean Water Manager.

Good morning, Chair Nelson, members of the board. So I'll be presenting on community service areas 331 and the North County Lighting District. I may refer to community service areas as CSA3s throughout the course of the presentation. The Community Service Area 3 covers the Goleta Valley. It was created in 1963. It provides services for street lighting in the unincorporated areas of Goleta and Santa Barbara within its boundary, open space and park maintenance and improvements, and median entry trimming. Funding for the CSA for street lighting comes from the benefit assessment. Street lights are owned by Southern California Edison, but the county pays for the lighting. There's also property tax revenue that funds the street lighting, any supplemental that would be needed in that area, median and open space maintenance and improvements, any additional street tree trimming services, and park-related equipment purchases. The proposed benefit assessment is unchanged for this coming fiscal year for the amount of $24 per year and the fund balance has been deemed accessible to cover the services within that CSA. The next one is Community Service Area 31, which covers the community of Isla Vista. Again, that one was created in 1963. It provides street lighting, again, operated by Southern California Edison, streetscape and landscape installation and maintenance. That includes hardscape and parks. The street lighting benefit assessment and property taxes fund the street lighting operation and maintenance, and then property tax funds the hardscape and landscape improvements within that CSA. The proposed benefit for CSA 31 is $12.93. Again, this remains unchanged from last year, and the fund balance is, again, deemed acceptable for those services provided within that CSA. The last one is the North County Lighting District. This one was created in 1994. It provides street lighting for Orcutt, Cosmelia, Los Alamos, and the unincorporated areas of Lompoc and Santa Maria. This particular one only funds street lighting. There is a community service area five in the unincorporated Santa Maria zone that has a benefit assessment rate of up to $14.73 that can be considered. This has not been considered, so I just want to clarify that we're not moving forward with this at this time. And that's for certain tracks in Santa Maria and Lompoc that can also implement track-specific benefit assessments. So those can be for streetscape improvements, stuff like that. The proposed benefit assessments are to remain at zero, and the fund balance, again, covers this cost of street lighting. This concludes that presentation. Above are the recommended actions. Please let us know if you have any questions.

All right, thank you. Any questions from the board? Seeing none, are there any public comment?

Chair Nelson and members of the board, we have no request to speak from the public on departmental item number four.

Are there any protests? Okay, it's not eligible for protests and no protests there. Okay, great. So I'll go ahead and close the hearing on this benefit assessment.

and seeing no questions any additional comments from staff okay seeing none i'll go ahead and make the motion of uh i believe it's a and b char nelson and members of the board uh we acting as the governing authority of the county service area three county service area 31 and the santa barbara north county lighting district uh the board would be approving at recommendations a through e okay apologize yes i'll make a motion to adopt a3

Second.

Second by Hartman. Any further discussion?

No.

Seeing none, all in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion passes unanimously. All right, moving right along. Now back on schedule, Mr. Henson. Could you please read item number five into the record?

Chair Nelson and members of the board, departmental item number five is from the Public Works Department, Board of Directors, and Laguna County Sanitation District. It is a hearing to consider recommendations regarding Laguna County Sanitation District ordinance relative to service charges, connection charges, and trunk sewer fees, and resolution relative to collection of service charges on the tax roll. This is in the fourth and fifth districts.

All right. Back to staff. Mr. Thompson.

Thank you. Board of Directors, through the chair, Today, we're also here to talk about Laguna County Sanitation District, which provides an essential service for wastewater collection, treatment, and disposal for the unincorporated area, mainly Orchid customers. Laguna County Sanitation District is a dependent special district Created in 1958, mainly as a result of development that was desired in ORCID. Provides wastewater services to that area. It's also regulated by a plethora of permits from regulatory agencies, and it provides water reuse as the most economic means for disposal. Also, we do employ solar at our plant to reduce energy costs. We have planned facility improvements in the future to improve efficiency and continue to comply with regulatory requirements. Public noticing was mailed out to all of our customers. We did receive 13 written protests, and the hearing date was published to Pursuant to the Government Code in Centenary Times. The sewer service charge, we'll talk about the sewer service charge and then also about our connection fee. First, our sewer service charge, it pays for the annual operation maintenance and replacement, and also builds up our reserves as required. It's collected on the tax roll. And we're proposing a 3% overall revenue adjustment proposed for this next fiscal year, which is per our rate study that's attached to this packet. It's important to note that we did put a lot of thought into this. We started off with a slightly higher revenue adjustment proposed, but we're able to reduce it from about 4% to the current proposed at 3% overall by strategically looking at capital improvement projects mainly. And for reference, the consumer price index, which is a common marker for inflation, was at 3.2% for last year. The residential unit equivalent for, and we'll use single-family dwellings for this comparison, is being increased. It's about 2.4%. from last year, $27.98. And just to put it into a monthly equivalent, it's $2.33 per month increase equivalent. We bill, per industry standard, a flat rate to residential customers, and the multifamily resident rate, which is an equivalent of an apartment or one studio, like a condo, that is proposed to be increased at $1.89, again, 2.4%. Schools is based on... per capita per year, and that's proposed to be at $64.64, and commercial is based on flow and loading. We do a comparison countywide as a pulse check. We treat to tertiary standards. It's mainly based on our discharge method. We're required to treat to tertiary standards, and we are slightly higher than the overall average but we are seeing that other agencies are increasing. You can see on the right there are percent increases to, that are being proposed by other agencies. We also do a total water cost comparison. This is because water rates pay for recycling in Santa Barbara and Goleta. Also Santa Maria was able to achieve salt reduction by the purchase of state water, which was to comply with the groundwater basin for Santa Maria and also Guadalupe was able to as well. And based on that, with our costs and the water purveyor in the Orchid area as being Golden State Water, we are lower than average as shown. So now we'll move on to talk about our developer charges and fees. This is paid forward by development for equity buy-in for our capacity build-out at our plant. Connection charges fund the treatment and discharge improvements. We also have trunk line fees, which fund collection system improvements that were previously installed. These developer charges and fees are connection fees. They were also studied in the packet that is included with this board item. And that study recommends that we continue with our Adjusting per the CCI at 2.8%. Our trunk line fees, the Dutard trunk line fee, which serves this particular area, adjusts by the CCI. And the Bradley, which serves another area, trunk line fee, adjusts by the prime rate per agreement. The recommended actions are shown here. Won't go through all of them. They're included in the board item. packet, but we were happy to take questions.

All right, thank you. I have a quick question. I was trying to reconcile. It's a 2.4% increase, but it's a 3% overall. Can you help me? I don't... Help me with the math.

Yes, so we, the sewer service charges for commercial, we take charges from commercial customers, also for residential and from school. School's based on cap and account, and commercial's based on flow and loading. And so from last, based on water usage, we did take in a little bit more than usual from commercial customers and also based on capital accounts from school. And because of that, we were able to get a little bit lower on residential.

All right. Thank you, Mr. Thompson. I know you'd work with our office on the initial rates when we looked at it coming across at four percent. I hear from quite a few of my constituents because this is a large number on their annual tax bill that is often hits them pretty hard every year. So I hear from many of them and I'm always looking at this really tightly. And so I know, thank you, I wanna ask or I wanna do, Thank you publicly for working with our office to try to bring those rates down by strategically moving some of these investments around. So the impact on my residents, I know it might be small, but going from 4% down to 2.4% for many of my constituents who are on fixed incomes that have difficulty making ends meet. I think we're keeping it below CPI is uh important if we can potentially do that many in the orchid area received large increases about you know 10 years ago and i think some of them are still feeling that pain of the i think we about doubled the sewer rate over that period of time and so um again it's an ongoing cost because we need to make sure that those toilets flush and that we have a state-of-the-art facility for the future but it's definitely always a tough PILL TO SWALLOW AND EVERYBODY KNOWS I'M NO FAN OF ANY TAXES OR FEES BUT THIS ONE IS A NECESSARY ONE SO UM AGAIN THANK YOU FOR YOUR WORK HERE MADAM ARE THERE ANY PUBLIC COMMENTERS ON THIS ITEM CHAIR NELSON AND MEMBERS OF THE BOARD WE DO HAVE ONE REQUEST TO SPEAK FROM THE PUBLIC ON DEPARTMENTAL ITEM NUMBER FIVE AND WE ARE GOING TO SANTA MARIA WITH DONNA POLLING DONNA WELCOME MS. POLLING

And thank you very much for letting me speak and thank you for your hard work representing us fixed income seniors. I am a retired educator. I live alone in a mobile home park in downtown Orkut. I went to my neighbors when I got this notice regarding the increase and I talked to them and none of them understood what this notice was saying. I had to explain to them what sanitation fees were as opposed to garbage trash fees. This is a complicated issue. The $2 increase seems minor, but as we heard today, we are all having increases everywhere. We are being squeezed. We're being nickeled and dimed. Those of us on fixed incomes, we just can't make it. I'm asking that rather than an increase in these fees, we look at a reduction in fees for seniors on fixed incomes. I gave you an example of an application for low income reduction of sewer fees from a town where I moved from four years ago, Bisbee, Arizona, that has the exact same type of sanitation system, the wastewater treatment plant. They got a federal grant for low-income, fixed-income people to reduce their SOAR bills up to 50% if they qualified. I'm encouraging you all to look at that application and to direct your staff to look into these federal grants or a federal grant that would allow us to also qualify for reduced rates rather than increased rates. We just can't make it. I save my bath water and flush my toilet with my bath water. My water bill is less than two dollars a month because I don't waste, I conserve everything. Many of us on fixed incomes are living this way because we can't afford basic things like gasoline and food. So I am hoping that you will seriously consider taking a no position on this item today and to look into the application for discounting our SOAR rates. Thank you very much. I appreciate the time.

Thank you, Ms. Pauline.

And that concludes public comment on departmental item number five.

All right. Thank you, Madam Clerk. And again, thank you, Ms. Poling, for your public comment. So that concludes public comment on this item. So I will close the public hearing on this. And would you report out on how many protests, again, there was? I think staff had said that, but for the record.

Chair Nelson and members of the board, we received 13 protests related to departmental item number five.

Okay. And again, that's not a majority. I believe it's over 13,000 connections. So... not sufficient to delay the protest hearing. So with that, again, I want to thank Ms. Poling for her comments. I am comfortable with moving forward. staff in our office did a lot of hard work to keep these numbers down this year the best we could to honor what many of my constituents are struggling with. But I will double up and commit to working with staff over the next year to seek out any potential grants that they might be eligible for our low income and our seniors in my community. So I will commit to doing that. and report back on that next year, hopefully reporting that we've received one of those grants. But for this year, I think we need to move forward and make the ongoing investments that are necessary for the management of this unit. So I'll go ahead and make the motion. I believe it's, get that here, A through C. All right, D1.

Chair Nelson and members of the board, that is correct. A, B, C, D, little i, one, two, and three. And no action on D, little i, little i.

Okay. That's my motion. I'll second. Second by Supervisor Hartman. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion passes unanimously. All right, okay, we're gonna go ahead and take a five minute break and we'll return with departmental item number six. All right, welcome back to the June 9th, 2026 meeting of the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors. We've completed our first five items. We actually have five more, and we are actually going to attempt to get all five of these done before we recess for closed session today. So for those of you who are watching on TV, we're going to try to get that done before we recess for closed session. So hang with us, please. Madam Clerk, will you please read departmental item number six into the record?

Chair Nelson and members of the board, departmental item number six is from the Public Works Department. It is a hearing to consider recommendations regarding an ordinance amending the Public Works Department subdivision map and document review fee schedule, surveyor division.

Ms. Fletcher.

Good morning, Chair Nelson and members of the board. I'm Heather Fletcher, the Chief Financial and Administrative Officer for the Public Works Department. Here with me today is Alex Yevromovich, the county surveyor. Today I'll give you a brief update on the surveyor division's fee ordinance and the recommended actions before you. The two proposed changes for the ordinance are one, increasing existing fees by the consumer price index, and two, extending the record of survey subsidy pilot program for one year to allow time to complete a comprehensive fee study. The study will evaluate all surveyor fees to assess options for full cost recovery. The pilot program currently provides a general fund subsidy for record of survey filings in unincorporated areas. The annual subsidy is estimated at $25,000. The program benefits both the public and county by encouraging survey filings, which helps maintain accurate land records and reduces future costs. This slide shows analysis of the Record to Survey pilot program. Over the years, there's been an increase in the quality of submittals and efficiencies gained in the survey or review process. In the initial year of implementation, review costs decreased but have remained level in the subsequent years. The number of project submittals as well as the ratio between incorporated and unincorporated projects have both remained relatively level. This fiscal year in November, the surveyor implemented the Accela program, and this will allow for better capture, better data capture to review fees. Because of this, we plan to do an overall fee analysis in the upcoming year and return to your board with our new analysis and proposals. So here are the recommended actions for today and for June 23rd. And today is to approve the first reading of this ordinance, read the title and waive the full reading of the ordinance and continue the hearing to the June 23rd administrative agenda. And thank you and let us know if you have questions.

Thank you, Ms. Fletcher for your brevity here. Questions from the board? Are there any public comments?

Chair Nelson and members of the board, we have no request to speak from the public on departmental item number six.

Okay, can I get a motion on staff recommendation?

I'll move A through C and staff in the board letter today.

Second. All right, any further comment on the motion? Seeing none, all in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Opposed? Motion passes unanimously, thank you. All right, brings us to departmental item number seven. Madam clerk, can you please read departmental item number seven into the record?

Chair Nelson and members of the board, departmental item number seven is from the community services department. It is a hearing to consider recommendations regarding the housing and community development annual action plan and funding recommendations.

Director Armas. Thank you, Chair Nelson, members of the board. Just wanted to make sure our presentation was ready for your consideration. This morning, we are bringing forward the annual action plan, which provides for recommendations that total $3.7 million in funding allocations, relying on federal, state, and local funding, including approximately a million dollars in general fund to meet a variety of community needs in our county.

let me introduce joe desvanec our assistant director who then will introduce the balance of the staff participating this morning good morning chair nelson members of the board i am joe desvanec assistant director for the housing and community development division which is in our community services department as director armis noted with me today are lucille boss the housing programs manager in hcd and james francis our housing programs senior specialist who put a tremendous amount of work into what you will see here today First, we will describe the purpose and background of the community services department's five-year consolidated plan and our annual action plan. Next, we provide a brief overview of the goals and priorities as determined last year during our five-year plan development process that guides each annual action plan for this year and the next three years. And finally, we arrive at the funding recommendations for this year's annual action plan, which again is year two of our five-year consolidated plan. These funding recommendations are for this year's allocation and previous years unspent funds of community development block grant or CDBG funds and home investment partnerships or simply home funds, both of which are funding sources provided by the federal government. We also discussed funding recommendations for the permanent local housing allocation, or PLHA funds, which are provided to us by the state, and then the human services funds, which are general fund dollars provided by your board to support the community in a variety of ways. It is important to note that staff does not make these recommendations in a vacuum or even, in fact, make them at all. Rather staff organizes and leads multiple commissions, committees and consortiums consisting of regionally aligned community members appointed by your board with the expertise and passion to provide your board a balanced set of recommendations. I now turn it over to Lucille Boss to begin discussing the background of our processes and then move to the heart of the matter, which are funding recommendations for your board's consideration here.

Thank you, Joe. The consolidated planning process is required by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development every five years, as Joe just noted. It serves as the framework for a community-wide dialogue to identify housing and community development priorities and focus funding from the HUD block grant programs, including Community Development Block Grant, or CDBG, and Home Investment Partnerships, or HOME. The consolidated plan is designed to help jurisdictions assess their affordable housing and community development needs and make data-driven, locally informed decisions. The action plan before you today represents the county's formal annual grant application to HUD for home and CDBG funding and reflects funding to local organizations. In addition to federal funding sources, today we'll also recommend funding from state and local sources that align with the goals and priorities set forth in the consolidated plan and the annual action plan. The consolidated planning process generated seven high-priority needs to be addressed over a five-year period. Each goal is tied to specific outcome indicators, which allow the county to track progress, assess performance, and evaluate the impact of HUD-funded activities. The agenda packet attachments include detailed goals, priority needs, and expected five-year outcomes. And a summary is presented here on the slide. UNDER THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING GOAL, IT NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED OR TO INCREASE, PRESERVE, INCREASE AND PRESERVE THE SUPPLY OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND ENSURE EQUAL ACCESS TO HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES. UNDER THE HOMELESS SERVICES GOAL TO PREVENT AND REDUCE HOMELESSNESS. under public services also referred to as human services to enhance those public or human services for low to moderate income residents another under public facilities and infrastructure improvements address material barriers to accessibility to those public facilities and improve public facilities and infrastructure in general The priorities, goals, and objectives that were detailed in the needs analysis informed a notice of funding opportunity or NOFO that was released in early 2026. After an internal review of funding requests, applications were reviewed and considered by the Capital Loan Committee and the Permanent Local Housing Allocation Consortium. Their funding recommendations are before you today. If actions are approved as recommended, staff will submit required documents to HUD and will return to the board with subrecipient agreements later in June. I'll turn now to James Francis for a review of the funding recommendations.

Thank you, Lucille. Today, you are asked to consider recommendations for four funding sources. The Federal Community Development Block Grant or CDBG program supports community development activities to build stronger and more resilient communities. Activities may address needs such as infrastructure, community centers, housing rehabilitation, and public services. The Federal Home Investment Partnerships or HOME program provides funding to create affordable housing for low income households. California's permanent local housing allocation or PLHA program provides funding to local governments in California for housing related projects and programs that assist in addressing the unmet housing needs of their local communities. And the county's human services commission recommends funding from the county's general fund, which addresses various community needs. CDBG funding recommendations were made by the county's human services commission and capital loan committee. The Human Services Commission recommended five public services programs for a two-year funding period beginning in 2025. Four of these contracts will be renewed at the departmental level as authorized last year. Due to the fifth contract being shifted to a different funding source, staff has recommended a new award for the balance of available CDBG public services funding. The Capital Loan Committee recommended three capital projects and one capital program for funding. CDBG funding recommendations are outlined on this slide and additional detail is provided in your agenda packet. The 2026 notice of funding opportunity did not include home funding, which will instead be made available in the upcoming 2027 notice of funding opportunity. However, home funds were reserved by the cities of Lompoc and Santa Maria for ongoing tenant based rental assistance or TBRA programs. And three existing funding reservations were recommended for extension. Additional detail is provided in your agenda packet. The county's current year PLHA allocation has not yet been announced by the state. Therefore the notice of funding opportunity included only unallocated prior year funds. The PLHA consortium recommended three projects and programs for funding, as well as extending one existing funding recommendation or reservation, excuse me. These recommendations are outlined on this slide and additional detail is provided in your agenda packet. And finally, in 2025, the Human Services Commission recommended 19 programs to receive general fund awards for a period of two years. These agreements are renewed at the departmental level, conditional on satisfactory performance. A 20th program, which is recommended for a change in funding sources noted on a previous slide, requires board approval. Due to the number of contracts, HSE funding awards are presented across two slides. And this slide shows the remaining human services contracts. Additional detail is provided in your agenda packet. And I'll turn back over to Joe to conclude.

So Chair Nelson, members of the board, I present to you staff's recommended actions for today's item. Receive and file this report. Consider public comments received during the public comment period. Approve our CDBG and home investment partnership funding awards. Adopt a resolution authorizing submittal of the action plan. authorizing the County Executive Officer or designee to execute all certification standard forms and other related documents required for the acceptance and administration of CDBG and home funds, receive and approve recommendations for PLHA funding and Human Services Commission funding, and determine that the above recommended actions are not a project that is subject to CEQA.

Then in closing, Chair Nelson, we also want to just bring a bit of larger context for us as we move forward. The Legislative Program Committee meeting on Monday had a report from our lobbyists who unfortunately had some news not the most promising for the near term. He reported that the committee that is currently considering the HUD appropriation has decided to reduce the home investment partnership program by 750 million and simply to continue a recommendation of $500 million, which obviously represents a significant reduction. Also, there are cuts being considered in our other federal grant sources. So we need to be very mindful of that. Mr. Gilchrist also noted that the administration is considering some additional changes to the continuum of care program, which would be contrary to many of the policies that this board has adopted. We will be providing him with some information that will help him advocate the county's position on our behalf. So while we have some good news in terms of the organizations that we can recommend for funding for the forthcoming year, just want to put on everybody's radar that there are some dark clouds ahead. Thank you. We're available for questions.

All right. Thank you, Mr. Armis. Questions from the board? All right. Supervisor Capps?

Yeah, you anticipated my question. Thank you for addressing the dark clouds. I guess just, you know, whenever I see these reports that I know are required annually, I appreciate that a lot of work goes into it, but was there any sort of surprises as you do them? I know you're required to do them, and they've probably become sort of routine for you, but any surprises, any wins, any lessons learned that you can share?

Let me invite Ms. Boss, who has the most direct experience with many of the recipients.

Sure, thank you. Supervisor Capps for the chair. I think a couple of pleasant surprises have been partnerships between agencies and jurisdictions, specifically around home repair programs and capital improvements to existing housing developments that might need windows or roofing replaced. So we've seen, again, partnerships and matching funds and matching efforts from agencies CITIES, BUT ALSO AGENCIES WORKING TOGETHER SO THAT THEY'RE NOT DUPLICATING EFFORTS. FOR EXAMPLE, ONE AGENCY MIGHT BE PROVIDING MORE ACCESSIBILITY HOME REPAIR IMPROVEMENTS AND ANOTHER IS DOING THE FULL ROOF REPAIR, BUT THEY'RE COORDINATING TOGETHER TO MAKE SURE THAT THE NEEDS ARE MET. SO I THINK THAT'S SOMETHING THAT HAS BEEN A PLEASANT SURPRISE THAT WE'VE SEEN AS A TREND OVER THE PAST COUPLE OF YEARS. AND I'LL INVITE MR. FRANCIS IF HE'S OBSERVED ANY OTHER.

THANK YOU. I WOULD SIMPLY OBSERVE THAT THE PARTNERSHIP WITH THE CITIES HAS BEEN A that has been a focus to a greater degree this year than it has been in the past. And that we greatly appreciate the city's contribution to these projects. Noting, for example, the St. Vincent's Family Strengthening Program roofing project, the city is contributing to the cost of replacing two out of four roofs. The county would be contributing to the cost of replacing the other two. And the city will be conducting the environmental review of that project, which takes that off of our hands, which we greatly appreciate as well. So again, we very much appreciate the city's involvement.

that's great to hear thanks for those examples that helps me understand appreciate it thank you supervisor caps i actually have a question around that so partnership with the cities is good i know we've done some stuff up in santa maria with the partnerships of the cities but when i look at the especially the cdbg funds i understand these are generated by population right that's how they're um and we get ours based on our unincorporated number right that these are that's how this revenue is generated is that correct

chair nelson that is correct and in order to match the funds the the agency or the applicant is required to demonstrate how it will benefit residents of the unincorporated county so i'll invite mr francis to explain that in more detail

Thank you. Yes, for each project that is located within one of the incorporated cities that's not a member of the CDBG urban county, meaning cities excluding Buellton, Carpentry, or Solvang, which are member cities, then the city in which the project is located is expected to contribute to the project. and the project is required to demonstrate a benefit to unincorporated residents. For example, for the Communifies Feslu Child Care Center project, they will be doing targeted outreach to residents of the unincorporated county residing in the cities of Orkut, or in the communities of Orkut and Guadalupe, and they are actually working to have unincorporated residents as a selection criterion for for participants in that program, meaning that they will, if that is approved by the Programs Board, they will guarantee that a certain percentage of their participants will be residents of the unincorporated county, thus serving that CDBG benefit. For the other two housing projects located in the city of Santa Barbara, the St. Vincent's Family Strengthening Program and the Turner Foundation Apartments, In the case of the family strengthening program, that program targets residents of the unincorporated county as part of their overall program. They estimated in their application that about half of residents or half of program participants originate from the city of Santa Barbara, about 30% from the unincorporated county and about 30% from outside of the county. FOR THE TURNER FOUNDATION, WHILE WE DON'T HAVE SPECIFIC NUMBERS IN THAT CASE, THEY DO SERVE THE BROADER SANTA BARBARA HOUSING MARKET, WHICH IS NOT RESTRICTED TO CITY BOUNDARIES, AND THEY DO HAVE A NUMBER OF RESIDENTS WHO RECEIVE HOUSING VOUCHERS FROM THE COUNTY HOUSING AUTHORITY, MEANING THAT THEY ARE FUNDED AND ORIGINATE FROM THE UNINCORPORATED COUNTY.

HOUSING AUTHORITY COVERS MORE THAN JUST THE UNINCORPORATED AREA, RIGHT? correct okay um so those projects are the cities also contributing their cdbg funds to those three projects as well correct uh the cities are contributing either cdbg funds or other equivalent funds okay do we see in the cities um putting their cdbg funds into under corporate areas do we have any examples of that i don't believe so no

CHAIR ELLISON, FOR CAPITAL PROJECTS, WE HAVE NOT SEEN CDBG FUNDS USED IN THE UNINCORPORATED AREA, BUT THEY'RE SERVING PEOPLE WHO DO LIVE IN THE UNINCORPORATED AREA. I'D SAY THE PUBLIC SERVICES, SO CDBG PUBLIC SERVICES AND THE HOME FUNDS, THOSE ARE SERVING RESIDENTS WHO ARE DIRECTLY IN THE UNINCORPORATED AREA. AND I'LL ALSO NOTE THAT CDBG URBAN COUNTY INCLUDES MORE THAN JUST THE UNINCORPORATED AREA.

Sure, and I understand that. I mean, we've got obviously the City of Bealton and Solvang that's part of our group as well, so that makes sense. I just, and I don't have any issue with the services. I mean, the services don't really see boundaries. It's the capital that one that I usually have concerns with. Were there any county projects that were submitted for capital CDBG funds this year?

Chair Nelson, there were none from the county.

All right. I guess my question is for CEO. Is there no needs from any of our accounting departments? Because I know this is something I bring up all the time.

And so these are funds that are available that we can spend instead of potentially general funds for... As the department has said, I don't think with the specifications and the restrictions, they would be applying to what the different departments would need.

I guess I'm confused. So like our parks projects and things like that, they don't apply for a capital part of HCD?

Chair Nelson, We've had an internal conversation about making sure that we get the word out countywide in a more direct and comprehensive way to various departments, not just within community services. And then subsequent to that, had a more focused conversation on how we might determine the eligibility of parks projects. So I trust that we'll be seeing something in next year's allocation that speaks to those issues.

I've been trying to fund a library and community center in my district for quite some time. Would those typically be things that would be eligible for this?

I'm not certain. I thought community centers were part of that. It might be a candidate for CDBG funding.

Chair Nelson, the question of whether that project would be eligible would depend on the income level of the community that it's serving. If the income of the service area on average is below 51% of area median income, then at that point it would be eligible. If it's above that, then it would be more challenging to establish eligibility. And unfortunately it is often challenging to establish eligibility on that area basis for those types of programs in the county.

So an area might receive funds but not be able to spend them? because they're too affluent? I'm sorry, I didn't hear the question. Well, it sounds like they're above 51% median income. You can't spend it in those areas from what your staff is saying. So like maybe Santa Barbara, I'm sure they're above 51%.

I think what the staff was indicating, Chair Nelson, is that the recipients have to meet the qualifications. And so you need to make certain that there are residents that meet the income criteria that are gonna be receiving the service or derive the benefit. and there may be projects that on their face don't seem to meet the criteria but subsets of that project may be eligible and that's when you have to do a fairly detailed review of the scope of that project and the intended beneficiaries if you will.

Yeah I would just challenge you guys to look at I mean things like libraries are typically things that people that are needing additional resources, lean on our libraries for community centers. As you guys heard earlier from today, from some of my constituents, they're often, I have very many low income seniors in my district, including many that live in trailer parks. And so that's one of those things that, you know, they're looking towards these services and as the corporate area, that's our responsibility to provide them. And so we have these capital needs. And so I'm just trying to bridge that gap and making sure that we're looking at all of our potential areas to be spending funds within our own county, especially when we have to end up leaning on the general fund in the future if we can't find these other grant areas that already qualify.

Excellent points and we'll dive deeper into your suggestions.

All right, thank you. 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 departmental item number seven.

All right, we can take a motion on this item.

I'll move staff recommendation.

That's A through G?

A through G. I'll second.

All right, any further discussion? Seeing none, all in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion passed unanimously. All right, we're going to be moving right along to department item number eight.

Turn Nelson and members of the board departmental item number eight from the County Executive Office. It is a hearing to consider recommendations regarding the fiscal year 2025 through 2026 third quarter budget status report.

Alright Mr Clemente big week for you here.

Thank you chair Nelson and members of the board I'm Paul Clemente your budget director today we're doing our quarter three budget update with me is Katrina Fernandez our principal analyst she will be making the presentation I'm available for questions and this is the final we're closing the fiscal year just in a couple weeks so this will be the final update prior to the close of the fiscal year. And then we always come back around August or September with a full quarter four wrap up on the position of the county where all the departments ended the fiscal year. And with that I'll pass it to Katrina.

Thank you and good afternoon Chair and members of the board. Today's report is a third quarter update on the fiscal year 25-26 budget. Here we have some context for how we compiled this report. Departments prepare estimates for how they'll end the fiscal year based on three quarters of actuals and projections for the remaining quarter of the year. We then compare these projections to the adjusted budget and note the variance. Variances exceeding $300,000 for the general fund departments and $500,000 for special revenue fund departments are discussed in our quarterly report and presented to the board here today. In accordance with the board's budgetary control and responsibility policy, departments are responsible for maintaining expenditures within approved budget appropriations. If expenditures are projected to exceed appropriations, the policy lays out a progressive course of action that includes reduced spending, the release of available fund balance, and as a very last resort, if the prior two methods cannot effectively balance the budget, the department must make a formal request to the board for general fund support. As of the third quarter, the General Fund is projecting to end the year in a $4.7 million positive position. Most departments are projecting slight positive balances, with the six departments noted on this graph exceeding the reportable threshold of $300,000. The five departments in blue to the right exceed that threshold to the good, and the one department in the red to the left exceeds the threshold to the bad. We will discuss all of these departments more specifically in the next slides. As a reminder, unexpended general fund dollars at year end are held for capital projects or other emerging one-time needs in the following fiscal year. The General Revenues Department, where all general fund discretionary revenue is received, is projecting an $11.4 million positive variance, which is approximately $1.6 million greater than the Q2 projection, mostly driven by greater property tax and interest income. In general, the county is seeing higher assessed value growth than anticipated when developing this year's budget. Since Q2, the county has also seen an increase in delinquent or penalty property tax payments, which have been historically difficult to predict. Finally, interest rates remain high, but this revenue source can be volatile, so we continue to budget cautiously. This year's general revenue surpluses will be largely absorbed by the projected overages in the Sheriff's Department. We'll discuss in coming slides. The County Executive Office, Probation, and Public Defender are showing positive variances of $838,000, $1 million, and $303,000 respectively, all driven by salary savings on vacant funded positions. The General County Programs Department anticipates a $427,000 positive variance this year related to unrealized contract and other services and supply costs. The Sheriff's Office is projecting a $10.1 million negative variance driven primarily by overtime costs and made larger by overages and extra help and lower than anticipated salary savings. This deficit has grown by $500,000 from the $9.6 million deficit reported in quarter two despite continued CEO oversight of hiring and spending and is largely due to declining vacancy rates which means less salary savings. historically the sheriff's office has used salary savings to offset overtime costs but this year those savings have not materialized to the same degree they have in prior years sheriff vacancy rates have hovered around 11 percent for the past eight years with a high of 13 percent in fiscal years 22 23 and 23 24 but have dropped to almost half of that this fiscal year with an average of six percent because of the size of the sheriff's salary and benefit budget a few percentage points can translate into millions of dollars You'll see in this table the degree to which the sheriff's budget deficit this fiscal year, the sheriff's budget, the degree of the sheriff's budget deficit this fiscal year relative to historic actuals. If this projected deficit is realized, it will consume the sheriff's entire $2 million Proposition 172 set aside for overhire and a large portion of the discretionary revenue surplus. The CEO and the sheriff who will return to the board on June 23rd with a staff report and budget revision to address this deficit. Outside of the general fund, the county has five special revenue funds that are projected to exceed the reportable variance threshold of $500,000. The workers' compensation fund is anticipating a $1.3 million surplus this fiscal year due to the receipt of a rebate check from the county's insurance pool. These funds will be used to offset workers' compensation premium increases next fiscal year. In the IT department, the shared services and communications funds are anticipating a $1.3 million and $1.1 million surplus respectively. Surpluses in both funds are due to salary savings and higher than anticipated interest income, and the communications fund is experiencing lower than anticipated costs for equipment maintenance and professional services. Overcollected revenue in these funds will go towards offsetting IT rate increases in future years. As reported to your board during workshops, the Social Services Department is anticipating a $2.5 million deficit in its in-home support services and social services funds at the close of this fiscal year. Drivers include an unbudgeted increase in IHSS provider costs, lower than anticipated attrition and state and federal reimbursements in child welfare services, and increasing foster care and adoptions assistance costs. General fund support will be necessary for social services to end the fiscal year imbalance and the CEO will return to the board with the department also on June 23rd with a budget revision to address the deficit. Here we have a summary of funded vacancies in the county. As of Q3, the county has 469.9 funded vacant FTE, which equates to a 10% vacancy rate, up from 8% last quarter. Eight departments reported vacancy rates under 7%, and departments with the highest vacancy rates are shown in this chart. Reasons for vacancies include holding some positions open intentionally due to future budget uncertainties, And some departments have historically difficult to fill positions that often require technical or specialized skills. Savings generated through vacant funded positions in general fund departments will return to the bottom line at the end of the fiscal year and are reflected in the overall positive general fund variance included in this report. And here we have the recommended actions for this matter to receive and file the Q3 budget report and determine the action is not a project under CEQA.

All right, thank you very much. Questions from the board? I see none.

Are some of the measures that are proposed to oversee the sheriff's budget, are they new?

Supervisor Hartman, through the chair, you're talking like the hiring review we're looking at and purchasing and things like that. We are just getting started on them. Yes, we talked about them at the Q2 report back in early March. Some of them have been going on like like hiring review the assistant ceos over most departments already look at that and with the sheriff's department in particular aceo heitman has been all year kind of scrutinizing those closer but the purchasing one in particular things like that we are still kind of getting the process going and and can plan to continue all of that into fiscal year 26 27 for sure all right thank you supervisor hartman supervisor caps

Yeah, thank you. So, again, on the overtime, which is obviously the big concern here, Mr. Clemente, you and I had a meeting because I needed to really understand how it works with the vacancies and the overtime budget. And now I understand that because the vacancies are less of an issue in the Sheriff's Department, We have less, we have more of a budget issue, but yet we still have an overtime issue. So, yeah, we've been told that we have to have, we have such an overtime issue in the Sheriff's Department because we have vacancies. So can you just sort of unpack a little bit why the overtime number is still so high with the vacancies being improved upon? If you have some insight into that.

Supervisor, the sheriff is also on Zoom, as well as the undersheriff, just FYI. Great.

So I can take a kind of high-level stab. Supervisor Capps through the chair. YES, THE KIND OF ISSUE WE'RE SEEING THIS YEAR, THE LARGER NUMBER WE'RE SEEING IS DRIVEN, LIKE MS. FERNANDEZ SAID, BECAUSE THE SALARY SAVINGS ARE SO MUCH LOWER, BECAUSE THEY HAVE HAD MORE SUCCESS OVER THE PAST YEAR TO FILLING POSITIONS, AND YET THE OVERTIME DOLLAR AMOUNT STAYS FAIRLY HIGH STILL. OVERTIME HOURS WORKED, HAVE BEEN COMING DOWN, WE'VE BEEN WATCHING THAT, AND WE HOPE THEY CONTINUE TO TREND DOWN. We've known for years even when they had all those vacancies that at some point when they get those vacancies filled there would be a period of filled positions in training not yet able to kind of work in the field and offset the overtime being worked for those vacancies for some period of time. The hope is that Now that for a year or two they have had more success and they've had these filled positions at a higher level that eventually as these become usable assets that we do see the overtime start trending down. We saw that starting in January as we've been tracking that month to month. They are year over year seeing significantly less overtime hours worked compared to like a similar pay period in the prior year. And what we really need to see is that continue into the next fiscal year if they maintain vacancy kind of filled positions at the level they're at now.

And so do we have a target for the rate to come down?

for their overtime spending to come down? I don't know that we have a target. You know, obviously anything helps with them, but it is a difficult analysis to conduct saying of the overtime worked, how much is due to existing vacancies, how much is due to the, you know, kind of overtime that would always, always occur in the line of duty and things like that. And because their vacancy rate has been so high over the past multiple years, this is kind of the first time we've seen them down at this level where if they can maintain it, we're hoping to see those come down and maybe we can get a better baseline for what is a kind of reasonable amount of overtime to expect in the fiscal year.

Okay. And then my next question is the grand jury just came out with a report on June 4th about the excessive overtime in the sheriff's department. I'm wondering if we have, I guess that would be a question for the sheriff or, yeah, if there's a date yet. I think the timeframe is 90 days. If we know yet when that would be coming back for the public. would provide some more insight on the reforms called for. I believe they called for reforms to the MOU as well as more fiscal oversight.

Supervisor, we'll let the sheriff answer, but the elected officials have 60 days to respond and the board has 90 days. So we will try to work on that and try to get it to as soon as we can.

So 60 days?

The sheriff has 60 days, yes. Okay, thank you.

All right, thank you, Supervisor Capps. Supervisor Hartman.

I'm following up on a question from Supervisor Capps, and that is, we often hear that overtime, some overtime is a good thing, that we don't want to overhire, we want some overtime, that there are benefits to our coffers from that. Do we have a financial model or a target that we're aiming for? Have we ever looked at that? What is the number given an analysis of what we've looked at, what we've done historically? What are we aiming for? How many people do we want? Just as many as we can get? I mean, I don't understand what's an optimum overtime number.

Supervisors, let me try to answer that, and then I think you should ask the sheriff operationally how that would work. On the budget side, you know, the sheriff has said for many years that the line item for overtime is not appropriate. And he may be right, but what we look at is what Paul said, the NFI, which is the net financial impact, which is whether the department has excess revenue or is in deficit. And like he said, over the years and all the public agencies I've worked for, it balances out. Because if you have too many vacancies, you're gonna have overtime, but your net will be positive or slightly negative. Once you fill your positions, I think that's the issue that we're seeing is that overtime is still high. And I think what we said in the past that that will continue for some period, because there's always gonna be churn, but it should be abated once you get to some steady, some kind of steady staffing. And I think we've seen this in the past. You saw the chart, ups and downs on the NFI. And that's the question that we keep asking. I don't know, in our side, we've tried. We've tried with Nancy Anderson, we've tried with Jeff Rappel, we've tried with everyone before to try to figure is there an optimal number, and I don't think we've come up with one. I think that we know that once, I think the grand jury pointed this out, once we get to a better tracking system, HR payroll system, that hopefully we can track better and get better information, because it requires more precision. But I also am told that the sheriff's office is already starting to do that.

great thank you supervisor caps i just thought of an additional question because we were we were supposed to get monthly audit reports not full audits i recognize of of overtime issue i know that there's been some challenges there i think we've only gotten one i believe that was supervisor lee's request on this so could we just have an update on that again maybe this is a misdirected question to our budget team but i think this would be helpful

ACO Heitman is coming to the microphone. She's had some work with the Sheriff's Office and the auditor.

Chair Nelson, Supervisor Capps, we meet with the auditor's office regularly to check in on this and they last indicated that they anticipate bringing the next monthly report at either the June 23rd hearing or the first hearing in July. It is taking them longer to turn around these reports than initially anticipated, I believe, because of the review process. They want to make sure that there's enough time for the sheriff's office to be able to review before they bring the item before the board. So it is a little bit more time consuming than first anticipated.

So are they, thank you, so are they still monthly reports or? I mean, if it takes four months to get the report, is it a snapshot of four months ago, or is it cumulative?

They aim to continue providing cumulative reports, so covering every time period. I think this particular report is going to be about a month delayed, so it'll be a two-month period rather than a one-month period.

Okay. Just because, again, we've only seen one since we made that request, which I feel as though I could be off, but I feel as though that was about six or seven months ago.

Yeah. It was actually February 10th.

February, okay. According to Mr. Clemente. Okay, good memory. But, again, I just had some concerns. So the holdup is the sheriff's office is reviewing the report?

No, I don't want to suggest that the holdup is squarely on the sheriff's part. The delay or the timer, the longer time periods to bring it before the board is because there's more review that needs to take place before they dock it and that includes the sheriff's office being able to review it our office reviews it as well as council before they they actually dock it and bring it before you they want it to be as complete as possible and as accurate as possible they are still committed to providing the full review period so they aren't skipping any review periods or are shortening their reviews

Well, now you've piqued my interest. What happens with the review? Do you know?

The full document is shared with the other parties along with any materials that they intend to bring to your board, and we all have an opportunity to get clarification, to ask for them to take a closer look to see if something is accurate, if we believe that there's any misinformation, or to clarify any information that's in it.

Okay, yeah, if we could, again, this is all connected, and we have the grand jury asking for more information. We've been asking for more information, so if we could perhaps, if that review, I don't know what's, what's the whole what what kind of level of review or to me that means people are nervous about something and i just want to make sure we just get the information uh as unvarnished as possible if that's if that's what's happening here supervisors through the chair when we bring the next one when the auto controller's office brings them we can ask them to spend more time describing their process what is reviewed how they're doing it miss heitman is

has been working with them but obviously it's the auto controller's office that's actually doing it this is probably i think part of their standard process so i think it'd be good to ask them they're not here today i don't think so i'd rather have them respond to your questions and supervisor caps for the chair i can also we're meeting with them again next week we can discuss this as well and look at ways how we can make this a more efficient process and try to bring them to you more quickly great thank you

All right. Thank you, Supervisor Capps. And I would just comment on the sheriff overtime issue. It seems like they're a victim of their own success with the staffing that we've been pushing. This board's been pushing for five, ten years for the staffing to pop up, and it seems like now that that's gone, they don't get to rely on that. I think the overtime number, we should start to try to figure out a way to peg that to something that is maybe comparable jurisdictions on what the appropriate amount is for overtime to really kind of find out you know is he that are off that off if we don't if we're admitting that we're not budgeting appropriately for it um maybe we need to figure out what that should be so we're not holding to maybe an unfair standard of the department You know, and so that's one route. You know, maybe we also look at what the percentage of overtime is in other public safety departments, even within our own county that provide 24 hour services like the Sheriff's Department has a way to peg that. So again, we should find some type of standard so that we're at least, you know, talking apples to apples, oranges, oranges here. So that's would be my my thought there. My other question I had was, you know, I see property taxes up. I KNOW THAT OIL PRICES ARE UP, SO WE ACTUALLY GET MORE PROPERTY TAX WHEN OIL PRICES ARE UP ON OUR ADVALORUM. IS THAT IN THAT PROPERTY TAX NUMBER?

I'm going to say I don't believe that it is because of how I think the assessment kind of works and when the assessor goes in and looks at things and makes reassessments and it gets added to the next role. I would guess it's more like around January of next year that they're going to be looking and it'd be the 27-28 fiscal year that any reassessments having to do with oil properties and all properties are going to occur but I couldn't really speak to it more than that I really want to ask the assessor's office for a more detailed explanation

Yeah, I'd like to know that information. Maybe we can bring that back during budget just so we know. Because, I mean, obviously there's a lot more oil activity, especially with Sable being operational in our county, as well as oil prices for onshore operators is a higher price than normal. So it makes sense that it's been somewhat of a boom. I know that it's been minimized in the past. That's not the biggest part of our budget. Of course, it's not. But, you know, the last million is always... THE MOST IMPORTANT.

I DON'T BELIEVE IT HITS IN REAL TIME LIKE THIS, BUT WE CAN FOLLOW UP.

CHAIR NELSON, WE CAN FOLLOW UP. WE JUST TALKED TO SOMEONE FROM THE ASSESSOR'S OFFICE ACTUALLY LAST WEEK. THIS QUESTION CAME UP AND HE BASICALLY SAID WHAT MR. CLEMENTI SAID, THAT IT'S NOT REFLECTED YET.

SO WE MAY ACTUALLY HAVE SOME BENEFITS THAT WE'LL SEE ACTUALLY IN THE 27, 28 BUDGET FROM THIS LAST YEAR OF PRODUCTION. Potentially. Okay. And are we going to be, we haven't budgeted for that this year, right? Correct. Okay, great. Thank you. Supervisor Lee.

I just want to say that I want you to know that the Biltmore is working hard to open this year, right? As Steve said, they're the triple threat, property tax, sales tax, and TLT. So we're working hard to make sure that they open this year.

Excellent. I'm working with a couple of large projects in my district as well that are trying to get them through our process as well that might generate some additional tax revenue. So anything we can do for economic development in this county, we need to redouble our efforts. All right. Madam Clerk, is there any public comment on this item?

Yes, Chair Nelson and members of the board, we do have one request to speak from the public on this item. But before we go to the public, I did want to note that Sheriff Bill Brown does have some comments from Zoom.

Absolutely. Sheriff Brown.

Thank you, Chair Nelson and members of the board. First of all, I want to apologize to you for us not being there in person. By the time we got the message that this item had been moved on the schedule, we didn't have enough time to get to get to you. But myself, the undersheriff, our CEO and our chief financial officer are all available to you via Zoom at this point. Just a few comments that I think bear stating in this. It was mentioned, and I just want to reiterate that what you saw in this comparison was the net financial impact of the overtime use. That's only one way of looking at and dissecting the overtime and how it is used and why it is used and so forth. And we could spend a whole afternoon talking about underlying issues and how we should be going about trying to forecast and to get an accurate assessment and an accurate budgeted amount of overtime and how much is going to be required. The bottom line on this is really that something I've been saying for many years, and that is that at the base of this is a structural staffing deficit, particularly in our jail. And there has been study after study after study that shows that we are short staffed in our jail. We do not have a relief factor built into our staffing that in and of itself means that there's going to be a considerable use of overtime just to maintain base level day to day operations. And that includes not just one, but two full service jails at this point. that we are operating. And until such time as we get some kind of, it's gonna have to happen one way or another, either we're gonna have to get some additional staffing or we're going to have to get additional overtime as understood is required, they're gonna be required to run the day-to-day operations, particularly in the jail, but also in our patrol operations as well, which are down to critical minimum staffing at sometimes. The realities are that this lack of relief factor, this lack of staffing is what's driving the bulk of this. And I will show you, I just want to give you an example. Instead of looking at this from the NFI impact, I want you to consider this, and that is looking at our use of overtime from 2019 to the present. And looking at the 2019 fiscal year, we actually used $10,191,000 worth of overtime in that year. The following year, the 2020 year, we were budgeted for $3,564,000. That same year we used almost 10 million, 9,842,000. And then the following year in 2021, we were budgeted for $3,769,000. We used $8,060,000. The following year we were budgeted 3,812,000. That year we used 12,399,000. That was in the 2022 year. The following year, our overtime was bumped up to $4,100,000 in terms of the adopted budget. We actually ended up having to spend $21,315,000 in overtime. The following year was bumped to 5 million. Our adopted budget overtime was budgeted at 5 million. Our use went down to 17,957,000. And the 25 fiscal year, we were budgeted for 5,181,000. It was not until this current year that we were budgeted for 10 million, but even that, is a budget that is anticipating salary savings that are not going to be able to occur because of the fact that we have filled many of our vacant positions and we have lots of people in training and we have unproductive. And I've explained this several times in several different meetings to you as well. But as we look forward, as we look to the to the future, we have an unrealistic amount of overtime that is budgeted. So it looks like we're exceeding overtime levels by a huge amount when in fact, what's really driving this more than anything is inadequate staffing And we've had study after study after study that has indicated this. And as you know, I am statutorily required by law to operate the county jail system, to accept bookings by other law enforcement agencies and the people that come into our jail. And you as the board are statutorily required to pay for that. And we get into this big problem where it has been unrealistically budgeted, unrealistically staffed, and until and unless we really work to address and fix that issue, um there's only so much we can do we're working very hard right now to reduce our overtime and we have seen a trend downward we have closed some areas of the jail as a result of a decrease in in jail population recently we have seen some successes but it's going to be nipping around the edges and not getting into huge numbers as long as we have this inadequate number of people. This has been taken into account in projections for the jail reconfiguration and the construction and the new footprint that we would have as a custody system as a result of that. So in the future years, it's going to be addressed to a large degree, but there's going to be some painful times up until then that it is not going to be addressed. And just let me finish by saying that, you know, I think it's really important to understand that there's only so much that we can do short of closing down a jail, short of, you know, wholesale release of inmates. There's only so much that we can do because we have this considerable staffing deficit that we have had to struggle with for some time. And I don't know that this is the time or the place, but I think at some point, it might be good to do a workshop where we actually could go through this process, through the history, through the current challenges that we are facing. And we'll be addressing the grand jury's report, which, by the way, did not take into consideration staffing levels and the requirements, the statutory requirements to operate the jail. But I think that there's, you know, it's a very difficult thing to, in a few minutes, encapsulate. It's a very, very convoluted situation and one that I think would really be good for everybody at some point if perhaps we did a workshop strictly on this.

All right. Thank you. All right. Thank you, Sheriff. I believe we have a public commenter. Madam Clerk, will you go to public comment?

Chair Nelson and members of the board, yes, we will now go to Zoom for our one request to speak, Laura Robinson. Laura?

Hello, Chair Nelson, members of the board. I, too, apologize that I couldn't be there in person today, but I did feel it was important to speak to the anticipated year-end surplus of $4.7 million, which is approximately double the anticipated surplus from quarter two. While I understand the economic uncertainty we're facing, and I recognize that these one-time funds cannot be used for ongoing costs, there is an opportunity here to use a very small portion of these dollars to soften the very real and very human impact of the layoff schedule to occur in less than a month. The county already has an established voluntary employee separation incentive program, one that has proven to be a long-term cost saver for the county. Implemented in a very targeted way, it could provide dignity, stability, and a measure of fairness to employees who are about to lose their livelihoods. I know the board does not want to make these decisions. I know how difficult this is, but there is a way to ensure that the people being laid off are leaving with a handshake and not a slap in the face, which unfortunately is how many of them are feeling right now. So I'm asking you directly to please direct county leadership to immediately engage with the union to implement a targeted V-CIP program using a small portion of these year-end funds. It is the right thing to do and it is the responsible thing to do.

Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Robinson.

And that concludes public comment on departmental item number eight.

Right. Additional questions, comments from the board? Seeing none, I'll take a motion to receive and file, which is A, B, and C. Want to make a motion? Yeah, I'm looking for a motion.

That's what I'll move.

All right. Thank you.

I'll second.

Motion from Hartman, second from Capps. Any further discussion? Seeing none, all in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion passes unanimously. Okay, rolling into our last two items here. Madam Clerk, can you please read departmental item number nine into the record?

Chair Nelson and members of the Board, departmental item number nine is from the county executive office. It is a hearing to consider recommendations regarding an amendment to chapter 50 of the county code, licensing of cannabis operations discussion.

Thank you, Chair Nelson. Brittany Ederman, deputy CEO, and I will be turning it over to Carmela Beck, our cannabis program manager, to present this item.

Good afternoon, Chair Nelson and members of the board, Carmela Beck, Cannabis Program Manager, to present proposed amendments to Chapter 50, Licensing of Cannabis Operations. Today's discussion proposes replacement of the Sheriff Office role in cannabis business licensing activities specific to site security plan review and live scan check responsibilities with staff from the County Executive Office Cannabis Licensing Division. The Board adopted Chapter 50, Licensing of Cannabis Operations, in May 2018. Since that time, Chapter 50 has been amended multiple times to address emerging issues. At the June 2025 budget hearings, staff received Board direction to identify program efficiencies and cost savings measures. In coordination with the sheriff's office, we work to address board concerns and reach consensus on the proposed amendments. In response to program stabilization and maturation, staff proposes replacement of the sheriff role in licensing activities with staff from the County Executive Office Cannabis Licensing Division to optimize efficiencies and reallocate decreasing resources. Currently, Chapter 50, Section 50-11 requires sheriff review and approval of life scans and site security plans. Requirements for sheriff review and approval of owner life scans has declined proportionally with the number of new cannabis business license applications. Future life scan reviews will be a fraction of the quantities process during early program years. Because criminal background checks are no longer required for all permanent employees and third party labor, dedicated staff are no longer required for this activity. Additionally, existing requirements for sheriff review of site security plans is duplicative because all site security plans are reviewed and approved during the land use entitlement process and prior to business license issuance. Ongoing site security plan compliance is primarily monitored via Chapter 35 requirements. The proposed amendment will remove the sheriff from licensing activities, but continue their compliance activities via their Proposition 64 funded grant. Sheriff compliance site visits and desk audits will provide an extra layer of oversight to reaffirm site security systems are working as designed and approved. This amendment includes the following changes to Chapter 50. Section 50-9, the sheriff's office will be removed from the license application review process. Section 50-11, the sheriff's office will be replaced by cannabis licensing division staff for live scan check responsibilities and site security plan review. New language is added for sheriff to conduct compliance activities verifying infield site security measures aligned with approved site security plans. Section 50-23, the sheriff's office will be replaced by cannabis licensing division staff for live scan check responsibilities. Currently, Chapter 50 requires sheriff to review and approve site security plans and live scans. This amendment proposes replacement of the sheriff role in Chapter 50, licensing activities with staff from the county executive office cannabis licensing division. Sheriff will continue to cultivate a culture of compliance via Proposition 64 grant monies. Today's proposed ordinance amendments are intended to reduce duplicative reviews, right-size departmental responsibilities, and further streamline the business license process. If approved, new ordinance provisions would take effect 30 days from the June 23, 2026 second reading. Staff recommends that the Board consider these ordinance changes to Chapter 50, waive full reading of the ordinance, and set the second reading and seek a hearing for June 23, 2026. Thank you. That concludes our presentation.

All right. Questions from the Board? Supervisor Capps?

Yeah, this is somewhat of a rhetorical question, but there was some confusion out there that the sheriff would no longer be doing enforcement. So can you just clarify, because this sounds as though the department is no longer sort of enforcing against illegal cannabis operations. Can you just?

EXPLAIN IN MORE PLAIN LANGUAGE. THE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT IS SIMPLY REMOVING THE SHARE FROM THE LICENSING COMPONENT, BUT THEY WILL MAINTAIN A ROLE IN COMPLIANCE AND THAT WILL BE THROUGHOUT THE YEAR THEY CAN CONDUCT ANY SORT OF COMPLIANCE ACTIVITIES.

Right. So just to be clear, if there's illegal cannabis going on or operations, the sheriff is very much involved because we did receive some notes about that, kind of curious. So I just want to clear that up.

Supervisor Capps, just to clarify, the sheriff's enforcement team is separate and still remains intact and will continue to enforce on illegal operations. That is correct? Yes. Thank you. Great.

Thank you, Supervisor Capps, for that clarification. Other questions from the board? Is there any public comment on this item?

Chair Nelson and members of the board, excuse me, we did have three requests to speak from the public on this item, but they are not currently logged into Zoom, so we have no requests to speak at this time.

All right, and if they come available here before we leave for closed session, I'll be happy to make ourselves available, but we will go ahead and take action on this item right now. Well, I had a comment.

That was just my one question.

Okay, sorry.

If we're moving to that.

Please.

Yeah, I mean, I thank you. I I'm going to support this action. I think it's overdue and I appreciate the work that's gone into this. But I don't believe that we should stop with this action today. I think that more governance changes need to be made with our cannabis from every aspect of our governance. I've shared that with the CEO's office and with others, and so I'm working on some options, but I think we need to be looking at all areas of our enforcement. We have lost faith of the people that we have promise to represent. I don't need to revisit it all. We all know painfully the history, but this move is a welcome one, but I don't think that we should stop here, and I don't intend that we should stop here in terms of really restructuring the way in which this county and our staff and our departments oversee the enforcement of odor of compliance of business licenses and what happens and i think what's happening with these extensions is just proof positive that it's not working and this change here is just the only one that needs to be a really a fresh start that should have happened years ago thanks

All right. Thank you, Supervisor Capps. Supervisor Lee.

I'm going to have to agree with Supervisor Capps. We have to look at all the options before us. So I'm going to not support this.

All right. Supervisor. All right. OK. Supervisor Hartman.

Yeah, I'll move staff recommendation A through C. I think that this is an effort to streamline and become more efficient in our business licensing, and I don't think it has very much to do with the enforcement aspect at all. So I'm happy to support this and very pleased that you've brought us these changes that will make our operations more streamlined. Second.

motion is second further comment yeah sorry just to clarify i am i am supporting this but i am working on uh further options of uh different changing governance i just wanted to clarify that but i am definitely supporting this fully i think it's welcome and actually overdue

does that help you supervisor lee i misheard it thank you so yeah let's go ahead okay all right so uh without any further discussion um all in favor signify by saying aye aye aye opposed motion passes unanimously so let's go ahead and get to our tenth and final item all before lunch they said it couldn't be done Chris Henson, okay. Madam Clerk, can you please read department item number 10 of the record?

Chair Nelson and members of the board, departmental item number 10 is from the County Executive Office. It is a hearing to consider recommendations regarding amendments to the cannabis business licensing fee ordinance.

Thank you, Chair Nelson. Again, Carmela Beck will be presenting the complementary item associated fees for licensing activities that adjusts for the sheriff removal.

Thank you, and good afternoon again. So this is an amendment to the Cannabis Business License Fee Ordinance presentation. The proposed amendments for consideration by your board today are intended to achieve the following two objectives. Remove the sheriff and the cannabis business license fee schedule contingent upon board approval of the amendment to chapter 50 of the county code licensing of cannabis operations heard during the last agenda item and remove the fee recovery measure associated with the California Cannabis Authority membership. Your board adopted the cannabis business licensing ordinance chapter 50 and corresponding business license fee ordinance in May of 2018. The license fee has since been amended several times, including most recently in 2025. When the fee study updated staff costs and the CCA annual membership cost in the fees. Today's proposed amendment will again update fees to current staffing and now eliminate the CCA cost. In September 2021, the board executed a joint exercise of powers agreement with the California Cannabis Authority that included a data analytics platform subscription. At the June 3rd, 2025 board meeting, the board approved termination of data platform use and deletion of the fee recovery mechanism to recover the costs for the use of the platform. Effective July 1st, 2025, staff enrolled in the CCA annual membership at a cost of $10,000. Because CCA has dissolved their organization, this amendment deletes the annual membership fee recovery from license rates. This table compares the current fee ranges to today's proposed fee ranges, reflecting removal of share of costs across the three licensing activities for initial applicants, renewal applicants, and compliance activities, and removal of the California Cannabis Authority membership expense. The proposed fees were reviewed by auditor staff who provided their concurrence as to the reasonableness of the fee methodology and equitability of the resulting fees. Fees vary based on type of license, the area of operation, and whether the applicant is subject to an energy conservation plan or not. Proposed fees are approximately 20% lower than current fees across the licensing activities. In summary, the current fee study was conducted to remove the share from the cannabis licensing fee schedule and to remove the California Cannabis Authority annual membership fee recovery measure. License fees have decreased across all licensing activities. Labor hours will continue to be monitored annually along with hourly rates and be adjusted pursuant to changes to the consumer price index. Subsequent fee studies will be conducted on a three-year cycle to ensure continued program cost recovery. The recommended actions are to consider the ordinance changes as presented in ordinance amending and superseding ordinance number 5181, establishing the cannabis business license fee, waive full reading of the ordinance, and set the second reading and second hearing for June 23rd, 2026. Thank you. That concludes the presentation.

All right. Thank you, Ms. Beck. Questions from the board? Madam Clerk, is there any public comment on this item?

John Nelson and members of the board. Additionally, similar to departmental item number nine, we had two requests to speak on this item and those members of the public are not logged into Zoom. They were reminded of the meeting as well.

All right, and thank you. And for the record, I will publicly acknowledge that we received public comment from Anna Carrillo on both departmental item number nine and 10, and that written communication has been made available publicly as well as to each of the supervisors up here on the dais. So just want to recognize that. Further comments? Supervisor Hartman.

Yes. Could you further elaborate the California Cannabis Authority, why we're not why we don't want to be a member, what service we received and will no longer receive?

So historically, we received access to the data platform that they had. And then once the state allowed us access to metric, we no longer needed access to the platform. And so that was removed last year in 2025. We then enrolled into what they called the legislative and regulatory updates, which they provided to local jurisdictions at a fee for $10,000. And so we had access to that and to their staff to measure check in on legislative actions. And so now that they are dissolved as an organization, they're no longer offering their services.

I see. And I guess it's the opportunity. Is metric serving the purpose

Supervisor Hartman, Chair, yes, it's not as elegant, per se, as the data platform that we had prior, but we are able to access the information, run the reports, see the inventory, and cross-reference and infield.

And that's a big part of our enforcement strategy, compliance strategy?

It's part of the compliance, absolutely, yes.

Thank you. All right, thank you. Supervisor Hartman, Supervisor Lee?

Thank you. I just want to duck tail off Supervisor Capp's last comment about the options. What's happening right now in Carpentaria has been terribly frustrating. It continues to be, the smell has been terribly strong and the community is frustrated and disappointed with how things are working. We need to find other options. I am incredibly disappointed about how THINGS ARE GOING AND I GET COMPLAINTS EVERY SINGLE DAY AND I WANT TO EXPLORE ALL THE OPTIONS THAT WE CAN BEFORE US TO MOVE A DIFFERENT DIRECTION TOWARDS CANNABIS WARNANCE SO I JUST WANT TO MAKE THAT COMMENT GET ON RECORD ALL RIGHT THANK YOU SUPERVISOR LEE AND I I MY PERSPECTIVE I'M STILL I AM STILL SOMEWHAT HELPFUL HOPEFUL THAT WE CAN GET THROUGH SOME OF THESE UM CHALLENGES THAT WE HAVE ARE THE UM THE APPEALS

are going through and i'm looking forward to getting to the end of that so that we can have that as our our benchmark for where we progress as a community at that point and so i know that we're staff is quickly moving through that process and i'm looking forward to getting to that place for us all to evaluate next steps so with that can i get a motion for staff recommendations uh i think it's it's a through a through d so moved All right, any further comment? Second. Second from Supervisor Lee. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion passes unanimously. All right, that concludes our departmental items for today. We have very robust closed session now, but for the purposes of public business, we are now complete. We will go ahead and have Madam County Council read us out what we will have. Then we will be in closed session for probably about three or four hours, but we'll go ahead and then we'll come back to report out from that later this afternoon. So Madam County Council, can you please tell us what we're talking about today?

Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the board. The board scheduled a closed session to consider one item of existing litigation, the beta versus the county, which is a Santa Barbara Superior Court case. Conference with labor negotiators for employee organizations, all bargaining units, underrepresented employees, managers, and executives, and the agency representatives are human resources director Christine Schmidt, Also for employee county executive officer and the agency designated representative is Chair Nelson. We also have a series of public employee performance evaluations. The county executive officers as well as the directors of the following departments. agricultural commissioner, behavioral wellness, child support services, community services, county health, fire, general services, human resources, information technology, planning and development, probation, public defender, public works, and social services. And as you indicated, the time estimate is between three and four hours.

I think it was potentially four hours, but I'm going to say we'll be back no earlier than 2.30. That gives us some time to get done early if possible. But be prepared for it to be later than that. All right. Thank you. Welcome back. We're reconvening the meeting of June 9th, 2026. Will County Council please report out from closed session?

Thank you, Mr. Chair, members of the board. In closed session, the board considered one item of existing litigation, Zepeda versus the county, conference with labor negotiators for all bargaining units underrepresented employees, managers, and executives, as well as employee county executive officer, and for public employee performance evaluation for the CEO and all the department heads listed in the agenda, and the board took no reportable action.

All right, thank you. And we did, since we moved things around earlier this morning, there was somebody who wanted to make public comment on an item that we already adopted and in the interest of public participation, I'm gonna go ahead and allow that before we adjourn.

Chair Nelson and members of the board, thank you. Yes, I do see that we have Jill Stasinos on the Zoom with us today. And I do believe that she has signed up for departmental item number nine, as well as department item number 10. And although the board has taken action on those items, I did want to give that member of the public an opportunity to speak and just for members of the public a refresher departmental item number nine is from the CEO's office it is a hearing to consider recommendations regarding an amendment to chapter 50 of the county code licensing of cannabis operations discussion and departmental item number 10 is also from the county executive office it is a hearing to consider recommendations regarding amendments to the cannabis business licensing fee ordinance and we'll now go to Jill on zoom

Yes, hi. Can you hear me?

Yes, we can. Please proceed.

All right. Thank you. I'd like to commend the board on taking a stand to deny the extension request from the A Cannabis growers who wanted more than a year to install multi-technology carbon filtration systems. And I wanted to say that in her presentation, Ms. Beck requested more direction from the board regarding Chapter 50. So I'd like to address that request by asking the board to consider modifying Chapter 50 to reduce the cap of 134 acres of cannabis being cultivated to the 118 acres in current cultivation. Also requiring the growers to have their OAPs approved prior to their business licenses being issued or renewed would, I believe, help compel the growers to install the best multi-technology carbon filtration systems. And I don't understand how there is one OAP that already was approved by county staff, county P&D staff, that doesn't have any carbon filtration system. So that doesn't make sense to me. But I did bring that up. previously in a letter that I sent to you guys. Also, I believe that linking odor complaints to business license renewals would go a long way in restoring the community's confidence in the county's P&D department staff. I've heard that the county staff is using nasal rangers to measure the D over T levels at the perimeters of several cannabis grows. Yet to the best of my knowledge, I've not seen any data gathered from these measurements. So I'm very curious as to where the public transparency is. And I do believe the public deserves to be informed and given this information in a published format. Also, I believe that the residents who live within a thousand feet of a cannabis grow deserve to be notified when those growers businesses license come up for renewal. and let's see also as far as chapter 35 well i already mentioned installation of odor abatement systems and my curiosity and how this information is getting out to the public because i haven't seen any of that happening so again i am very hopeful even though i'm also distressed that it's taking this long and i do feel frustrated that we're not seeing more results more quickly but i am appreciative again of the board in denying the requests of the growers to get into time extension we are still experiencing mal odors on foothill road and i'm just you know, one of these days, hopefully we won't need to complain because we are getting very tired of making complaints. Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Stesenos.

And that concludes public comment.

All right. Well, we've already taken action on these items, but we will take the public comment under consideration. and at this time we'll go ahead and adjourn today's meeting our next regular our next scheduled meeting will be tuesday june 16 2026 here in santa barbara for the fiscal year 2026 2027 santa barbara county budget hearings see you then