[8:32] Good afternoon. I will call to order the September 3rd, 2020, six meeting of the Santa Barbara Local Agency Formation Commission. Madam Clerk, please call the roll.

[8:44] Commissioner Sabez.

[8:46] Here.

[8:47] Commissioner Gaia.

[8:49] Commissioner Hartman.

[8:52] Commissioner Karyako.

[8:55] Commissioner Lee.

[8:58] Commissioner Magania.

[9:02] Commissioner Mosby.

[9:05] Here.

[9:06] Mr. Nelson.

[9:08] Commissioner Patino.

[9:11] Here.

[9:11] Mr. Stark.

[9:13] Here.

[9:14] Mr. Johnson.

[9:15] Here.

[9:17] Let the record reflect that.

[9:20] Commissioner Magania.

[9:22] Commissioner Lee are absent.

[9:23] And I have heard that Commissioner Cariaco is going to be here.

[9:26] But it's running late.

[9:29] Thank you.

[9:30] Please rise and join me for the pledge of allegiance.

[9:36] Ready?

[9:36] I pledge allegiance to the fly of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands,

[9:45] one in Asia, and your God, and indifisible, with liberty and justice for all.

[9:57] Thank you.

[9:57] The next item of business is the app.

[10:00] Approval of minutes from the August 6th, 2020, six meeting.

[10:08] Nelson moves approval.

[10:14] We have a second, patino. We have a motion and a second. Is there anybody who wishes to speak on this? Hearing none, madam clerk, would you please call the roll?

[10:26] Commissioner Gaier.

[10:28] Commissioner Hartman.

[10:30] I.

[10:31] Commissioner Carioco.

[10:33] I.

[10:34] Commissioner Johnson.

[10:35] I.

[10:37] Commissioner Nelson.

[10:38] I.

[10:39] Commissioner Patino.

[10:41] I.

[10:42] Chair Stark.

[10:43] I.

[10:44] Motion passes unanimously.

[10:45] Thank you.

[10:46] Now is the time for public comment.

[10:49] This is the time for members of the public.

[10:52] To speak on items that are not on the agenda.

[10:55] Madam Clerk, are there any requests to speak on items not on the agenda?

[11:05] Chair Stark, and members of the Commission.

[11:07] There are no requests to speak under General Public on it this time.

[11:11] Thank you.

[11:12] I conclude public comment.

[11:15] Next is the approval of the Commission of the Consent Calendar.

[11:21] Do any commissioners wish to pull any item on the consent calendar?

[11:32] Hearing none, is there any button one from the public that wishes to speak on any item on the consent calendar?

[11:40] Chair Sarkin, members of the commission. There are no requests to speak on this item.

[11:45] Thank you. I would call for a motion for the consent calendar agenda.

[11:50] Harvon, please.

[11:54] Harvon seconds.

[11:56] We have a motion in the second. Would you please call the roll?

[12:00] Mr. Gyer.

[12:03] Mr. Hartman.

[12:06] Mr. Carriacco.

[12:07] I.

[12:08] Mr. Johnson.

[12:10] I.

[12:12] Mr. Nelson.

[12:13] Hi.

[12:15] Mr. Patino.

[12:17] I.

[12:18] And Chair Stark.

[12:20] I.

[12:21] Motion passes unanimously.

[12:23] Thank you. The next item is business item number one.

[12:26] Would the clerk please read that item into the record?

[12:32] Chair Stark and Members of the Commission, this is item number one, is to consider a approval of amendments to the commissioner handbook,

[12:39] and seek what determination regarding the commissioner's conflict of interest code.

[12:43] Thank you, Mr. Executive Officer, would you please report?

[12:46] Thank you, Chair. Good afternoon.

[12:48] We will have an endless Natasha for this item.

[12:52] Thank you, Chair Stark and Members of the Commission.

[12:55] As you're all aware, state law does require every local agency to maintain a current conflict of interest code that accurately reflects our organizational structure and properly identifies all officials and employees that are required to file a form 700.

[13:11] Lofco recently received correspondence from the County of Santa Barbara regarding its conflict of interest by an annual review notice for Lofco, which is due in October of this year.

[13:23] Lofco's existing conflict of interest code was last amended and adopted in 2022.

[13:29] More recently in the last year, Lofco has updated our administrative organization chart, which is now requiring update to our current code.

[13:37] staff is bringing before you today a resolution to amend the Commission's current conflict of interest code with the proposed changes,

[13:44] which are to add a new designated position entitled Senior Analyst,

[13:49] as well as to reaffirmed designated employees may file their statements online using the e-disclosure system.

[13:59] Thank you, any commissioners have any questions or comments?

[14:07] Yes, the designated position of senior analyst is the reason for this justification for this similar to how there's certain county positions that are considered confidential.

[14:19] Or is this for a different reason?

[14:22] No, that is the same reason.

[14:25] Thank you.

[14:31] I'd like a brief clarification.

[14:34] What is due in October is amendments to our code, not when each of the people that are required

[14:44] to file the form 700 have to file.

[14:48] That's still an April, Mike, correct on that?

[14:50] That is correct.

[14:52] Every two years, the county of Santa Barbara notifies all special districts and agencies.

[14:58] um that

[15:00] The opportunity to amend their conflict of interest code is at that given time every two years.

[15:08] If there weren't any changes for our conflict of interest code, then we would just continue to maintain the same code.

[15:16] However, this year, because we have had changes within this past year with staffing, we are requesting amendments from our commission.

[15:26] Was with do respect, you would, since you would be added to the code, is that that right?

[15:38] Yeah, we are a meeting, we are a meeting our conflict code to include that new position

[15:44] that the commission added.

[15:46] That's the simple way.

[15:46] But when is an assuming office statement required?

[15:55] Within one year.

[15:56] Within a year.

[15:57] OK, thank you.

[15:59] I would ask, is there anybody in the other commissioners?

[16:03] I have many questions.

[16:07] Is there anyone from the public who would like to speak on this matter?

[16:12] Chair Storkin, members of the commission.

[16:14] There are no requests to speak on this item.

[16:16] Thank you.

[16:17] I would call for a motion.

[16:20] I'll move for approval.

[16:22] Heart and Seconds.

[16:25] We have a motion on a second.

[16:26] is there any discussion on the motion?

[16:30] Chair Stark, can we just get clarification on who made the motion?

[16:37] I believe Commissioner Gyer made the motion.

[16:39] Thank you.

[16:40] Thank you.

[16:41] Thank

[16:43] you.

[16:46] If there's no discussion on the motion, would Adam Clark, would you please call the roll?

[16:51] Commissioner Gyer?

[16:54] Commissioner Hartman?

[16:57] Commissioner Carioco?

[16:58] Aye.

[17:00] Mr. Johnson, I, Mr. Nelson, I, Mr. Petina, I, Chair Stark, I, motion passes unanimously.

[17:14] Thank you. That brings us to item business item number two. Will the clerk please read that item into the record?

[17:22] Chair Stark and members of the Commission. Business item number two is to consider approval of the updated resolution and memorandum

[17:28] of understanding between special district risk management authority and Santa Barbara Lafco

[17:34] for health benefits and find that the proposed actions are not a project under

[17:38] SQL guidelines in that these are organizational or administrative activities of the government

[17:48] that will not result in director or indirect physical changes to the environment.

[17:53] Thank you. Maybe we have an executive officer report. Thank you chair and commission.

[17:57] And so Lafco is currently enrolled with STRMA.

[18:02] They provide both ancillary health benefits, vision and dental, and they are workers'

[18:09] com sponsor as well.

[18:13] So they provide these coverage as to us.

[18:15] We started these coverage as with them in 2022.

[18:18] The SDRMA board, they have updated their agreements to meet industry standards and norms and they have requested all of their participating members to update the agreements and MOUs that we have with them so that we're current and that we can continue to retain the benefits that we seek.

[18:41] So we place these on your agenda to be able to update and adopt the agreements with them and then we will afford those on so that we can retain services.

[18:53] There are any questions of that? I have an answer.

[18:56] Are there any commissioners have questions about this?

[19:06] Are there any non? Are there any members of the public that wishes to speak on this?

[19:12] Chair Stark and members of the commission. There are no requests to speak on this item.

[19:18] Thank you.

[19:19] I would call for a motion.

[19:25] Move staff recommendation.

[19:26] Item 2 of our business item.

[19:38] There's a motion and a second.

[19:51] Thank you.

[19:53] Madam Clerk, please call the roll.

[20:01] Okay. Commissioner Guyer.

[20:05] All right.

[20:06] Commissioner Hartman, aye.

[20:08] Commissioner Carriacos.

[20:11] Aye.

[20:12] Commissioner Johnson, aye.

[20:14] Commissioner Nelson.

[20:16] Aye. Commissioner Patino.

[20:19] Aye.

[20:20] Chair Stark.

[20:22] Motion passes unanimously.

[20:42] I understand there is a gentleman who wishes to speak on public comment the time has passed.

[20:47] I would suggest that before commissioner announcements, we give the general, which we have

[20:55] to the information item, we give the later arriving public comment person a chance to give

[21:03] you three minutes or up to three minutes in public comment if that's okay.

[21:13] The next item

[21:13] is information item number one. Would you read that into the record?

[21:19] Chair Stark in Members of the Commission, information item number one is to receive and file a status report on municipal service or paper program.

[21:32] Thank you.

[21:33] We do have a PowerPoint for this.

[21:35] Before I get into the PowerPoint, I do want to make a clarification correction and a staff report.

[21:42] In the report, inadvertently indicated that I love this to CST would be getting an adopted update to their sphere of influence.

[21:51] I wanted to make that correction clear that because IVCSD provides multiple services and they

[22:00] require multiple service reviews.

[22:03] We typically wait to adopt the spheres of influence until we've concluded all of those

[22:07] service reviews.

[22:08] So we would strike that IVCSD would be getting an updated SOI at this time at the conclusion of

[22:15] this particular service review and we would defer until we're completed all of their service

[22:19] so I want to make that clarification in the report.

[22:24] So with that, the Service Review is embarked

[22:28] back in February of this year as a commission.

[22:31] The doctorate work plan includes police fire and MS services.

[22:36] Predominantly, we've requested responses through a survey in question air

[22:42] to all of the agencies that are being evaluated

[22:45] 12 and total as part of this review.

[22:51] Responses were due, and early April, we've received those, we've prepared an administrative

[22:56] draft for each of the agencies to comment and review on.

[23:01] That's currently happening right now, there are in a 30-day period where they're critiquing

[23:08] the work, having opportunity to make changes and corrections and clarifications will receive

[23:13] those will amend the report, pair it up with the remaining chapters that are due, and then

[23:20] will likely present a public release for 30 days minimum, late October November timeframe,

[23:28] in which case then we'd like to adopt the service review and update the spheres of influence

[23:33] for those agencies that were noted at the end of the year.

[23:38] So we're still on track to complete that.

[23:44] In this particular service review, we had no significant changes that we've identified

[23:51] four series of input changes, likely just going to re-confirm the existing spheres

[23:58] for four of the agencies at least.

[24:01] With one slight caveat, we'd like to read the Hollister Avenue right away segment that sits

[24:10] out in front of the airport, the city of Santa Barbara district, to the county fire protection

[24:18] district.

[24:20] So, history is, and we'll go through a slide of what that looks like, and we'll kind

[24:26] of explain all of that.

[24:29] In addition, there were seven study areas that were being considered throughout this and will propose the tentative recommendations for the commission to consider.

[24:46] So with that, the city of Bulton that requested what we're classifying is one area, which includes three parts, essentially because it includes their measure of their urban growth boundary measure that they passed.

[25:00] In 2024, we evaluated that those sites include three areas outside of their existing city boundary. The intent

[25:11] is for future annexation for them down the future. Mainly, largely, to allow some reasonable additional

[25:19] housing growth. Should the need arise, likely when the next housing cycle comes through, and

[25:25] and they need some additional space.

[25:28] So we evaluated that, those three sites,

[25:31] and this is the three sites, just north

[25:33] in of their city limits, and towards the east.

[25:42] Right now, the conclusion is that we not amend

[25:45] the sphere of influence under the MSR program,

[25:50] but rather we defer and allow the city

[25:52] to apply for a formal sphere of influence application change.

[25:56] And in which case we can identify these three sites specifically and do site specific analysis.

[26:04] When the time is ready and it's a lot closer to when anticipated annexation might occur.

[26:13] The city of Santa Maria also requested essentially what we're calling one area and also includes multiple to the parcels.

[26:21] The intent again is to allow some mixed development of commercial and housing and institutional uses.

[26:28] This site was considered and evaluated in a previous service for you for the city, and the conclusion was that when the time was right, the city would apply for an application for a sphere in that opportunity.

[26:43] Well, the city completed their journal plan update. They have indicated that they anticipate submitting an application that largely covers this area in the near future.

[26:54] And so, under the service review and its program, we're deferring to that application to amend an official

[27:00] severe boundary for them.

[27:03] We would, a lot like Buldin, we'll wait for them to apply for a specific boundary request

[27:10] and we'll evaluate it.

[27:11] But we want to make sure we highlight the contemplated areas that the city is anticipating

[27:18] and the types of development that come that allows the commission and opportunity to sort

[27:23] to understand what might be coming for you in the future.

[27:27] Interesting.

[27:28] A bit of question on that slide.

[27:30] Or these slides in general, is that right?

[27:31] Commissioner Nelson.

[27:33] I know it's been past practice that to bring forward

[27:36] sometimes a spirit of influence and annexation request at the same time.

[27:40] Are you anticipating that with these ones here in the old tenant,

[27:42] Santa Maria?

[27:44] Are you thinking this would be done as spirit of influence is first

[27:46] and then the conversations have been request for a spirit of influence first?

[27:51] They can concurrently apply for a sphere change and annexation that often requires some sort of form of development moving through the process and being and having gotten the entitlements and I don't think either of those cities are at that stage.

[28:13] The City of Lampoke is also requested one area.

[28:17] They are currently working with the county on a Podger

[28:22] Meadows project.

[28:25] The intent, again, is to allow the builder's

[28:27] Germany project that was submitted to the county to be

[28:30] processed and then ultimately eventually annexed

[28:33] into the city through an application by the landowners

[28:38] or either the city.

[28:41] And again, the Bodger Meadow site is a subset of the larger Bailey Avenue component that the commission evaluated a few years back.

[28:53] And so this one actually has development that's going through the process.

[28:58] And so we are again deferring until that development is approved and likely allowing a concurrent application for this application.

[29:07] Again, so the recommendation is to not amend this fear at this time through the MSR program,

[29:13] but allow an application to come forward and make the commission aware of what's on the ground

[29:19] and what's being processed.

[29:24] The city of Solving also included a request of three parcels that kind of surrounded some

[29:31] of the areas of the city.

[29:32] Again, the intent was they would have some sort of master plan community that would be coming forward.

[29:39] They would evaluate that, and then they've been contemplating some additional parcels along the Alessal Ranch area.

[29:47] That would expand the ranch opportunities for some glamping experiences and whatnot within adjacent to what they are.

[30:00] 30, sir, that sits within the city boundary. And so these areas here, just west of the city, is the master plan area that they're evaluating.

[30:13] In addition, the city convened an exploratory boundary committee to look at whether they would request expansion of their sphere and future annexation to Lafco.

[30:26] I understand the City Council took an action recently that gave direction for their staff to

[30:33] come forward to Lafco and it seek some sort of boundary application for a sphere of change.

[30:39] So, it may include these, it may include a broader subset of this.

[30:44] We'll see what that application looks like when it comes in.

[30:47] But for this purpose, we evaluated what they anticipated future development might look like for

[30:53] based on conversations they've had with landowners that are interested in pursuing development.

[31:01] Area 2 was the L.A. Sol Ranch, that fingerling that stands down as the L.A. Sol Ranch,

[31:06] proper within the city, they're looking to expand adjacent to that some operations.

[31:12] So at least evaluated and again concluded that we would likely wait until the formal application came in before we

[31:20] considered any kind of application to amend the sphere.

[31:26] And lastly is the city of Santa Barbara and county fire.

[31:32] We'll have over the past that looked at reorganization activities that the commission has approved.

[31:41] These date back early in 1970s, 1980s, and prior decisions that the commission has

[31:51] I've made decisions on past boards or past commissions, have evaluated, and then we're looking

[31:59] at that Hollister Avenue right away area.

[32:03] And again, Hollister Avenue intent here is that County Fire acts as a backup of fire

[32:11] service for the airport.

[32:12] So, the airport property itself is within county fires service boundary.

[32:18] This one little strip out in front is not, and so to clarify the role in responsibilities,

[32:25] we think it'd be appropriate to clean up that boundary, officially amend the sphere of influence

[32:31] for them, and then allow essentially a set up for a future annexation of that right-of-way

[32:37] by the district or through the Board of Supervisors Action to initiate some sort of annexation.

[32:45] Mr. Brader, I have a question I apologize for my ignorance and advance.

[32:50] The area one parcels, could you refresh our recollections to what is being detached from what you

[32:58] acknowledges being detached from what I will? So that's this map here.

[33:04] So, as history tells us, all of the areas in red have been annexed into the city over time

[33:13] and through that reorganization process, they were intended to be detached from the fire district.

[33:21] But there is no official formal record of detachment.

[33:25] And so we wanted to make it clear that the intent of the commission was to detach those.

[33:31] without having to go through another formal application resolution process.

[33:36] So we are through this service review, acknowledging that past actions

[33:41] were intended to detach these areas as they annexed into the city,

[33:47] they would be taking out of the county fire district.

[33:51] And that is the way operationally things work today,

[33:55] but we just don't have a very clean record to cement that.

[33:59] So, through an adoption of the service review, we are going to use that as the action that

[34:05] the commission has come up.

[34:06] They formally go back, formally go back into the city.

[34:11] They're already in the city.

[34:12] They're already in the city.

[34:13] We're just going to formally acknowledge that they're out of the county fire district.

[34:17] Thank you.

[34:19] Sure.

[34:19] That's area one.

[34:20] There was a number of those, as you saw, that sort of fell on that bucket of their record

[34:28] It's just didn't reflect.

[34:31] I'd just had a question about that.

[34:33] So they're already in the city.

[34:36] Should I also assume that there was a traffic change done and those were eliminated as part

[34:41] of the TRA for those areas?

[34:43] Correct.

[34:43] So those areas are not providing any tax revenue to the fire district now.

[34:47] They're just on paper, not detached.

[34:51] They're on, officially on paper.

[34:53] We don't have a record of that attachment,

[34:55] which we wanted to clarify through this process.

[34:58] Okay, but there's no tax.

[35:00] There's no tax. It's already been exchanged. Everything's been transferred to the city. All services

[35:05] all calls. Officially, we're head been going to the city.

[35:10] Thank you.

[35:10] Thanks, Congressman. Mr. Prater,

[35:16] I have a question with regards to how the fire service is currently

[35:20] dispatched in their units. It's the nearest available truck. You see a lot of that in Santa

[35:27] Barbara, how does that impact this and does that policy change their spirit and influence?

[35:37] That's a good question.

[35:38] So we've noted that new dispatch arrangement with the closest response vehicle through

[35:47] a centralized dispatch.

[35:49] That in itself doesn't change the pattern of services per se and it wouldn't change anybody's

[35:57] of influence or responsibility.

[36:02] We are looking at and documenting what that looks like in actual dollars.

[36:11] At the end of the day, whatever closest unit was responded to,

[36:17] is supposed to either be build or have in-kind services for that call and that response.

[36:24] And so that particular operation and how that gets tracked is something that

[36:31] picked our interest to make sure that there is some tracking of that,

[36:37] which regional central dispatch is doing.

[36:42] They have software to do that.

[36:45] And so we're documenting that through this service review.

[36:48] And we will monitor how that operation moves forward and make sure

[36:52] that adequate funding is sufficient for that model.

[36:59] But at this time, it's one year in, and we don't know,

[37:02] but it's something that we are tracking through these service reviews

[37:05] so that subsequent reviews will be able to comment and document

[37:10] as to whether we think that's an efficient model or not.

[37:14] Thank you.

[37:15] Continue.

[37:16] OK.

[37:16] area two is this little area in yellow that little strip there. So that's the right away segment.

[37:25] All of the red area is dual service by county fire and city fire department.

[37:35] And so in order to get to it or if there's something to happen right out in front,

[37:41] There's misunderstanding of who's responsible party, ultimately who has to retain the call

[37:49] response or the bill in this case, because now they do a first closest responder,

[37:56] but then they will track who's supposed to pay for that service.

[38:02] And so in order to clean that up, we're going to amend this sphere for this little segment

[38:07] and then request that the fire district come in for an annexation to formally add it back in.

[38:16] So, at this level, the commission has the authority to amend spheres as you see fit through either the search review program,

[38:26] or through an action directed by the commission to have staff bring an item back or through a formal application of a sphere of influence,

[38:35] To actually annex that, it has to come from either the landowner or the district themselves.

[38:42] So the commission or staff, we don't have the ability to formally move that back in,

[38:46] but we can set the stage for that, and that's what we're doing.

[38:52] And again, shares of influence, a good segue into the 20 years sort of physical service boundary,

[38:58] where we think they're going to be providing services.

[39:01] Again, it's not a land use tool for that purpose.

[39:03] It's to help you make decisions on future applications that might come forward.

[39:10] An annexation is required to have the boundary in its sphere of influence if it's not

[39:17] then a concurrent action would have to take place in order for that to occur.

[39:22] And again, these usually are areas that are close to a jurisdictional boundary.

[39:27] As you saw all of the city boundaries, they were adjacent to the city limits.

[39:31] We're not looking at areas that would be beyond a parcel linked beyond or not.

[39:38] That is not allowed by Quartizinox Hospirgac, and they'd have to be contiguous.

[39:46] And then, again, if an area is within the sphere of influence, that can either be annexed

[39:52] or an out of agency service agreement can be authorized.

[39:55] And there's a shortened review process through an out of agency service agreement.

[39:59] And if it is...

[40:00] Within a sphere of influence and meets a threat to health and safety.

[40:06] Right.

[40:06] Commissioner Curia.

[40:07] Yeah, good question.

[40:08] For the two areas by the airport, is public noticing something that's already occurred

[40:16] in terms of noticing an outreach, something that's already occurred, something that's

[40:19] pending, something that's not it all required.

[40:22] I imagine there would be some required.

[40:24] Yeah, so there's a requirement to a when you amend this year of influence to include either direct

[40:31] mailing or through a paper. So this notice has been added for this MSR and we'll complete another

[40:45] one when we go to adopt this and we need at least the minimum 21 day notice. And who's the responsible

[40:50] agency for doing the noticing?

[40:52] We are.

[40:52] Life goes.

[40:54] And so, how does that work when you have one jurisdiction and another jurisdiction

[40:59] so close to each other?

[41:01] So, is there a requirement for noticing directly to effected resident, potentially affected residents

[41:08] or is this just something that you put a notice on the newspaper and that's sufficient?

[41:12] Yeah, so the requirement depends on the size and who is affected and how many boundaries we're

[41:20] if it's greater than 1,000 people that are going to be affected

[41:25] and simply a notice in the paper.

[41:27] So, if it's less, then we've got to do a direct

[41:29] mailing plus 300 foot buffer of that boundary.

[41:33] Okay, so in this particular situation.

[41:34] In this case, because we can lump everybody in,

[41:37] it meets the 1,000 foot and so we'd likely do it in a paper.

[41:41] Okay, thank you.

[41:43] Thank you.

[41:45] Continue.

[41:46] Okay, I think the concluding side is,

[41:49] are this is a municipal service review required by the Quartesie Knox Hertzberg Act before we update

[41:57] or adopt spheres of influences. Again, it's an informational piece of document for the commission

[42:04] to understand. We evaluate each of these jurisdictions ability to provide the type of service

[42:10] that they're obligated to provide. There are seven legislative factors that we must evaluate. We can

[42:18] include additional factors, and we often do, in this case, we've picked up some mental health

[42:24] services that aren't common within a legislative factor, but we felt was important

[42:30] and it's your main topic to talk about.

[42:33] The commission has also asked about overtime and it's used.

[42:36] So we've added those components to this service review, and you'll see that in here.

[42:42] In the end, we hope to produce a public review draft.

[42:48] We'll notice that for a 30-day public review period,

[42:53] an ultimate adoption likely in our December meeting.

[42:59] Again, we're amending only three spheres, in this case, not four,

[43:05] out of the 12-day disease, and that is all three-fire districts.

[43:10] So, are there any other particular questions on behalf of the answer any?

[43:14] Thank you, any further commissioner questions?

[43:23] Are there any members of the public that wish to speak on this?

[43:27] There are some of the members of the commission.

[43:29] There is a request to speak on this item from Rafael Castillo.

[43:34] Thank you.

[43:37] Go ahead, sir.

[43:39] This is new for me.

[43:40] Well, good afternoon, my name is Rafael Castillo.

[43:43] I am the Community Development Director

[43:44] for the City of Solving.

[43:46] And I first want to thank the Commission

[43:48] and the Lafca staff for taking on an MSR review.

[43:52] I've been in municipal planning for well over 15 years now.

[43:55] And this is the first time I've seen

[43:56] an MSR review in a comprehensive nature.

[43:58] So Kudos to y'all.

[44:01] I do want to read a letter that was provided

[44:03] to you, Penn by our city manager,

[44:06] and read it into the record.

[44:07] So, the primary mission of the Santa Barbara local agency formation commission, or that's

[44:13] be Lafco, is to manage the orderly formation growth boundaries of cities and special districts

[44:18] within Santa Barbara County while ensuring the public services can be delivered efficiently,

[44:24] efficiently through these districts. Since it's incorporation in 1985, the City of Solving

[44:29] is not requested amendments to its sphere of influence. The city has experienced only three minor

[44:34] and excations during this time period, including two small subdivisions in the acquisition

[44:39] of land for Sunnyfields Park. Assolving looks towards the future with a backdrop of realities

[44:45] facing California cities today due to various legislation efforts from the state. City leadership

[44:51] believes that this is appropriate time to carefully evaluate whether our existing,

[44:55] if you're observant for it's continues to reflect our future needs.

[44:59] Like, many of you may say,

[45:00] Quality Sue California, solving faces an increasingly difficult dilemma. Created in part by mandated housing requirements, limited availability of vacant parcels within our community boundary.

[45:11] The city has completed its required resounding compliance with the Department of Housing and Community Development, or HCD, and has amended its zoning ordinance to accommodate and fill housing.

[45:21] These changes have spurred infill development within our village court, along with housing

[45:26] applications within our resound sites, so clearly what we've done is working.

[45:30] Solving has done its part to help evaluate our local housing crisis.

[45:34] However, our community, along with others across the state, face fundamental choices,

[45:39] accommodating additional growth through greater infill, increased densities, including building

[45:43] upward, or consider carefully panned, planned outward growth.

[45:48] For a small community such as Solving, neither approach should be considered an isolation, nor

[45:53] without careful consideration to the impact of our neighbors in the Sienian S Valley.

[45:58] Sienian is a special place because of its unique balance of open space, agricultural

[46:03] lands, rural landscapes, and most of all strong communities.

[46:07] Solving recognizes that decisions regarding its future boundaries have impacts beyond our

[46:11] city limits.

[46:13] In the consideration of future growth should be undertaken carefully, transparently, and

[46:17] with an understanding of importance of preserving the character that make our valley so unique.

[46:22] At the same time, the city must respond to the responsibility for its long-term sustainability.

[46:27] This includes exploring housing opportunities to diversify and strengthen its water supply portfolio,

[46:33] providing for future housing needs, unlocking right away for plants, Indian, and Valley Trail.

[46:39] An additional infrastructure that will provide emergency ingress and egress with any potential westward expansion,

[46:43] and finally identifying appropriate economic development opportunities.

[46:48] The continued growth and activity associated with Vanderberg Space Force Base

[46:51] in our region serves as an important economic catalyst,

[46:55] and we believe it would be prudent to consider how solving and the broader

[46:58] valley can benefit from the new opportunities and partnerships this creates.

[47:03] Our city staff has reviewed Lafco's staff report,

[47:06] and the draft missile service review,

[47:09] and with the recent direction of the city solving council,

[47:11] respectively, your QuestLafco directed staff to consider broader range of potential sphere

[47:15] of influence study areas, including an expansion of steady area 1 to allow for more comprehensive

[47:21] evaluation of potential future growth and service opportunities.

[47:25] Retain annexation study area 2 that has been previously identified as there remains interest

[47:29] by both the property owners and the city.

[47:32] Evaluate a potential additional study area north of the city along Alamo Pintato Road corridor,

[47:37] and evaluate a potential additional study area at Southeast of the city is existing city limits

[47:42] as fair of influence.

[47:43] I've shown in your attachment in the letter, and finally consider analyzing a removal

[47:48] of a portion of the city's existing sphere of influence to the east, including developing

[47:52] developed properties within the Janet Ackers and Quail Ridge Neighborhoods.

[47:57] The purpose of this effort should not simply be to expand Solvings' potential future boundaries,

[48:01] but also take into consideration sphere of influence at more accurately reflects logical future-growth areas

[48:07] to ensure that well thought out master plan development along with efficient provisions of public

[48:12] services. This message was clearly conveyed by the city's urban growth boundary exploration

[48:16] committee, a group of 13 local residents recently convened to analyze potential expansion of the

[48:21] city's SLI in light of state housing mandates infrastructure needs, economic development, and the

[48:28] pressure created by the limitations of our existing urban growth boundary. City staff believes

[48:32] the Janet Acres and Quail Ridge neighborhoods may be more appropriately served by the long-term

[48:37] by the San Diego Community Services District and continue any potential future growth,

[48:41] although minimal under the County San Diego Community Plan.

[48:46] Evaluating the removal of these areas while simultaneously studying other areas would provide

[48:51] an opportunity for a more comprehensive and balanced land-use planning approach that would also

[48:56] be more comprehensive, including potential funding, establishments of green belts, that are

[49:01] most often barely thoughts when it comes to policy versus actual implementation.

[49:07] Our request should not be interpreted as a request to annex these areas, but instead provide

[49:11] the background evaluation of whether these areas are best served by our municipal services.

[49:16] The city of solving looks forward to continuing with dialogue with SBLAPCO, Santa Barbara County,

[49:21] and our neighboring communities, affected property owners, and other key stakeholders with

[49:25] a shared goal of accommodating solving's long-term needs while maintaining the community character

[49:30] that has made the city and has value such a special place.

[49:34] Thank you.

[49:36] Thank you, Mr. Kuzzi.

[49:37] I got a question for you, if you don't mind, it appears

[49:43] looking at the three attachments that you provided

[49:47] that the area that you're proposing to add to the study

[49:52] is predominantly agriculture, is it accurate?

[49:56] It is an accurate assessment.

[49:57] Again, as I mentioned, it's a sphere of influence.

[50:00] And our sphere has not changed since 1985 and normally during an annexation process you do need larger parcels to accommodate a master plan growth approach.

[50:11] So that was a yes. Yes, yes. Thank you.

[50:16] I understand. I've got your letter. Thank you.

[50:20] Commissioner Hartman. Thank you. I'm glad to see the reference to Green Belt in the letter.

[50:30] There was a time historically when the county, solving and built and were actively engaged in negotiations to establish a Green Belt.

[50:42] And I'm hoping to launch that again, I think that that would be very important if you take

[50:50] the agricultural land, there's still what people value about the Sanyna's Valley is we've

[50:55] got different townships that are separated.

[50:58] Each has their distinct identity and there's working landscapes and open space between them.

[51:04] And I think it's really important to give some assurance going forward to the residents that

[51:10] will be maintained. And so I have spoken with elected representatives as well as the city manager

[51:17] in both cities. And so I just hope you will take it back to them that maybe it's time now

[51:23] that we get working on the screenvels agreement in a serious way.

[51:28] I wholeheartedly agree. Again, I looked at it back. It was a 2000, early 2000s. I was still in college

[51:35] then. And a great professor once told me it's great if it's written on a piece of paper but doesn't

[51:41] mean anything if it's not actually implementable. And so that's where we feel that expanding to the

[51:46] West we can concrete use policies as well as the master planning effort to put into perpetuity

[51:53] and actual green belt that's funded. And that's the biggest key is creating the strong sense of

[51:58] communities because as you mentioned the Sanana's value has so many strong knit communities and

[52:03] retaining the differences between the two is what's best comparative to seeing a sprawl

[52:08] and blending of each individual community.

[52:10] The only difference is just seeing a road sign.

[52:14] If we go forward with the Green Belt, which I hope we do, I think that has to come back to

[52:19] Lafco.

[52:19] It's a complicated process.

[52:26] Thank you.

[52:27] Thank you so much.

[52:28] This is an information item.

[52:30] It's not a Mr. Frater.

[52:32] Are you sure you asked for any other members of the public that wish to speak on this?

[52:39] Chair Starkham members of the Commission. There are no other requests to speak on this item.

[52:44] So I'm like correct. We do not need a motion.

[52:48] Thank you.

[52:50] That brings us to information item number two. Why have that correct?

[52:55] Would you please read that item into the record?

[52:57] Chair, start members of the Commission.

[52:59] Information item number two is to receive and file status report regarding

[53:03] salt grant.

[53:08] Thank you.

[53:09] Chair and Commission.

[53:11] Great segue into the next item, right?

[53:14] To talk about that.

[53:15] So staff and our member partners, which we have a diverse working group working on that,

[53:23] has been working on this two-year grant program now.

[53:28] There are essentially four components of the grant, policy review, mapping, outreach and engagement,

[53:40] and then framework for an MLA.

[53:43] There's the main four components of work that we're trying to accomplish through this grant.

[53:49] The staff report provides a brief overview of the present accomplishments that we have made

[53:55] today. The next steps that we're looking to achieve in each one of those tasks and sub-tasks,

[54:04] the outreach and the mapping team, they are getting underway. As part of that effort, the

[54:12] outreach team has been holding one-on-one engagement meetings, trying to get a better understanding

[54:19] of what suggestions are out there from these groups, they intend to use that to help with

[54:30] their focus groups that they will embark on likely beginning in 2027 where larger group

[54:39] formats will be held and workshops will be held as well. As far as the policy review, we are

[54:48] hoping to wrap that policy review up by the end of the year, essentially what we are preparing

[54:57] is a large matrix of

[55:00] Policies that cover a broad set of topics that are important and remain to lafco and its decisions that it makes, and how it would tie to a future MOA should embark on that endeavor.

[55:18] And the goal here is to sort of align commonalities, identify any gaps, or inconsistencies on the way communities take that approach.

[55:35] And so we're assembling all of these policies. We're probably 85% there.

[55:40] We hope to complete it, convene some internal meetings amongst our partners and city representatives

[55:48] to make sure we've identified the right sets of policies under the right kind of categories

[55:53] of topics, and then we want to use this policy discussion to assist with both the mapping

[56:00] through and identifying important areas, either for protection or opportunities and allow

[56:10] the outreach team to use that policy base as an understanding when they engage with these

[56:18] focus groups.

[56:21] And lastly, once all that kind of is coming to a head and wrapping up, we will embark once

[56:28] again with our interested agencies, the cities in the county, on whether they want to continue

[56:34] to pursue an MLA for those that do, we'll embark on that effort, if there is no interest

[56:41] in that, what we will do is probably come back with a framework for how an MLA might look

[56:47] or work in case somebody wants to pick it up later down the road. That work likely won't

[56:53] happen until all that feedback comes to us and we start that dialogue between the cities and

[56:59] counties towards the end of this to your program.

[57:04] With that, that concludes where we're at currently with the grant, have there any other

[57:09] specific questions to have to answer any?

[57:11] Any questions or comments from commissioners?

[57:14] Commissioner Hartman, and did you want to say something, Commissioner Hartman first?

[57:19] I'll jump in first. So the mapping,

[57:24] I assume is concentrated around urban areas. So I wonder what is the band within which you're doing the mapping?

[57:35] I understand that the land trust of Santa Barbara County has gotten some funding to add to this. The county is a whole, but what is this that we're adding to?

[57:45] Yeah, so the area that we're focusing in on for mapping is 1.75 miles outside of the five cities that are really the focus of this effort.

[57:59] The five cities?

[58:01] Yeah, so five of the cities are wanting to expand their spheres.

[58:05] Okay. And look at that. Three of them were okay with the way their boundaries were.

[58:12] Those five cities is a city of Santa Maria, the city of Lampoke,

[58:16] the city of Bielton, the city of Solving, and the city of Calita.

[58:20] So the focus is in around 1.75 miles, in and around their existing city limits,

[58:26] and what are the constraints and opportunities within that 1.75 miles to expand future growth opportunities?

[58:35] Yeah, it seems to me that this will endure for longer than, I mean, I think additional cities

[58:42] may come up or even unincorporated townships.

[58:47] I sort of hate to see it limited just to the five that have requested.

[58:53] Yeah, the limit was essentially because of the allocation of the grant and the amount of time

[58:59] effort that it was going to take and so we chose the five most cities that we're seeing a need for

[59:05] that. But the intent is that the work that we do can be built upon, either another grant can be

[59:12] awarded or individual cities can take the work and the mapping effort and they can continue on

[59:20] as they see opportunities to serve. Or maybe the work that the land trust is doing would include

[59:26] some of that. So then the question becomes, well, what will the criteria be used to say this is good?

[59:35] And this is maybe not so good for development. And I imagine that's what your focus groups and

[59:40] outreach is getting into. From my perspective, just want to put it out there, the county is done

[59:48] mapping of groundwater recharge areas. So we know where they are, but we don't have any policies

[59:54] to really protect them, and that's key to really banking our water for.

[1:00:01] For times when we have droughts. So for me, that's a high priority. So I just wanted to get it out there. Thank you.

[1:00:08] Thank you. Thank you. I want to go back to the first point that a Super Commissioner Hartman made, because I shared some of those concerns.

[1:00:17] For me, I see a nexus between some of the recent decisions by this commission to invest more in our staff resources and the corresponding capacity created by that.

[1:00:31] To me, I see there's a real opportunity here to embrace this process more fully.

[1:00:37] I wanted to provide that feedback because I was a little bit surprised that we were so limited in scope.

[1:00:43] this wasn't something I saw as like a pilot project or a partial project for part of the

[1:00:49] county, at least in terms of the way I thought we had communicated that when we were under

[1:00:53] consideration for the funding. So I'd like to see, I'd like to see a line between how we

[1:00:58] kind of sold this program to the funder and some of our other policy decisions to invest

[1:01:05] to efforts. So if there's a way to still kind of steer this back towards a broader effort,

[1:01:11] that's something I would be supportive of. I know this is an informational item and we're not

[1:01:14] agenda is for action, but I didn't want to let this opportunity pass to provide that feedback.

[1:01:20] I'm not pointing fingers, I just think there's a broader opportunity here.

[1:01:27] Thank you. Are there further questions from commissioners?

[1:01:33] Is there any interest from the

[1:01:35] public in it speaking on the side? Chair Stark, can you please identify yourself and

[1:01:59] I'm a member of this community, how you all doing today.

[1:02:05] Thank you.

[1:02:10] Well, thank you for allowing me to speak briefly.

[1:02:17] Again, my name is Victor Truheo and I'm here to formally place my participation in the

[1:02:22] I-Livist and Corporation discussion on public record on August 17th, I received an

[1:02:28] from LAFCO staff stating that the Commission had requested a featured

[1:02:33] gender item to review current incorporation efforts and inviting me to prepare

[1:02:38] brief write up and speak out of feature meeting.

[1:02:41] That message is also shared with ILOVIST as CSD leadership.

[1:02:45] I've brought printed copies of that email for the record.

[1:02:48] I understand the item is not agenda dies today, and I respect the Commission's

[1:02:52] process. However, ILOVIST as governance has historically received

[1:02:57] heightened scrutiny. I've reflected in past municipal service review discussions because

[1:03:02] incorporation activities was referenced as an upcoming topic. I want to ensure that

[1:03:07] I love this does incorporation and feasibility is handled transparently and that the community

[1:03:12] participation is included from the beginning. I also recognize that LFCL is currently engaged in

[1:03:19] broader regional planning work, including spirit of influence updates and coordination of the

[1:03:24] in the city governments and the significant federal funding flowing into UCSB's research infrastructure.

[1:03:31] These developments make it even more important that I-Livist as governance feature be addressed

[1:03:36] openly and with clear expectations. I'm prepared to provide materials once the item is formally

[1:03:41] scheduled and once the scope expectations and the use of my work are clearly established.

[1:03:47] For now, I simply want to affirm my continued involvement and respectfully request that I-Livist

[1:03:52] incorporation be placed on a future agenda so the community can participate in the discussion.

[1:03:59] Thank you for a time, Victor Trello. Thank you, Mr. Truveo.

[1:04:10] I think that was your public comment.

[1:04:13] Is that my correct? Yeah, I'm still in

[1:04:30] love. It's open to the public. You certainly welcome to attend.

[1:04:37] I just wonder if we could ask our executive officer if you could elaborate a little bit on the

[1:04:43] corporation in I-Livista. I don't think it's any time soon but with the process would be

[1:04:48] or just give a better sense of that. Yeah, the commission has requested a future agenda item

[1:04:56] on the status of not only I-Livista but a lot of reason.

[1:05:00] And so we are working with either the chief proponents that have solicited interest in that and the districts that they would affect.

[1:05:09] To coordinate some sort of status update to return, we anticipated that likely November are likely December timeframe in order to coordinate all of those folks and be able to put something together.

[1:05:23] And in that report, I would outline the journal process of what it takes to incorporate.

[1:05:30] There are two different processes.

[1:05:32] I can briefly tell the commission right now either a chief proponent.

[1:05:35] That means a resident of the area can file a notice of intent to incorporate an area.

[1:05:43] In which case after that notice of intent is received by my office.

[1:05:47] affected agencies are notified of that process.

[1:05:52] They are afforded the opportunity to go out and seek signatures to obtain the threshold needed,

[1:05:59] which is at least 25% of the area of the boundary in which they choose to incorporate.

[1:06:08] Along with that are a number of components that need to be documented, so that

[1:06:14] The signers of that petition understand the complexities of what that request entail, and that's why they need to file that notice of intent so that I can explain that in detail to chief practitioners.

[1:06:29] The second version is an affected agency, like IVCSD, or one of the other CSDs of Penelope

[1:06:37] Rismod, Vanderberg Village area, they can file through a resolution of application.

[1:06:45] That resolution of application follows, generally, the same process, after file a notice

[1:06:50] of intent, get instructions from the EOS office about what they need to document before

[1:06:58] a formally adopt a resolution to proceed on incorporation proceedings, the step that they don't

[1:07:05] have to do is go out and get signatures. They act on behalf of their constituents, and so they

[1:07:13] can just file directly with our office. But from that, there's a whole host of requirements that

[1:07:21] needed documentation that is involved. I'll brief the commission in my report about what

[1:07:28] that process looks like from a very high-level review.

[1:07:37] Thank you.

[1:07:40] Sure, if short

[1:07:45] I would like to add, I have everything absolutely ready, data, research and one

[1:07:53] thing. I'm not requesting any type of funding. I do not need funding.

[1:07:58] I know and understand business and strategic planning.

[1:08:03] So, the way my models operate are unseen currently in our county's footprint.

[1:08:12] So, the business entity that would be forming and structuring in Eilivista

[1:08:17] is not formally structured in our county.

[1:08:21] It's through a different structure.

[1:08:26] I think I understand you.

[1:08:27] I would encourage you, whatever research you develop,

[1:08:33] communicate with our executive officers

[1:08:35] so that we have the information that's necessary for us to do what we have to do under the

[1:08:42] statutes.

[1:08:43] Awesome, thank you.

[1:08:44] It's definitely time and time for me to go to.

[1:08:49] It's my daughter's 10th birthday, but thank you all for having me.

[1:08:53] God bless you.

[1:08:54] Happy birthday to her.

[1:08:55] Thank you.

[1:08:56] Thank you.

[1:09:01] So, do we keep a list of interested parties so that, for example, we know Mr. Tahoe was interested in this hearing, and we would make sure he got notice of it?

[1:09:13] We do, and you can file on that directly through our website on any interested notifications of our future agenda.

[1:09:19] I have a

[1:09:24] question.

[1:09:24] Commissioner Service.

[1:09:27] My recollection was the future agenda item was to cover their discussion, the district's

[1:09:34] discussion, on annexation of additional property, not in corporation.

[1:09:40] They wanted to bring in the UCSB housing over on most scenarios, which is not currently

[1:09:47] within their jurisdiction.

[1:09:49] Am I confused on that?

[1:09:52] Commissioner Savise through the chair. The future agenda request was on incorporations, not annexation.

[1:09:59] Okay.

[1:10:00] And given that the district themselves have proceeded with a feasibility study, so they are considering what it might take.

[1:10:13] They haven't formally taken any action. Parallel to that, we have a resident that has requested that they be a chief practitioner.

[1:10:23] And so either form could come before the commission.

[1:10:28] And so I'm working with all parties to understand,

[1:10:32] what is it?

[1:10:33] Is there overlap?

[1:10:35] Does this need to reside with one or the other

[1:10:39] as the main proponent for a teacher

[1:10:43] of incorporation activity?

[1:10:45] And so that's the purpose of,

[1:10:47] is to really kind of sit down and understand

[1:10:51] Where is everybody at?

[1:10:53] Where are they trying to accomplish?

[1:10:54] Are there across purposes or there are different purposes?

[1:10:57] There may be conflicting applications down the road,

[1:11:00] in which case the commission would have to make a determination

[1:11:03] on moving forward with one or the other.

[1:11:06] And so there's a whole set of processes that are involved.

[1:11:10] And we're just trying to understand who's interested in incorporating.

[1:11:13] And none of us who's interested in incorporating

[1:11:15] in the Vanneburg Village Missing Hills area.

[1:11:19] What efforts are you working on for that end so that the commission and staff can get an understanding of

[1:11:27] that?

[1:11:28] Thank you.

[1:11:30] I take it in no action.

[1:11:31] It's necessary for us on this particular item.

[1:11:35] It brings us to information item number three.

[1:11:39] Would you please read that into the record.

[1:11:41] Madam Clerk.

[1:11:45] Chair, start give members of the commission.

[1:11:47] Information item number three is to receive and file a report on the Kalapko update.

[1:11:52] Mr. Prater.

[1:11:55] Thank you, Chair.

[1:11:56] So this is informed the commission that CalLafco Board met in August and they directed

[1:12:02] a by-laws change to the organizational documents.

[1:12:08] They also heard a number of reports from various committees that were established, most notably

[1:12:14] the Finance Committee and the finance and dues committee that was formed, so they are embarking

[1:12:22] on whether they need to evaluate news or not.

[1:12:26] And if so, what would that look like?

[1:12:29] The restructuring group gave a presentation to the board.

[1:12:33] They made a recommendation, which was to not change the original

[1:12:37] four regional boundaries.

[1:12:39] But to keep the recommendation in mind, as they move forward

[1:12:44] through a dues evaluation through that committee.

[1:12:48] And so this is just to give the commission a reminder that the by-law changes would require

[1:12:56] a vote of each of the lawfcos, each of the sitting lawfcos that are members, at their annual

[1:13:03] conference in Sacramento and October.

[1:13:06] You have appointed your executive officer as the voting delegate commissioner Johnson as the

[1:13:13] it, delegate, and so we will represent the commission on passing those bylaws or not.

[1:13:20] The commission had any preference. You can indicate that to either of us have a discussion

[1:13:25] here under this item and we'll take the appropriate action that follows you. With that,

[1:13:32] that concludes our update for Califco.

[1:13:35] Thank you, any commissioner or questions or comments about this? I would assume that you can have

[1:13:40] Some kind of place over on the October agenda, in case anybody has any direction to you,

[1:13:46] or a Commissioner Johnson about us.

[1:13:50] We will.

[1:13:53] Is there anybody from the public wishes to speak on the Calif go by laws?

[1:13:59] Chair Stark and members of the Commission.

[1:14:01] There are no requests to speak on this item.

[1:14:04] Thank you.

[1:14:05] We don't need to take any action on an object.

[1:14:08] Thank you.

[1:14:09] That next item, if I would correct, is commissioner announcements.

[1:14:14] We have any commissioner announcements or requests for future agenda items.

[1:14:28] I think I should say I had a conversation with a commissioner concerning the question of stipends.

[1:14:41] And I would think I would leave it up to the executive officer as to whether we want

[1:14:47] bring it back. There's an existing by law. It's policy that concerns it was adopted. I believe

[1:14:56] in 2021.

[1:15:01] Okay, my understanding takes a vote of the commission to bring it on the agenda for formal action, unless you want to put it on your own for briefing.

[1:15:12] Yeah, I mean, I had a similar conversation that it has been sometimes since the commission's stipend has been evaluated.

[1:15:21] And whether or not there's interest to re-look at that topic, amend the commissioner handbook that deals with stipends and pay for activities.

[1:15:35] If there are any specifics that the commissioners want staff to look at,

[1:15:40] our preferences is that you guide us to examples of what you want us to look at.

[1:15:45] If that is in fact an item you want us to spend time on.

[1:15:50] Otherwise, it would not be a future gen item, and we would just move on.

[1:15:56] Well, if any commissioner wants to, if to, for a follow-up on this, they should present.

[1:16:01] No, I think it's information to you.

[1:16:03] I think today is the time where we want consensus of at least four commissioners that want staff

[1:16:10] to spend time on looking into increasing commissioner stipends.

[1:16:16] I'll make sure you're carry out.

[1:16:18] This is not necessarily a vote to re-examine it, but I guess some feedback is if we choose

[1:16:25] to examine it, my suggestion would be that we choose to examine it in a way that's aligned

[1:16:29] with the next time we do our budget,

[1:16:34] but I'm not specifically advocating that we should

[1:16:37] revisit the compensation.

[1:16:39] I would want to hear more discussion before I would be open to that.

[1:16:42] My recollection and I would add my recollection is that at one point, last or one of the

[1:16:49] last times we did it, there was an ad hoc committee that reported to the Commission on the subject

[1:16:57] and compared what was going on and other things, that's something that we could take up in future.

[1:17:08] Commissioner Johns?

[1:17:09] It might be interesting to kind of follow up with kind of the history when the last one was initiated as far as

[1:17:18] changes and then also the prior because I think I like to see if it could be balanced maybe with the other

[1:17:26] Lathcos what they have done as well because I think in a way

[1:17:31] It's been some time from maybe the history, but be good to follow that through. Thank you

[1:17:40] Chair

[1:17:42] My brief straw poll, as I've got three commissioners,

[1:17:47] Cariaco, Johnson, and start of interest.

[1:17:51] We've got one more.

[1:17:52] We'll put it in a future agenda item,

[1:17:55] and we'll have to come back with more specificity

[1:17:59] on what it is you want us to study precisely.

[1:18:03] That's where my head count is right now.

[1:18:05] I'll just reiterate.

[1:18:07] I'm not expressing interest in adjusting the competency.

[1:18:09] And I'm simply saying if the commission decides that's something they want, that it should be done within the context of the budget.

[1:18:15] I would clarify that the first thing that we should decide if you would bring it back is the process that we might use to accurately do this in the timing that we would follow.

[1:18:32] I'm inclined to agree with Commissioner Curiocos that some correlation with a budget would be in or.

[1:18:43] Okay, so it sounds like not a future agenda item today, but maybe as we get closer to budget.

[1:18:50] If I come back, that sounds right to me.

[1:18:52] And then the commissioner will decide if it wants to have an ad hoc committee or some other form to look and evaluate this.

[1:19:01] I think that's what I'm hearing.

[1:19:05] Sounds good to me.

[1:19:09] Any other commissioner announcements?

[1:19:14] That would bring us to executive officer comments.

[1:19:19] I have no for the comments.

[1:19:21] No comments.

[1:19:23] Then I'm happy to wish you all a happy Labor Day

[1:19:27] and adjourn the meeting to Thursday October 1,

[1:19:30] 2026.

Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) - County of Santa Barbara - 09_03_26

Agenda

Transcript