Board of Supervisors - Regular Meeting

All right, good morning, everybody. I will call to order the August 25th, 2026 regular meeting of the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors. Madam Clerk, can you please call the roll?

Supervisor Lee?

Here.

Supervisor Capps? Here. Supervisor Hartman? Here. Supervisor Lavagnino? Here. And Chair Nelson?

Here. Please stand and join us in pledging allegiance to our flag. Next item of business is approval of the minutes from the August 18th, 2026 meeting.

Hartman moves approval. I'll second.

Okay, motion for Hartman, second from Capps. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion passes unanimously. All right. Before we move to the CEO report, I want to take a moment to officially welcome Janet Peterson to her first board meeting as Santa Barbara County's new CEO. Janet comes to us after nearly three decades of public service in Boulder County, Colorado, including the last six years as county administrator. She has led through many of the same challenges we have that we know well here, natural disasters, major infrastructure needs, organizational change, and the day-to-day work of delivering good local government. Throughout our nationwide search, the board was impressed not only by Jana's experience, but her collaborative leadership style, her commitment to public service, and her belief in strong, accountable local government. Jana, we are very pleased to have you here, and we look forward to working with you. And with that, I now turn it over for the first time for your CEO report. Thank you.

Well, thank you, Jacqueline, for pointing me to the equipment here. I appreciate it. I am just delighted to be here. I wanted to take a minute to introduce myself to everyone. And I'll start off by sharing that my career in public service began a few decades ago as a temporary employee. So I started in a role where local government was an opportunity to get a paycheck. And over the course of my decades in public service, it's become not only my career, it's also my calling. And I am really grateful to the Board of Supervisors for giving me the opportunity to continue my service here in Santa Barbara County. I am exceptionally grateful to Mona Miyasato for her leadership of this organization. I feel very lucky to be following in her footsteps and continuing what she has built around a legacy of collaboration, fiscal stewardship, business acumen, and delivering really excellent services to the community. I am excited also to bring my skill set and background, my focus on relationship building, communications, technical acumen, and strategy to this organization. The bold vision of one county, one future really resonates for me. It speaks to the spirit of collaboration. It speaks to services that work for everyone who lives, works, or visits Santa Barbara County. And it speaks to the important role that local government plays in improving quality of life. I am committed to leading through the lens of the county values as they are stated. Accountability, customer focus, equity and inclusion, innovation, and trust and ethics are the way that I wanna show up at work every single day and what you all can expect from me. I've been able to watch from afar how this team rallies to address big challenges in the organization, how this team succeeds in delivering results for this community, and how this board sets a vision to make sure that everyone who lives here has the opportunity to be safe, healthy, and prosperous. That really generates enthusiasm in me for coming into this role. I think it's important for me to acknowledge that it's a tough time to be working in government right now. The fiscal challenges are present every single day. The community demands are significant and real, and the challenge of delivering public service effectively is constant. It's also an incredible time to work in local government. I feel that so strongly because we can see every single day the results of our efforts. Even though the work is hard, we can also see when it impacts the lives of a family, when it impacts the safety of the community, when it impacts the ability to make a difference in the infrastructure and how services are delivered here. Local government is the place to do that and to be able to experience the joy of changing lives for the better, even in the darkest, most challenging times. That's when local government is needed the most. And that's what I see from this team and the excitement that I bring for joining this effort. I will just also wrap up by encouraging particularly county employees to reach out to me, to share your experiences, to help me get my feet under me in running this organization. and acknowledging that you live and work and enjoy this community as well. And so your perspectives really matter to me. So for county staff, please, when you see me around, when we connect during meetings, please introduce yourself and I'm looking forward to working with you. I am also very excited that I get to share some great news about the county team this week. So the County of Santa Barbara received the Distinguished Budget Presentation Award from the Government Finance Officers Association, GFOA, for the fiscal year 2026-27 recommended budget book. This is the highest recognition in governmental budgeting and reflects the county's commitment to transparency, sound financial planning, and clear communication. The county has earned this award for more than 20 consecutive years. This year's recognition is particularly notable given the implementation of new budget software and the OpenGov interactive digital budget book. The county also receives special recognition for performance measures with all three reviewers awarding the highest marks possible. The recognition highlights the collaborative efforts of departments countywide to produce a budget that serves as a clear policy, financial and operational guide for the public and decision makers. I'm also delighted to share the Community Services Department's Pro Housing Award. The County of Santa Barbara has been awarded the State of California's Pro Housing designation and $1.25 million in Pro Housing Incentive Program funding, recognizing the county's efforts to expand housing opportunities, streamline development, and support affordable housing. The designation and funding will help the county build on these efforts and provide greater access to state funding opportunities for housing and infrastructure.

And that concludes my report. Well, thank you very much. Well done. I'm glad to have you. All right, next item of business is the, Madam Clerk, do you have any changes to today's agenda?

Chair Nelson and members of the board, I do have a couple quick announcements this morning. An addendum was posted on Friday, August 21st, 2026, amending today's closed session agenda, adding an item under conference with legal counsel existing litigation, paragraph one of subdivision D of government code section 54956.9 regarding Suncoast Bloom LLC, V County of Santa Barbara, Office of Administrative Hearings, case number 2026080068, and Valley Crest Farms, LLC, V County of Santa Barbara, Office of Administrative Hearings, case number 2026080029. Additionally, under conference with legal counsel, anticipated litigation, paragraph four of subdivision D of government code section 54956.9, deciding whether to initiate civil litigation, two cases. The addition included in this addendum has been posted and made available online to both the Board and the public. And lastly, for information on the Board of Supervisors' methods of public participation and instructions on how to provide public comment on items listed on today's agenda or during general public comment, please refer to page 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 805-568-2240 or by email at sbcob at countyofsb.org. And that concludes my announcements for today.

All right. Thank you, Madam Clerk. Items to be pulled from today's administrative agenda. Do we have any items being pulled from the public?

Chair Nelson and members of the board, we have one item pulled from the public, and that's A1, our resolution to be presented.

All right. Any items being pulled by any of my colleagues? I'm going to briefly just have a question about our A4, so we'll pull that item. And with that, can I get a motion to approve the balance of the administrative agenda?

Salute.

Second. Motion by Hartman, second by Lee. Any further discussion? Seeing none, all in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion passes unanimously. All right, let's go ahead and move on to administrative item number one, first resolution. Madam Clerk, will you please read that into the record?

Chair Nelson and members of the board, administrative item number one is sponsored by Supervisor Capps and Supervisor Hartman. It is to adopt a resolution proclaiming August 26, 2026 as Women's Equality Day in Santa Barbara County. And joining us in person today, we have Commissioner Tracy Baird and Yolanda Vazquez. And if you can please make your way to the podium. Anyone else you would like to join with you as well? And I'll go ahead and read the resolution. Please. Whereas on August 26, 1920, the 19th Amendment to the United States Constitution was certified, granting women the constitutional right to vote after decades of activism and advocacy led by courageous and determined women. And whereas Women's Equality Day is recognized annually on August 26 to commemorate this historic achievement and to celebrate the continued pursuit of full equality and opportunity for all women in American society. And whereas the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors recognizes the invaluable social, political, cultural, educational, and economic contributions of women throughout history and today, and reaffirms its commitment to advancing equity, justice, and opportunity for all women and girls in Santa Barbara County. And whereas while significant progress has been made, women, particularly women of color, LGBTQ plus women, immigrant women, indigenous women, and women with disabilities continue to experience systemic barriers to equal opportunity, representation, economic security, healthcare access, and personal safety. And whereas the County of Santa Barbara values diversity, inclusion and equity opportunity and remains committed to addressing gender based disparities, supporting women in leadership, fostering inclusive communities and protecting the rights of all women to live free from discrimination, violence and bias. recognizing that Women's Equality Day serves both as a celebration of past achievements and as a reminder of the ongoing work necessary to achieve full equality. Now, therefore, be it hereby ordered and resolved that this Board of Supervisors of the County of Santa Barbara does hereby proclaim August 26, 2026 as Women's Equality Day and encourages all residents to honor the achievements and contributions of women, recognize the work that remains to achieve gender equity, and reaffirm their commitment to advancing justice and opportunity for all women and girls throughout Santa Barbara County, passed and adopted today.

Commissioner Beard, would you like to?

I'm going to let our new chair start.

Please.

Good morning and thank you for giving me the opportunity to be here today. My name is Yolanda Vasquez and I am honored to serve as the chair of the Santa Barbara County Commissions for Women, representing the 5th District. I am here today to ask for your support in recognizing August 26 as Women's Equality Day in our community. August 26 commemorates the certification of the 19th Amendment in 1920. which recognized women's right to vote in the United States. But this day represents much more than a moment in history. It reminds us of the generation of women who fought to have a voice, to participate in our democracy, and to create opportunities for the women and girls who came after them. here in santa barbara county women are business owners educators health care workers mothers community leaders public servants and so much more they contribute every single day to the strength and success of our communities as chair of the uh as a commission for women representing the fifth district i believe it is important that we not only recognize how far women have come but also continue creating opportunities for women to lead succeed, and have their voices heard. Recognizing August 26th locally sends a simple but powerful message to our daughters and the next generation of young women. Your voice matters, your leadership matters, and there is a place for you at the table. I respectfully ask for your support in formally recognizing August 26th as Women's Equality Day and joining us in celebrating the women past, present, and future who continue to strengthen our community. Thank you for your time and leadership and support. Thank you.

Thank you. Ms. Magana.

So good morning, everyone. It's truly an honor to be here today as Women Commissioner for Third District and to stand in support of this important proclamation recognizing Women's Equality Day. Women's Equality Day is more than just a date on a calendar. It's a reminder of the women who came before us who fought to have a voice, a seat at the table, and the same opportunities as everyone else. Because of their courage, women today have the opportunities that once were denied to us. Equality is not something that we should ever take for granted. We have a responsibility to continue opening doors, lifting one another up, and making sure the next generation of women know that their voices matter and that they belong at every table where decisions are being made. So today, I want to thank everyone who stood behind this proclamation and helped make it happen. Your work matters. This recognition matters. And the message we are sending to women and girls in our community matters. As women, we do not have to wait for someone to give us a voice. We must continue to use the voices we have to make our community stronger for those who come after us. Thank you for allowing me to be here today. Thank you.

Thank you.

thank you all for the opportunity for equal day for equality day for all women we know our work is still ahead of us and this year within the commission we are going to work on women's financial literacy with alan hancock for the north districts we are going to also work on immigration we have some things ahead of us working with our district supervisor as he's moving on and that but we've always given our 100% and we want to thank you for making sure that women have housing they have food security and that we are working for a more healthier community and I'd like to say as part of being the commission for 15 years we've tried to make sure that we have. gotten ourselves out there. We know what our supervisors need. We've listened to what they are. We try to be your eyes and ears, and we will continue to do that. And I thank you very much for having Equality Day today for all women because we know, as we've just heard from everyone, we still have a lot of work ahead of us. And thank all five of you for participating and working for your women and your children. Thank you.

Thank you. Go ahead, sorry, Supervisor Capps.

Sure. Thank you, Chair Nelson, and thank you to our Commission for Women for all the work. We certainly, as you said, Tracy Baird, that we do have work ahead of us. And I know that Supervisor Hartman and I probably didn't plan this, that the first resolution of the morning that we welcome Janet Peterson as our CEO is this fitting one. I will take note that, although this is not the reason why we hired you, it was a wonderful bonus that we get to continue having a female serve this role. It is important. This is a massive job, and the fact that it's run by a woman is significant, and it does send an important signal. A quick look on the internet tells me that We do have a long way to go. In our 58 counties, just 38% of them are headed up by women, and it's even less on the city level for some reason, 27%. So it is still not the norm, and we welcome you in this important role, both for the work that you do and also for the signal that is being sent. Thanks.

Thank you, Supervisor Capps. Supervisor Hartman.

Yes, well, I wanted to thank the Women's Commission. We aren't supposed to have favorites, but I would say the Women's Commission is one of our most active and engaged, and that really matters. And Tracy Baird, with 15 years, you're now bringing along the new people, and I think that that's terrific. You know, Women's Equality Day was really about suffrage, and today we're hearing people talk about whether women should have the vote. On the fringe, there's ideas of household voting and a lot of effort to restrict voting layer on requirements. I think your message that this is an ongoing struggle, an ongoing fight is a really important one and one that resonates with me. So I'm glad I've got such good partners on the Women's Commission and, of course, our new CEO we're extremely excited about. So thank you.

All right, thank you, Supervisor Hartman. And our public commenter was one of the women in our presentation. So with that, we need to actually have a motion to approve A1. Supervisor Hartman? So moved.

Supervisor Capps, is that your second?

Absolutely. All right. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion passes unanimously. All right. And then our last administrative item, item A4. It's an item that I pulled.

Chair Nelson and members of the board, administrative item number four is from the Behavioral Wellness Department. It is to consider recommendations regarding a services agreement with Meraki Management, California, LLC, DBA, Lightfully Behavioral Health for Day Rehabilitation Services and Day Treatment Intensive Services for fiscal years 2026 through 2028.

All right, I just pulled this to highlight it and to ask a couple of questions. And we have Director Navarro with us today. Director Navarro, I was just curious about this contract. It was a little bit different than normal. And I think it's a program that you're excited about getting started here in Santa Barbara County, this opportunity. One of the questions I had right off the bat was it's a South County contract. uh it's available in south county but for telehealth all throughout the county and just wanted to understand that a little bit better and maybe some opportunities for our north county residents to be able to take advantage of some of these services that are going to be offered through your department so if you would mind just sharing with us i'd appreciate it good morning chair nelson members of the board and welcome janet peterson

Thank you so much for the opportunity to talk on this item. So the day treatment intensive, day treatment rehab services are required services to be within your system of care under the Department of Health Care Services contract that we have with them. Unfortunately, we have not had one for over a decade because despite repeated requests for proposals, there has not been an operator that was able to operate in our county. So we've been sending those who need this level of service to out-of-county providers via telehealth. We had two adults that accessed that system last year and 12 youth. This year we did another RFP and we were able to find two operators, one for the adult services, which is what's before you today, and one for the adolescents as well. Lightfully just happens to have a location in Santa Barbara. They are the operator that was chosen that met all the requirements for this contract here in county. They will provide on-site as well as full telehealth countywide. And I do want to say that given that they are set times and dates for this service, it's multiple days, multiple hours, SenCal Health as Medi-Cal providers, the managed care plan, does provide transportation. And should there be North County, West County residents that want to attend the South County session, then that we can help them to arrange and receive that transportation free through their Medi-Cal benefit.

Excellent. Well, that's great news. That was kind of what I was concerned about, making sure these services were provided countywide. They definitely are needed. I'm glad to see that we're having these in county now.

And we'll, of course, continue to monitor the need. And as it is sometimes, once you build it, they come. And we may have a greater need. And as a result, we'll continue to monitor the need for additional contract RFPs to further supply onsite in the west and north county.

Do you anticipate to see if now that we have it, if we use it more often, that there'll be other potentially vendors that might be interested in our county? I mean, has that been driving the conversation previously?

Actually, it's been driving the conversation statewide. There are many, many counties, over half, that would not have this type of service in their county. for the same reason. So this is now new for all of us. Most of us now have them in our counties or accessible. So it's to be seen, but definitely something that we will be keeping an eye on and we can report back out on at the end of the year.

From your experience and knowledge of your other neighboring counties, are those that have these services in county, are they utilizing them more often than counties that do not? Does that seem to be a difference maker?

You know, I haven't specifically, to be honest, I have not specifically talked to Ventura County or SLO about the utilization if there's been an uptick, again, since we've had such a focus on the intensive adult need. But I do think that having one that's more accessible and more, that is in person and allows person an opportunity to engage in community may result in more folks agreeing to participate in this level of care, despite it being multi-days and multi-hours.

All right. Thank you, Director Navarro. Appreciate it.

All right. Thanks.

All right. I see any other lights on. Madam Clerk, do we have any public comment on this item?

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

All right. With that, I'll take a motion to approve this item.

Move staff recommendation.

Second. A motion from Hartman, second from Lee. Any further discussion? Seeing none, all in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Motion passed unanimously. All right. At this time, it's for members of the public to speak on items that are not on the agenda. Madam Clerk, are there any requests to speak on general public comment?

Chair Nelson and members of the board, we do have two requests to speak from the public on general public comment today. We're going to remain here in Santa Maria and begin with Claire Schiebe to be followed by Brandon Vasquez. Claire?

Good morning. My name is Claire Sheehy, and I've been a volunteer with Care for Paws for about five years. My focus of service has been down in the riverbed with pets and their people. I'd like to reference one animal cruelty confiscation case. However, there are many more. I'm limited for time. that I believe Santa Barbara County Animal Services has managed poorly. A woman who's severely mentally ill, schizophrenic, has been known for abusing and actually killing animals and dragging them around town, some of which we have been able to get out of the riverbed and into safekeeping. Mid-July, she had a young puppy and two other stolen animals. PD and also county came out and they were able to get those animals. She went into a 72 hour hold. From there she immediately returned to county where she got the puppy back. This was a highly adoptable young animal that was not sterilized before it left. regardless that animal has perished, there are other animals that have suffered the same consequences. In addition to a distorted return policy set forth by the county, there's no requirement for an individual to possess an address to adopt an animal. As a result, we're seeing more animals living in the riverbed, cars and on the streets. Not all but many of these animals are from County. They might be sterilized but still contributing to the overall dysfunction of the population. It's a direct reflection of mental health. County Animal Services is encouraging and adding to the overall community problem at large. In addition, a person can get an animal out from Foster Road without it being sterilized. However, in Lompoc, it must be sterilized. Animal politics distinguishes shelter performance from community performance. Shelter performance measures what happens after an animal enters the system. Community performance measures and asks whether a community is becoming more or less dependent on the shelter itself, as well as its services. Both matter. but they answer very different questions a shelter can improve its outcome while a community becomes more dependent on the shelter and its services so better shelter outcome does not necessarily mean better community outcome all a manipulation of numbers and selected intake remember that selected intake I have been told directly by the manager out here on Foster Road, do not bring any animals in from the riverbed. While I understand the riverbed is approximately 95% San Luis County territory, the majority of its inhabitants are from Santa Maria, Santa Barbara County, Both counties need to be working together towards change as our community is on a very rapid decline. Again, selected intake. And this is what's being seen out at county. I just witnessed a Good Samaritan bring in a kitten covered with oil. They wouldn't take it. And that individual ended up going down to Santa Barbara with that animal.

Thank you, Claire. That is your time.

Thank you all for your service. You've got a big job. And thank you for coming on board.

Could I just, I would like to talk to you more about these issues, so I hope you'll contact me in my office.

I would like to very much. Thank you.

All right. Thank you.

We will now go to our final speaker, Brandon Vasquez. Brandon.

Good morning Board of Supervisor. My name is Brandon Vasquez and I serve as the senior organizer for Future Leaders of America. I also am a proud supporter of the Youth Impact Coalition. Today I come to thank you all for your allocation of $250,000 for the creation of a youth fund within the Santa Barbara County. Unfortunately, most of the members weren't able to be here as they are in high school, but I did want to come on their parts to thank you all. With that, we still recognize that there's a lot of work to be done, and we do wish to let you know that we are hoping to meet with you, and that is pretty much it. We really, although we've met with some of you, we still wish to meet with all of you. With that, thank you guys so much.

Thank you.

And that concludes general public comment for today.

All right. Moving right along, right to our departmental items. Madam Clerk, could you please 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 the Jeremy and Megan Raff appeal of the treasurer tax collector's transient occupancy tax final audit determination.

All right. Treasurer Hagan and Ms. Haggerty. Good morning. Before you get started, we'll go ahead and do ex parte on this. I know that we previously had ex parte prior to the last meeting, so I guess I think it'd be appropriate to report on any new discussions that happened since the last ex parte disclosures. Am I correct, County Council, on that?

Mr. Chair, yes, that's correct.

If there's been any new ex parte discussions, this would be appropriate to be discussed. Supervisor Lee?

I'll go first. I read the News Hawk article on August 24th about the Hick camp, and the RAFs were quoted in there.

Okay. Supervisor Labanino?

I received an email from, I believe, Megan RAF requesting if I had any other questions to reach out. I did not respond, but it is in my email. Supervisor Hartman?

My chief of staff spoke with Jeremy Rath after the last meeting, and then she emailed to Megan Rath about the date of this hearing.

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

Yeah, I also read the NewsHawk article about this HipCamp app about short-term rentals here in Santa Barbara, and I don't know if it should be submitted to the record, but I'm happy to do so. Thank you.

County Council?

Mr. Chair, members of the board, yes, that's appropriate to submit. It's okay.

We'll do that. To the clerk. And I've had no communication since the last hearing from the RAFs or any other related parties in regards to this item. So with that, Ms. Rafferty, please take it away.

Good morning. This is the Jeremy and Megan Raff appeal of the Treasure Tax Collector's Transient Occupancy Tax Audit, its final determination. Oops, went too far. This item was continued from the July 7th meeting. At that hearing, the board provided direction to staff to gather information regarding the community benefits of Dare to Dream's program and prepare findings related to the requested reduction of TOT penalties and interest, and also work with the Department of Social Services and County Health Department to identify potential public benefit funding opportunities and future grant resources for Dare to Dream Farms. The responding information is as follows. The alternate findings of the County of Santa Barbara Board of Supervisors, included in the memorandum to the Board, delineate various community benefits of the Dare to Dream Farms program. If your Board decides to reduce the amount of TOT penalties and or interest determined to be owed, the alternate findings are for your Board's consideration and the Board would determine the amount owed to be included in the findings. The County Executive Office discussed potential public benefit funding opportunities and future grant resources for Dare to Dream Farms with the County's Department of Social Services and County Health Department. Neither department could find public benefit funding opportunities for Dare to Dream Farms under their food programs. The Workforce Development Board staff was able to determine that Dare to Dream Farms could be a suitable potential worksite for its youth program. Dare to Dream Farms has agreed to continue the conversation and connect with program operators to begin identifying participants. The tax collector's proposed findings are as follows. The amount due from Jeremy and Megan Raff is $65,840.11 consisting of $50,664.25 in transient occupancy tax and $15,175.86 in penalties and interest. And this amount is assessed against Jeremy and Megan Raff and is due immediately and payable to the County of Santa Barbara Treasure Tax Collector upon the service of notice by the Clerk of the Board. Alternate findings for this appeal have been provided in the memorandum to the board. The amount determined by the board will be assessed against Jeremy and Megan Raff, and it will be due immediately and payable to the county of Santa Barbara treasure tax collector upon the service of notice by the clerk of the board. Here are the staff recommended board actions, which are the same as the July 7th recommended actions. And that concludes my presentation.

All right. Thank you, Ms. Haggerty. All right. Any questions for staff before we have a presentation by the RAF family? Supervisor Lee.

If the appeal is denied, can we break that payment into different payments? Say three, four payments instead of just one lump sum?

So Supervisor Lee, through the Chair, are you talking like a payment plan? Correct. So we don't have, the ordinance doesn't provide any kind of ability for us to have a payment plan. We'd have to change the ordinance. But as I testified at the last hearing, I'm in the business of collecting money, not refusing to accept money, right? So if they gave us a partial payment, we would apply it to the outstanding amount and then bill them the rest. But I think we start going down the road, we probably wanna have more of a formal policy and change the ordinance to allow that in the future so that others could access that also. But that gets into a bigger discussion because if we're gonna have payment plans, then we're probably talking about staffing needs also within our office. So it's a little bit bigger discussion than what's on the table today, just to be honest with you.

And I'll piggyback on Supervisor Lee's question with interest. So what does interest look like if somebody's in a payment plan? So I guess they, would the balance then therefore be accruing interest?

That is correct, Chair Nelson. Right, the balance would be accruing interest.

And what's the interest rate that the county?

Isn't it charges? Yeah, half percent per month, so 6%. 5%. six percent six percent per month annualized and yes okay not so it's not the penalties and interest right it's not compounding on that so not compounding it's on the base tax only yes and if they made payments would go against the penalty and interest first late payments would go to the first payment would go towards the penalties and interest first they got to pay down first once that's satisfied we'll say um then we'd start applying against the principal the purpose understood thank you

All right, thank you for that clarification. Appreciate that. Yeah, absolutely. At this time, we'll have a presentation by Jeremy and Megan Raff. Welcome back and welcome into Santa Maria.

Thank you very much. Thank you for inviting us back today. Thank you so much for all the hard work that you guys have done in searching for a way to move Dare to Dream Farms forward and continue its programs. We have prepared nothing because we have nothing more as we were waiting to see what the findings were from your time in searching, but we do appreciate the efforts of staff and the deliberations of the Board of Supervisors.

Thank you, Megan. Thank you, Jeremy. All right, before you guys leave, we may have some questions. So why don't you guys hold? And so by my calculations, it's about 30 seconds. So if they need more time, there's plenty of it available for them. So you had 10 minutes if you needed it. Questions from the board? Let's start with Supervisor Hartman.

Yeah. What will this mean if your appeal is denied to your business going forward?

If the appeal is denied, there's really not a way for us to pay back this amount. I know that it becomes a lien on the property, which is something that we could pay over time but obviously does accrue interest. As you've seen from the financials that we presented at the last board meeting, there really isn't much for us to pay over time even. We would need significant amounts. This would probably result in what's already a small workforce being reduced even more. And if we're unable to continue doing what we do because of the small workforce, if we have to bring employees down part-time. We'll end up doing a lot of that work ourselves, which means that there's going to be a decreased amount of free school farm tours, free homeschool farm tours, disabled adult farm tours. We have a lot of people that come out and shop the farm stand and just do that on the honor system. There's no one that staffs the farm stand, so they're able to round up or round down or take what they need. That would probably have to go away. We detailed all of the different programs that we have that really aren't making us a lot of money but do provide benefit to the city of Lompoc and anyone who passes through. And a lot of those things, if they are not creating a real benefit for us, would have to be shut down if we have to start funneling whatever finances that we have into paying off this transient occupancy tax bill.

And could you just remind me, you had some federal money that you got that is no longer available and what that is?

That was the LFPA Farms Together program. It was, so each state was given money through the federal government do direct purchasing from farms and then provide to local communities. So in Lompoc, we worked with Shelby through the Route 1 mobile truck. So we and we've known Shelby forever. I was originally on the board with Route 1 when it first started. She would purchase directly from us and we would deliver to the Dick DeWista Center for the senior classes and then through whatever other charity events she had during the government shutdown. She was out on the base quite a bit distributing produce and a lot of that came from us. But that ended, that funding ended in the last week of June.

How much was that?

What our allocation was, was anywhere between like $1,500 to $3,000 a week, just depending on what she could purchase and what we had available. And we had purchased a tractor and hired another employee and everything, so the employees already moved on, but now we have the tractor that we are making payments on. The state did vote with their state funding to implement it again as a one-time deal, but the funding is much, much less than what they were asking and what the federal government was providing. And there's still, I think the first meeting is next week on how that's going to work on the state level, so we're still... a long ways out from figuring out even who's going to get the money and how it's going to be distributed.

And how many farmers markets in the Lompoc region provide EBT SNAP benefits or accept that?

I think only one. I think Route 1 is the only one that does it.

Route 1 farmers market is the only farmers market available for EBT, for accepting SNAP EBT. We do accept SNAP and EBT online through, we were able to get a grant to create an online website and allow people to get their EBT, SNAP EBT groceries purchased through that website and then we deliver for free in Lompoc so that they don't have to experience any difficulty with transportation and pickups and everything.

So through on and through online, you're one of the few sources available in the region that will accept that and provide farm fresh produce. Correct. Thank you. Those are my questions.

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

Well, thank you. Good to see you again. And certainly, you have so much community support. We certainly heard that last hearing. And since then, you've gotten a lot of media. And I just was interested, as I mentioned at the start of this conversation, about the the press about this new app that connects private campsites, and you're front and center on that publicity. So in that terms, I mean, you're good about promoting a wonderful farm. Have you thought about a GoFundMe? Because you do seem well equipped within the community to really garner a lot of attention. I just wondered if you thought about another way to bridge this gap.

I mean, to me, that's like the final, like, worst case scenario. I mean, we've chatted about it, but I prefer not to. Like, if we were to do a GoFundMe for something, I'd prefer it to be something that would provide even more service to the community. But if that's what we have to do, then it's a possibility. We're just waiting to see how this all pans out first.

Okay. It seems to me that with the services provided by the farm being a direct benefit to the community, It seems a little silly to ask the community to then pay for those benefits in a different roundabout way because we're trying to support them. I know that we might reach some people that have a lot of generosity. I haven't seen enough evidence of a GoFundMe, and I did do a search from farms to see if there are successful GoFundMes that have been fully funded or even partially funded that didn't weren't creating new programs, that were just trying to stay alive. A lot of those are not received well. So we could, but the chances that it's actually successful and allows us to repay this is very slim.

So just to kind of connect that thought, you view that the taxes are really a way in which you can somewhat be reimbursed for just a partial contribution to the extensive and incredible services that you provide to the community.

I think that given the significant gray area that we were working in between the time that Jeremy joined the board and was trying to find a way forward and make recommendations to Santa Barbara County and the time that it was actually approved and created as the Ag Enterprise Ordinance. There was a lot of ways that that could have landed and because it was a gray area, our farm operated to the best of our ability, but It would be nice to have the county work with us and recognize the value that we have in Lompoc and the surrounding area. I think this would be a nice way to do that, yeah. Thank you.

All right, thank you.

Supervisor Lee? Yes, thank you. Can you state again why you decided not to pay your TLTs?

Because we didn't know exactly how it was going to pan out, and we weren't collecting because we weren't collecting the TOT from the guests at the time, which we do now. Like, that's how we pay the taxes that are due now. So we weren't collecting it during that period because we didn't know how it was going to pan out. Like, as I stated in the last meeting, some municipalities don't even collect TOT taxes from farmstays because it's not like a short-term, it's not a typical short-term rental. So there was a possibility that in the end of the ordinance that no taxes were going to be due, but I mean, it came out that it's a 14% just like everyone else that's operating any kind of transient lodging. So we're paying it now, but I didn't know if that's how it was going to end up being once the ordinance finally passed.

So since the meeting on July 7th, have you been paying?

Yeah, I'm late this month, but yeah, we've been paying. Since the ordinance passed, I think there was two months in that period of time, but the rest of them, we've been paying. Thank you.

All right, thank you. Supervisor Lavagnino.

Yeah, I don't see anybody from planning, but can anybody answer how long it took us to pass the Ag Enterprise Ordinance? Okay. I know it was years and years. I think it was at least four years, more than that. I think seven. Could be, yeah. All right. I just wonder if we could get a thing on that, but I think we can all agree it was over five. Correct. Yeah, okay.

All right, any other questions from the board about this item? Okay, all right, thank you both.

I have one. OK, sorry. No, for treasure tax collectors. Thank you. Do we have is do we know of any other farm stays? Are we collecting house farm stays in the ag enterprise ordinance? How is do we know if we have others that are that we're collecting from or is that able to be kind of singled out?

We do not know. I mean, we have sent letters to everybody we've found, and I know at least one has called us about it, but one other than the RAFs. And I'm not sure if they're paying right now, but we don't know. Okay. We may be able to figure it out, but right now we don't.

Right. I understand. Thank you.

And just so I'm clear, we charge TOT whether it's permitted or transit occupancy tax or not, right? So it didn't matter whether we had an ordinance or not. We still, under our ordinance, it's still due. If you had a hotel that wasn't permitted, you'd still have to pay TOT. You've got to, you know, all those things qualify. Is that right underneath our ordinance? Okay, I just want to make sure.

Okay, but I think this is a little bit different. This isn't a hotel. I mean, like if you built a hotel, you know you're paying the TOT, whether you're permitted. And I don't know how you'd be unpermitted. But having somebody come and stay on your farm at that point, I don't even think was, I remember when Supervisor Hartman was bringing it up, I'm like, well, who in their right mind would want to do that? But apparently there are a lot of people. I've lived on a farm before. I'm not sure I want to pay to be on the farm. I'm a city guy, sorry. I don't know if you would know if you're having somebody come and stay on your property and feed your chickens and do all that stuff that you would need to pay a 14, collect that from them at the time. And I know ignorance is no defense. I'm just saying, I think it's a little bit different whether it's permitted or not permitted.

So I guess my question would be for staff. When we adopted the...

uh i guess the farmstay ordinance was there language in that to make it qualifying for that or what did it qualify prior to that under our county ordinance it would be considered at hotel because they're renting short term it's that's the definition of hotel in the ordinance right and um yeah so that's

Just so you know from the policy side, the way I think about it is I know that one of the reasons why hotels have never really opposed these is because they've always said, as long as it's a level playing field, they're not. That's why we never had the other hospitality partners out against that ordinance because they assumed that they would also be paying, and so it would be a level playing field. So, I mean, that's something that should be considered as part of the conversation. I'm not saying it's... It makes a decision, but that's another piece, at least that I had been thinking about as the policy was put into place. All right.

So by definition in the ordinance, their place is a hotel. Okay. So I'm just saying, if you went out and you polled our county residents and said, do they have a hotel out there? I'm not saying they shouldn't be paying TOT. By our ordinance, they should. But the definition of a hotel to me is different If I'm checking into a hotel and my wife books a hotel and I find out I'm feeding the chickens and cleaning up the poop, we're going to have a problem. So I think when I was passing the Ag Enterprise Ordinance and when I was working on it, we were talking about farm stays. I did think that there was going to be TOT collected. but I didn't really classify it as a hotel either. So for me, it's still kind of a gray area, but I get where everybody's going. All right, thank you.

Supervisor Hartman.

Yeah, I just had a few points to make on this. I wanna go back to short-term rental and we created homestays and we did that for, short-term rentals and homestays, short-term rentals in areas where we have boarding houses and hotels, and we allowed homestays in residential areas and Ag 1 properties. We held out Ag 2 properties for farm stay, and that was we were going to develop a farm state ordinance independent of the ag enterprise and then so we thought it would move rather quickly but then the two got merged and it got very much delayed so the point of farm stay was always to get people out on the land appreciating where their food comes from having an opportunity to interact with farm animals and and see what rural life is like. Santa Barbara County is really well positioned to do exactly that between two large metropolitan areas where we still have a lot of agricultural land. So the Ag-2 farmers, it provides an additional source of revenue when there's a lot of up and down. As everyone up here knows, farming is a very, very hard way to make a living. And if you're talking about hotel, we sent out notices to everybody about home stays and short term, about what was coming and what period of time and how they had to get ready to start paying TOT. that they had to get permitted. I don't believe we did that for Farmstay. And when you're talking about hotel, that major business is visitor serving. So yes, they have a responsibility to know a lot about that. But when you're talking about small farmers and ranchers, They're trying to make a living on the land, which is hard enough, and they're inviting people to come learn about that, but they're not necessarily sophisticated about the TOT. As was mentioned, not everybody charges the TOT for this, so it wasn't really clear at the time how this was going to unfold. You know, I'm usually a really hardliner, that this is a rule and ignorance of the law is no excuse. But we're dealing with people who don't, this isn't their main line of business. So I would like to be as understanding of that as we possibly can.

I appreciate Supervisor Hartman.

Supervisor Capps.

I'm sorry, I jumped in.

County Council, did you want to just correct us real quick on our conversation and where we're going?

Sure. Chair Nelson, I just wanted to make sure. We're in deliberations. I think we are. I just wanted to confirm. I just checked with the clerk and there's no public comment. So the next thing would be just whether the rafts have anything else to add and then we continue where we're at.

Well, there was no, okay.

I mean, there's really nothing for them to rebut because there was no public comment.

And Supervisor Capps, I'm sorry to cut you off, but are we in deliberations? Or do you want, okay, so let's go ahead and make sure we're, check the rafts one last time as part of the due process. Is there anything additional you'd like to cover? All right, thank you, I've gotten, visual comment that they no longer like to have anything else to add. So going back to deliberations that we're now in at this point, Supervisor Capps, you have some additional comments?

Yeah, I just, I think this is a key point and I'm very deferential to you because it's your district. But the narrative you just described is not the one that I heard last hearing, is that they did know. And I do think that that is a very important distinction, that they were paying taxes and then they decided not to. And so, again, I think all of these things can be true at the same time, the public benefit, the ongoing process. But they were aware of what they were supposed to owe. So we can't say... I mean, they testified that they were paying and then they decided not to pay. So they were clearly aware. And so if we decide, I'm not saying how I'll vote, but if we decide not to, if we decide to forgive that, we have to do so knowing that they were aware, which is different than what you just described.

Supervisor Hartman and then Supervisor Levine.

I would like to have them clarify this.

Well, hold on. Is that sure?

I mean, I asked that last hearing specifically, and I think, surprisingly, you just got at this again, but I specifically said, were you aware? And he answered, and he can do it again, but it was on record that they were, and they were paying, and then you decided not to because of the process that was underway and sort of waiting to see if it would clear up, but it was a decision not to pay their taxes.

Right, because I don't think it was, at that point, I don't think the ordinance was passed, and so I'm not sure that there was a definitive line that said, yes, it's gonna be required, but.

And if I might piggyback on that, For us it's clear the treasurer tax collector does this and planning and development does this and they're separate and linked. For many people that isn't understood and if you don't have a permit path it's not necessarily clear that you're supposed to do the TOT and if you do the TOT then are you going to get in trouble for not having your permit when it's not available. So they were caught, I think, in a catch-22 situation.

Again, you can, maybe they've expressed that to you, but that is not what we have heard in this hearing.

And I jump in just as part of this overall conversation. We've set up this board and had other people with their short-term rentals come to us that didn't pay their TOT and that didn't have permits either. And we said that it was still due. because it's still qualified. So, and they had no permit, some of them had no permit pathway. They were actually operating in areas that they could never get a permit. And we still held them accountable for this TOT tax. So, and then there's others that were maybe in a permit pathway was we were developing our home stays and our short-term rentals. And so I just want to make sure that that's part of this narrative in this ongoing discussion that we have. Supervisor Labanino.

Okay, I'm gonna say that in the next budget cycle, please, I will not be here, but please, fund additional people in the treasurer tax collector's office because this is not what we're supposed to be chasing we're supposed to be chasing second and third palatial estates on the south coast that people are renting out for thousands and tens of thousands of dollars that we don't we do our best we do our best but we don't have enough people doing that and so Look, I've cited every single time against every single appellant on these TOT challenges. We've got to keep a level playing field. We all have to pay our taxes. Ignorance of the law is not an excuse. And I really appreciate the treasurer tax collector. They're in a box. They're like, this is what it is. This is what the ordinance says. This is what it is. They've done everything they're supposed to do. To me, this is such a unique case, though, because, like I said, it's not another wealthy family trying to collect on their fourth... I've been here, the whole time I've been here, I've been trying to maximize revenue. I've been trying to make sure our expenditures are in line. But I'm not comfortable. I do not feel good. I don't feel it's fair. And if there's any wiggle room, I'm going to side with the appellant on this. So they were very involved. They got involved in the process from Jump Street. They've done immense public good. Um, this I don't think is the intent of the firm stay at all. Um, this is the type of business we should be encouraging. And so what I'm going to do is I don't know what the board is going to do. It doesn't sound like we're going to move in my direction, but we'll wait. But, um, you know, and it go fund me. I get that. That's very popular. But going out to the community and saying, um, I'm not sure what the pitch would be. It's that we need help paying our taxes. Everybody needs help paying their taxes. So maybe there's a philanthropist that you could connect them with that would be willing to help with that. I don't, I'm not sure how successful that would be, especially in the Lompoc Valley. There's not a lot of people there that are going to be willing to, or have the means to be able to, to do that. So yeah, This to me is one of those Solomon's cases. That's the reason why we're up here. And I'm not going to disrespect anybody that's going to say that we have to hold their feet to the fire because I understand that position as well. I just don't see it that way.

Thank you, Supervisor Loving. Supervisor Hartman.

Well, I'm in agreement with Supervisor Lavagnino and all I can say is representing this area, they provide a unique service that nobody else does. And if that goes away, and this is, I mean, a huge financial burden on a small family with young children and a lot going on in their lives. And if they can't do this, the whole community suffers. And I don't think that's what this tax was meant to do.

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

Well, Steve and Joan, I do get your point, but as a business owner myself, and when my parents first started our business, without knowing the language and how things work, They went out there and sought advice and they paid their taxes because they knew that ignorance is not an excuse. I do want to be supportive, but I just cannot find the findings to accept their appeal. I tried and staff did a great job. They went out there and really tried to make it work, but unfortunately, I can't support their appeal. Thank you. Supervisor Lee. Supervisor Capps.

Yeah, I'm torn. I mean, I really, I do believe that this is your district, Joan, and Supervisor Harmon, and you know the benefit. I want to support you on this. I don't think it's the right thing to do. I also don't think it's a huge amount of money and we should be going after things that are much more beneficial. On the one hand, taxes go to public service. They go to things that serve the community. The farm is serving the community, but this is $65,000 that goes to serve the community as well. So there's a lot of competing arguments. Probably the most compelling for me is that we need to change this ordinance. I don't believe that we should be doing this type of thing. To me, this is not an appropriate use of the board's time. It should go to a non-public board than a lot of our other appeals, assessment appeals go to. So that's another inside baseball process discussion that I had with our outgoing CEO because it just feels inappropriate to spend this kind of time on people's very specific situations in this public manner. So that's another soapbox that I'll take up in a different way. But I'll vote with Supervisor Hartman just because out of deference to your district and the amount of money is not worth a split on this. I don't think it's the right thing. Just because of the admission that they knew what they were doing and it wasn't out of confusion. I heard that plain and clear, but I do believe fully in the mission of what you're doing. So happy to support where you are.

All right. That leaves it to me, and I've struggled, too, because I see the benefit, and I care about the Lompoc Valley quite a bit. I started my teaching career in the Lompoc Valley. I've got family there, and I know how well thought the Rath family is, but I also feel a necessity for me to be consistent with my previous votes on this, and so that's why I was not going to be able to support... The alternative findings, which I think that you now have a majority for, I was, could potentially offer to offer district funds towards covering that. If you guys started a nonprofit, please come to me because I do support what you guys do. Don't take my vote. It's a lack of support. I just think for me and what I represent and what I'm trying to do up here, I need to be consistent with my voting pattern. So that looks like there's a majority with Supervisor Hartman's recommendation. But again, good luck to you all. Supervisor Hartman, do you want to make a motion?

Yes, this is extremely meaningful to me. So I would move A and B, but that we grant the appeal and we adopt the alternative findings.

County Council, is that satisfactory towards the board's intent to grant the appeal? Is that what we need to do?

Mr. Chair, I'm just looking them over right now. I think that is accurate. It would be adopting A and B, except it would be to grant the appeal request for the waiver and to adopt the alternative findings and CEQA, correct?

Okay. All right, that's your motion, Supervisor Hartman. So Supervisor Hartman with that motion, do I have a second?

I'll second.

Okay, is there any further discussion on that motion? All right, let's go ahead and do a roll co-vote.

Supervisor Lee?

No.

Supervisor Capps? Yes. Supervisor Hartman?

Yes.

Supervisor Lavagnino?

Yes.

And Chair Nelson?

No.

Motion passes three to two.

Congratulations. All right, let's go ahead and take a super, let's go to Treasurer Hagan here briefly before we take a five minute break.

Thanks, Chair Nielsen. I just want to make sure I'm clear on this. So all penalties, interest and tax has been waived, right? So we know how to handle it on our end. You have. Got it. Thank you.

Thank you, Treasurer Hagan.

All right, Supervisor Levine, before I take a- Yeah, can we get direct staff though to come back with a change to the ordinance so that we can kind of fix this and also look into, I like your idea. I mean, when we get a property tax appeal, it goes to a different board. I don't know where that's in our legal framework or whatever, but it would be nice to take a look at that. And I think it's a good options who looks at that.

So Mr. Chair, members of the board, so I understand this is for a future item, direct staff to come back with proposed ordinance changes related to charging the TOT to farm stays, whether you want to change that as well as changing the hearing board.

Well, just options. Yeah. I'm not saying I don't want to charge it to farm stays. I just want to know what the options are and look at the ordinance and maybe talk about a payment plan to what the effect would be on the treasure tax collector's office, all that kind of stuff. So we can kind of a bigger item. Yeah.

So maybe the future item, and as chair, I'll make sure it comes back, a overview on our short-term rental, our TOT, as well as some of the options of those hearings.

Yeah, and so it would take P&D to be involved with the treasured house collector, because I think there's some issues there about notice and nexus and all of that.

Okay, I think that could be part of the discussion. Is Kim okay with that? Come back, because I can see Harry's like, it's coming back in January. Okay.

Well, we'll work on getting it back to the board here as quickly as possible, but at the same time, with appropriate amount of research. All right? We don't need a motion on that. That's just direction from the board. All right. All right, we'll go ahead and take a five minute break and we'll be back for department item number two. Welcome back to the August 25th meeting of the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors. We're returning after a short break and we'll be starting off with item department item number two. Madam Clerk, will you please read departmental item number two into the record.

Chair Nelson and members of the board, departmental item number two is from the County Executive Office. It is a hearing to consider recommendations regarding responses to the 2025 through 2026 Grand Jury Report on Sheriff's Office Overtime.

All right, I think we have a presentation by ACO Heitman and Ms. Parmalee, please.

Thank you. Good morning, Chair Nielsen and Supervisors. I'm Nicole Parmalee, Principal Analyst in the CEO's Office, and today I'll be presenting the responses to the 2025-26 Grand Jury Report related to overtime usage in the Sheriff's Office. On June 4th, the Grand Jury issued a report titled, What's Up with the Excessive Overtime? A Look at the Overtime Issues in the Sheriff's Office. The report lists several findings and recommendations of which some were addressed to your board and others were addressed to the sheriff's office. The board is required to respond to grand jury reports within 90 days of the report distribution. The sheriff's office has a shorter response window of 60 days and as such, their response has already been issued and is included as attachment C of the board materials. The proposed board responses being presented today are an attachment A of the board materials. To place this report in context, in recent years, the issue of overtime expenditures in the sheriff's office has been an ongoing and increasing focus of county staff and your board. Due to a trend of increasing unbudgeted costs for sheriff overtime, in September 2025, your board and the CEO's office requested that the auditor controller review and analyze sheriff timekeeping and payroll activity, specifically pertaining to overtime for fiscal year 2024-25. After completing their initial review, the auditor's office issued a report via memorandum to your board in December, identifying eight observations as factors contributing to sheriff overtime usage. The report was presented to your board in February, at which time your board requested for the auditor to provide a monthly report on Sheriff's Office overtime for the next six months, as well as to review and report on the five county departments generating the highest overtime, which would include the Sheriff's Office. Auditor monthly reports on share of overtime have so far been provided to your board on April 21st, July 7th, and last week, August 18th, covering all of fiscal year 2025-26. These reports indicate that overtime costs and hours in the most recent fiscal year, 2025-26, have decreased as compared to the prior fiscal year, and progress is being made in several of the identified observation areas. there is still room for additional improvements, which are anticipated to generate further overtime reductions. The auditor plans to bring the remaining requested monthly sheriff overtime reports, as well as the report on top overtime usage departments to your board later this fall. Finally, there are plans to include a full overtime audit in the fiscal year 2026-2027 internal audit plan, although a specific department has yet to be identified for that engagement. This decision may be informed by the outcome of the report on the five highest overtime usage departments. The objective of the audit will be to determine whether employee overtime is accurately recorded, properly approved based on documented and substantiated need, and correctly paid according to relevant county policies, MOUs, and labor and wage laws. The design and operating effectiveness of internal controls will also be evaluated. Turning now to the findings and recommendations, the first finding states that the MOU between the county and the Deputy Sheriff's Association, or DSA, contains provisions that compound the overtime issues in the sheriff's office. We agree with this finding. Accordingly, the grand jury recommends that your board negotiate with the DSA to revise the MOU to disallow the use of leave balances as time worked. This recommendation has been implemented in part. On August 18th, your board approved a new DSA MOU that revises the calculation of overtime such that paid sick leave and compensatory time, or comp time, will no longer be treated as hours worked for purposes of calculating overtime. However, as is the case in other county MOUs, paid vacation, holiday, and military leaves are all still included as hours worked for overtime computation purposes. And although not directly responsive to this recommendation, it is also worth noting that the new MOU also contains several other modifications designed to improve the administration and fiscal management of overtime, including establishing an annual cap of 1300 overtime hours worked, limiting annual comp time accrual to 120 hours, requiring periodic cash out of comp time balances, and clarifying that employee drive time is compensable only to the extent required by applicable law. Together, these provisions are expected to reduce the growth of comp time liabilities and improve long term management of overtime costs. The next finding states that the current payroll system is ineffective for the sheriff's needs as it does not allow effective tracking, analyzing, or reporting of regular hours and overtime. While we do agree that the existing system is limited in its effectiveness, we also believe there are opportunities to improve the use of what the current system does offer until a better option becomes available. We are therefore encouraging the Sheriff's Office to fully utilize the available tracking mechanisms to determine why and under what circumstances overtime occurs. The Grand Jury's associated recommendation is that the County and the Sheriff work together to accelerate the build out and installation of Workday, the new countywide payroll and human resources management system for the Sheriff's Office by January 1st of 2027. Although the Workday project is currently underway, it is not feasible to expedite completion within the timeframe recommended by the grand jury. The county is currently preparing a request for proposals from Workday certified companies for the implementation portion of the project, and implementation is anticipated to begin in spring of 2027. Given that Workday is a complex, large-scale project with significant implications for the entire county organization, Adhering to the currently identified timeframe is key to ensuring viability and success of the project implementation. As I mentioned before, Sheriff's staff are working in the meantime to improve data tracking and reporting of overtime usage based on CEO recommendations to include the various drivers or categories of overtime. The final finding states that increased staffing costs are exacerbated by the administration of two jail facilities. We agree with this finding. Accordingly, the grand jury recommends creation of a South County Jail decommissioning plan by December 31st, 2026. This recommendation will be implemented. County stakeholders are currently creating a transition plan for consolidation of jail operations to include decommissioning the South County Jail and staff anticipate bringing this plan to your board for approval in December. In conclusion, the county is aligned with the grand jury's intent on each of these recommendations and staff have already implemented or taken steps to implement each recommendation with the overarching goal of improving utilization and management of overtime in the sheriff's office. For your board's consideration, we have recommended actions A through C as they appear here on the slide. and we are available to answer any questions you may have. Thank you.

All right. Thank you, Mr. Harmley. Questions from the board? Supervisor Lavagnino.

Thank you. So on the sheriffs, the ones that he has to have the recommendation, he has to answer to the grand jury. Do we get a copy of that as well?

Yes. Supervisor Lavagnino, through the chair, that is included with the board packet for this item as attachment C. Okay, perfect.

Thank you. Supervisor Capps.

I mean, honestly, I'll just note, I really appreciate the grand jury report. We we talk about over time, it seems like almost every hearing. So I don't actually have any questions at this point.

Thank you.

All right. Supervisor Hartman.

Yeah, I was just I know we were. All of us have borne some responsibility for the overtime issues that we faced. And part of it is a structural issue with the time cards and work day. And I wonder, phase one of work day, there's a January 2027 date and then a spring 2027. So I just, could you describe for me when we're going to get to a better solution with Workday so that our time cards, right now I think it's just we have to take what is given and hope the managers can oversee, but how will Workday improve that and when will we see those changes going into effect?

SUPERVISOR HARTMAN THROUGH THE CHAIR. I CAN SPEAK TO THE TIMELINE. I'M ON THE WORKDAY STEERING COMMITTEE. THE PHASE TWO WHICH IS GOING TO BE THE PAYROLL AND THE HR MANAGEMENT SIDE OF THINGS. THE RFP, NICOLE WAS SPEAKING OF, WE ARE CLOSE TO BEING READY TO ISSUE THAT. I THINK WE ARE EVEN PLANNING TO PROBABLY COME TO THE BOARD AND GIVE AN UPDATE MORE COMPREHENSIVELY PROBABLY IN THE NEXT COUPLE HEARINGS ON KIND OF WHERE WE'RE AT WITH WORKDAY AND WHAT PHASE TWO IS GOING TO BE IN THAT TIMELINE. BUT WE'RE TRYING TO ISSUE THIS FALL, TRY TO BRING A CONTRACTOR, A CONTRACT BACK TO YOUR BOARD BY EARLY NEXT YEAR. and start that implementation in the spring. It's probably about a year and a half implementation or so. So it's really right now the target would be summer of 28 that we'd be seeing that payroll system go live. And it kind of has to implement on quarters. So July 1 is sort of that target of 2028 with a 12, 15 month implementation period.

And can someone describe for me what a difference this will make? I remember the auditor some time back was saying, you know, she's very limited in the information that's collected on the time cards. So what are we now and how is it going to be different when we have workday?

So I'm not sure anyone from, if anyone from HR or, do you have?

The auditors, Betsy Schaefer and Joel, are in the Santa Barbara hearing room if you want to direct questions directly to them.

Okay, so we could ask them. And then also we can definitely, I'll take that back to the steering committee and the item we're working on. We'll be sure to discuss that in further detail.

Yeah, I just think people, the grand jury members may be watching. They'd be curious where are we headed. And so I'd like just a brief description.

Auditor Schaefer, are you down there?

I'm here. Yeah, thank you.

We can. Thank you.

I have to say, Chair Nelson and Supervisor Hartman, we're still working on exactly how the system is going to be put together and the benefits of the system. We do hope that there is better reporting, just a lot of different ways of inputting data into the system. better overall accessibility, I would say those are the key benefits right now.

All right. Since we have Auditor Schaffer there, I had just a quick question. This is kind of related in part about the report coming back on other departments within the county on overtime. When is that potentially coming back to us?

Yeah, we're still looking at late September, early October for that.

All right.

And remember, yeah, we're looking at fire next and currently.

Thank you. Okay. All right. Don't see any other lights on. Madam Clerk, is there any public comment on this item?

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

All right. Any additional deliberations here or comments? Supervisor Capps and Supervisor Hartman.

I did have a more general question for the sheriff or the sheriff's office. Just more broadly, you know, again, we spoke last week about, you know, 45% of time cards reflected that... 45% of your staff work more than 12 hours. And we, and, uh, that I understand I've talked about how, you know, that's, that is a concern for the health of, of the employees. And so I just wondered with this report, if what, what would the future look like if this, if you were up here, you know, two years from now, like what's, what's an ideal, is there a standard that, um, a metric that is something in your, in the industry or that you're, that you're hoping to achieve? If you can speak to that more broadly, future forward. Is it eight hour? You mentioned something about how we're moving down to eight hours and 10 hours. I'm just wondering, using the opportunity of the grand jury's scrutiny, which I, again, very much appreciate, what's the goal?

Well, Supervisor Capps to the Chair, obviously I think the goal currently is to maximize our ability to control overtime, to determine how that overtime is being spent, and to make sure that it is absolutely necessary. As mentioned, we have shown some improvement in that regard from the past. But we're rapidly approaching the stage where the overtime is... going to level out in terms of the amount that we need to run operations both in the field and in the jail. And there's going to be a point where it stops declining. So we're still going to be, and I've discussed this with, and welcome, Jan, I'm sorry, this is the first time we're meeting here. You know, I discussed with Mona and her staff recently the fact that we still have this elephant in the room with respect to the adequacy of the overtime budget based on historical purposes and even with the extreme measures that we've taken to try to reduce overtime, and it's gotten quite draconian compared to what it's been in the past, we're still gonna be over. And so we all need to be aware of that. This isn't a solved problem at this point. And it does, as you know, we've talked about this before, much of this goes back to the number of staff hours that it takes to operate a jail or to run patrol operations. even at our minimum staffing levels that we are at now. So we all just have to be aware of that. I just want to make sure that you are. I think we have shown that we can make improvements. I think we have shown that there's better ways of doing things. Workday is going to be better, I think, once it's implemented in terms of being able to dissect the actual, you know, what was the overtime spent on? What was the... what was the, what particular part of the operation demanded the most overtime and is that something that we can look at and should that be better resourced perhaps in another way. The challenge that we have, as you all know, is that it's less expensive to fill the gap with overtime than it is to fill it with full-time employees. We've crossed that threshold where the actual salaries and benefits of the employees today exceed what it is in overtime. So there is essentially a cost savings to use overtime rather than to use staff. But we want to make sure that we don't burn our staff out. As you say, 12 hours, the number of employees that exceeded that is... concerning, and so it's all about balance, like everything in life, I suppose, and we need to try to work through that, but it's gonna take us all working together to just have some difficult discussions about this as we move forward and to work towards, hopefully, incrementally, perhaps, filling some of the positions that would reduce the amount of overtime.

Yeah, no, thank you. Thanks for those comments. And again, the grand jury, again, really pointed to some key things that thankfully were well underway, and we will be even further once with this MOU and the agreement with your staff, with the Sheriff's Association. So I hope that gets funded. Also, just want to point out while you're here, Sheriff, there is a cover story on The Independent right now that is just incredibly inspiring and speaks to the rehabilitation in your jail that I know is such a priority for you. And I just want to give such a heartfelt shout out because I was so moved by it and I've been speaking with my family about it. And Ryan Cruz just poured his heart into it. And I know... it has some substance to what we're doing here because in the Northern Branch expansion, I know the design conversations just happened and our new CEO is present for those. There's going to be even enhanced room for this type of rehabilitation spaces to occur. And Eddie and others are just so dedicated. So I just wanted to acknowledge that here and encourage anyone to read Ryan Cruz's story and tell him thank you for being vulnerable and sharing his story and just allow you to speak to it because I know, again, how much you have prioritized the beauty of second chances.

Well, thank you, Supervisor Capps, for pointing that out through the chair. I appreciate you very much doing that. And I certainly appreciate Ryan Cruz doing the great job that he did on reporting and in-depth reporting about what is going on in the jail. And there are many other programs like that that are occurring in the jail that don't get, and quite frankly, we don't do for publicity. We do for effectiveness.

Yeah.

And I am just incredibly proud of our staff in this case, particularly with Chaplain Eddie and his wife, Alice, who are an incredible team and do great, great work. And the programs that they have and the care that they have for the people that are in our custody is second to none. And so I appreciate that. And I think there's a lot of. a lot of good things that are currently underway and that are actually on the drawing board right now as well for trying to work to provide opportunities for inmates to reflect as they do in this class upon some of the traumas and some of the issues that they've had in their lives and being able to deal with that and move forward and be successful. And for that, we're grateful and grateful for the partnership, the volunteer partnership that we have through Ryan Cruz and the writing class and also through the chaplains program and others that are really provided at no cost to the taxpayers. And we gain a great benefit. And I think... You know, it's difficult to quantify it with respect to recidivism reduction, but I think it's all on that same track towards that.

Great.

Thank you.

So thank you.

All right. Thank you, Supervisor Kautz, for pointing that out. Supervisor Hartman?

Sorry.

You still? No. All right. Just a few comments from me. When I saw the title of this, you know, what's up with the overtime, my response I wrote down was, we know we're on it, and we are, and I think that's really important here. I think we've been having a productive conversation, and we just really appreciate, Sheriff, your department's efforts here. You know, overtime's Kind of driven by three things. Unplanned events, which we can't ever budget for, really. We can expect staffing shortages, which has been a chronic issue in law enforcement, not just in Santa Barbara County, but elsewhere. And then MOU-enabled practices. And I think we've kind of got our arms around some of those. We've made some significant progress over the last year when this has been highlighted. And I think it's something that's going to benefit the organization as a whole, not just in the Sheriff's Department. I think when you take a look at this, I think we are trying to be better stewards of taxpayer dollars. what the grand jury's looking at here was important, but I do definitely think it's not necessarily something that we needed them to bring it to us, because we were really already trying to tackle that problem here locally. I just, one last comment that I just thought about when you, well, actually two. Right now, salary and benefits are cheaper with overtime, but in a few years when we eventually retire the pension and we don't have the same contribution rate, that may change. So I think that needs to be on the radar for the department and the organization, because right now we're paying a significant portion of your first 40 hours towards your retirement. That will change later on when that number comes down. It may be cheaper for us to hire new employees, which I hope it does, so we don't have burnout. um and then the other issue is that we at some point and i know that the sheriff will appreciate this we need to right size our budget for overtime i mean i know it's hard right now because we have unplanned events we are running two jails one that we're decommissioning it's a dynamic environment but i think that's something we need to do so we're not constantly back in this place where we're you're getting criticized every year is going over budget We as a board know that you're going to go over budget. That's one of the reasons why we negotiated the contract, the DSA, the way we did. And we gave them some credits for bringing down this over time because we know it's going to be a cost whether it's budgeted or not. And I think some point in the future we need to get our arms better around that and hopefully do that in the next budget year. So those were just my last thoughts.

And with that, I just want to thank you and the board for the support with that and thank the DSA because I think it's a great example of the entities coming together and working together to address this problem. And it's not going to completely solve it, but it's going to be it's a step in the right direction. And it took a lot for both to step up and to to come to that agreement, so I appreciate that very much.

Yeah, thank you, Sheriff Brown. Supervisor Capps.

So I'd like to make a motion of the recommended actions accepting A, B, and C, but I'd like to slightly amend A, if possible, just with finding three, recommendation three.

Just give me, hold on one second, let me pull it up for myself here, if you can.

It's very minor. But I'd like to agree with the grand jury when possible. And this one is so technical. Rather than saying this recommendation will not be implemented, it's just saying this recommendation will be implemented three months after the listed timeframe. It's just wordsmithing.

Before we do that, I guess I need to check. I know that some of these responses are required I know we're fairly prescribed in some of these, so I want to double check. I'm more than happy to accept the amendment for the intent of it, but I want to make sure that that's appropriate. Ms. Parmelee or maybe County Council can chime in.

Yes, thank you, Chair Nelson. We would defer to Council's perspective on that question. Mr.

Chair and members of the board, so under the penal code, on the recommendations the options are the recommendation has not been implemented with a summary or another option is a The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future with a timeframe for implementation.

So I think that might be what you're addressing.

I'm not sure of the timeframe from what we heard, so I'm not sure how we would address that.

It's just trying to frame it more positively since we are, again, I try to look at these as the spirit of the recommendations as opposed to the technicalities. But if that's, it's not, again, very minor, but if we can just state it in the positive, the recommendation, has not yet, but will be, or something to that effect.

Chair Nelson, if your board would like to make that change, we'd recommend that the timeframe be summer of 2028. By the end of summer?

It was said in the report that it was just three months after. Anyway, okay.

Supervisor Capps, I believe that was when the implementation was scheduled to begin. Okay. Spring 2027. Okay.

All right. So let's try that language. Here's gonna make sure we have a good motion.

I don't want to make a big deal.

It's fine. It's fine. The intent is appreciated. So, um, what? So the recommend. So this is for three dash three by any three recommendation three. Um, what's the prescribed term we can use here? County Council.

The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future.

Okay.

Estimated time frame is summer of 2028. 2027 or 28?

28.

Okay.

All right. So that's my motion. That's your motion.

Second.

All right. Does staff have that down? Pretty comfortable there? Everybody's got nod heads. Any further discussion on the motion? Seeing none, all in favor signify by... There was a motion, second by Hartman. Motion by Capps, second by Hartman. All in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Opposed? Motion passes unanimously. Thank you all. All right. Moving on to departmental item number three. Madam Clerk, we please read that. I'm in the record.

Chair Nelson and members of the board departmental item number three is from the county executive office. It is a hearing to consider recommendations regarding responses to the 2025 through 2026 grand jury report on emergency preparedness.

All right, Chief Huff. All right, good morning, Chair Nelson, members of the board. I want to address this question firsthand. It's actually the title of the report. Is the county neglecting emergency preparedness? And I feel the answer to that is no. In fact, the fire department is recently updating its mission statement and preparedness is now in the mission. I do want to thank the grand jury for the time and effort they put into reviewing the county's emergency preparedness program, and for highlighting and bringing to attention this important issue. Emergency preparedness is critically important in Santa Barbara County, and I believe that the county and the grand jury both share the same fundamental objective, making sure that we are prepared to protect our communities when disaster occurs. We also appreciate the opportunity this report provides us to take another look at our program. Recognize what is working and identify areas where we can continue to improve. I'll keep my comments brief today and focus primarily on the county's responses to the findings and recommendations. That's me. The grand jury released its report on June 16th. The report primarily focuses on OEM staffing, resources, and organizational structure, including its placement under the fire department. The report includes five findings and eight recommendations, all of which require formal response by your board. As we go through them, you'll see that the areas where the county respectfully disagrees with the grand jury's conclusion are areas that we've already addressed and have existing county policies and practices, but we believe that further analysis is appropriate in certain circumstances. Before getting into the findings, I think it's important to briefly clarify OEM's role. OEM is a division within the fire department, but its mission is countywide. It is responsible for preparedness, mitigation, response coordination, recovery, and continuous improvement related to emergencies and disasters. OEM also serves as the primary coordination point for the Santa Barbara County operational area. That means its responsibilities extend beyond county government and include coordination with our cities, special districts, education, nonprofit, volunteer organizations, and other public and private sector partners. Its work includes all hazard planning, training exercises, public education, alert and warning, EOC operations, and again, the operational area coordinator and disaster recovery. That countywide mission and responsibility did not change when OEM was transferred administratively under the fire department in 2023. After analysis, planning, and deliberate action, I wanna highlight that while OEM is housed under fire, Emergency management is not solely a fire department responsibility, it's a countywide responsibility. The county respectfully disagrees with finding number one, which has to do with its placement. I think it is an important distinction of what actually changed when OEM was transitioned to the fire department. That transition moved OEM's day-to-day and managerial support to fire. It did not change the countywide mission, its operational area responsibilities, or the authorities it has under the county chapter 12. The CEO still remains the director of emergency services and OEM continues to coordinate emergency management across county departments and throughout the operational area. I also want to be very clear about one important issue to me. Our emergency managers and OEM staff are critical and essential members of the fire department. Bringing OEM into fire never intended to diminish their profession, their specialized expertise, or their unique mission of emergency management. In fact, the intent was exactly opposite, to support, enhance, and make them better. Emergency management is a distinct professional discipline, and we value it as such. Being part of the fire department does not make OEM any less of an emergency management organization, nor does it change its countywide responsibilities. The integration provides greater connection between emergency planning, operational response, along with access to the fire department's administrative, logistical, communications, GIS, and operational resources. That was part of the intent for the transition. For these reasons, we do not believe that OEM's placement within fire negatively impacts its ability to fulfill its mission. Recommendation number one, The county will not implement this recommendation. This is a recommendation to move it back under the CEO's office. We believe that the current structure provides OEM with that administrative operational support from the fire, but preserving its countywide mission. and its operational area responsibilities, and with its direct coordination with the CEO's office when needed. As I mentioned before, the CEO remains the Director of Emergency Services under Chapter 12. That authority did not change. For these reasons, we don't believe changing the reporting structure back to the CEO's office would improve the emergency management capability. Finding number two addresses staffing, and the county disagrees with the finding as written. To be clear, we're not saying that the staffing level right now is necessarily the right level. Rather, we don't believe that the report provides the workload analysis necessary to determine what is the appropriate staffing level. Emergency management staffing should be based on the program's responsibilities, actual workload, service expectations, and available resources, and the ability to support across the organization to each specific county. We can also augment OEM with resources throughout the fire department and the greater county as a whole, particularly during emergencies. That being said, We believe the staffing question is legitimate and does deserve an objective evaluation, which we'll discuss in the next recommendation. Recommendation two recommends increasing OEM staffing to 12 full-time employees. The county believes this requirement requires further analysis. The grand jury identified 12 positions it believes should be compromised in the program. However, the report does not provide the workload analysis or an established industry staffing standard that demonstrates 12 is the appropriate number for Santa Barbara County. Rather than start with a predetermined number, we believe that staffing should be based on the work that actually needs to be performed. That includes our mandated and our mission-critical responsibilities, again, our workload, service levels, available technology, and shared resources across the county, and our fiscal resources necessary to sustain and support that program. For this reason, we are moving forward with the independent assessment of OEM. That assessment will help distinguish between resources that are necessary to accomplish the mission and resources that provide measurable improvements to preparedness and enhance service levels. The staffing level may ultimately change. We want that determination to be based on an objective analysis on the needs of our county, Santa Barbara County. Once that assessment is complete, we'll be much better prepared to have a position of what our staffing numbers should be. Finding number three addresses our disaster service worker program, and the county disagrees with this finding as written. I do want to acknowledge the underlying issue, maintaining a trained and capable cadre of employees who can support an extended EOC activation is absolutely important and requires constant attention. Where we differ is the consequences of not having 204 fully trained people at a particular point in time. That does not mean the county is not prepared to operate the EOC. It is important to note that the EOC is scalable based on the incident size, type, complexity, and duration. We also have a requirement in the county that every county employee is a disaster service worker. The county has over 2,000 employees. The departments are responsible for assigning positions in the EOC and provide depth in that staffing. We actually have over 244 trained employees just not rostered as such. Employee turnover, changing assignments, these types of things mean that this number is never static. Training, exercising, recruiting, and refreshing the roster is a continuous process. The county has a policy and organizational framework in place that works. Recommendation 3A calls for training and exercise program. The county considers this is already implemented. We have a board approved disaster service worker policy. That policy establishes training requirements for county employees, specifically those assigned to the EOC positions. OEM coordinates that training, conducts exercises, and tracks compliance. I do want to highlight that implementation does not mean completed. Maintaining EOC readiness is a constant process. Employees retire our promoted transfer change assignments so we must continually train, exercise and build depth within our organization. We believe the framework is there and this recommendation is already in place and we will continue working to strengthen our readiness. Recommendation 3B calls for department heads to ensure their assigned disaster service workers participate in training and exercises. The county believes this recommendation is already implemented as well. Our existing policy clearly states that emergency preparedness is a shared county responsibility. Each department head is responsible for identifying employees assigned to the EOC positions, maintaining significant depth for multiple operational periods, and ensuring those employees receive the required training. OEM's role is to coordinate the program, provide the training and exercises, and help track that compliance. The OEM cannot build countywide preparedness by itself. Every department is responsible for ensuring employees are trained and prepared to fulfill their county emergency assignments. It isn't an OEM expectation. It is the responsibility of the board established policy that requires department heads to ensure required training is completed. Recommendation 3C calls for ensuring department head cooperation in training and exercises by adding participation requirement and some language to their EPR. County considers this recommendation is also implemented. OEM maintains overall roster and coordinates the system, but department heads are responsible for providing and maintaining the trained personnel assigned to their positions. We will continue holding ourselves accountable and our departments accountable for keeping it current and maintaining the readiness necessary for an extended activation. Recommendation four addresses the transfer of certain oil and gas responsibilities from OEM to the fire department, which puts us not in compliance with the oil spill contingency plan. The county disagrees with this finding. The 2019 transfer was intentional and placed technical and operational responsibilities within the department which has the subject matter expertise, response capability and response capabilities to manage them. Fire maintains hazardous materials response capabilities, specialized training and equipment, fire prevention and regulatory expertise and the incident command structure necessary to respond to these types of emergencies. At this time, fire that sorry at this at the same time this does not remove oem from an oil emergency oem continues to fulfill its county-wide role in coordination eoc operations public information and warning consequence management and recovery when an incident requires those capabilities we believe this structure puts the technical responsibility where the expertise exists while preserving oem's broader emergency management and operational coordination role For these reasons, we do not believe that the transfer has reduced the county's preparedness for oil and gas emergencies and puts us out of compliance. Recommendation 4A calls for the transfer of these oil and gas responsibilities back to OEM. The county will not implement this recommendation. As I mentioned before, We believe that the technical and operational responsibilities are appropriate, appropriately aligned with fire where the specialty, the specialized expertise, equipment and regulatory functions already reside. Fire will work collaborative collaboratively with our local state and federal partners to update the oil spill contingency plan and related emergency plans. We recognize the need to update the playing documents and ensure the roles, responsibilities and coordination is clearly defined before the next incident occurs. Recommendation 4B addresses OEM's involvement in the unified command during an incident. The county will not implement this recommendation. Fire is defined as that local on-scene government coordinator establishing its role in the unified command. This position is part of the incident command structure that the fire department operates in every day and on every incident. Santa Barbara County Fire is a founding member of Firescope. In the 1970s, we invented that incident command system. Being within the fire department gives OEM the appropriate level of access to the unified commander to support its specific mission. Finding five addresses the county's use of volunteers and the county disagrees with the finding as written. Volunteers are an important part of emergency management system and the county already works with several established volunteer organizations that provide specialized capabilities during emergencies. Our current model relies on those existing partnerships rather than maintaining one centralized county department service worker volunteer program. We don't believe that the absence of a single formal program by itself shows that the county can't support a prolonged or complex emergency. Recommendation number five calls for establishing a formal disaster service worker volunteer program. The county believes that this requires further analysis. I want to be clear, we absolutely recognize the value of volunteers in emergency preparedness, response, and recovery. We already have strong partnerships with established organizations that provide these important capabilities during county emergencies. The question for us is not whether volunteers are valuable, it's whether creating a new formal program would be meaningful and improve our capabilities or potentially duplicate programs and partnerships that already exist. We also need to understand what it would take to train, recruit, credential, manage, and sustain such a program. A volunteer program requires staff time, oversight, training, equipment, and ongoing resources to be effective. For these reasons, we believe the next step is to include this in our independent assessment and determine where the gaps exist. what capabilities we need and whether a formal county disaster worker volunteer program is the best way to fill them. With that, the recommendations before your board today are to adopt the responses to the grand jury's findings and recommendations and authorize the chair to sign the response letter to the presiding judge and make the required CEQA determination. I want to close again by thanking the grand jury for its work and attention on this item of emergency preparedness. While we may respectfully disagree with the report's findings, we share the same goal, ensuring that Santa Barbara County is prepared for emergencies and disasters we know that we will face. The county is not neglecting emergency preparedness, but we will continue to evaluate the program, address the areas for improvement, and ensure OEM and the broader county organization are prepared to serve our communities when they need us the most and i'm now available to take any questions all right questions from the board supervisor caps then supervisor hartman um well actually supervisor hartman can go because she's been here longer and maybe maybe we'll answer some of my questions all right supervisor

Well, first of all, I remember when EOC was put with FIRE and that was a really important thing because we weren't getting the kind of integration that we needed. And FIRE, I think of EOC as kind of the the nervous system and fires the boots on the ground. And we didn't always have the connection that we needed. So I think that is really important. I also wanted to ask you, we've made some significant investments in our EOC. Would you please describe those?

Sure, well the EOC itself, the main building was a significant investment considering what we were operating out of before some double wide trailers. We have a state of the art EOC and we've recently added a larger call taking center and a JIC for information sharing. So the county's even continuing to make those investments to improve the EOC.

right so we we have a state-of-the-art facility and i i know i sometimes have an opportunity to talk to employees at their halftime highlights after six months and they all know they're emergency workers i mean that is uh comes with the definition of working for the county of santa barbara um by law and and they take that very seriously um i'm i'm not aware of all the programs that we have to train them, but I know that they do exist. I think there were two things that the grand jury highlighted that we are working on. So I just, I appreciate their work. One is the assessment, staffing assessment of the EOC and do we have adequate staff and doing a regular study of that. And I think that that's a really great idea. The other is the issue of the volunteer program. And I'm glad that we're gonna do further work on that. I know that we've had, since 2014, 43 declared emergencies. So we're in a constant state of emergency. And I think we are very experienced in how to manage emergencies and keep the business in the county going. But, and you've built up a lot of relationships. But when it comes to the volunteer organizations, for somebody from the outside looking in, it's kind of a morass. And I think you're gonna do a gap analysis, it sounds like, but that would be really helpful to know what organizations are out there, have that listed, and formalize it in some way. I don't mean necessarily MOUs, but just, You all have an understanding of those relationships, but I think it would be great for the wider public to be able to see that and understand. I'm really interested in Equine Evac, and we've had a number of meetings where EOC has tried to help us in the Santa Ynez Valley, for example. But there's a whole array of volunteer organizations, and I think we just want to make that more explicit.

Yeah, Supervisor Hartman, through the chair, I totally agree. I think that a lot of these relationships are already established and it would be, like I said, a duplication of efforts in some cases where a lot of those services are already provided. So that gap analysis will come in very handy to show us where where the gaps are.

Yeah, and let me be clear. I'm not saying we need a volunteer program coordinator or program, but just some way to list or make more explicit. It can be, they're somewhat changing, but it's sort of a static thing. Who all do we look to? The Red Cross and, you know, all the different organizations.

Yeah, there's definitely some key players that are big there, for sure.

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

Yeah, thank you. I thought that's where you were probably going to go, Supervisor Harmon. And I just wanted to, because I wasn't here when the decision was made to move the Office of Emergency Management under the CEO's office. And so if you could just elaborate a bit more on how fire... the chain of command, what the operation center really looks like and how you really deal with much more than fire and what benefits are there to this staffing. And I just have to sort of editorialize. It's a little unusual, I think, for the grand jury to have focused on sort of organizational charts, they can do that and it's in their purview, but I did take note of that, that it seemed rather narrow of a critique. So can you speak to the benefits?

Sure. Supervisor Capps to the chair. You know, I was also not in this seat when the transition happened, but was definitely in the fire department. But I've gone over the transition document I've talked to the key players and it was definitely a well thought out and and coordinated transfer. The benefits that OEM gets is they're a department of seven people and the fire department has over 319 people. So we can add, we have a GIS section, we have a logistics section, we have sections within the fire department that can help there and at the administrative day to day. But also when there is an incident, we have people that are trained in ICS, maybe not in the EOC, so to say, but examples like, I can think of the activations that I've been a part of and responded to, but the COVID response was one of the biggest one way outside of our normal realm. and for everybody, OEM staff, for the fire department. But with the fire department, we have these greater, we have ability to mobilize and get more resources than they do on their own. And so again, it's a collaborative effort. It was never intended to dismiss or to make them not as needed or diminish their expertise.

I understand. So and then on the point about oil spill preparedness, can you explain why keeping those functions within the fire department is effective? Just if you can describe, I mean, I know that The grand jury also recommended moving oil spill responsibilities back to the Office of Emergency Management. But you have that operational authority now. Can you just speak to the expertise of the fire department?

Sure. Supervisor caps through the the chair. So I was actually I was a part of that transfer. Sure and We were basically duplicating a lot of efforts there was inspections and trainings and things going on with the oil industry and OEM had a person there a representative and the fire department did too so we were we're basically overlapping and BRINGING EVERYTHING INTO ONE POINT, IT MADE SENSE TO KIND OF ECONOMIES AT SCALE. WE HAD A REGULATORY PART OF IT WHERE THEY DID NOT. WE REALLY DO HAVE, IN MY OPINION, THE EXPERTISE TO BE PART OF THAT UNIFIED COMMAND SYSTEM THAT WE our department was one of the founding members of Firescope that actually created that. So it just, it made sense to eliminate the duplication and what it didn't, what was not intended to do was to cut off the coordination with OEM who still needed to do all those things, those support type missions with the recovery and alert and warning and all those other duties. So it was intended to be a better coordination. And that happened before OEM was transferred in to fire. It was years before.

Yeah. And again, it's always good to have to have fresh eyes and a grand jury taking a look at areas where we can improve, particularly in the areas where community can get more involved and draw attention. So on the topic of volunteers, I know, you know, VOAD is, we rely on them and we're so grateful, Red Cross and other faith-based organizations. I've gotten to know a little bit of them, CERT and Listos. They were so instrumental during the Thomas fire and debris flow. Can you speak to what you anticipate? What's the future? Are you concerned? Are we seeing a lot of deterioration of that kind of energy out there in terms of the volunteerism?

I have not seen that. I haven't either. And again, it's the same people in all these activations that you see the same faces that will continue to show up. But I think it is a concern. Our culture as a society is changing and maybe volunteerism is not as high up as it used to be, but I'm not noticing that at the level in the EOC. And again, we cannot, we can't manage these incidents without our volunteers. We just don't have the expertise, the staff, all those things. So we do really rely on all of the volunteer partnerships that we have to make things happen.

Yeah. Okay, those are my questions for now.

All right, thank you Supervisor Capps. Do we have any public comment on this item?

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

All right, any further discussions from the board? I just, you know, appreciate Chief Huff, your presentation. You know, I think for a long time, calling you the fire department's a misnomer. You guys are so much more than that. And I think that's been seen by this board for quite some time. That's why we were very interested in looking at EMS and ambulance service. You know, that we as county taxpayers employ 24-hour service out of your department. And we know that fires happen and need absolutely response. But there's so much more that you guys do. And I think this fits perfectly. I thank you. We also failed to mention that we have also our fire and EMS dispatch, which I think is another big piece of this whole entire story. We cited that directly next to the OEM on purpose, right down from our fire headquarters. So to me, it's a natural fit for all these organizations to be under one roof. And so I support what passports have done and I support it moving on in the future. So with that, I think Supervisor Hartman, were you gonna make a motion?

I was A through C in today's board letter.

Second, and I just want to make a comment that, Chief Hoff, I fully support you and I trust that you and your team will do everything to protect our community.

If I could just add a comment that I appreciate your comments today because while... it's important for the grand jury to shine a light i do think a lot of critical pieces were missing from this report and again we have the vantage point of seeing a lot of things like you just mentioned the ems dispatch which is you know literally saves seconds uh in terms of response which is lives and i know director hubbard's here there's so much that happens and i'm so proud of our emergency responses sort of see a question of you know neglect does not at all comport with what we see every day and what we fund and um sure there were um every department had to take um some cuts and um so While I'm not critical of the grand jury for shining a light, I think it's always important for them to do, I do see that it doesn't tell a complete picture by any means. And I have some... I don't like what that sends to the community because safety is not just... uh something that you I learned this as a school board member safety isn't just something tangible it's also how you feel and we want to make sure that our community feels safe because they should feel safe we have a very robust, dedicated team of first responders, not just those who wear the uniforms and do this as their day job, but all these volunteers. And I'm so proud of them. And I think this is an opportunity to thank them and to affirm the work that our county does. And I just know from our vantage point that it is the highest priority of what we do as a county government. Our new CEO said it in her comments. It's we're on the front lines here, and we feel it so Thank You chief Huff for your comments by Disputing the title because we are not neglecting in fact. We're fortifying.

Thank you all right Super has loving you further further comment on the motion.

Just uh just real quick I just want to say to the proof is in the pudding. I mean like we're always getting tested here with emergency response and i think i'd stack our team up against anybody and and maybe it's something the grand jury could take a look at in three or four years and see the difference of how it's gone with different grand jury members and maybe get a different perspective thank you so again we have a motion and a second any further discussion see none all in favor signify by saying aye aye opposed motion passes unanimously

Right. Thank you all. We'll be transitioning here to our next item, our fourth and final departmental item today. Madam Clerk, can you please read that item into the record?

Chair Nelson and members of the board, departmental item number four is from the County Executive Office. It is a hearing to consider recommendations regarding responses to the 2025 through 2026 grand jury report on property tax bill charges.

All right, Ms. Steele-Blossom.

Good morning, chair and supervisors. My name is Jessie Steele-Blossom and I'm a principal analyst with the CEO's office. And today I will be presenting the response to the 2025-26 grand jury report entitled, what are these extra charges on my property tax bill? A look into what they are and how they are spent. On June 23rd, 2026, the Santa Barbara County Grand Jury issued its report. The report reviewed the benefit assessment fees included in property tax bills and looked at how they were spent and whether residences were receiving the services they're paying for. The report includes three findings and four recommendations, which the board must respond to within 90 days of report issuance. In some areas of the county, residents agree to pay fees for additional services provided by a special district. These include things such as street lighting, mosquito control, sanitary services, flood control, and water conservation. Funding for special districts is levied through benefit assessments, which are reflected as additional charges on residents' property tax bills. Again, the grand jury reviewed how these assessment fees were spent and whether residents were receiving the services they were paying for, and the report recommends that the county increase transparency around how those funds are used and provide noticing to residents of special districts and community service areas, or CSAs. Under finding one, the grand jury report says that the board of supervisors acts as the board for the dependent special district and can provide additional services to residents appropriately at a local level, but not all are transparent about how funds are used. And notably taxpayers in county service areas are not well informed about decision making. The county disagrees with this finding. Transparent information is available for all special districts. Every five years the Santa Barbara Local Agency Formation Commission, or LAFCO, conducts municipal service reviews for each special service area. These reviews include specific information about services provided and a financial analysis for each special district in CSA. Reviews are published by LAFCO and are considered at public hearings. In addition, for county administered CSAs and special districts, annual budgeting is noticed to the community. It is balloted as appropriate and presented at a public hearing and posted online. For recommendation 1A, the grand jury recommends that the board of supervisors create a page on the county's website that identifies all of the dependent special districts and provides links to projects funded by the taxes. This recommendation has been implemented. A CSA and Special Districts page has been added to the Public Works website and it provides district and service area information including geographic boundaries, an explanation of services, and links to additional information. Under recommendation 1B of the report, the grand jury recommends that the board directly notify taxpayers in dependent special districts when an item is on the board agenda that would affect the amount of the assessment or expenditure of district funds. This recommendation has also already been implemented as the county follows all noticing requirements for each special district and CSA. Though these noticing requirements vary by district and situation, items on the agenda that affect the benefit assessments are always noticed to property owners. For finding number two, the grand jury report states that the majority of new housing projected for the South County to meet the state's affordable housing requirements will be built in what is now CSA 3, and that will exacerbate issues of transparency in the use of CSA 3 funds. We disagree with this finding and as mentioned previously, information is available for CSA 3 on the new Public Works webpage. Recommendation 2 recommends that the Board of Supervisors in consultation with LAFCO review the optimal structures for service provision in developing areas of CSA 3. This recommendation will be implemented. LAFCO completed municipal service reviews for CSA 3 in both 2023 and 2024. And during these reviews, LAFCO concluded that there were no obvious opportunities for structural changes in the governance of the district, but they did note that there was value in local agencies collaborating and exploring opportunities to improve delivery of municipal services. The county is currently reviewing these services and the CSA boundaries in the context of planned development to optimize the structure and services provided to the Eastern Goleta Valley and other areas adjacent to Goleta. Finding three states more than 2,000 of the new housing units projected in the county to meet the state requirements will be built outside of what is now CSA 3 and those residents will require services and LAFCO created agencies to provide services. We disagree with this finding. While the county agrees that additional services will be necessary to accommodate new housing units, creating a new LAFCO-created agency may not be required for all housing projects. There are currently three large housing developments in the pipeline, one which is currently within CSA 3, and that's the San Marcos Tatum project, one that is planned to be annexed into CSA 3, and that's within the South Patterson area, and one which will be evaluated by LAFCO as the development progresses, and that would be Glen Annie. For recommendation three, the grand jury recommends that the board in consultation with LAFCO ensure that any agencies created to provide services to new developments provide a clear explanation of services to be provided and the cost to residents. This recommendation will be implemented. Any agencies created to provide services to new developments would include an analysis and reports detailing services, a public outreach process, and would require a vote of the assessment payers. Implementation will occur concurrently with appropriate processes to establish a new CSA and or annex into an existing CSA. The recommended actions for your board today are to consider the responses to the grand jury report, authorize the chair to sign the letter with the responses and forward it to the presiding judge, and to also find that this action is not a project subject to CEQA. and we're now available to answer any questions you may have. Thank you.

All right. Thank you, Mrs. Steele Blossom. Questions from the board? I'll jump in for a moment. That was an interesting report and I appreciate the CO's and county's responses. I think there was a big miss though by the grand jury and potentially by us to exclude the county facility districts as well on the county page. I think that that's... Maybe it's only because it exists in my district and nowhere else, but I think it's a huge amount of money that goes towards services countywide that are enjoyed by all county residents that are only paid by specific county taxpayers. So I think that should be reflected here as well. So it's something that should be added. I know that's outside of the grand jury's recommendation. It's actually something I hope that they look into a little bit more, that disparity, but... That's not the issue here, but I think it definitely falls under the categories of additional services. The other thing I wanted to maybe see is if we could on that actually have the assessment amount. I know it talked about the range on the webpage. I think it talks on the webpage about from as low as $5.94 per resident per year on CSA-5 up to $467 per resident on CSA-41. I think having a list of all those rates on there, I didn't see them on that webpage, I think that'd be helpful for additional transparency. But I do like what we did here with this, and I think that's gonna be an added benefit for me as a supervisor who has to communicate to my residents these things, but also to the general public who may wanna find out some of this information for themselves. So those are just some comments that I had based on that. Supervisor Capps.

Yeah, it's really, I mean, I'm all for more transparency with government and appreciate the grand jury pointing this out. I mean, I think these notices that come in the mail with your tax bill, it's an opportunity to explain how are our taxes being spent. And when I looked at the example in the packet, you know, CSA-3, which is in my district as well as Supervisor Lee's, it just is an acronym. It says CSA-BEN-3. uh something acronym so i mean you know we have a new tax collector coming in maybe i mean even just adding the word parks i think people would be probably slightly more motivated to pay that 24 um it's a pretty good deal in my in my opinion um uh so if we could look i know other jurisdictions are getting more creative with infographics um not spending more money but just communicating with uh the one chance we get they're opening their tax bill they're not happy about it most likely and so again um not not really a form of a question but to those uh i know you obviously track this money really carefully um in terms of csa it's a big amount of money i know If we could have a report, um, I thought talked to Supervisor Lee about this yesterday and we would appreciate a public report. It could be an a item so we don't have to spend a lot of board time on it. But then we could communicate that report in various ways to the constituents that are actually funding this funding this fund and You know, we've done other events in the past about parks that have been funded by CSA funds, and having that data every, you know, maybe annually would be a great idea. So, in short, I really appreciate the grand jury being so forward-thinking. You know, as pointed out, I'm sorry, I realize there's no question here, but here I go.

We're in deliberations. It's fine. You're good.

Director Sun, maybe I'll come up with one. But I guess that you sort of nodded. You said you'd do a report. I think you have to do a report anyway. There is a lot of new housing coming and it's gonna be a while till there's property taxes associated with that new housing because we haven't even, we just broke ground on one. So I just appreciated this huge heads up by the grand jury to start thinking, okay, we're gonna have a huge, much bigger CSA three and how should we handle that? And I'm confident that we will handle it well because we're already, you are the departments are already working well together and working well with the city of galita public works etc so i just want to assure the grand jury if anyone's listening from that previous grand jury that those conversations are active now but i as the supervisor that represents the bulk of the new housing appreciated the okay let's start thinking about all the ways in which this fund is going to exponentially get bigger and not be caught off guard so thank you all right thank you supervisor caps suez herman

I'm reminded of a John Oliver show where he talked about special districts in these fees and said they're the most important government that nobody knows about, ghost governments. There's a whole ecosystem of special districts, dependent, independent, these fees in my district, Sabata Canyon and Western Goleta have taken a lot of time from Public Works. So there's different financing mechanisms and different structures and I really appreciate the Grand Jury pointing its finger at this and trying to say it's very confusing because I think it's confusing to everybody. LAFCO you know people look to the county and say we're having these problems the county should fix it but really we're just a local government on the same level as these others and so we don't really have that ability and lafco doesn't really either and it's just kind of a function of how our state government has organized these things that there's not a lot of visibility. And sometimes I would say that some of the people are being way overpaid maybe for what they're doing, but they don't get enough people to run for election and so it's just what it is. So in terms of The county, I think anything we can do to bring more visibility, I've certainly encouraged that at LAFCO, but it's really kind of falls between the cracks, but the more we can do to help people understand. And, you know, we don't have consistent financing mechanisms. We've sort of invented different things over time after Prop 13 to be able to fund parks and roads and services. So it... maybe something explaining the evolution and what we don't do anymore but we still have existing and what we plan to do in the future because I'm confused.

right thank you um director snedden uh supervisor hartman and supervisor caps to the chair uh those are points well taken i think we do do the annual um administrative item that comes with the board but we could put some added information in there about what we've done over the year in these um csa's and and i think also just you know there's a lot of great work that's happening out there in the parks and and some of the other things that the csa is fun and and probably um having this website but also probably boosting some of the outreach that we do would probably uh give people a better picture of what what these funds are doing

All right. Thank you very much. Supervisor Capps.

Well, I'll just say I'm torn on the recommendations. You know, finding one says that they disagree that taxpayers are not well informed. I would agree. You know, so I don't want to make a big issue. It's subjective. I think we can do more. If there's a way to reword that, I could just vote against it. Either way, I don't think we have to belabor this too much, but I think there's always more we can do to be communicating this report achieved its objective. I believe for my office, my team that we I want to do more to communicate to our constituents about CSA three. Uh, but I'm just putting it out there that I probably will be voting against some of these findings, not necessarily the laugh go one, but in terms of better communication about CSA three and um, Thank you for reminding me that you do the report. I think, again, I would wish our tax bill could be more creative and actually explain what this information is doing. So I'll see where the board wants to go in terms of wordsmithing. It's never the best activity up here from the dais, but we can see how far it takes us.

So your concern specifically is about finding number one, that we disagree? Is that the one that I'm looking at? Can we bring it up? I'd like to see if we can find something that makes everybody happy if we can.

I mean, I've seen a response in other ones that says requires further analysis.

How about partially disagreeing?

Mr. Chair.

Yes.

So there's specific responses for the findings and then there's specific responses for the recommendations. So on the findings, if you either agree or another option would be to disagree wholly or partially. So maybe you could partially disagree. So those are the only two options. And then if you partially disagree, you specify which portion. But in the findings, you either agree or disagree. On the recommendations, you have the implemented, not yet implemented, but will be, or requires further analysis.

So, Supervisor Capps, your concern is about whether the information is properly getting out there about how these funds are being used? Yeah. And services?

I think if you did a poll of people asking if they understand how their CSA dollars were being spent, I think that the answer would probably be very low.

If you did a poll of supervisors, it might be low.

So on the one hand, we are doing a website and we have an A item every year. So yes, we are checking the box. On the other hand, the way this is worded, taxpayers and county service areas are not well informed. It's hard to disagree with that. So, again, a lot of this is just the way we're boxed in on these reports. If there's a way to, say, require further analysis, because I think I'm committed to finding further analysis of how we can communicate better.

So I think what you're saying is that you actually agree with the grand jury.

I do.

Okay. So we could change our recommendation to agree. Sure. May not change our recommendation. us to agree but recommended action may not change because what we're doing is we are further educating um and we have this now special district link and that's part of our implementation of our agreement that people are not fully um residents to a local level aren't we're not fully transparent on that or we have not in the past so we agree and we are implementing is there a way to to get back there

Mr. Chairman of the Board, that would be an option. You could agree with the finding and then... Keep the recommended action? And then recommended action. It doesn't change what we're doing.

You're already acting in an affirmative pathway and to go along with Supervisor Capp's desire to be more positive in a relationship with the grand jury. We can agree that we haven't been there yet, but we're getting there.

And let me just see if there's one, if there's a way to...

also recommend that the tax collector improve the tax bills if that's something that's appropriate for this board to include explore how explore how was there was there any direction from the grand jury to did they direct any questions to the treasurer tax collector i mean that would be his question he's independent so i don't yeah

Super 11. That's true. Supervisor Levenino through the chair. No, they did not provide any specific recommendations for the treasurer tax collector. Okay.

I think we can.

Like a website. So that's.

I think we should be able to work with them. I know that they've in the past had some noticings that go out with tax bills that help you know where your tax dollars are going. They have that little pie wheel where it talks about where it goes to local government and whatnot. I'm sure this is an area that they might be open to. And maybe, I don't know if we need to have it in here, but maybe that's a next step for us as a board to work with the Treasury Tax Collector to get some more information or links in their tax bill so that they could go onto this website and they could get some of this additional information. Because I think that's where I think I see you wanting to go here.

That'd be great. So not necessarily a, I don't necessarily change the... Director, yeah, it doesn't change the recommended actions, but...

I think that's direction from the board for us to work closer with the Treasury Tax Collector to get some further transparency in tax bills moving forward. Great.

Thanks.

Okay, so I think the recommended action at this point would be staff recommendation with the exception of on finding one, we change that from disagree to agree. doesn't change what our ultimate recommended implemented action would be, because it's the same, either way we agree or disagree. Is that acceptable for my colleagues? And does that satisfy your concerns, Supervisor Capps? Yep. Is that okay with Council? Okay, I'm getting nodding heads. Everybody's happy here. Any further discussion on that? All right. And again, I think I checked already for public comment. Was there no public comment on this item?

Chair Melson and members of the board, a great question. There is no request to speak from the public on this.

Thank you.

And then on finding two, it's, I mean, it's hard to, again, hard to disagree with finding two. If you could put it up, please. So maybe it's the same approach. We could agree with the finding. I don't know how you could disagree with that.

Okay.

Because it's going to be with potentially, you know, 3,000 to 4,000 more people paying, I guess that's units, paying into these funds. It's hard to argue with the fact that transparency issues won't be exacerbated.

Okay. I'm still fine with going to agree. I think where recommended actions are still prudent. And again, I appreciate staff and for their approach on those. So I think we can agree with finding two without changing anything in a material way.

Are you good with that Supervisor Lee? It's in your district as well.

Okay, everybody's good here? We better check finding three real quick as well.

And then finding three, again, I'm not on LAFCO, so I wanted to check with those who are. I could see it's, again, if with 2,000 more units, if there needs to be, again, this is way down the line, years down the line, but would it be requires more analysis if there needs to be a new special agency? It seems like that's possible, but...

So I would jump in on that. I don't think it's necessarily a LAFCO created. Somebody can maybe correct me if I'm wrong. If there was a new CSA, it'd actually be created by this board, and it would be a condition of approval on those new projects. That's typically how that works, either a CSA or a CFD. That's typically how it's done. We actually created it, not LAFCO. So if it's something we wanted to do, my understanding is that's something we would need to develop and create. MOVING FORWARD. AND I LOOK LIKE ACO HORTON IS HERE. IT MIGHT BE A GOOD SUBJECT MATTER EXPERT TO BE ABLE TO SPEAK TO THIS.

PLEASE. THANK YOU, CHAIR. IN REGARDS TO THE REFERENCED DEVELOPMENTS, WE ARE CURRENTLY ANALYZING WHETHER THOSE PROPERTIES WILL BE RECOMMENDED INTO ANNEXING INTO CSA 3. AND WE ARE ALSO IN DISCUSSIONS AND COORDINATING WITH THE CITY OF GALLETA ON THAT AS WELL.

SO WE ARE ANALYZING. So I mean, again.

That's why we're partially disagreeing, because I think we're saying there are some agreements there, but we're continuing to work on it.

But it says disagree currently.

It says partially disagrees.

Oh, mine just says disagree.

my board letter or uh okay uh so jerry nelson sorry i understand sorry i'm still i'm still back on finding two i i just want to be clear uh and and the reason we disagreed is we meet all the requirements for transparency and lafco meets all the requirements for transparency so um There's a difference between that we could do more communication and we could give people more information, but I just want to be clear that we, the county, and LAFCO are meeting all the transparency requirements for the CSA 3 area, which is the second part of that sentence there. And also the first part of the sentence says that the affordable housing will be built and what is now csa3 that's that's only only part only one of those three developments is actually in csa3 right now so it's a little bit semantics but but that's where the disagreement came from with finding two

Which housing project will be in CSA 3?

So the ones near San Marcos High School, the Tatum and San Marcos Growers projects are already in CSA 3. The ones in the South Patterson area, we're conditioning their approvals to annex into CSA 3. Glen Annie is sort of an island away from the majority of CSA three, but we do have CSA three zones out that area. And that would be something we'd be considering as that development gets farther along in the application process.

So it would be all of the ones near San Marcos, though, would be.

eventually would be but they're not currently yeah that's semantics part here it's they're not currently on CSA 3 annexation sales Patterson area is not condition of their final approval which is once I think what the maps recorded at least the preliminary track map then they have to go to LAFCO to get added they have to file an application there's a process that's involved that they have not yet gone through is what I'm hearing chair Nelson that's correct

But again, I try to look at the spirit of these questions, and I do fully relate to the concern of the grand jury of all of the new housing is coming to this area. And therefore, how are we going to make sure that these funds are communicated and spent with transparency? So I would just embrace that notion and not resist that notion.

And I think just to answer it, going along with Supervisor Capps is saying, and what I'm also hearing from Director Sneddon is yes, staff has satisfied the minimum standard, but I think what you're asking for Supervisor Capps is going above that. We're not saying the staff has not followed staff board direction. I think what we're saying is we as a board want to elevate that conversation beyond the minimum that's required. And so, which you have not got that direction in the past, but now this board is asking for that level of direction in the future. So there's additional transparency for the public. So there's additional awareness. Is that accurate supervisor caps to land where you're at?

Yeah. Yeah. But again, it's there's no criticism in this. It's just sort of saying it's going to be big. Let's make sure we meet the meet the moment and I think why not let's just agree with that notion okay um but again you're director said and you you are meeting the moment up until now so let's just let's just communicate to the grand jury and the public that we intend to continue doing that okay so I think the motion is going to be staff recommendation with a finding one and two to be changed from the words disagree to agree on finding three did we

Did we want to agree with that one as well? Supervisor Capps?

Chair Nelson, I'm just noting the memo in your packet does say partially disagree. The slide says disagree, but the memo itself, the draft memo, says partially.

And so I guess in County Council, how do I... So the draft memo that we have was the controlling...

um deal uh so this is the the powerpoint is slightly off here it says disagree when we when the actual draft memo and the recommended actions have this is partially disagree that's correct mr chair so when you when the board takes the action um you can just clarify that it's it's partially disagree if that's how you want to keep it that is what's recommended by staff

think it partially disagree is appropriate because lafco doesn't create that agency it's actually going to be us so we need to partially disagree on that one that makes sense okay great all right so i'm going to go ahead and make the motion staff recommendation with the amendments of agree on under finding one and finding two and we are going to further clarify that finding three is partially disagree as it is in the memo not in the presentation so i'll make that motion just to get it out there so we're not too far from this discussion i second it thank you so much thanks for uh again thanks for your willingness here uh to to go along and also to the grand jury for um thinking ahead a few years in the future great thank you so we have a motion and a second any further discussion on the motion okay see none all in favor signify by saying aye aye opposed motion passes unanimously All right, that concludes our departmental items for today. We'll be go ahead and moving into closed session. For those members of the public that are watching this meeting, we will reconvene after closed session to report out from closed session, but we have no additional public business to present or additional departmental items. So this will conclude our regular portion of the meeting. So Madam County Council, will you please read out for us the items we will be discussing in closed session today?

Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the board. In closed session today, the board will be discussing existing litigation, including flying goat sellers versus the county, which is a U.S. district court case in the central district, as well as Sunclose Bloom LLC versus the county, which is an office of administrative hearing case, and Valley Crest Farmed LLC versus the county, which is also an office of administrative hearing case. and then um conference with legal counsel anticipated litigation deciding whether to initiate civil litigation in two cases and the time estimate is 30 to 45 minutes all right we'll be back in about 12 45.

Welcome back to the August 25th, 2026 meeting of the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors. We're just returning back from closed session to report out. Madam County Council, can you please report out on any reportable actions?

Thank you, Mr. Chair, members of the board. The board met in closed session on existing litigation, flying goat sellers versus county, Suncoast Gloom LLC versus the county, Valley Crest versus the farms versus the county, and anticipated litigation deciding whether to initiate civil litigation in two cases, and the board took no reportable action.

All right. Thank you very much. And with that, we conclude, adjourn our meeting this week and we will be returned to Santa Barbara on September 1st. See you then.