[CALL TO ORDER] [00:00:03] GOOD MORNING AND WELCOME TO THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE SHASTA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS. IT IS MONDAY, JUNE 8TH AND THE TIME IS 9.24 A.M. ALL BOARD MEMBERS ARE WITH US TODAY, INCLUDING CEO DAVE RICKERT, COUNTY COUNCIL JOE LARMER, AND FROM THE CLERK OF THE BOARD, STEPHANIE BLANKENSHIP, KRISTEN GOOLING-SMITH, AND IN THE FOYER, LISA TIERNEY. WE ENCOURAGE THOSE WISHING TO PARTICIPATE IN PUBLIC COMMENT, FILL OUT A SPEAKER REQUEST CARD AND SUBMIT IT TO THE CLERK IN THE FOYER. SPEAKER REQUEST CARDS MUST BE SUBMITTED TO THE CLERK BEFORE PUBLIC COMMENT FOR EACH REGULAR ITEM BEGINS. WITH THAT, I'LL TURN THINGS OVER TO MS. BLANKENSHIP. THANK YOU. THROUGH THE CHAIR, I WOULD LIKE TO REMIND EVERYONE IN ATTENDANCE TODAY OF THE BOARDROOM RULES OF ORDER AS OUTLINED IN ADMINISTRATIVE POLICY 1-101, WHICH CAN BE FOUND ONLINE THROUGH THE CLERK OF THE BOARD'S WEBSITE. THIS POLICY INCLUDES SIGNAGE RESTRICTIONS, ATTENDEE SEATING, AND OVERALL CONDUCT TO ENSURE BUSINESS IS DONE IN AN ORDERLY FASHION AND THAT ALL HAVE AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY TO OBSERVE AND PARTICIPATE. UNLESS ADDRESSING THE BOARD, ALL THOSE IN THE AUDIENCE SHALL REMAIN SEATED IN THE CHAIRS PROVIDED. STANDING ALONG THE BACK WALL OF THE BOARDROOM IS ACCEPTABLE SO LONG AS NO PERSON BLOCKS THE INGRESS OR EGRESS. MEMBERS OF THE MEDIA WHO WANT TO OBSERVE, RECORD, OR OTHERWISE DOCUMENT A BOARD OF SUPERVISORS MEETING ARE REQUESTED TO SET UP EQUIPMENT FROM THE DESIGNATED AREA ALONG THE SOUTH WINDOWS. SHASTA COUNTY REMAINS COMMITTED TO CONDUCTING BUSINESS IN A PROFESSIONAL AND ACCESSIBLE ENVIRONMENT, AND WE KINDLY ASK THAT ALL ATTENDEES ADHERE TO THESE RULES. I DO HAVE A FEW ANNOUNCEMENTS REGARDING TODAY'S AGENDA. ITEM C-4 REGARDING THE STEP-UP CONTRACT AND ITEM C-18 REGARDING THE SB-1 ROADS RESOLUTION HAVE BEEN POLLED FOR DISCUSSION BY SUPERVISOR PLUMMER. THOSE WISHING TO SPEAK ON THESE ITEMS MUST... I SUBMIT A SPEAKER REQUEST CARD TO THE CLERK IN THE FOYER, AND WITH THAT, CHAIR, I'LL TURN THINGS BACK OVER TO YOU. THANK YOU, MS. BLANKENSHIP, AND TODAY'S INVOCATION IS BY PASTOR MICHAEL COULTER FROM BEACON MISSIONARY BAPTIST CHURCH, FOLLOWED BY THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE LED BY MYSELF. IF EVERYBODY WOULD PLEASE STAND. JOIN ME, IF YOU ARE WILLING, IN PRAYER. HEAVENLY FATHER, YOU ARE A GREAT AND WONDERFUL GOD. PRODUCED A GREAT AND WONDERFUL CREATION OF WHICH WE LIVE IN A UNIQUELY BEAUTIFUL PLACE. YOU ARE THE AUTHOR OF THAT YOU WOULD BE WITH THESE SUPERVISORS AND HELP THEM TO DO THEIR WORK WITH WISDOM, TO MAKE GOOD JUDGMENTS, TO... LORD, JUST FLOOD THEM WITH A SENSE OF HUMILITY TOWARDS YOU AND TOWARDS THE CITIZENS OF THIS COUNTY. LORD, LET IT BE THAT ANY LOYALTY FEELINGS OR WE ARE IN AN ELECTION YEAR, JUST TO TAMP DOWN ANYTHING AND LET IT BE THAT THE LOYALTIES BE TO YOU AND TO THE CITIZENS OF THIS COUNTY AND JUST GRANT TO MAKE WISE DECISIONS TODAY. THANK YOU SO MUCH. FULL ACCESS TO ALL OF THEIR ABILITIES TODAY AND LORD JUST IN IN LIGHT OF THE CITIZENS OF THIS COUNTY I JUST WANT TO ASK ALSO FOR THE SEARCH AND RESCUE EFFORTS GOING ON AT THE NORTH END OF SHASTA LAKE YOU WOULD BLESS THAT THIS YOUNG MAN WE FOUND SAFE AND SOUND IF THIS IS POSSIBLE AND HE WOULD JUST BE WITH ALL THANK YOU AGAIN YOU ARE A GREAT MEETING AND ALL OF ITS DECISIONS BE CONDUCTED IN YOUR PRESENCE AND I ASK IT IN JESUS NAME AMEN. I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS, ONE NATION UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL. [R1 Adopt a resolution which recognizes Austin Nelson, Deputy Sheriff, with the Sheriff’s Office as Shasta County’s Employee of the Month for June 2026.] ALL RIGHT, MOVING ON TO RECOGNIZES AUSTIN NELSON, DEPUTY SHERIFF OF THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE AS SHASTA COUNTY'S EMPLOYEE OF THE MONTH FOR JUNE 2026. SUPERVISOR LONG. WE'LL GET TO THE SHERIFF FIRST. I APOLOGIZE. HE MIGHT CHANGE HIS MIND AFTER WHAT YOU HAVE TO SAY. WE'RE NOT SURE. GOOD MORNING. THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY, CHAIR AND SUPERVISORS. WE ARE VERY PLEASED TO PRESENT AUSTIN NELSON TO YOU TODAY AS OUR DEPUTY EMPLOYEE OF THE MONTH. HE IS A, THIS GUY IS THE POSTER CHILD OF DEDICATION, COMMITMENT, AND HARD WORK ETHIC. IN FACT, WHEN I TALKED TO HIM OUTSIDE AND I WAS ASKING HIM ABOUT HIS PERSONAL HOBBIES AND WHAT HE LIKES TO DO ON HIS TIME OFF, HE SAID WORK OVERTIME. AND THAT KIND OF JUST SHOWS YOU THE COMMITMENT AND THE DEDICATION THAT HE HAS. HE HAS HIT THE GROUND RUNNING. HE'S BEEN A DEPUTY FOR US SINCE 2024. AND SINCE HE CAME [00:05:01] TO THE AGENCY, HE'S DONE NOTHING BUT SHOW WHAT A TRUE, COMMITTED CHARACTER HE IS TO NOT ONLY THE PROFESSION, BUT TO THE CITIZENS OF SHASTA COUNTY. HE NEVER HESITATES WHEN ASKED TO DO A DUTY OR TO PARTICIPATE IN ANY TYPE OF TEAM ENVIRONMENT. HE GOT HIMSELF ATTACHED TO THE CANINE UNIT RIGHT AWAY AND WAS AN AGITATOR AND NOW WORKED HIS WAY TO HIS FIRST DOG. HE'S GOT CANINE COLT THAT'S BEEN WITH HIM FOR FOUR WEEKS AND HE'S DOING WELL WITH THAT AS HE HAS WITH EVERYTHING ELSE THAT HE'S DONE IN OUR AGENCY. HE... WAS NOT BORN AND RAISED HERE. HE WAS A SANTA ROSA BOY, GRADUATED FROM MONTGOMERY HIGH SCHOOL IN SANTA ROSA. HOWEVER, HE HAS FAMILY HERE. SPENT HIS SUMMERS GROWING UP COMING TO SHASTA COUNTY. SAID HE ALWAYS KNEW HE WANTED TO BE A DEPUTY AND WORK FOR THE SHASTA COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT. HE WENT INTO THE AIR FORCE AFTER GRADUATING HIGH SCHOOL. DID HIS TIME IN THE AIR FORCE. HONORABLY DISCHARGED FROM THE AIR FORCE. AND WENT TO WORK FOR LAS VEGAS METRO PD. HE SPENT TWO YEARS AT LAS VEGAS METRO PD BEFORE COMING TO SHASTA COUNTY AND BECOMING A REAL COP AND A DEPUTY. SO WE'RE VERY PROUD TO HAVE HIM HERE. ALSO VERY PLEASED THAT THE COUNTY HAS TAKEN THE TIME TO RECOGNIZE HIM. AND AGAIN, AUSTIN NELSON, OUR DEPUTY. THANK YOU, SHERIFF. AUSTIN, WOULD YOU LIKE TO SAY A FEW WORDS? IT'S NOT MANDATORY, BUT... YES, SIR. ALL RIGHT. I JUST WANT TO THANK THE BOARD FOR THE RECOGNITION. I WANT TO THANK THE SHERIFF, MY ADMINISTRATION FOR BEING HERE. I'M TRULY HONORED AND DO SO WITH PRIDE AND EXCELLENCE. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, AUSTIN. THANK YOU, CHAIR, AND THANK YOU FOR THAT PRESENTATION, AND THANK YOU FOR BEING A CANINE OFFICER. SO I'M GONNA READ UH... THIS UH... MONTHLY PRESENTATION FOR THE EMPLOYEE OF THE MONTH AND UH... WILL TAKE IT FROM THERE WHEREAS THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF SHASTA HAS ADOPTED THE SHASTA COUNTY EMPLOYEE RECOGNITION PROGRAM TO IDENTIFY EXCEPTIONAL EMPLOYEES WHO DESERVE TO BE RECOGNIZED AND HONORED FOR THEIR CONTRIBUTION TO COUNTY SERVICE WHEREAS SUCH RECOGNITION IS GIVEN TO EMPLOYEES MEETING THE CRITERIA OF THE PROGRAM NAMELY EXCEPTIONAL CUSTOMER SERVICE, PROFESSIONALISM, HIGH ETHICAL STANDARDS, INITIATIVE, INNOVATION, TEAMWORK, PRODUCTIVITY, AND SERVICE AS A ROLE MODEL FOR OTHER PUBLIC EMPLOYEES. AND WHEREAS THE SHASTA COUNTY EMPLOYEE RECOGNITION COMMITTEE HAS CONSIDERED ALL CURRENT NOMINATIONS FOR THE SHASTA COUNTY EMPLOYEE OF THE MONTH, AND WHEREAS DEPUTY AUSTIN NELSON HAS BEEN A DEDICATED MEMBER OF THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE SINCE 2024 WHEN HE BROUGHT HIS LAW ENFORCEMENT EXPERIENCE THE SHASTA COUNTY AUSTIN SPENT HIS FIRST SEVEN MONTHS PATROL ASSIGNED TO THE BERNIE STATION WHERE HE FOSTERED STRONG RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN THE COMMUNITY AND THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE IN MAY AUSTIN WAS REASSIGNED TO SOUTH COUNTY WHERE HE DEMONSTRATES INITIATIVE AND HAS LED HIS SHIFT IN PRODUCT PROACTIVITY AUSTIN REGULARLY TAKES TIME TO EXPLAIN LAW ENFORCEMENT PROCEDURE TO CITIZENS AND SUSPECTS ALIKE TO ENSURE A THOROUGH UNDERSTANDING OF LAW ENFORCEMENT PRACTICES, AND HE CONSISTENTLY FOLLOWS UP ON INVESTIGATIVE LEADS TO BRING JUSTICE TO VICTIMS. DURING CONTACTS WITH THE PUBLIC, AUSTIN IS POLITE, RESPECTFUL, PROFESSIONAL, DEPENDABLY DELIVERING QUALITY SERVICE. AUSTIN DEMONSTRATES STRONG COMMITMENT, COMMUNICATION WITH THE COMMUNITY AND HIS COWORKERS, MAINTAINING CLARITY, PROFESSIONALISM, AND RESPECT IN ALL INTERACTIONS, LEADING HIM TO DEVELOP STRONG WORKING RELATIONSHIPS. WITH THOSE HE INTERACTS WITH. AUSTIN ROUTINELY SEEKS TO ENGAGE IN QUALITY PROACTIVE ENFORCEMENT WHILE MAINTAINING HIS ASSIGNED BEAT RESPONSIBILITIES AND IN OCTOBER OF 2025 HE LED THE DEPARTMENT WITH NINE ARRESTS AND FIVE CITATIONS ISSUED. AUSTIN KEEPS UP TO DATE ON WANTED FELONS AND REGULARLY COORDINATES EFFORTS TO APPREHEND THOSE WANTED CRIMINALS IN THE COMMUNITY. AUSTIN HAS BEEN THE CASE AGENT ON TWO RECENT SIGNIFICANT CASES BOTH WERE THOROUGHLY INVESTIGATED AND FOLLOWED BY WELL-WRITTEN REPORTS THAT SUPPORT PROSECUTION. AUSTIN IS CURRENTLY ASSIGNED TO THE K-9 TEAM AS A K-9 AGITATOR, AND IN THAT ROLE HE HAS SHOWN STRONG DEDICATION TO THE SUCCESS OF THE TEAM, SUPPORTING BOTH HIS BEAT AND K-9 PARTNER, ENSURING THEY ARE CONSISTENTLY PREPARED FOR PATROL. THE ASSIGNMENT TO THE K-9 TEAM DEMONSTRATES INITIATIVE, TEAMWORK, AND COMMITMENT ADVANCING THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE K-9 PROGRAM. [00:10:01] DEPUTY AUSTIN IS WELL LIKED BY HIS PEERS, RESPECTED BY SUPERVISORS, AND REMAINS DEDICATED TO PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT. AUSTIN DEMONSTRATES DRIVE, PROFESSIONALISM, AND A STRONG WORK ETHIC THAT QUICKLY ESTABLISHED HIM AS A VALUED MEMBER OF THE ENFORCEMENT DIVISION, AND HE LEAVES A POSITIVE IMPRESSION OF THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE WITHIN THE COMMUNITY. FOR THE REASONS STATED ABOVE, THE EMPLOYEE RECOGNITION COMMITTEE RECOMMENDS AUSTIN NELSON YOU SHERIFF DEPUTY WITH THE SHASTA COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE BE SELECTED AS EMPLOYEE OF THE MONTH FOR JUNE OF 2026. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT AUSTIN NELSON, SHERIFF DEPUTY WITH THE SHASTA COUNTY, IS HEREBY NAMED SHASTA COUNTY EMPLOYEE OF THE MONTH, AND I WILL MAKE A MOTION TO ADOPT THIS RESOLUTION. A MOTION MADE BY SUPERVISOR LONG, SECONDED BY SUPERVISOR CRYE. AND WE HAVE NO REQUEST TO SPEAK, CHAIR. NO REQUEST TO SPEAK. ALL RIGHT. I GUESS WE CAN TAKE THAT VOTE THEN. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? AYE. ANY OPPOSED? PASSES 5-0. I THINK SUPERVISOR LONG HAS SOME THINGS FOR YOU, AUSTIN. THEY'LL LET THIS ONE UP THERE. AGITATOR. SO THAT MEANS YOU'RE DRESSED UP IN THE DUMMY SUIT AND THEY LET THE DOGS ATTACK YOU? THAT'S WHAT WE DO UP HERE ON THE SUPERVISOR TEAM. IS THIS WORKING? OKAY. PERFECT. WELL, IT'S AN HONOR TO HAVE YOU HERE AND TO BE ABLE TO PRESENT THIS TO YOU. WE HAVE SOME GOODIES FOR YOU, AND THANK YOU FOR YOUR CANINE SERVICE, BY THE WAY, FROM A FELLOW CANINE OFFICER. SO WE HAVE A $30 AMAZON GIFT CERTIFICATE DONATED BY THE DEPARTMENT HEAD FORUM, A $20 DUTCH BROTHERS GIFT CERTIFICATE DONATED BY THE SHERIFF'S ADMINISTRATION ASSOCIATION, A $35 READING PUBLIC MARKET GIFT CERTIFICATE DONATED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, A $25 GIFT CERTIFICATE TO SPORTSMAN'S WAREHOUSE. DONATED BY THE SHASTA COUNTY VETERANS AFFILIATED COUNCIL AND A $25 WINCODE GIFT CERTIFICATE DONATED BY THE UNITED PUBLIC EMPLOYEES OF CALIFORNIA, UPEC, GENERAL UNIT. SO THAT'S GREAT. OKAY. AND PLAQUE RECOGNIZING YOU AS EMPLOYEE OF THE MONTH. APPRECIATE IT. OKAY. WE'LL TAKE A PICTURE AUSTIN AND ANYBODY YOU WANT IN THE PICTURE JUST BRING THEM ON UP. THANK YOU. [R2 Adopt a proclamation which designates June 7-13, 2026, as “Employee Appreciation Week” and June 13, 2026, as “Employee Appreciation Day” in Shasta County.] ALL RIGHT, MOVING ON TO R2, ADOPT A PROCLAMATION WHICH DESIGNATES JUNE 7TH THROUGH THE 13TH, 2026 AS EMPLOYEE APPRECIATION WEEK AND JUNE 13TH, 2026 AS EMPLOYEE APPRECIATION DAY IN SHASTA COUNTY. DIRECTOR FUGIT. GOOD MORNING, CHAIR KALLSTROM, MEMBERS [00:15:01] OF THE BOARD, MONICA FUGATE, DIRECTOR OF SUPPORT SERVICES. THE ITEM BEFORE YOU PROPOSES ADOPTION OF A PROCLAMATION WHICH WOULD DESIGNATE THIS WEEK, JUNE 7TH THROUGH THE 13TH, AS EMPLOYEE APPRECIATION WEEK, AND JUNE 13TH AS EMPLOYEE APPRECIATION DAY IN SHASTA COUNTY. SHASTA COUNTY IS FORTUNATE TO EMPLOY OVER 2,000 EMPLOYEES WHO PERFORM A WIDE VARIETY OF JOBS IN SERVICE OF OUR COMMUNITY. SERVICES WHICH ARE IMMENSELY IMPORTANT AND MAKE A REAL DIFFERENCE IN SHASTA COUNTY AND IN THE LIVES OF ITS RESIDENTS EVERY DAY. AS A PERSONNEL DIRECTOR, I FEEL FORTUNATE TO HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO MEET AND WORK WITH MANY OF THESE EMPLOYEES WHO HAVE DEDICATED THEIR CAREERS TO SERVING THE COMMUNITY AND TO MAKING A DIFFERENCE. THIS YEAR'S THEME IS SHASTA COUNTY EMPLOYEES LEAVE THEIR MARK, A NOD TO THE UPCOMING 250TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE SIGNING OF THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE AND THE STRENGTH OF OUR COMMUNITY, WHICH OUR EMPLOYEES IMPACT EVERY SINGLE DAY THROUGH THEIR DEDICATION, SERVICE, AND COMMITMENT. SOME EMPLOYEES PROVIDE DIRECT SUPPORT. SERVICES TO THE PUBLIC AND SOME PROVIDE SUPPORT BEHIND THE SCENES, BUT ALL OF THEM MAKE IT POSSIBLE FOR US TO SUPPORT OUR SHASTA COUNTY COMMUNITY. THROUGHOUT THE WEEK, OUR PERSONNEL STAFF WILL LEAD A VARIETY OF ACTIVITIES ACROSS COUNTY LOCATIONS WHICH EMPLOYEES CAN PARTICIPATE IN, AND SOME DEPARTMENTS WILL ENGAGE IN THEIR OWN INDEPENDENT ACTIVITIES AS WELL. THIS WEEK'S ACTIVITIES BUILD UP TO THE MAIN EVENT, WHICH WILL TAKE PLACE AT THE TURTLE BAY ARBORETUM ON SATURDAY, JUNE 11TH, OR SORRY, EXCUSE ME, JUNE 13TH. WE ARE EXCITED THIS YEAR TO HAVE IDENTIFIED A VENUE THAT MAKEUP. THAT CAN ACCOMMODATE AN EVENT THIS SIZE IN THE READING AREA FOR OUR EMPLOYEES. THE EVENT WILL BE FAMILY-FRIENDLY AND WILL FEATURE A VARIETY OF ACTIVITIES, VENDORS, A DJ, FOOD, AND MORE. I WOULD LIKE TO PERSONALLY INVITE EACH OF YOU TO PARTICIPATE IN DRESS-UP DAYS THIS WEEK, AND I SEE A COUPLE OF YOU ARE WEARING YOUR JERSEYS, SO THANK YOU, AND TO ATTEND THE MAIN EVENT THIS SATURDAY. AND TO OUR EMPLOYEES WHO MAY BE LISTENING, WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT YOU HEAR THAT WE DO APPRECIATE YOU AND THE DIFFERENCE THAT YOU MAKE EVERY DAY, AND WE HOPE TO SEE YOU CONTINUE TO GROW WITH SHASTA COUNTY IN THE YEARS TO COME. I ALSO WANT TO TAKE A MOMENT TO THANK TALENT OUTREACH COORDINATORS ALEX GONZALEZ AND AMANDA WAGNER, WHO ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR PLANNING THE EMPLOYEE APPRECIATION WEEK ACTIVITIES. THOSE TWO LADIES HAVE DEDICATED A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF TIME, EFFORT, AND CARE INTO PLANNING THIS EVENT, AND THEIR EFFORTS CERTAINLY DESERVE TO BE ACKNOWLEDGED. I ALSO WANT TO TAKE A MOMENT TO THANK RARE AIR, R&R MEATS, WALMART, PREMIER OIL CHANGE, AND WATERWORKS, AS WELL AS THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE, AUDITOR'S OFFICE, AND CAO FOR DONATIONS OF PRIZES THAT WILL BE RAFFLED OFF TO EMPLOYEES THIS WEEK. THANK YOU, AND WITH THAT, I AM HAPPY TO TAKE ANY QUESTIONS. THANK YOU, MS. FUGIT. YES, SIR. SEE, I THOUGHT I SAID IT WRONG, SO I SAID FUGIT, AND THEN I... FUGIT. ALL RIGHT, I'M GOING TO HAVE TO SPELL THAT PHONETICALLY. DO WE HAVE ANY PUBLIC COMMENT? WE DO, CHAIR. WE HAVE ONE REQUEST TO SPEAK, SO IT WILL BE THREE MINUTES, AND IT'S SHASTA COUNTY WATCHDOG. AMAZING. I'M HERE TO TALK ABOUT THIS ITEM. I THINK IT'S A GOOD THING, AND I THINK YOU GUYS ALL SHOULD APPRECIATE ALL EMPLOYEES OF THE COUNTY. ESPECIALLY WHEN THEY HAVE TO TOLERATE A LOT OF RETALIATION, HARASSMENT, INCLUDING BY THE BOARD. LIKE KEVIN CRAIG, WHO HARASSED BENJAMIN NGUYEN. FOR HOW LONG DID HE HARASS HIM? HE TOLERATED THAT AS AN EMPLOYEE UNTIL HE FOUND A WAY TO FIRE HIM. SO I WANT TO SAY THAT BENJAMIN NGUYEN SHOULD BE ONE OF THOSE EMPLOYEES TO BE APPRECIATED IN KNOWLEDGE THAT HE DID TOLERATE A LOT. SO IS HE TRYING TO GIVE YOU THE... THIS IS APPRECIATION WEEK. IT'S NOT SPECIFIC EMPLOYEES. THAT HE TOLERATE YOU GUYS, AND HE SHOULD BE ALSO PART OF THAT. SO DON'T DISCLOSE HIM, BECAUSE IF YOU ARE, THEN YOU BASICALLY DISCRIMINATE HIM. SO IF MR. LARM IS GIVING YOU THE EYE TO SILENCE ME, NOT TO SAY THAT. BENJAMIN NGUYEN IS... ALSO AN EMPLOYEE. THANK YOU FOR THAT. SUPERVISOR PLUMMER. YES, I'M GOING TO READ THE PROCLAMATION HERE, BUT JUST BEFORE THAT, WE DO WANT TO SAY THANK YOU TO ALL THE EMPLOYEES AT THE COUNTY, BOTH PRESENT, OBVIOUSLY, AND PAST, AND THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE TO THIS COMMUNITY AND YOUR WILLINGNESS TO INVEST IN THIS COMMUNITY AND YOUR HOPE FOR A GOOD FUTURE AND A GOOD COMMUNITY. SO THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT, WHEREAS SHASTA COUNTY IS FORTUNATE TO HAVE EXCEPTIONAL EMPLOYEES WHO DESERVE APPRECIATION FOR THEIR DEDICATION, INTEGRITY, AND CONTRIBUTIONS TO MAINTAINING THE HIGHEST QUALITY OF COUNTY SERVICE, AND WHEREAS SHASTA COUNTY EMPLOYEES ARE THE MOST VALUED RESOURCE OF THE COUNTY [00:20:01] WITH THEIR UNRELENTING EFFORTS TO REPRESENT THE COUNTY IN A PROFESSIONAL, COURTEOUS MANNER WHICH CREATES A POSITIVE IMAGE, AND WHEREAS SHASTA COUNTY EMPLOYEES CONSTANTLY STRIVE TO IMPROVE THE LEVEL AND QUALITY OF SERVICE AND COMMITMENT TO PROVIDING OUTSTANDING PUBLIC SERVICE, AND WHEREAS THE SHASTA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS WISHES TO EXPRESS ITS APPRECIATION TO COUNTY EMPLOYEES FOR THEIR SERVICES PROVIDED TO ALL COUNTY DEPARTMENTS AND CITIZENS. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE SHASTA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS HEREBY PROCLAIMS JUNE 7TH THROUGH JUNE 13TH, 2026 AS EMPLOYEE APPRECIATION WEEK WITH SATURDAY, JUNE 13TH, 2026 AS EMPLOYEE APPRECIATION DAY, WHICH DEMONSTRATES APPRECIATION FOR THE EXCEPTIONAL CUSTOMER RELATIONS AND SERVICES. THAT THE EMPLOYEES PROVIDE TO THE CITIZENS OF SHASTA COUNTY. AND WITH THAT, I WILL MAKE A MOTION THAT WE ADOPT THIS PROCLAMATION. MOTION MADE BY SUPERVISOR PLUMMER, SECONDED BY SUPERVISOR FRYE. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? AYE. ANY OPPOSED? PASSES 5-0. THANK YOU, MONICA, VERY MUCH. FUGIT. FUGIT. THANK YOU, MONICA FUGIT. APPRECIATE YOU VERY MUCH. AND ALL THE REST OF THE EMPLOYEES AS WELL. [R3 Receive an update from the County Executive Officer on County issues and consider action on specific legislation related to Shasta County’s legislative platform and receive Supervisors’ reports on countywide issues.] RECEIVE AN UPDATE FROM THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER ON COUNTY ISSUES AND CONSIDER ACTION ON SPECIFIC LEGISLATION RELATED TO SHASTA COUNTY'S LEGISLATIVE PLATFORM AND RECEIVE SUPERVISORS' REPORTS ON COUNTYWIDE ISSUES. CEO RICKERT. GOOD MORNING CHAIRMAN KALLSTROM AND MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS. DAVE RICKERT, COUNTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER REPORTING. FIRST, AN UPDATE ON STATE ISSUES. SENATE BILL 1415 INTRODUCED BY SENATORS... ERIC KEENE AND WIENER CREATES AN ALTERNATE WELFARE EXEMPTION FOR PROPERTY TAX EQUAL TO THE PERCENTAGE OF THE NUMBER OF UNITS SERVING LOW TO MODERATE INCOME HOUSEHOLDS. THIS REQUIRES RENTAL PROPERTY OWNERS TO CERTIFY THAT THE FUNDS THAT WOULD BE SPENT TO PAY PROPERTY TAX WOULD BE USED TO MAINTAIN AFFORDABILITY OR REDUCE RENTS OR OTHERWISE NECESSARY SERVICES FOR OCCUPIED LOW AND MODERATE INCOME HOUSEHOLDS. THIS WILL TAKE PROPERTY TAX, GENERAL FUND MONEY, AND SUBSIDIZED RENTAL PROPERTY. THIS BILL IS STILL ACTIVE AND IN COMMITTEE AND WITHIN THE PROCESS WITHIN THE SENATE. STAFF IS CURRENTLY MONITORING THIS BILL, AND IT MAY HAVE A SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ON PROPERTY TAX REVENUE, AND WE WILL VERY LIKELY COME BACK WITH A POSITION ON THAT ISSUE. MOVING ON TO COUNTY BUSINESS, ON MEMORIAL DAY WEEKEND, THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE BOATING SAFETY UNIT HAD SEVEN BOATS IN THE WATER WITH TWO DEPUTIES ON EACH BOAT. THE UNIT WORKED ALONG WITH TWO CAL FIREBOATS, EACH STAFFED WITH THREE FIREFIGHTERS. DEPUTIES BISHOP AND DUTURA ALSO CAME OUT AND WORKED AS THE DECKHAND SATURDAY, SUNDAY, AND MONDAY. APPROXIMATELY 130 HOUSEBOATS AND SMALLER UNITS WERE COUNTED ALONG SLAUGHTERHOUSE ISLAND. OVER THE WEEKEND, THE SAFE BOAT HANDLED 33 MEDICAL INCIDENTS, 23, 21. SCRAPES AND BRUISES, 11 GENERAL MEDICAL, AND ONE UNRESPONSIVE PATIENT. BOATING SAFETY UNIT CONDUCTED NUMEROUS BOATING ENFORCEMENT STOPS, SAFETY INSPECTIONS. FIVE VESSELS WERE FOUND TO NOT HAVE THE REQUIRED CARRIAGE AND SAFETY EQUIPMENT IN THEIR VOYAGE WERE TERMINATED. SEVEN CITATIONS WERE ISSUED FOR VARIOUS SAFETY, NEGLIGENT, AND RECKLESS OPERATIONS, INVASIVE SPECIES STICKERS, AND NO BOATER CARD. TEN BOATING UNDER THE INFLUENCE EVALUATIONS WERE CONDUCTED. AND ONE TUBING ACCIDENT WAS INVESTIGATED. I WANT TO THANK THE SHERIFF'S BOATING SAFETY UNIT AND THE OTHER AGENCIES THAT SUPPORTED THIS EFFORT. THIS CONCLUDES MY REPORT. THANK YOU, CEO RICKERT. SUPERVISOR PLUMMER. GOOD MORNING AGAIN EVERYONE. THREE UPDATES FOR YOU FROM THE LAST FEW WEEKS. THE FIRST IS RELATED TO HR1, WHICH IS FEDERAL LEGISLATION THAT PASSED ABOUT A YEAR AGO. WE'VE TALKED A BIT ABOUT THIS. WE'VE HEARD FROM DIRECTOR COLEMAN ABOUT THIS AS WELL. AND THIS HAS BEEN A BIG TOPIC IN THE CONTEXT OF OUR STATE ADVOCACY GROUP, THE CALIFORNIA STATE ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES. WE HAD A LEGISLATIVE CONFERENCE A COUPLE WEEKS AGO NOW. AND, UM, THIS IS AS THE STATE BUDGET IS BEING REFINED. AND SO THE SCENARIO, WHICH I BELIEVE MULTIPLE OF US HAVE DESCRIBED IN THE PAST, BUT JUST FOR YOUR CONTEXT, IS THAT ESSENTIALLY THE AMOUNT OF FEDERAL FUNDING FOR BENEFITS THAT THE COUNTY ADMINISTERS IS GOING DOWN AND THE ADMINISTRATIVE WORKLOAD IS GOING UP. AND SO WE ARE LEFT IN A POSITION WHERE WE HAVE MORE WORK TO DO AND LESS FUNDS TO PAY FOR THAT. AND SO. THAT IS SOMETHING THAT WE'VE BEEN ASKING THE STATE TO PROVIDE THE GAP FUNDING FOR THAT, AT LEAST IN THE SHORT TERM, WHILE LONGER TERM SOLUTIONS ARE WORKED OUT. BECAUSE THE COUNTY IS KIND OF STUCK IN A POSITION WHERE WE DON'T HAVE CONTROL OVER ELIGIBILITY OF THE BENEFITS OR THE AMOUNT OF THE BENEFITS, AND WE ALSO DON'T HAVE CONTROL [00:25:02] OVER HOW MUCH FUNDING WE CAN USE TO SUSTAIN THAT. SO I WOULD ASK THAT, AND I'LL MAKE A MOTION THAT WE BRING BACK IN JULY. A PRESENTATION FROM OUR SOCIAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT ONCE THE STATE BUDGET IS FINALIZED WITH PROJECTIONS ON WHAT THE EXPECTED IMPACT WILL BE ON CHESTER COUNTY. I KNOW WE HAVE PRELIMINARY NUMBERS AS WELL AS WITH THE ABILITY FOR THE BOARD TO TAKE ACTION SHOULD THAT LEAD TO, YOU KNOW, THOSE FINDINGS LEAD US TO FEEL WE NEED TO TAKE MORE IMMEDIATE ACTION. I'LL SECOND. AND TWO MORE UPDATES. ONE IS I WAS ABLE TO PARTICIPATE WITH OUR PUBLIC HEALTH DIRECTOR IN THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES PUBLIC HEALTH LEADERSHIP ACADEMY LAST WEEK. AND THERE WE WERE ABLE TO PICK A PUBLIC HEALTH TOPIC AND DEVELOP AN ACTION PLAN AROUND THAT. WE WERE WITH COUNTIES FROM ACROSS THE COUNTRY. WE FOCUSED ON SUICIDE PREVENTION, WHICH AS I'VE TALKED ABOUT IN THE PAST IS, YOU KNOW, GIVE OR TAKE EACH YEAR WE HAVE ABOUT THE HIGHEST SUICIDE RATE IN THE STATE. AND VETERANS MAKE UP 20% OF THAT NUMBER HISTORICALLY. AND SO THIS WAS A REALLY PRODUCTIVE TIME TO BE ABLE TO DIG INTO THE DETAILS, LOOK AT THE DATA. ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE HAVE SEEN IN THE NATIONAL DATA, AND WE'RE GOING TO TRY TO VALIDATE THIS LOCALLY, IS THAT OFTENTIMES THOSE WHO DIE BY SUICIDE HAVE AN INTERACTION WITH THE HEALTH CARE SYSTEM IN THE DAY OF OR THE WEEKS BEFORE OR THE YEAR BEFORE THEY END UP TAKING THEIR LIVES. AND SO. WE WANT TO USE THAT AS A POINT OF INTERVENTION AND WORK WITH OUR HEALTHCARE SYSTEMS AND ORGANIZATIONS TO BASICALLY TRAIN THEM ON SCREENING, RISK ASSESSMENT, AND THEN CONNECTING FOLKS TO TREATMENT SO THAT WE CAN SEE A SIGNIFICANT DROP IN THAT. WE TALKED ABOUT THE GOAL RIGHT NOW. OUR SUICIDE RATE IS ABOUT 21 TO 25, DEPENDING ON THE YEAR, PER 100,000 PEOPLE, WHERE THE STATE IS AT 10 AND CHANGE. SO WE'RE ABOUT TWO AND A HALF TIMES THE STATE AVERAGE. THERE IS A GOAL AROUND HEALTHY PEOPLE. THIS IS A FEDERAL GOAL FROM THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO GET DOWN TO 12 BY 2030. SO THAT IS KIND OF OUR PRELIMINARY THOUGHT IS WHAT IF WE COULD SHOOT FOR THAT GOAL BY 2030. SO THAT WAS A VERY PRODUCTIVE TIME, AND WE LOOK FORWARD TO ENGAGING ORGANIZATIONS IN THE COMMUNITY OVER THE NEXT SEVERAL MONTHS TO BEGIN TO MOBILIZE ON THAT. THE LAST THING THAT I WANTED TO MENTION IS. AS I'VE TALKED ABOUT BEFORE AS WELL, WE HAVE HAD THESE DEVELOPER ROUNDTABLES, SUPERVISOR KALLSTROM, MYSELF, OUR HOUSING AUTHORITY, AND OUR RESOURCE MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT, AND LOCAL DEVELOPERS AND BUILDERS. AND ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE'VE LEARNED DURING THAT TIME IS THAT INFRASTRUCTURE IS OFTEN A KEY OBSTACLE TO BRINGING HOUSING ONLINE. AND YOU'VE SEEN THAT WITH SOME OF THE THINGS THAT HAVE COME BEFORE THE BOARD WHERE A DEVELOPER WANTS TO BUILD. YOU KNOW, IT LOOKS LIKE IT WILL MAKE SENSE FOR THEM TO BUILD, BUT THEN THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO SPEND $2 MILLION ON A WASTEWATER STUDY AND THEN LIKELY ANOTHER $7 TO $10 MILLION TO INCREASE THE INFRASTRUCTURE. AND SO I'VE BEEN TRYING TO EXPLORE DIFFERENT WAYS OF FINDING FUNDING TO ENHANCE THE CAPACITY OF OUR INFRASTRUCTURE. AND SO I HAD A NUMBER OF CONVERSATIONS WITH OUR STATE LEGISLATORS, BOTH SENATOR DOLLY'S TEAM AND ASSEMBLYWOMAN HADWICK. AND THEN WAS ABLE TO HAVE SOME CONVERSATIONS WITH OUR FEDERAL REPRESENTATIVES, SENATOR SCHIFF'S TEAMS, AND REPRESENTATIVE HUFFMAN, AS WELL AS THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. AND WE ARE PLANNING A MEETING FOR JULY TO TALK ABOUT SPECIFIC PROJECTS THAT MIGHT BE ELIGIBLE FOR THAT FUNDING. SO MORE TO COME ON THAT, BUT SOME GOOD PROGRESS THERE. THANK YOU. SUPERVISOR PLUMMER, BEFORE I GET THE SUPERVISOR CRY, DID YOU SPEAK WITH DIRECTOR COLEMAN OR BAILEY BEFORE YOU MADE THAT MOTION, I MEAN, IT PUT THEM IN A PRETTY BAD POSITION. THE FISCAL YEAR STARTS ON JULY 1ST, AND YOU WANT THIS REPORT, LIKE, IMMEDIATELY, A COUPLE WEEKS OUT. DID YOU TALK TO EITHER ONE OF THEM TO SEE HOW BURDENSOME THAT WOULD BE ON THEM? I HAVEN'T TALKED TO THEM ABOUT IT. THIS IS LARGELY BASED ON LOVE. MR. CHAIRMAN, THE ONLY THING THAT WE CAN VOTE ON IS BRINGING THIS ITEM BACK. WE CAN'T HAVE THE OPEN DISCUSSION TODAY. OKAY. WELL, ALL RIGHT. WE GO TO THAT VOTE NOW SINCE WE'RE GOING TO TAKE A VOTE. DO WE GET ANY BOARD DISCUSSION? VERY LIMITED. OKAY. OKAY, SO VERY LIMITED. SO I UNDERSTAND THE DIRECTIVES OF YOU, CHAIR, IS THERE'S BEEN NO DISCUSSION WITH HHSA. I'M GOING TO VOTE NO. THE IMPACT THAT'S GOING TO HAVE ON STAFF. AND I DON'T WANT TO BE A BURDEN ON STAFF EITHER WITHOUT DISCUSSING IT WITH THEM FIRST. SO I'M ALSO GOING TO VOTE NO. SO CAN WE HAVE A ROLL CALL VOTE? I'M NOT AGAINST IT. YEAH, I'M NOT [00:30:01] AGAINST IT EITHER, MATT. I MEAN, I'M FINE. BUT IF YOU'RE MAKING THIS MOTION AND WHAT IT SOUNDS LIKE AND YOU HAVEN'T TALKED TO STAFF, THAT'S PROBLEMATIC FOR ME. WELL, I'VE RECEIVED PRELIMINARY ESTIMATES ON THE IMPACT ON SHASTA COUNTY, AND ALL I'M ASKING IS THAT ONCE THE STATE BUDGET IS FINALIZED, WHICH SHOULD BE AROUND JUNE 15TH, SO THAT IN THE ENSUING NEXT MONTH AND A HALF THAT WE REVISIT THOSE NUMBERS BASED ON WHAT WE'RE SEEING AT THE STATE. AND IF YOU WANT TO IF YOU WANT TO AMEND YOUR MOTION TO AUGUST, I JUST UP TO YOU. AND EITHER WAY, WE ALL KNOW HOW H.R. ONE'S GOING TO IMPACT US. MY THING IS, I DON'T. MR. MR. CHAIRMAN, WE HAVE TO CUT THIS OFF UNTIL THE ITEMS ON THE AGENDA. SO LET'S GO AHEAD AND DO A ROLL CALL. DO YOU AGREE TO AMEND YOUR MOTION? YES, AUGUST IS FINE. DOES THE SECOND ALSO AGREE TO THAT? WELL, I MEAN, I STILL. I'M NOT THE SECOND, BUT I WOULD STILL PREFER TO TALK TO STAFF FIRST AND SEE HOW DIFFICULT THIS IS GOING TO BE OR IF THEY'RE CAPABLE OF DOING THIS AND NOT BURDENSOME ON THEM. BUT GO AHEAD. AT THIS POINT, YOU CAN PLACE AN ITEM ON ANY BRINGING UP SOMEBODY TO HAVE A DISCUSSION WITH IS TURNING THIS INTO AN AGENDA ITEM, WHICH WE CANNOT DO. OK, OK. SO YOU'RE GOING TO AMEND IT. IF I AMEND TO INCLUDE AUGUST, THAT'S OK. AND I THINK I WON'T GET INTO DISCUSSION. SUPERVISOR PLUMMER? YES. SUPERVISOR CRY? YES. SUPERVISOR KELLSTROM? NO. SUPERVISOR HARMON? AND SUPERVISOR LONG? YES. S IS 3-2. ALL RIGHT. MOVING ON. SUPERVISOR CRY. ALL RIGHT. WELL, IT'S A LOT OF IRONY AND JUST THAT WHOLE THING JUST THERE. AND SUPERVISOR KELLSTROM, REALLY QUICK, I AGREE WITH YOU. ALL RIGHT, SO I HAD A YOUTH OPTIONS MEETING, OBVIOUSLY THE LAST TWO WEEKS, A TON GOING ON. I WANT TO JUST GO BACK TO FIVE THINGS THAT WE'VE ALL AGREED UPON AS OUR STRATEGIC PLAN FOR THE NEXT FOUR OR FIVE YEARS. PUBLIC SAFETY WAS ONE. TWO WAS HEALTH CARE. THREE WAS WILDFIRE PREVENTION. FOUR IS BUILDING AND PLANNING DEVELOPMENT. AND FIVE IS COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT. I BELIEVE COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT WAS PRETTY BROAD. I THINK THAT JUST REALLY MEANS SUPERVISORS AND... PRETTY MUCH POLITICIANS AND EVERYBODY IN GENERAL JUST GETTING MORE. BACK TO PUBLIC SAFETY AND HEALTHCARE BECAUSE I REALLY FEEL OFTENTIMES IF YOU TRY AND TACKLE A BUNCH YOU'RE GOING TO GET JUST AN INCH DEEP BUT IF YOU TACKLE A COUPLE YOU CAN GET A COUPLE FEET. IN THE LAST MONTH I'VE BEEN HAVING CONVERSATIONS WITH THE SHERIFF ABOUT THE ALTERNATIVE CUSTODY PROGRAM WHICH I AM OBVIOUSLY BEEN. ALONG WITH SUPERVISOR PLUMMER INITIALLY, VERY CONNECTED TO, HAVE BECOME ACTUALLY PRETTY GOOD FRIENDS WITH DOUG BOND, WHO'S THE CEO OF THAT. WHEN I SAY PRETTY GOOD FRIENDS, IT'S JUST PROFESSIONALLY, WHEN YOU SPEND AS MUCH TIME AS WE HAVE TALKING ABOUT IMPROVING THE QUALITY OF LIFE FOR INMATES AND GIVING THEM A CHANCE TO SUCCEED OUTSIDE PRISON OR JAIL WALLS, THERE'S A LOT OF CONVERSATION THERE. MY BIGGEST CONCERN, I TOLD THE SHERIFF A MONTH AGO, IS I SAID IF. I'M NOT IN A PLACE THAT CAN MAKE SURE THE PROMISES THAT HAVE BEEN MADE ARE KEPT. I'M GOING TO HAVE A REALLY HARD TIME. SO I'M JUST BEING VERY PUBLIC AND TRANSPARENT WITH THE CONVERSATIONS I'M HAVING WITH THE SHERIFF AND AMITY FOUNDATION. I SUPPORT 100% THE NEED NOT JUST TO REHABILITATE INDIVIDUALS, BUT SOMETHING DIFFERENT BECAUSE WE ARE DECRIMINALIZING CRIME MORE AND MORE. MORE PRISONS ARE BEING... PEOPLE ARE BEING LET OUT OR PAROLED, PUT ON PROBATION. THE LAWS, SANCTIONS OR WHATNOT ARE BECOMING LOOSER, SO YOU HAVE TO DO MORE LARGER CRIMES TO ACTUALLY GET INCARCERATED. SO IT'S NOT GETTING SAFER, BUT THERE HAS TO BE SOMETHING WHERE WE CAN GET THAT 10% TO 20% PEOPLE OFF OUR STREET INTO THE JAIL IF THEY DON'T WANT TO, I DON'T WANT TO SAY GET A JOB, OR IF THEY DON'T WANT TO GET HELP. BUT THERE'S AN ELEMENT THAT WE HAVE TO KEEP CLEANING UP OFF OUR STREETS THAT WE CAN'T PUT THOSE INDIVIDUALS IN JUST THE JAIL BECAUSE THERE'S NO ROOM. SO WE HAVE TO CREATE MORE ROOM. BUT IF... THE NEXT FOUR YEARS BECOME SOCIAL SERVICE CENTRAL, AND WE CONTINUE JUST TO DUMP MILLIONS OF DOLLARS BECAUSE WE'VE SEEN THAT IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. IT'S A BROKEN MODEL, LIKE THE HOMELESSNESS COMPLEX, MENTAL HEALTH. ALL OF THIS IS VERY BROKEN, AND I DON'T WANT TO BE A PART OF BRINGING SOMETHING POSSIBLY TO SHASTA COUNTY THAT DOES TIP US OVER TO PORTLAND, SEATTLE, SAN FRANCISCO, SO ON, SO ON. SO I'M JUST LETTING THE PUBLIC KNOW THAT I'M NOT BACKING OFF. IN MY SUPPORT OF THE ALTERNATIVE CUSTODY PROGRAM, BUT THERE'S A LOT OF HARD CONVERSATIONS HAPPENING THAT IF [00:35:02] WE CAN'T PUT THINGS CONCRETE, IRONCLAD, WHERE NO OTHER BOARD OR ORGANIZATION CAN CHANGE THE DIRECTION OF WHAT I'M SUPPORTING, I HAVE TO LOOK AT THAT DIFFERENTLY BECAUSE I DON'T, I MEAN, A LOT OF TIMES WHEN WE TALK ABOUT FUNDING, OTHER SUPERVISORS HERE TALK ABOUT GRANTS. WHAT I'VE LEARNED IN BUSINESS, WHATEVER THAT'S WORTH, YOU KNOW, JUST BECAUSE YOU CAN DOESN'T MEAN YOU SHOULD. AND MORE MONEY DOESN'T ALWAYS EQUATE TO BETTER IN SOME CAPACITIES. THE SECOND THING, FOCUSING ON MEDICAL ACCESS, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THAT WITH OUR BUDGET HEARINGS. AND I THINK THERE'S A LOT OF DISCUSSIONS THAT ARE CONTINUING TO HAPPEN AROUND WHAT IT'S GOING TO TAKE TO NOT JUST GET MORE DOCTORS HERE, BUT JUST BETTER ACCESS TO CARE. BECAUSE THE LONGER I GO THROUGH TREATMENTS AND CONNECT WITH DIFFERENT PEOPLE. IT JUST FEELS LIKE EVEN IN THE LAST SIX OR SEVEN MONTHS SINCE I'VE REALLY PAID ATTENTION, IT'S ACTUALLY GOTTEN MUCH WORSE FOR SOME PEOPLE IN SOME COMMUNITIES OR FAMILIES OR PEOPLE GROUPS. AND I WANT TO SEE THAT IMPROVED ON A LOT OF LEVELS. SO WITH THAT, CHAIR, THANK YOU. THANK YOU, SUPERVISOR CHRIST. SUPERVISOR HARMON. GOOD MORNING. ON THE 28TH, I WAS AT THE GAIA HOTEL NORTEC BOARD MEETING. THAT'S A BIG BOARD. WHAT IS THERE, THREE OR FOUR DIFFERENT BOARDS THAT GATHER THAT MAKE THAT BOARD UP? PROBABLY 40 PEOPLE IN THE ROOM, MAYBE MORE THAN THAT. AND THEN ON SATURDAY THE 30TH, WE WENT TO THE OE3 PICNIC AT ANDERSON RIVER PARK. ON THE 31ST, IT WAS AT MACARTHUR, A LOCAL MEETING WITH RANCHERS AT THE MACARTHUR RANCH. AND THE NEXT DAY, I SEE THAT IT WAS DAVE RICKERT. AARON, BUDGET PREPARATIONS, MEETING, AND THEN MET WITH ROB STAHL, PREPPING FOR SAC AIR BASIN BOARD MEETING THAT SAME DAY. AND ON THE 4TH, WE HAD THE LAFCO BOARD MEETING. AND ON THE 5TH, WE HAD THE SAC AIR BASIN BOARD MEETING. AND ON THE 6TH, WE HAD THE EMERGENCY BOARD MEETING HERE. AND WITH THAT, I'LL GIVE IT. THANK YOU, SUPERVISOR HERMAN, SUPERVISOR LONG. THANK YOU, CHAIR. WELCOME, EVERYONE. IT'S GREAT TO SEE EVERYONE HERE. I ATTENDED A CSAC LEGISLATION CONFERENCE DOWN IN SACRAMENTO AND HEARD FROM VARIOUS SPEAKERS THROUGHOUT THE CONFERENCE, AND ONE OF THEM WAS JOE TYLER. HE'S THE DIRECTOR OF CAL FIRE, FIRE CHIEF, AND HE SPOKE ABOUT THE EL NINO THAT'S COMING. AND I THOUGHT THAT WAS PRETTY INTERESTING AND THE EFFECTS POTENTIALLY ON OUR STATE FROM THAT. WE ALSO HAD A SPEAKER THAT TALKED ABOUT AN INTERESTING CONCEPT, AND I ENDED UP HAVING A FOLLOW-UP CONVERSATION WITH HIM, AND I INTEND TO CONTINUE THESE CONVERSATIONS ONGOING. BUT HIS NAME WAS GREG WILLIAMS, AND HE'S THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE SIERRA BUTTES TRAIL STEWARDSHIP, AND ALSO JOHN WENTWORTH. WHO'S THE CEO OF THE MAMMOTH LAKES TRAIL AND PUBLIC ACCESS UNITS. AND THEIR CONCEPT IS PRETTY SIMPLE, AND I THINK IT'S KIND OF BRILLIANT. BUT WHAT THEY DO IS WHEN THEY GET GRANTS AND MONIES TO IMPROVE TRAILS, THEIR TRAILS, THEY'RE TURNING THEM INTO FIRE BREAKS. AND SO THEIR INTENTION IS TO BUILD TRAIL SYSTEMS, WHICH WE HAVE PLENTY OF IN SHASTA COUNTY, AND CREATE FIRE BREAKS WITH ALL THESE TRAILS THROUGHOUT OUR COUNTY. IT'S AN INTERESTING CONCEPT, AND I'M GOING TO CONTINUE TO FOLLOW UP WITH HIM ON THAT GOING FORWARD. AND THEN I MET WITH... LET'S SEE, THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY, PUBLIC DEFENDER, HHSA DIRECTOR AND HER ASSISTANT. AND SO WE'RE GETTING PREPARED FOR BUDGET HEARINGS AND ALSO MET WITH INDEPENDENTLY WITH AARON BERTAIN AND CEO RICKERT TO TALK ABOUT BUDGET IMPLICATIONS AND WHERE WE'RE GOING TO GO WITH ALL THAT. SO MY ENCOURAGEMENT WOULD BE TO EVERYBODY IN HERE AND THE PUBLIC. COME. COME TO THE BUDGET HEARINGS, WHICH WILL BE STARTING TOMORROW AND RUNNING THROUGH THURSDAY, AND SEE HOW YOUR TAXPAYER DOLLARS ARE BEING ALLOCATED, AND SEE FOR YOURSELF EXACTLY WHAT LIMITATIONS WE'RE UP IN AND WHAT KIND OF DISCRETIONARY FUNDING WE HAVE TO MEET A LOT OF NEEDS. AND WE'VE TALKED ABOUT H.R. 01, AND THAT'S WHY I'M EXCITED FOR THAT CONVERSATION GOING FORWARD. I KNOW THAT OUR H.R. 1 PERSON, CHRISTY COLEMAN, THEY HAVE DONE A LOT OF WORK. RESEARCH INTO THIS ALREADY AND I LOOK FORWARD TO THOSE DISCUSSIONS AND THE IMPACT THAT [00:40:01] HR1 IS GOING TO HAVE ON OUR COUNTY SERVICES. AND SO THEN, LET'S SEE, AND FINALLY I ATTENDED MY FIRST LAFCO MEETING AS AN ALTERNATIVE. CHAIR KALLSTROM WAS IN SACRAMENTO AND WE HELD A PUBLIC HEARING. TO APPROVE THE FINAL BUDGET FOR LAFCO. SO WITH THAT, I WILL CLOSE OUT MY REPORT. THANK YOU, SUPERVISOR LONG, AND THANK YOU, SUPERVISOR LONG, FOR FILLING IN ON THAT. MAY 20TH, I ATTENDED THE STATE OF THE TRIBE EVENT AT WIND RIVER, AND ON THE 24TH, I WAS OUT AT THE STRAWBERRY FESTIVAL IN HAPPY VALLEY. THAT'S A PRETTY BIG EVENT FOR HAPPY VALLEY OUT THERE, AND I WAS ONE OF THE JUDGES IN THE CAR SHOW. ON THE 25TH, MONDAY THE 25TH, I ATTENDED THE AND IT'S MEMORIAL DAY. EVENT ANDERSON AT THE ANDERSON CEMETERY UH... ANDERSON HOLDS THEIR EVENT THE SAME DAY AND THE SAME TIME AS THEY HOLD THE EVENT OUT IN IGOE AND IT'S REQUESTED THAT DISTRICT FIVE SUPERVISOR BE THERE SO I WAS IN ANDERSON THAT'S WHY Y'ALL DIDN'T SEE ME IN IGOE UH... ON THE TWENTY SEVENTH I HAD A LAW LIBRARY MEETING UH... FOLLOWED BY CALLING OUT BINGO NUMBERS IN SHINGLETOWN VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT SO I ALWAYS LOOK FORWARD TO THAT EVERY MONTH WE HAD A LOT OF FUN UP THERE UH... MAY THIRTIETH TRADITIONAL MEMORIAL DAY WHEN I THINK MEMORIAL DAY STILL SHOULD BE CELEBRATED I WAS AT THE UH... VETERANS GROUP OF CIVIC AUDITORIUM FOR THEIR MEMORIAL DAY EVENT, CEO RICKERT AND MYSELF LAID A WREATH OUT THERE. AND THEN THAT NIGHT I WENT TO ANDERSON EXPLODES FUNDRAISING DINNER IN ANDERSON. ANDERSON HAS THEIR FIREWORKS SHOW ON JULY 3RD, THE DAY BEFORE THE 4TH. AND THIS YEAR, BECAUSE OF THE 250TH ANNIVERSARY, THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE A PARADE IN ANDERSON. SO I'LL TALK MORE ABOUT THAT LATER ON WITH WEEKS TO COME. AND THEN ON JUNE 1ST, CORKY, I CAN'T BELIEVE YOU FORGOT THIS, BUT WE HAD A WOLF MEETING WITH SUPERVISOR HARMON AND SHERIFF JOHNSON AND MYSELF. THAT'S ALL I TALK ABOUT. OKAY, WELL I TALKED ABOUT IT FOR YOU. YOU DO IT. THANK YOU. SO THEN I HAD A BUDGET REVIEW ON THE 2ND, AND THEN I MET WITH D.A. BRIDGET FOR SOME OF HER CONCERNS IN HER BUDGET, AND SOME THINGS THAT HAVE RECENTLY COME UP. JUNE 3RD, I WENT TO THE READING RANCH RIA AND TOURED THEIR HEALTH FACILITY, AND I MEAN, LET ME TELL YOU, THAT THING IS ABSOLUTELY AMAZING. I MEAN, IT'S, I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY ACRES IT COVERS, BUT IT'S INDOOR POOL, OUTDOOR POOL, BASKETBALL COURTS, A SECOND FLOOR TRACK. IT WAS... REALLY SOMETHING TO SEE. SO THERE'S 140 TO 160 PEOPLE A DAY WORKING ON THAT, SO IT'S QUITE THE ENDEAVOR. THEN I LEFT THAT SAME AFTERNOON AND HEADED TO RCRC IN MARIPOSA COUNTY. I DID GO THROUGH SACRAMENTO SUPERVISOR LONG, BUT I CONTINUE ON FOR ANOTHER FOUR HOURS AFTER THAT, I THINK. SO I ENDED UP IN MARIPOSA NEAR YOSEMITE ON A BIG LODGE, AND WHEN I WAS CHECKING IN, WHEN I FIRST GOT THERE AND WAS CHECKING IN, MEGAN HURDLE FROM THE CALIFORNIA FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE SHE WAS ALSO CHECKING IN, SO SHE WAS THERE. SUPERVISOR HARMON AND I MET HER AT A WOLF MEETING WHEN SHE HAD FIVE DAYS IN ON THE JOB. SO SHE TOLD ME, I THINK SHE'S AT NOW FOUR MONTHS AND FIVE DAYS OR FIVE MONTHS AND FIVE DAYS. SO NICE GAL, AND I'LL GET BACK TO THAT LATER ON. SO ON THE 4TH, WE TOURED THE YOSEMITE VALLEY ON A BIG TOUR BUS. AND IF YOU'VE NEVER BEEN TO YOSEMITE, I'VE NEVER BEEN TO YOSEMITE, IT'S WORTH THE DRIVE. IT'S PRETTY AMAZING. AND THE TOT TAX THAT... MARIPOSA COUNTY GETS BECAUSE OF THE HOTELS AROUND YOSEMITE 24 MILLION DOLLARS, SO MAYBE WE NEED TO GET A YOSEMITE HERE IN SHASTA COUNTY THEN WE HAD THE ACTUAL RCRC MEETING ON THE 5TH AND I RETURNED HOME ON THE 6TH THE SHINGLETOWN MUSEUM HAD THEIR ANNUAL OPEN HOUSE AND THEY DEDICATED THE TOOL MUSEUM TO BILLY SUTTER A LONGTIME RESIDENT UP THERE THERE WAS A BILL SUTTER, AND THEN THEY DIDN'T CALL HIM JR. THEY CALLED HIM BILLY SUTTER SO HE'S BEEN WE TOOK OUT A SIGN THAT HAD BILLY SUTTER OLD NAME WILL BE OVER THAT FOREVER UM I'M THE SUPERINTENDENT OF THE ANDERSON SENIOR CENTER BREAKFAST. AND ONCE AGAIN, A SHOUT OUT TO TRISH CLARK. SHE DOES AN AMAZING JOB DOWN THERE. SO WHEN I WAS IN MARIPOSA COUNTY AND WE WERE ON THE TOUR BUS IN YOSEMITE, I SAT MILES MENETREE, WHICH IS THE CHAIRMAN OF RCRC. THAT'S WHY WE HAD IT IN HIS COUNTY. HE SAT NEXT TO MEGAN HURDLE, WHICH IS THE HEAD OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE. AND I SAT RIGHT ACROSS THE AISLE FROM HIM. SO WE WERE TALKING. AND WHILE I HAPPENED TO MENTION TO HER, ONE OF THE THINGS IN MY DISTRICT IS UH, LAKE MCCUMBER AND BATTLE CREEK RESERVOIR THAT WE NEED TO SAVE THOSE TWO IMPOUNDMENTS ANY WAY WE CAN AND ONCE I SAID BATTLE CREEK THAT REALLY CAUGHT MEGAN'S ATTENTION SO SHE KNEW HOW IMPORTANT THAT WATERSHED WAS FOR FISH RESTORATION SO I DIDN'T TALK ABOUT WOLVES A POOR LADY GETS TALKED ABOUT WOLVES EVERY SINGLE DAY SO WE JUST STARTED DISCUSSING SALMON AND I TOLD HER I SAID IF YOU TALK TO ANY RETIRED FISHING GUIDE OR CURRENT FISHING GUIDE THEY WILL TELL YOU THE PROBLEMS WITH THE SALMON IS THE STRIPPERS. THE STRIPERS IN THE SACRAMENTO RIVER ARE KILLING MORE SALMON THAN ANYTHING ELSE. AND SHE HAD NEVER HEARD THAT BEFORE, SO I TOLD HER, WHEN YOU RELEASE 500,000 FRY, IT'S AN ESTIMATE ABOUT 495,000 OF THEM ARE EATEN BY STRIPERS WITHIN THE FIRST MILE OR TWO THAT THEY'RE RELEASED AT. AND SO I SAID, YOU NEED TO TAKE THE BAG LIMITS AND THE SIZE LIMITS OFF THE STRIPERS, GET AS MANY OF THEM OUT OF THERE AS YOU CAN. STRIPERS ARE NON-NATIVE TO THIS RIVER. THEY SHOULDN'T BE HERE. [00:45:01] THE SALMON ARE NATIVE. AND IF YOU WANT TO REALLY RESTORE THE SALMON HABITAT AND GET THE SALMON NUMBERS BACK UP, REMOVE THE STRIPERS. [PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD - OPEN TIME] SO WITH THAT, I'LL GO. CONCLUDE MY REPORT. ALL RIGHT, MOVING ON. PUBLIC COMMENT BEFORE WE GET TO CONSENT. DO WE HAVE ANY PUBLIC SPEAKERS? WE DO, CHAIR. WE HAVE 23, SO IT'LL BE TWO MINUTES EACH. FIRST UP, STEVE WOODRUM, FOLLOWED BY BETTY CUNNINGHAM, DON DUCKETT, THEN CAROL. IF I CALLED YOUR NAME, PLEASE GET IN QUEUE. STEVE, COME ON UP. GOOD MORNING. THIS BOARD MAJORITY IS GUILTY OF DERELICTION OF DUTY. YOU'VE WASTED PUBLIC MONEY AND ALLOWED COUNTY DEPARTMENTS TO FLOUNDER. TWO YEARS AGO, INEXPLICABLY, HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES FIRED RASHAWN DEAN, A VERY SENIOR FINANCIAL EXPERT, SEEMINGLY TO COVER UP SOME FINANCIAL PROBLEMS WHICH HAVE GOTTEN WORSE IN THE LAST TWO YEARS. THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY AND SHERIFF STRUGGLED TO RETAIN STAFF BECAUSE OF LOW WAGES. YOU APPOINTED AN INCOMPETENT CLERK AND BASICALLY GAVE HIM A BLANK CHECK, AND THIS ELECTION IS AN INCOMPARABLE MESS. YOU'VE CONSIDERED INVESTING $10 MILLION IN AN IMAGINARY MEDICAL SCHOOL AT SIMPSON WHILE IGNORING THE VERY REAL SCHOOL AT UC DAVIS. THE MONEY THAT WOULD BE SPENT ON THAT SCHOOL WOULD BE TAKEN OUT OF THE SHERIFF'S JAIL BUDGET. SO PUBLIC SAFETY SACRIFICE FOR THIS FANTASY. THE ELECTION RESULTS ARE NOT IN, BUT IT'S APPARENT THE PUBLIC IS TIRED OF FANTASY GRANDSTANDING. I THINK EVERYONE WOULD APPRECIATE SUPERVISORS WHO DEDICATE THEMSELVES TO THE BORING DAY-TO-DAY WORK OF GOOD GOVERNMENT. NEXT UP, BETTY CUNNINGHAM, DAWN DUCKETT, CAROL, THEN GARY OXLEY. IF I CALLED YOUR NAME, PLEASE GET IN QUEUE. GOOD MORNING, BOARD. BETTY CUNNINGHAM, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF SHASTA COUNTY CHEMICAL PEOPLE. I WANTED TO ADDRESS NUMBER 14 ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR, THE SUBSTANCE USE PREVENTION, TREATMENT, AND RECOVERY SERVICES BLOCK GRANT, SUB-G FUNDING FROM THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH CARE SERVICES. I WANT TO ADDRESS A POSSIBLE MISUNDERSTANDING OF ONE OF THE STATEMENTS IN THE STAFF REPORT. YOUR STAFF REPORT STATES THAT THE SUB-G FUNDS HAVE ALLOCATED TO THE COUNTIES BY THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH CARE SERVICES TO PROVIDE PROGRAM FUNDING FOR SPECIFIC AREAS OF NEED UNDER FIVE CATEGORIES. SUB-G DISCRETIONARY, PREVENTION SET-ASIDE, FRIDAY NIGHT LIVE, PERINATAL SET-ASIDE, ADOLESCENT YOUTH TREATMENT, AND PROGRAM. NOTE, PLEASE, THAT FRIDAY NIGHT LIVE IS MENTIONED IN THAT. AS A BIT OF A BACKGROUND AND SUPPORTING DATA, CHEMICAL PEOPLE HAS BEEN THE ONLY PROVIDER. AND SUCCESSFULLY IMPLEMENTING FRIDAY NIGHT LIVE FOR MORE THAN 40 YEARS. WE ALSO ARE RATED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH CARE SERVICES AND FRIDAY NIGHT LIVE PARTNERSHIP AS AN OUTSTANDING PIR OR PROGRAM REVIEW PROGRAM. DURING JUST THIS LAST PAST YEAR, AT NO COST, I MIGHT SAY, TO THE SCHOOLS AND NO COST TO THE YOUTH AND NO COST TO THIS COUNTY, WE HAVE DELIVERED PROGRAMS TO 250 YOUTH. ON CAMPUSES AND OFF CAMPUSES AS WELL AS ANOTHER 5,000 INFORMATION EDUCATION AND OTHER PROGRAMS TO ANOTHER GROUP OF KIDS ACROSS THIS COUNTY. SO A FUN FACT AND SOMETHING THAT I WANT TO BE VERY CLEAR ABOUT AND I WANT TO BE ESPECIALLY CLEAR IS THAT SHASTA COUNTY HAS NOT SUPPORTED, I REPEAT, NOT SUPPORTED FRIDAY NIGHT LIVE WITH SUB-G FUNDING AND IT'S NOT PART OF THE FUNDING THAT YOU HAVE BEFORE YOU ON C-14. AND IT'S A VERY MISLEADING STATEMENT. AND I WANT EVERYONE TO KNOW THAT THE FUNDING FOR FRIDAY NIGHT LIVE IS NOT PART OF IT. IF YOU'VE LOOKED AT THE STAFF REPORT, THE 273 PAGES, YOU WILL NOT SEE FRIDAY NIGHT LIVE IN THE SCOPE OF WORK OR IN THE BUDGET. THANK YOU. NEXT UP, DAWN DUCKETT, FOLLOWED BY CAROL, GARY OXLEY, THEN DEBBIE KAYE. IF I CALLED YOUR NAME, PLEASE GET IN QUEUE. GOOD MORNING, BOARD. MS. BLANKENSHIP? SORRY, MS. DUGGETT. CAN WE, IF I WANT TO PULL C-14 JUST TO CLARIFY SOMETHING, DO I NEED TO PULL THAT OR DO I JUST? YES, AND THAT WAY PEOPLE CAN SUBMIT A SEPARATE REQUEST TO SPEAK FOR THAT ITEM. I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY. AND WE CAN MAKE SURE STAFF ARE HERE. I DON'T KNOW IF THESE ARE PULLED. OKAY, I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE I MAKE THAT NOTE NOW. IF YOU'RE GOING TO PULL IT FOR DISCUSSION, I CAN MAKE SURE THAT STAFF ARE GOING TO BE AVAILABLE. I DON'T WANT TO PULL IT FOR DISCUSSION. I JUST WANT A CLARIFYING ANSWER. SO DOES THAT HAVE TO BE PULLED? NO. OKAY, SO I DON'T HAVE TO PULL IT, BUT I DO WANT TO. OKAY. [00:50:01] THANK YOU. GO AHEAD, DON. GOOD MORNING, BOARD. I'M GOING TO AGREE WITH STEVE WOODRUM. THE PEOPLE HAVE SPOKEN, AND THE VOTERS IN SHASTA COUNTY HAVE SENT THIS BOARD A VERY LOUD AND CLEAR MESSAGE. AND WE ARE TIRED OF POLITICAL GRANDSTANDING AND IDEOLOGY IN THESE BOARD CHAMBERS. WE ARE TIRED OF THE BOARD MEDDLING IN TOPICS LIKE THE ELECTIONS, WHERE YOU HAVE NO JURISDICTION. AND WHAT WE WOULD LIKE YOU TO DO IS FOCUS ON YOUR MUNDANE ASSIGNMENTS, ROADS, HOMELESSNESS, THE PUBLIC SAFETY CRISIS. MOST OF ALL, WHAT WE WOULD LIKE YOU TO DO IS LISTEN TO US. SOME OF YOU WILL BE IN RUNOFF ELECTIONS, CHAIR KALLSTROM, AND A STEP IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION WOULD BE TO LISTEN TO THE PEOPLE. GIVE US OUR THREE MINUTES BACK. THAT WOULD GO A LONG WAY. A LITTLE WORD OF ADVICE FOR YOU, CHAIR KALLSTROM, IS I WOULD DISTANCE MYSELF FROM THE SINKING SHIP CALLED KEVIN CRY. I WOULD NOT RAID OUR GENERAL FUND AND SPEND ANYTHING ON NICE-TO-HAVES LIKE MEDICAL SCHOOLS AND FOCUS ON YOUR PUBLIC SAFETY CRISIS HERE AT HOME. THANK YOU. NEXT UP, CAROL. FOLLOWED BY GARY OXLEY, DEBBIE KAYE, THEN DAVID HALLIGAN. GOOD MORNING, BOARD. I'M HERE IN REGARDS TO ITEM R10, WHICH IS ANTICIPATED LITIGATION. AND I WAS HERE... CHAIR, WE DO HAVE SEPARATE SPEAKER OR SEPARATE PUBLIC COMMENT ON R10. YEAH, WE HAVE... IS THAT IT? WELL, WE HAVE PUBLIC COMMENT ON R10, SO YOU WANT TO FILL OUT A SPEAKER REQUEST CARD FOR R10? I DID. OKAY, WELL, THIS IS OPEN TIME. OKAY. SO WE'LL CALL YOU BACK UP ON... R10. DOES HER SPEAKER REQUEST... IT SAYS R10 ON THERE. LET ME LOOK FOR R10. I JUST... I DON'T HAVE IT THERE. I CAN... WE'LL MOVE YOUR SPEAKER REQUEST TIME NOW TO R10. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. OKAY. GARY OXLEY, COME ON UP, FOLLOWED BY DEBBIE KAY, DAVID HALLIGAN, THEN SHASTA COUNTY WATCHDOG. GOOD MORNING, BOARD. FEDERAL AND STATE LAW PROVIDES GUIDANCE FOR HOW COUNTIES DEAL WITH CHILD ABUSE CASES FOR THE SAFETY AND... OF THE CHILD AND HOW TO REUNIFY FAMILIES. WENDY AND I KNOW IN 2024 THIS BOARD WAS CONTACTED BY A PARENT WHO LOST HER PARENTAL RIGHTS BUT NEVER RECEIVED REUNIFICATION THERAPY OR VISITATION WITH HER CHILD. WE WERE TOLD BY COUNTY COUNCIL REPRESENTING TO THIS PARENT THAT YOU CANNOT FIGHT CPS AND WIN. DUE TO ACTIONS OF COUNTY EMPLOYEES, WE NOW HAVE ONE FAMILY WHO LOST THEIR CHILD TO SUICIDE UNDER THE WATCH OF THIS AGENCY. IN THIS CHAMBER THERE ARE APPROXIMATELY 10 FAMILIES WHO LOST THEIR PARENTAL RIGHTS WITHOUT DUE PROCESS PROTECTED BY THE CONSTITUTION. DUE TO A GREAT FEAR OF SIGNIFICANT PHYSICAL, FINANCIAL, OR EMOTIONAL RETALIATION, THEIR IDENTITIES CANNOT BE REVEALED. WENDY AND I HAVE SPOKEN WITH PEOPLE WHO HAVE INTIMATE KNOWLEDGE OF THE FAILURE AND ABUSIVE NATURE OF THIS AGENCY IN SHASTA COUNTY. WE WERE INFORMED OF THE GREAT FINANCIAL BENEFIT TO THE COUNTY FOR EACH CHILD IN FOSTER CARE AND EACH SUCCESSFUL ADOPTION. DUE TO SUCH FINANCIAL INCENTIVE REUNIFICATION, SERVICES ARE OFTEN NOT RENDERED AND FALSE ALLEGATIONS AGAINST THE PARENTS ARE ALLEGED BY COUNTY EMPLOYEES. THERE ARE AT LEAST 13 FAMILIES WHO HAVE BEEN ALLEGED OF CHOKING THEIR CHILDREN. THREE HAVE TAKEN POLYGRAPHS WHICH REFUTE THESE CLAIMS. OUTSIDE THIS CHAMBER, WE HAVE SPOKEN TO PROMINENT MEMBERS OF OUR COMMUNITY WHO SHARE A SIMILAR STORY. I'M ASKING BOARD TODAY FOR YOU TO PERFORM A FORENSIC AUDIT OF HHS. AND CPS AGENCY BY A FORENSIC AUDITOR OUTSIDE OF SHASTA COUNTY, AND TO ASK CEO RICKER TO PERFORM AN ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW TO ENSURE THAT STATE AND FEDERAL POLICIES REGARDING THE REUNIFICATION THERAPY AND VISITATION ARE MET BY THE DEPARTMENT, AND PLACE THIS ISSUE ON THE AGENDA SO A FORMAL PRESENTATION CAN BE MADE TO THE BOARD. THIS STATEMENT HAS BEEN EMAILED TO EACH SUPERVISOR, THE CEO, COUNTY COUNCIL, THE DA, AND SHERIFF JOHNSON. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. NEXT UP IS DEBBIE KAYE, FOLLOWED BY DAVID HALLIGAN, THEN SHASTA COUNTY WATCHDOG, THEN ROBERT. GOOD MORNING. SUPERVISOR KEVIN CRYE AND A POSSIBLE LEVINE ACT VIOLATION 6-2-2026. THE TIMELINE OF EVENTS BETWEEN SHASTA COUNTY SUPERVISOR KEVIN CRYE AND THE REDDING RANCHERIA FITS THE STRUCTURAL CRITERIA THAT TRIGGER WHAT I BELIEVE IS A LEVINE ACT VIOLATION. AUGUST 12TH, 2025, THE VOTE. FOLLOWING A RULING BY JUDGE STEPHEN BAKER DECLARING A 30-YEAR LAW ENFORCEMENT EMERGENCY SERVICE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE COUNTY AND THE REDDING RANCHERIA ILLEGAL, THE SHASTA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS VOTED TO APPEAL THE DECISION. YOU, MR. [00:55:01] CRYE, VOTED YES TO ADVANCE THAT APPEAL. JUNE 2ND, 2026, A CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTION. CAMPAIGN FINANCE RECORDS SHOW THAT ON JUNE 2ND, 2026, JUST LAST WEEK, THE REDDING RANCHERIA MADE A MAXIMUM ALLOWED CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTION OF $5,900 TO YOU, MR. CRYE, TOWARDS YOUR RE-ELECTION CAMPAIGN. BECAUSE OF THE $5,900 CAMPAIGN DONATION WAS MADE ROUGHLY 10 MONTHS AFTER THE BOARD AND MR. CRYE VOTED TO APPEAL THE CONTRACT RULING, THIS WAS WITHIN THE LAW'S 12-MONTH POST-DECISION BLACKOUT WINDOW. MR. CRYE, THIS TRANSACTION HEAVILY MIRRORS A PAY-TO-PLAY CONFLICT. DEFINITIONS OUTLINED IN CALIFORNIA CODE 84308, THE LEVINE ACT VIOLATION. CURING THE VIOLATION, UNDER THE LAW, YOU, MR. CRY, ACCEPTED WHAT I BELIEVE IS A PROHIBITED CONTRIBUTION. MR. CRY, YOU CAN CURE THE VIOLATION BY RETURNING THE 5900 CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTION WITHIN 30 DAYS OF 6-2-26. SO, MR. CRY, DO THE RIGHT THING. RETURN THE 5900 RANCHERIA CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTION. THANK YOU. NEXT UP, DAVID HALLIGAN, FOLLOWED BY SHASTA COUNTY WATCHDOG, ROBERT, THEN STEVE KAHN. IF I CALLED YOUR NAME, PLEASE GET IN QUEUE. WELL, MR. CRY IS BACK ON THE RADIO YESTERDAY. LET'S LISTEN IN. JUST LOOK AT MR. CRY'S RECORD ON PROTECTING THE PEOPLE AND THE MONEY. ONE, THE COSTLY VOTING SYSTEM OVERHAUL AND THE HAND COUNTING INITIATIVE. TWO, SHIFTING INFRASTRUCTURE COSTS FROM DEVELOPERS TO TAXPAYERS. THREE, THE KEVIN CRY TRUE NORTH OPPOSITION LETTER THAT COST OUR COUNTY $150 MILLION IN INFRASTRUCTURE GRANTS AND OVER 200 NEW GREAT PAYING JOBS. FOUR, SEIU, IN-HOME SUPPORT SERVICES. THESE WORKERS ARE ACTIVELY WORKING WITHOUT A CONTRACT. FOR OVER 18 MONTHS BUT YOU GOT YOUR MONEY MISTER CRYING KELSTROM DID YOU WITH YOUR 59 PERCENT RAISES AND MORE 5 SPIRALING OUTSIDE COUNCIL LITIGATION FEES STAY WITH ME ON THIS PEOPLE THE BACK DOOR CASINO DEAL 7 25 23 OUR COUNTY HAS NOT REALIZED A PENNY IN INCOME ON THIS DEAL NO NO THE ONLY PEOPLE THAT HAVE REALIZED MONEY SO FAR ARE THE LAWYERS SHASTA COUNTY IS SPENT TO DEFEND AND APPEAL THE LAWSUIT TO DATE OVER $900,000. THE OTHER TWO RECIPIENTS ARE MR. CRY AND MR. KJELLSTROM. THEY BOTH RECEIVED THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE AMOUNT OF $5,900 FROM THE RANCHERIA. THOSE MONIES WERE RECEIVED ON MARCH 26TH FOR MR. KJELLSTROM AND JULY LAST, EXCUSE ME, AND JUST LAST WEEK FOR MR. CRY. BUT I BELIEVE BOTH ARE VIOLATIONS OF THE LEVINE ACT. SO LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, STAY TUNED. STAY TUNED FOR THE UPCOMING DOCUMENTARY CALLED PAY TO PLAY, STARRING KEVIN CRY AND CHRIS KJELLSTROM COMING TO A THEATER NEAR YOU. SHASTA COUNTY WATCHDOG, FOLLOWED BY ROBERT, STEVE KAHN, THEN TAYLOR ASHBY. IF I CALLED YOUR NAME, PLEASE GET IN QUEUE. C-8, YOU NEED TO REMOVE IT BECAUSE SOPHIA MYERS' LAW FIRM ACTUALLY WORKED MR. LARMER, AND I'M SORRY TO SAY MR. LONG, YOUR WIFE. THAT ITEM NEEDS TO BE REMOVED AND SHOULD NOT BE APPROVED, THAT CONTRACT. BUT ANYWAYS, YEAH, KEVIN CRY, I'M SO GLAD YOU'RE GOING TO BE DONE. I'M SO GLAD THE PEOPLE SPOKE, AND YOU'RE DONE. AND WE'RE HAPPY. SO, CHRIS, I HOPE THAT YOU LEARNED YOUR LESSON. I HOPE THAT YOU LOSE THIS COMING ELECTION IF YOU DO A RUNOFF, BECAUSE WE DON'T NEED YOU EITHER, CHRIS, BECAUSE YOU'VE SHOWN THAT YOU'RE WILLING TO DO WHATEVER KEVIN CRY TELLS YOU. AND SO, THEREFORE, I HOPE THE PEOPLE CONTINUE TO SEE THE TRUTH, WHAT HAPPENS IN THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS MEETINGS. SO I CAN'T WAIT FOR YOU TO BE GONE. NEXT THING YOU I WANT TO TALK ABOUT IS YOU ACTUALLY, YOU THREE APPOINTED CLINT CURTIS TO THE ELECTION DEPARTMENT, AND YOU ACTUALLY DESTROYED OUR COUNTY, AND YOU VIOLATED OUR RIGHTS. A LOT OF PEOPLE'S RIGHTS HAVE BEEN VIOLATED OVER AND OVER IN THE ELECTION DEPARTMENT. YOU CHOSE TO NOT TO DISCIPLINE HIM OR CENSOR HIM. YOU CHOSE TO BASICALLY, NOT CENSOR HIM, BUT YOU ALLOWED. CITIZENS WHO CAN FILE A COMPLAINT TO STAY IN THE SAME OFFICE, YOU VIOLATED THEIR RIGHTS TO HAVE PROTECTION AS A WHISTLEBLOWER. AND YOU, AS A BOARD, VIOLATED THEIR RIGHTS, INCLUDING MY RIGHTS, BECAUSE I DIDN'T VOTE THIS YEAR, BECAUSE I WASN'T GOING TO GO IN THERE, BECAUSE I DON'T TRUST HIM. I DON'T BELIEVE IN WHAT HE SAYS IS GOING TO BE TRANSPARENCY. [01:00:01] HE'S A LIAR. HE'S A MANIPULATOR. DID YOU KNOW THAT HE HAS A CASE PENDING IN MARCH THE 4TH? IN 2026, ACTUALLY, THERE'S A COURT HEARING IN FLORIDA, A TRIAL JURY AGAINST HIM. SO THERE YOU GO. GREAT CHOICE YOU MADE. NEXT UP, ROBERT, FOLLOWED BY STEVE KAHN, TAYLOR ASHBY, THEN CHRISTOPHER ENRIQUEZ. MORNING, BOARD. POLL AFTER POLL AND YEAR AFTER YEAR, THE NUMBER ONE PRIORITY FOR SHASTANIANS IS AND HAS BEEN PUBLIC SAFETY. HOWEVER, PUBLIC SAFETY HAS BEEN PLACED LAST AND PAID LIP SERVICE TO OVER THE LAST FOUR YEARS. A MEDICAL SCHOOL IS NOT MISSION CRITICAL AND MUST NOT BE CONSIDERED UNTIL PUBLIC SAFETY BECOMES PRIORITY ONE. WITH THAT, MAKING READING LIVABLE AND INVITING FOR DOCTORS AND OTHER PROFESSIONALS WILL COME ORGANICALLY. RETIRED READING DOCTOR SHORT SUCCINCTLY EXPLAINED THIS. CHRIS, YOU RAN ON A NEW JAIL IN PUBLIC SAFETY. NO MEDICAL SCHOOL OPTION SHOULD BE DISCUSSED EXCEPT STATE-FUNDED UC DAVIS, BUT THIS MUST GET IN LINE AFTER PUBLIC SAFETY HAS BEEN RESTORED TO PRIORITY ONE. THIS GOT FAST-TRACKED TO THE FRONT OF THE QUEUE BY CRY AND SHOVED DOWN OUR THROATS BY HIM OVER AGAINST PUBLIC SAFETY. SAY NO TO THE $10 MILLION CASH GRAB OF OUR TAXPAYER-FUNDED MONEY TO GIVE TO A PRIVATE SECTARIAN SCHOOL. CHAIR KALLSTROM, YOU'RE LIKELY HEADING INTO A RUNOFF WITH MIKE GALLAGHER. SET YOURSELF APART FROM THE FAILED AND REJECTED LEADERSHIP OF THE LAST FOUR YEARS AND VOTE NO ON TAKING $10 MILLION EARMARKED FOR PUBLIC SAFETY. LET'S REFOCUS ON PUBLIC SAFETY AS PRIORITY ONE. THANK YOU. NEXT UP, STEVE KAHN, FOLLOWED BY TAYLOR ASHBY, CHRISTOPHER ENRIQUEZ, THEN VALERIE DIDIER. CHAIR KALLSTROM, IT WOULD NOT SURPRISE ME TO SEE OUTGOING SUPERVISOR CRY ATTEMPT TO CAUSE SERIOUS DAMAGE TO SHASTA COUNTY AND PERHAPS LINE HIS POCKETS ON THE WAY OUT THE DOOR. IF YOU SUPPORT HIS, AND APPARENTLY ACCORDING TO THE WAY HE'S TALKING NOW ABOUT THE ALTERNATIVE CUSTODY CENTER, HE'S ALREADY STARTED IN THAT DIRECTION. IF YOU SUPPORT HIS EFFORTS, I GUARANTEE YOU IT WILL IMPACT YOUR ABILITY TO REMAIN ON THAT DAIS. I BELIEVE CRYE WILL ATTEMPT DURING THE BUDGET HEARINGS TO STEER $10 MILLION OF PRECIOUS SHASTA COUNTY MONEY TO HIS CLIENT, JOSH BARKER, AN INDIVIDUAL THAT SITS ON THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES AT SIMPSON. SHASTA COUNTY CANNOT AFFORD TO SPEND $10 MILLION ON AN EFFORT TO PUT TOGETHER A MEDICAL SCHOOL THAT WOULD REQUIRE CONSERVATIVELY ANOTHER $140 MILLION INVESTMENT. THERE ARE MANY VERY GOOD REASONS WHY SHASTA COUNTY SHOULD NOT GIVE SIMPSON $10 MILLION. FOR ONE, THAT WOULD BE TAKEN AWAY FROM THE SHERIFF IN ORDER FOR HIM TO CONTINUE DEVELOPING AN ALTERNATIVE CUSTODY CAMPUS, SOMETHING THAT WOULD IMPROVE THE QUALITY OF LIFE IN SHASTA COUNTY BY REDUCING CRIME, A PRIORITY OF THE PEOPLE. CHAIR KELLSTROM, I ALSO REQUEST THAT YOU, AGAIN, ALLOW THE PUBLIC TO SPEAK FOR THREE MINUTES, BECAUSE THAT'S ABOUT A MINIMUM AMOUNT OF TIME TO BE ABLE TO INTELLIGENTLY RELAY A THOUGHT. ALSO, THE CONSENT CALENDAR SHOULD AGAIN BE SEPARATED FROM PUBLIC COMMENT TIME. FOR WE'VE COMBINING THEM BY THE BROWN ACT. SECONDLY, PEOPLE SHOULD HAVE A RIGHT TO COMMENT ON SUBJECTS ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR IF THEY WISH. THE BROWN ACT STIPULATES THAT. QUIT MUZZLING THE PUBLIC. YOU WORK FOR THEM. SO, IN SUMMARY, DON'T LET THAT ASS MANIPULATE YOU AS THE DOOR SLAMS INTO HIS ASS. NEXT UP, TAYLOR ASHBY, FOLLOWED BY CHRISTOPHER ENRIQUEZ. VALERIE DIDIER AND RYAN LOVE. IF I CALLED YOUR NAME, PLEASE GET IN QUEUE. HI, TAYLOR ASHBY. MY STORY IS ONE HEARTBREAKING RESILIENCE AND AN UNWAVERING LOVE FOR MY SON. FROM THE MOMENT I FOUND OUT I WAS PREGNANT, I COMMITTED MYSELF TO BEING THE BEST MOTHER I CAN BE. I NEVER IMAGINED THAT OUR JOURNEY WOULD BECOME A BATTLE TO PROVE MY INNOCENCE AND FIGHT FOR MY CHILD. WHEN MY SON WAS ONLY SIX WEEKS OLD, HE WAS TAKEN FROM ME AFTER ALLEGATIONS OF ABUSE. BEFORE THAT, HE HAD ALREADY FACED SERIOUS MEDICAL CHALLENGES. HE STOPPED BREATHING NUMEROUS TIMES AND REQUIRED EMERGENCY INTERVENTION TO SAVE HIS LIFE. DESPITE HIS EXTENSIVE MEDICAL HISTORY AND ONGOING CARE, I THOUGHT THAT MANY OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES SURROUNDING HIS HEALTH WERE OVERLOOKED. CHRISTMAS NIGHT, I WOKE UP AND NOTICED SOMETHING WAS WRONG WITH HIM. HIS FATHER WAS FEEDING HIM AT THE TIME. I INSISTED THAT WE RUSH HIM TO THE HOSPITAL. HOSPITAL. THERE, DOCTORS DISCOVERED MULTIPLE FRACTURES AND DIFFERENT STAGES OF HEALING. [01:05:02] MEDICAL, SORRY. AS A MOTHER WHOSE CHILD WAS CONSTANTLY UNDER MEDICAL SUPERVISION, I STRUGGLED TO UNDERSTAND HOW SIGNS HIDDEN INSIDE HIS BODY COULD HAVE BEEN DETECTED SOONER BY ANYONE CARING FOR HIM. TODAY, MY SON IS ALMOST TWO YEARS OLD. WHILE OTHERS HAVE CONTINUED WITH THEIR LIVES, I HAVE LOST PRECIOUS TIME THAT I CAN NEVER GET BACK. THROUGHOUT THE LEGAL PROCESS, I MAINTAINED THAT I NEVER HARMED MY SON. THE DA ULTIMATELY FOUND ME NOT GUILTY AND TESTIMONY WAS PRESENTED SUPPORTING MY POSITION. YET THE ACCUSATIONS, COURT PROCEEDINGS, AND SEPARATION FROM MY CHILD LEFT LASTING WOUNDS. NO COURT RULING, REPORT, OR ACCUSATION CAN CHANGE THE FACT THAT I HAVE LOVED MY SON SINCE THE DAY I LEARNED HE EXISTED. MY REASON FOR SHARING THIS STORY IS NOT ONLY TO SPEAK ABOUT WHAT HAPPENED TO MY FAMILY, I'M SORRY. BUT ALSO TO ENCOURAGE A CLOSER EXAMINATION ON HOW CASES LIKE THESE ARE HANDLED WHEN COMPLEX MEDICAL CONDITIONS, CONFLICTING EVIDENCE, AND... ANSWERED QUESTIONS EXIST. EVERY EFFORT SHOULD BE MADE TO ENSURE THAT ALL POSSIBLE... CHRISTOPHER ENRIQUEZ, FOLLOWED BY VALERIE DIDIER, RYAN LOVE, AND SHERRY SANCHET. GOOD MORNING. SINCE IT'S BUDGET TIME, I FORGOT THE ACP. IS THE PROBATION DEPARTMENT STAFFED AND FUNDED TO ADEQUATELY SUPERVISE AND HOLD AN ADDITIONAL ONE PARTICIPANT? ALL CLAIM THAT PUBLIC SAFETY IS THE UNDERLYING DRIVER OF THIS QUEST FOR HOW THEN IS IT SAFER FOR THE PUBLIC TO REMOVE THOSE WHO ARE CURRENTLY INCARCERATED, PLACING THEM IN ANKLE MONITORS AND ALLOWING PROVISION. WE ALREADY HAVE THAT PROBLEM. SECONDLY, HOW ABOUT THE SPACE NEEDED FOR THE 1,200 BED JAIL? YOU ALL KNOW FUNDING FOR A 01,200 BED JAIL WILL BE IN THE 100 PLUS MILLION DOLLAR RANGE. HOW DO THEY PLAN ON FUNDING THAT? RAISE OUR TAXES? ASK THE STATE TO PAY FOR THE MONEY? FOR THE FACILITY? THERE'S NO MONEY, THEN THERE'S NO REASON FOR EVEN ENTERTAINING THE IDEA. THEREFORE, NO NEED TO ENTERTAIN A RIVERFRONT CORRECTIONS FACILITY. MOVE THE REMAINDER OF THIS PLANNED FACILITY TO CLEAR CREEK ROAD, ONTO COUNTY-OWNED PROPERTY, AWAY FROM ANY HOMES WITHIN A HALF A MILE. AND IT'S NO FURTHER AWAY FROM THE COURTHOUSE, SO TRANSPORTATION IS NOT AN ISSUE. ALL THE INFRASTRUCTURE IS ALREADY AT THE PROPERTY, 39 ACRES, PLENTY OF ROOM. BESIDES, IF YOU CAN'T MANAGE TO UTILIZE THE LAND YOU HAVE NOW FOR FARMING, WHY GO BIGGER? DREAMS AND A WASTE OF TAXPAYER MONEY. LASTLY, YOUR SHERIFF WANTS MORE MODERN, LARGER JAIL. YOU CAN HIRE OR RETAIN, YOU CAN'T HIRE OR RETAIN ENOUGH CORRECTIONS OFFICERS TO RUN THE FACILITY. AND IT'S ALREADY BEEN MENTIONED THAT THE JAIL THE SIZE THE SHERIFF IS PROPOSING WOULD BE RUN BY A CONTRACT SERVICE. SO THE FORMER SUSANVILLE STATE PRISON IS 1,100 ACRES DESIGNED FOR 3,800 INMATES. GET THE NORTH STATE COUNTIES TO COOPERATE WITH EACH OTHER. PAY FOR CONTRACT SERVICE TO RUN THE FACILITY, PROVIDING MENTAL HEALTH AND DRUG REHAB SERVICES FOR ALL THOSE INDIVIDUALS SERVING STATE SENTENCES OF ONE YEAR OR MORE THAT WOULD OTHERWISE BE HOUSED IN THE CURRENT JAIL. NOW YOUR SHERIFF HAS MORE SPACE IN HIS COUNTY JAIL FOR THOSE PENDING TRIAL. NOT THAT THERE WILL BE ANY, BECAUSE WE HAVE A FUNDING AND STAFFING SHORT AT THE DA'S OFFICE. NEXT UP, VALERIE DIDIER, RYAN LOVE, SHERRY SANCHET, THEN ECHO BONGARTZ. IF I CALLED YOUR NAME, PLEASE GET IN QUEUE. MY FIRST TIME HERE, I DON'T KNOW WHO, AND FORGIVE ME, ALRIGHT? AND I'M HERE, ALL FIRST, I'M SCARED TO DEATH. EVERYTHING I HAVE, I'M HERE TO SPEAK FOR MYSELF AND EVERYBODY ELSE, OKAY? UM, I'M A SURVIVOR OF DOMESTIC ABUSE. OKAY, MORE THAN ONCE IN MY LIFE, AND THROUGH MY SURVIVORSHIP, HOW CAN I SAY, I WENT FROM BEING ABUSED AT HOME TO BEING CARRIED OVER TO THE COURTS. HOW IS THAT POSSIBLE, YOU ASK? YOU GET UP THERE AND THE JUDGE SAYS SOMETHING, DOES SOMETHING, AND I THINK TO MYSELF, MY HUSBAND SAID THAT. MY HUSBAND DID THAT. THEY DO THE SAME THING, OKAY? WHAT'S GOING ON RIGHT NOW WITH MY CASE IS EVERY JUDGE I'VE BEEN IN FRONT OF HAS LIED. HIS LAWYER HAS LIED. HIM AND HIS FAMILY HAVE LIED, AND I HAVEN'T EVEN BEEN ABLE TO SPEAK. SPEAK FOR MORE THAN A MINUTE AND A HALF AND TOLD THE JUDGE THAT OKAY COME BACK NEXT MONTH [01:10:01] YOU CAN CHARGE HER FOR YOUR HUSBAND FILING FOR DIVORCE YEAH THEY DID THAT THEY TOOK AWAY MY CAR MY MY MONEY AND THEY JUST DON'T EVEN CARE THIS LAST TIME IN COURT, I SAW THIS SAME JUDGE, D-DON, GIVE A CHILD BACK TO A FATHER THAT HAD... FOLLOWED BY SHERRY SANCHET, FOLLOWED BY ECHO BONGARTZ AND WENDY GALLANT. I WOULD HAVE LOVED... YEAH, I WATCHED... RYAN, ARE YOU HERE? IS THAT YOU? COME ON UP. YOUR TIME HAS STARTED. MY NAME IS SHERRY ALEXANDER SANCHEZ. I AM RYAN LOVE'S FIANCEE AND WE SHARE A SIX-YEAR-OLD CHILD TOGETHER. I'M HERE TODAY AS A MOTHER, SECONDARILY A BUSINESS OWNER, BACHELOR'S DEGREE HOLDER FROM CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY MONTEREY BAY, RECOVERED ADDICT, AND SHASTA COUNTY COMMUNITY MEMBER. JUST THIS MORNING YOU HAVE DISCUSSED BROKEN MODELS REGARDING MENTAL HEALTH AND HOMELESSNESS. I AM HERE TO PLACE AN OFFICIAL RECORD THANK YOU. OF A REQUEST FOR REVIEW OF THE COUNTY'S CFS AGENCY BY TAPPING ON THE SYSTEMATIC CORRUPTION AND DYSFUNCTION THAT NOT ONLY TORE MY FAMILY APART, BUT HOW THE LACK AND NEGLECT OF THE AGENCY IN THE FOLLOWING PROCEDURES AND PROTOCOL BY CFS WORKERS HAS HAD AND WILL CONTINUE TO HAVE LIFELONG CONSEQUENCES ON OUR CHILD. STANDING WITH ME TODAY IS RYAN LOVE, MY FIANCÉ AND FATHER OF MY YOUNGEST DAUGHTER, WHO IS NOW SIX AND IN THE CARE OF MY PARENTS. HOPEFULLY, THAT WILL BE CHANGING FROM ADOPTION TO GUARDIANSHIP THIS MONTH. I DEEPLY RESPECT THE MISSION OF CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES. I FIRMLY BELIEVE OUR COMMUNITY NEEDS A STRONG CPS AGENCY TO PROTECT TRULY VULNERABLE CHILDREN. HOWEVER, ON AUGUST 29, 2025, THAT VITAL SYSTEM COMPLETELY FAILED WHEN MY 6-YEAR-OLD DAUGHTER WAS WRONGFULLY REMOVED FROM OUR HOME. CPS BUILT THEIR CASE ON FALSE... CHOKING ALLEGATIONS, DISTORTED SCHOOL ATTENDANCE RECORDS, AND AN EXPLICIT LIE THAT MY MIDDLE DAUGHTER LATER OPENLY ADMITTED. CASEWORKERS SEVERELY VIOLATED INVESTIGATION PROTOCOLS AND RELIED ON MISLEADING UNVERIFIED REPORTS FROM SCHOOL STAFF TO JUSTIFY THIS REMOVAL. FURTHERMORE, SINCE THE DAY OUR DAUGHTER WAS TAKEN, MY OLDER TWO CHILDREN WERE ABRUPTLY SENT TO LIVE WITH THEIR FATHER IN MONTEREY COUNTY WITHOUT ANY CFS REVIEW OF WHY I HAD RETAINED SOLE CUSTODY PRIOR TO 2023, LEADING IN THEIR RETURN TO ME. THREE MONTHS LATER OURSELVES PLEASE REVIEW NEXT UP ECHO BONG ARTS FOLLOWED BY WENDY GALLANT KAYLA FREDERICK ROSALIE FRANKLIN IF I CALLED YOUR NAME PLEASE GET IN QUEUE GOOD MORNING BOARD I AM HERE NOT CONCERNS IDEAS AND SOLUTIONS OF HOW WE CAN IMPROVE OUTCOMES FOR CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, AND I WILL DISCUSS SOME OF THOSE LATER TODAY. MY DAUGHTER LOST SOMETHING SHE CAN NEVER GET BACK, TIME WITH HER MOTHER. THE INVESTIGATION REPORT SHOWED SHE DID NOT WANT TO BE REMOVED, BUT SHE WAS REMOVED AGAINST HER WILL. THE SHERIFF'S INVESTIGATION FOUND NO ABUSE. THE COURT'S SOLUTION WAS THERAPY AND FAMILY THERAPY. THE PROFESSIONALS INVOLVED REPEATEDLY IDENTIFIED THERAPY AS A PATH. TOWARD HEALING AND REUNIFICATION, THE JUDGE ORDERED THERAPY VISITS, YET I NEVER WAS ALLOWED CONTACT WITH MY DAUGHTER AFTER SHE WAS REMOVED. MY RIGHTS WERE TERMINATED AND MY DAUGHTER WAS NEVER EVEN IN COURT. I DIDN'T GET TO SEE MY DAUGHTER AFTER SHE WAS REMOVED FROM MY CARE AND SHE DID NOT WANT TO GO. CPS TOLD ME SHE WANTED TO GO WITH THEM. LATER, MONTHS LATER... MAYBE EIGHT MONTHS LATER, I GOT TO READ THE INVESTIGATION REPORT, AND IT SAID SHE DID NOT WANT TO GO. SHE WAS 14 AT THAT TIME. SHE HAS THE ABILITY TO MAKE THAT DECISION. SHE WAS TAKEN AGAINST HER WILL. SHE WANTED TO STAY WITH HER MOM. IT SAID THAT IN THE INVESTIGATION REPORT. THEY CAME TO HER THREE TIMES ASKING HER, AND SHE TOLD THEM THREE TIMES SHE WANTED TO STAY WITH HER MOM, AND THEY TOOK HER ANYWAY AND ALLOWED NO CONTACT SINCE, DESPITE JUDGE'S ORDERS. SOCIAL WORKERS ARE NOT CARRYING OUT JUDGES' ORDERS. ATTORNEYS ARE LACKING. PARENTS DO NOT GET ATTORNEYS. I'VE HAD THREE DIFFERENT ATTORNEYS IN THE COURSE OF A YEAR. I WENT MONTHS WITHOUT AN ATTORNEY TO REPRESENT AND FIGHT SO THAT WAY I CAN GET THE VISITS THAT THE JUDGE HAD ORDERED. [01:15:02] SOCIAL WORKERS LIED IN THEIR REPORTS AND SAID THE JUDGE SAID NO CONTACT. I HAD TO REVIEW THE COMPLETE TRANSCRIPT. WENDY GALLANT. FOLLOWED BY KAYLA FREDERICK. NO CONTACT. MA'AM, YOUR TIME IS UP. WENDY GALLANT, COME ON UP. FOLLOWED BY KAYLA FREDERICK, ROSALIE FRANKLIN, THEN NICK GARDNER. IF I CALLED YOUR NAME, PLEASE GET IN QUEUE. FAMILIES ARE THE PILLARS OF OUR COUNTY. AS A REGISTERED NURSE AND STATE MANDATED REPORTER, THERE ARE MANY EGREGIOUS ACTS AND OMISSIONS IN THE CARE FOR OUR FAMILIES AND CHILDREN. HHSAC. CFS MAKES PLANS, HOWEVER, DOES NOT EVALUATE EFFECTIVENESS OR ADHERENCE OF PLANS FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE CHILDREN AND FAMILY. WE HAVE ATTENDED MULTIPLE FAMILY TEAM MEETINGS WITH HHS CFS. WE REQUESTED MULTIPLE TIMES AND MULTIPLE MEETINGS TO ASSURE THE CHILD ATTENDED THERAPY, AND THE CHILD DID NOT. WE EVEN OFFERED TO PAY PRIVATELY TO ASSURE THE CHILD WAS GETTING MUCH-NEEDED THERAPY. OUR REQUEST WAS DECLINED. HAVING SPOKE WITH MULTIPLE FAMILIES AS WELL AS PREVIOUS HSA CFS EMPLOYEES AND ATTORNEYS, THERE ARE MULTIPLE FAMILIES AND CHILDREN AFFECTED BY THE LACK OF EVALUATION AND FOLLOW-UP TO REUNIFY FAMILIES AND KEEP CHILDREN IN THEIR CARE SAFE, WHICH ARE GOALS OF ALL SERVICES PROVIDED TO THE CHILD AND FAMILY. REMOVAL FROM THE FAMILY CREATES PHYSIOLOGICAL CHANGES IN THE CHILD'S BRAIN. BRAIN CONNECTIONS ARE NOT FORMED. CHILDREN AND FAMILIES ARE HARMED BEYOND REPAIR BY THE LACK OF FOLLOW-THROUGH AND EVALUATION OF EFFECTIVENESS OF SERVICES PROVIDED. AS BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, IT IS WITHIN YOUR JURISDICTION TO ASK FOR AN ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW BY THE CEO TO ASSURE POLICY AND PROCEDURES ARE FOLLOWED FOR THE CARE OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES. THANK YOU. NEXT UP, KAYLA FRIEDRICH. FOLLOWED BY ROSALIE FRANKLIN, NICK GARDNER, THEN LESLIE SAWYER. IF I CALLED YOUR NAME, PLEASE GET IN QUEUE. GOOD MORNING. TODAY, FREDERICK, AND I'M HERE TODAY TO ADDRESS A DEVASTATING INTERSECTION OF INSTITUTIONAL FAILURE AND PUBLIC HEALTH. LET'S SEE. HOW DEEP INJUSTICES AND FAMILY SEPARATIONS IN OUR LOCAL COURT SYSTEM ARE DRIVING A SEVERE MENTAL HEALTH AND SUICIDE CRISIS IN THIS COMMUNITY. WHILE THE COURTS ARE A STATE ENTITY, THE HUMAN COST LANDS SQUARELY ON THIS COUNTY. OFFICIAL COUNTY DATA SHOWS THAT SHASTA COUNTY'S SUICIDE RATE IS MORE THAN DOUBLE THE CALIFORNIA STATE AVERAGE, ONE OF THE HIGHEST IN THE STATE. WHILE WE LOOK AT ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL FACTORS, WE MUST ALSO ADDRESS INSTITUTIONAL DESPAIR. WHEN COURTS ENFORCE AGONIZING PROLONGED SEPARATION BETWEEN PARENTS AND CHILDREN WITHOUT TRANSPARENCY, IT CREATES SEVERE TRAUMA. WHEN RESIDENTS FACE COMPOUNDING LEGAL HURDLES AND ENDLESS CASE DELAYS, IT BREEDS COMPLETE HOPELESSNESS. THIS DESPAIR BLEEDS DIRECTLY INTO COUNTY CUSTODY AS SEEN IN TRAGIC PREVENTABLE JAIL SUICIDES LIKE THAT OF JUAN MORENO. THE SYSTEM IS BREAKING DOWN. PEOPLE DOWN UNTIL THEY FEEL ENTIRELY VOICELESS, DRIVING SOME TO THE ABSOLUTE BRINK. SO THE BROKEN MECHANICS OF OUR LEGAL PROCESSES ARE COSTING SHASTA COUNTY RESIDENTS THEIR LIVES. SO I'M ASKING YOU DIRECTLY TO PLEASE CONSIDER THIS AND PROTECT YOUR CONSTITUENTS. AND I JUST WANT TO SAY FROM MY OWN PERSPECTIVE, I WAS A PERSON WHO TRIED TO TAKE MY OWN LIFE FROM THE INJUSTICES THAT MY FAMILY FACE. THANK GOD THAT I SURVIVED SO THAT I CAN COME HERE TODAY AND SPEAK FOR ALL THE OTHER PEOPLE GOING THROUGH THIS SO THAT WE CAN HAVE OUR VOICES HEARD AND SO THAT, YOU KNOW, HOPEFULLY YOU GUYS CAN DO SOMETHING TO PROTECT YOUR CONSTITUENTS. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR TIME. NEXT UP, ROSALIE FRANKLIN, NICK GARDNER, LESLIE SAWYER, THEN CHRISTIAN GARDNER. IF I CALLED YOUR NAME, PLEASE GET IN QUEUE. ROSALIE FRANKLIN. I HAVE BEEN A RESIDENT HERE. I ALSO WAS THE SOROPTIMUS PRESIDENT FOR INTERNATIONAL. I'VE BEEN AN ACTIVE MEMBER IN OUR COMMUNITY. I WAS A 20 UNDER 40 EMERGING LEADER OF SHASTA COUNTY. THE MOST IMPORTANT ROLE I'VE EVER HAD IS TO HAVE AN 18-YEAR-OLD AND A 17-YEAR-OLD. UNFORTUNATELY, WE LOST OUR FATHER FOUR YEARS AGO IN A FREAK ACCIDENT OUT OF MILLVILLE WHEN A TREE FELL ON TOP OF HIM. [01:20:01] NOW, MONTHS LATER, AFTER HE HAD PASSED AWAY, I FOUND OUT I WAS PREGNANT WITH MY BEAUTIFUL SON, WHICH YOU GUYS HAVE SEEN RUNNING AROUND. JAMESON. HE WAS A MICRO PREEMIE BORN AT 25 WEEKS. HE WAS ONE POUND 11 OUNCES. I SPENT FOUR MONTHS IN THE NICU WITH HIM AT UC DAVIS. WHEN WE RETURNED HOME HE HAD LOTS OF MEDICAL COMPLICATIONS. MOST WAS HIS LUNGS. AFTER A STINT IN THE HOSPITAL WHEN HE GOT SICK AFTER COMING HOME ON MARCH 14TH IN OCTOBER HE HAD BEEN IN A HOSPITAL FOR A WEEK. WE GOT HIM HOME. AND HIS DAD DECIDED TO ATTACK ME WHEN I DECIDED TO LEAVE HIM WHEN I FOUND OUT HE WAS RUNNING WITH A CRIMINAL ORGANIZATION, WHICH YOU GUYS LATER BUSTED TWO MONTHS LATER. WHEN I FOUND OUT HE WAS PART OF THIS CRIMINAL ORGANIZATION, I TRIED TO LEAVE HIM. HE GRABBED ME AND THREW ME AGAINST THE CABINET. I HAD BRUISES ALL OVER ME BY THE TIME THE POLICE AND PROTECTIVE SERVICES SHOWED UP AT MY HOME. AT THE TIME, THEY GAVE MY SON TO CFS AND THEN RETURNED HIM TO HIS FATHER ON FRIDAY WITH SUPERVISED VISITS FOR ME AT HIS DISCRETION. NOW, HE HAS A CRIMINAL BACKGROUND, BUT IT IS DEFERRED BECAUSE HE IS MILITARY. HE HAS A MILITARY DEFERMENT FOR ATTACKING ANDERSON POLICE OFFICERS. MY SON THEN WAS PUT INTO A MEDICALLY INDUCED COMA AS CFS REFUSED TO LISTEN TO ME, DID NOT TAKE HIS MEDICATIONS, DID NOT PUT HIM IN A HOME WITHOUT CHILDREN, AND I SENT NINE EMAILS TO THE SUPERVISOR. HE ENDED UP IN A COMA FOR SEVEN DAYS. ROSE, ROSE, STAY FOR AFTER PUBLIC COMMENT. THANK YOU. NICK GARDNER, LESLIE SAWYER, CHRISTIAN GARDNER, THEN BRAD. IF I CALLED YOUR NAME, PLEASE GET IN QUEUE. THAT WAS A KEVIN KREIDER RAIN BUG. THEY'RE ALL OVER HERE. I DON'T FEEL SAFE. YOU KNOW, YOU GUYS NEED TO PUT UP A DELOUSING SYSTEM OUT HERE. DELOUSE THESE PEOPLE FROM THE KEVIN CRY DERANGEMENTS BUGS, AND YOU NEED TO RUN JEFF GARTER THROUGH IT TWICE. JEFF GARTER FILED A, WELL, THAT'S NOT FICTITIOUS. HE FILED A LAWSUIT AGAINST SHASTA COUNTY. HE PROBABLY DIDN'T EVEN REPRESENT HIMSELF BECAUSE HE CLAIMS HE'S A LAWYER. SHASTA COUNTY'S ON THE HOOK FOR OVER $200,000 WORTH OF LAWYER BILLS THAT HE'S NOT GOING TO BE STUCK WITH. HE SHOULD HAVE TO PAY THOSE LAWYER BILLS. BECAUSE THE SUIT WAS FILED AGAINST SHASTA COUNTY FOR HIRING CHRIS STREET FOR $40,000. HE'S WORTH TWICE OR THREE TIMES THAT MUCH. AND IT COSTS US $250,000. AND ALL THESE GUYS CAN DO IS CRY ABOUT LAWSUITS. WHEN THEY THROW FICTITIOUS LAWSUITS, THEY KNOW THEY CAN'T WIN AT US. THIS HAS GOT TO STOP. NEXT UP, LESLIE SAWYER, FOLLOWED BY CHRISTIAN GARNIER, THEN BRAD. IF I CALLED YOUR NAME, PLEASE GET IN QUEUE. ALL RIGHT. OKAY, SO FIRST I WANT TO TALK TO YOU GUYS ABOUT SB 707. THAT WENT INTO EFFECT IN JANUARY. THE CHANGES ARE DUE TO TAKE EFFECT JULY 1ST. THAT IS THE ONE THAT RE-LOOKS AT THE BROWN ACT AND ADDS CHANGES TO IT TO MAKE IT WHERE PEOPLE CAN INTERACT ONLINE OR FROM OTHER REMOTE LOCATIONS, BUT ALSO WHAT'S IN THERE THAT I THINK YOU GUYS AND THE SHERIFF NEED TO LOOK AT COLLABORATIVELY IS THAT CLARIFIED AND STRENGTHENED LOCAL AGENCIES ABILITY TO BETTER ENFORCE MANY DISRUPTIONS TO NAME A FEW. AND I'M GOING TO PICK THE ONES THAT HAVE HAPPENED HERE, REFUSING TO STOP SPEAKING AFTER THEIR TIME ALLOTMENT, REPEATEDLY INTERRUPTING OTHER SPEAKERS, SHOUTING OVER THE PROCEEDINGS. AND THIS ONE HASN'T HAPPENED YET, BUT BASED ON THE BEHAVIOR, I'M ASSUMING IT WILL. USING REMOTE PARTICIPATION TOOLS IN A WAY THAT PREVENTS THE MEETING FROM FUNCTIONING AND INTERRUPTS THE FEEDS. SO I WOULD SUGGEST THAT YOU GUYS SIT WITH COUNTY COUNCIL, THE CEO, AND FIND OUT WHAT THE SHERIFF CAN DO NOW THAT THIS GIVES MORE TEETH TO YOU TO BE ABLE TO UPHOLD LAW AND ORDER IN HERE. BECAUSE WHAT WE'RE SEEING IS THE MEDIA, AND I'M SORRY, MIKE. I LIKE YOU, BUT THE MEDIA AS A WHOLE IS ONLY REPORTING ON THE NONSENSE AND CHAOS THAT HAPPENS IN HERE, NOT THE REAL BUSINESS THAT HAPPENS. THAT'S WHY WE HAVE A COMMUNITY UPSET THAT THE FACILITY IS GOING IN BY THEM BECAUSE ALL THE DIFFERENT OPTIONS, THE PRESENTATIONS, THE MULTIPLE TIMES IT WAS PRESENTED WERE NOT COVERED. BUT WHAT'S COVERED IS SOMEBODY SITTING AND THROWING A FIT AND ACTING LIKE A CHILD. SO THEN A COMMUNITY IS UPSET BECAUSE THEY WEREN'T INFORMED. WELL, THEY WERE INFORMED. BY THIS BOARD, BY THE AGENDAS, BUT THE MEDIA COVERED THE CIRCUS. SO WE NEED TO FIX THAT. AND HOPEFULLY THAT SENATE BILL [01:25:01] WILL HELP YOU. NEXT UP, CHRISTIAN GARNIER, FOLLOWED BY BRAD. IT'S A NEW DAY. AT LEAST ABOUT SIX MONTHS FROM NOW, THIS BOARD AND THE ROV OFFICE HAS BEEN GRIPPED. BY EXTREMIST MALARKEY, SEXISM, LIES ABOUT COVID, LIES ABOUT ELECTIONS, BELLIGERENCE, RETRIBUTION POLICIES, WHAT COULD BE A GRIFT, BUT THE FEVER HAS FINALLY SNAPPED. NOW, LIKE MOST OF THE NATION, SHASTA COUNTY MUST CONFRONT THE ECONOMIC REALITY OF TRUMPISM. HR ONE WHICH THREATENS OUR HEALTH CARE SYSTEM AND OUR SOCIAL SERVICES AND WILL PROBABLY RESULT IN DRASTIC CUTS WHICH WILL HURT OUR COMMUNITY DEEPLY WE FACE THE CHALLENGES POSED BY MEASURE B WHICH IS COMPLETELY ILLEGAL AND I HOPE THIS BOARD DOES THE RIGHT THING AND JUST RECUSES ITSELF FROM EVEN CONSIDERING DEFENSE OF MEASURE B, OR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA WILL TAKE CARE OF IT FOR YOU. THAT SAID, WE DO HAVE A NEW DAY. CALIFORNIA CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT 1 WILL BE STAFFED, AS WELL AS THE COUNTY, BY SAFE, SANE REPUBLICANS, NONPARTISAN INDEPENDENTS, AND DEMOCRATS. WHO CAN BUILD A GROUNDS OF CONCERN. IN COALITION, WE CAN DUMP THIS TRUMPISM FOR NOW. NEXT UP, BRAD. YEAH, I WANT TO TALK ABOUT THE NICK GARDNER HYPOCRISY. SO HOBBS HAS FILED MULTIPLE LAWSUITS AGAINST THE COUNTY OVER ELECTION FRAUD. LEGAL FEES, $150,000 SO FAR. YOU'RE NOT ASKING HER TO PAY IT BACK. WHY? THEN JEFF GORDER FILES A LAWSUIT, AND YOU SETTLE IT, AND HE FINDS OUT THAT YOU'RE GOING TO SPEND HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS OF TAX MONEY TO PROTECT KEVIN CRY, WHO HIRES HIS BUDDY, CHRIS STREET, TO DO A STUDY ABOUT A MEDICAL SCHOOL THAT HE WANTS, AND YOU DON'T PUT IT OUT FOR PUBLIC BIDDING. BUT YOU'RE TELLING GORDER, YOU KNOW, IF YOU COME AFTER ME FOR MY CORRUPTION AND CRONYISM, WE'RE GOING TO FIGHT IT TO THE SUPREME COURT. AND SO THAT'S HYPOCRISY. SO LET'S TALK ABOUT CENSURE. I MEAN, I KIND OF EXPECTED THAT TO BE ON THE AGENDA TODAY. YOU SAID YOU WANTED TO WAIT UNTIL AFTER THE ELECTION TO CENSURE MR. CURTIS. NOWHERE IS THAT ON THE AGENDA. YOU KNOW, THAT NEEDS TO GET ON THE RECORD. HE NEEDS TO BE CENSURED BECAUSE ONCE HE LEAVES SHASTA COUNTY, HE'S GOING TO FIND GRIFTING OPPORTUNITIES ELSEWHERE, AND THAT NEEDS TO BE ON THE RECORD. AND BOY, OH BOY, WHAT A BIG DIFFERENCE IT MAKES WHEN YOU DON'T HAVE ANSELMO BUCKS BACKING YOU UP. YOU KNOW, AFTER HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS GOT YOU ELECTED, KEVIN, AND YOU TOO, CHRIS, DIDN'T HAVE IT THIS ROUND, LOOK WHAT HAPPENS. YOU'RE FIGHTING FOR SURVIVAL. SO, YOU KNOW, YOU'RE GETTING FIRED BECAUSE YOU DIDN'T LISTEN TO YOUR CONSTITUENTS. SO IF YOUR BUDDY, MR. TRUMP, WAS HERE, HERE'S WHAT HE'D HAVE TO SAY TO YOU, KEVIN. YOU'RE FIRED. CHAIR, THAT WAS OUR LAST SPEAKER. [CONSENT CALENDAR] SO, C-4 AND C-18 HAVE BEEN POLLED. DID YOU WANT TO DISCUSS C- I'M IN A QUEUE. OKAY. YEAH, I'M SORRY. COUNCIL LAURA, REALLY QUICK, JUST KEPT PUSHING IT AND I KEPT PUSHING IT BACK. I DON'T KNOW IF ROSE IS STILL HERE, BUT THIS IS REALLY IMPORTANT TO ME AS WE TALK ABOUT CPS STUFF AND CHILDREN AND KIDS. CAN YOU PLEASE REALLY SUCCINCTLY EXPLAIN THE JURISDICTIONAL ABILITY AND THEN ACTUALLY THE RAMIFICATIONS OF INDIVIDUALS UP HERE? TRYING TO INTERCEDE IN CPS AND STATE MATTERS BECAUSE WE DID THIS MY FIRST SIX MONTHS TO A YEAR AND IT'S I'M PASSIONATE ABOUT IT BUT I WANT TO MAKE SURE PEOPLE BECAUSE THERE'S A LOT OF NEW PEOPLE HERE THAT [01:30:01] HAVE COME AND I WANT TO MAKE SURE PEOPLE UNDERSTAND THE ACTUAL LAW AND STATUTES AROUND IT BECAUSE IT'S IMPORTANT BECAUSE I DON'T THINK THERE'S A SINGLE PERSON UP HERE THAT WOULDN'T TAKE A BULLET FOR ONE KID OR A VAN LOAD OF KIDS SO MR. LARMER. THANK YOU, SUPERVISOR CRIOTT. ESSENTIALLY, THE BOARD HAS NO JURISDICTION TO INTERVENE INTO ANY CHILD WELFARE CASE, NOR ARE THEY ALLOWED TO HAVE THE CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION OF A CHILD WELFARE CASE. IF THERE ARE CONCERNS WITH THE COURT OR THE CASE OR THE REPRESENTATION, THAT NEEDS TO GO THROUGH THE STATE PROCESS, AND THE STATE HAS A REVIEW. THE PARENTS CAN MAKE A CLAIM THERE AND HAVE THAT INVESTIGATED. SO I WANT TO ALSO ADD, LIKE IN THE FIRST SIX MONTHS IN 23, I CAME ACROSS DOCUMENTS THAT I WAS NOT LEGALLY SUPPOSED TO HAVE. AND AS I PUSHED THOSE TO OTHER OFFICIALS, I GOT A VERY, VERY STERN TALKING TO. I WON'T TELL YOU FROM WHAT INDIVIDUAL WASN'T IN THE COUNTY, BUT IT WAS FROM OUT LIKE A STATE ORGANIZATION. IT BECOMES VERY, VERY CRIMINAL IF WE BECOME PART OF THAT. SO OUR RESPONSIBILITY IS TO SAY. I CAN'T HAVE THAT. I'M NOT SUPPOSED TO SEE THAT. SO CAN YOU ARTICULATE THAT TOO AT ALL? I WANT PEOPLE WHO ARE HERE WHO ARE NEW TO UNDERSTAND IT BECAUSE I CARE DEEPLY ABOUT IT. DIVULGING THE CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION FROM THE COURT CASE CAN BE A CRIME. YEAH, SO I MEAN IT COULD END ANY AND PLEASE DON'T YELL OUT BECAUSE AS I SENT SOME MESSAGES WITH STAFF, THEY SAID WE DON'T WANT TO GET INTO A BIG SCREAMING MATCH. I WILL MEET WITH ANYBODY. I'VE MET WITH A COUPLE OF YOU, BUT I KNOW SUPERVISOR PLUMMER WOULD BE OPEN. I KNOW EVERYBODY HERE WOULD BE OPEN TO IT. BUT I'VE BEEN DOWN THIS ROAD. I UNDERSTAND IT. AND IT'S IMPORTANT. BUT PLEASE GET THE INFORMATION YOU NEED BECAUSE THERE ARE THINGS THAT CAN BE DONE, BUT IT'S NOT HERE. IT'S AT THE STATE. AND I CAN HELP YOU WITH THAT. PLEASE DON'T YELL OUT BECAUSE I DON'T WANT THE STAFF TO SAY I TOLD YOU SO THAT PEOPLE ARE GOING TO START SCREAMING. WITH THAT, THANK YOU, CHAIR. OKAY. DID YOU HAVE QUESTIONS ON C-14? SUPERVISOR CRY ONE MISS COLEMAN KEEP UP REAL QUICK IT'S REALLY QUICK AND C14 HAS NOT BEEN PULLED BUT C4 AND C18 HAVE BEEN THE DISCREPANCY THAT ON THAT ON FRIDAY NIGHT LIVE WOULD YOU LIKE TO ADDRESS THAT AND JUST SO I UNDERSTAND IT AND SO I DON'T HAVE TO PULL IT. YES. I WAS TALKING WITH MY STAFF ABOUT THAT I HAVE A LONG TEXT MESSAGE THREAD GOING. SO IT SOUNDS LIKE THE CHEMICAL PEOPLE ACTUALLY CONTRACT THROUGH THE STATE WITH ANOTHER COUNTY FOR THAT, BUT THE ACTIVITY ACTUALLY HAPPENS IN OUR COUNTY, AND IT'S JUST A CATEGORY OF AN ACTIVITY THAT WE CAN CHOOSE FROM FOR THAT FUNDING. SO IT'S LIKE AN RFQ. IT DOESN'T MEAN YOU GET THE RFP. IT JUST MEANS YOU GET THROUGH THE QUALIFICATION, YOU'RE ON DECK, BUT IT DOESN'T MEAN YOU'RE SELECTED. IS THAT OKAY? I UNDERSTAND THAT FROM ALL THE HUNDREDS OF RFPS AND QS MY COMPANIES DO. SO BASICALLY, THEY'RE IN THE DOOR, THEY'RE ON THE LIST, THEY CAN BE CHOSEN, BUT THEY WEREN'T. BUT THEY'RE STILL INCLUDED. YEAH, IT'S NOT TECHNICALLY LIKE AN RFP OR AN RFQ. THEY ACTUALLY, FROM THIS TEXT MESSAGE THREAD, THEY CONTRACT WITH A DIFFERENT COUNTY THROUGH DHCS. AND SO SINCE THAT HAPPENS HERE IN OUR COUNTY, WE PUT IT IN OUR CONTRACT BECAUSE IT IS AN ACTIVITY THAT HAPPENS HERE. GOT IT. THANK YOU. OKAY, THANK YOU, DIRECTOR COLEMAN. SO OUR C4 AND C18 HAVE BEEN POLLED. I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO ACCEPT THE REST OF THE CONSENT CALENDAR. I MAKE THAT MOTION. MOTION BY SUPERVISOR LONG. SECOND BY SUPERVISOR PLUMMER. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? AYE. ALL RIGHT, MOVING ON TO C4. SUPERVISOR PLUMMER. YES, THIS IS THE CONTRACT. AROUND THE OPIOID SETTLEMENT DOLLARS FOR SHASTA COLLEGE. AND I REALLY ONLY HAD ONE, I'LL SAY, AMENDMENT THAT I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE. AND IN TALKING WITH AARON BERTAIN ABOUT THIS, SO IN SECTION 1G, IT SAYS PROVIDE DETAILS OF ENROLLMENT AND OUTCOMES TO THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS NO LESS THAN BIANNUALLY IN JULY AND JANUARY. AND I THINK, YOU KNOW, AS WE'VE DONE THIS A FEW TIMES AND WHEN WE HEAR THOSE PRESENTATIONS, SOMETIMES I FEEL LIKE, OKAY, IT WOULD BE HELPFUL TO HAVE CERTAIN INFORMATION OR MORE SPECIFIC INFORMATION. AND SO IN THIS CASE, I WOULD LIKE TO APPROVE IT HERE BUT BRING BACK AN AMENDMENT IN JULY WHEN THE FIRST REPORT IS DUE THAT WE AMEND THAT PART OF THE CONTRACT TO INCLUDE MORE SPECIFIC LANGUAGE. AND I'LL JUST READ OFF WHAT I WAS LOOKING FOR IN TERMS OF THE AND SOME OF IT'S INCLUDED IN THERE. THE FOR WHAT SPECIFIC DATA WE'D LIKE TO COME BACK, IT WOULD BE NUMBER OF STUDENTS FOR, THIS IS FOR THE ALCOHOL DRUG STUDIES [01:35:01] PROGRAM, NUMBER OF STUDENTS, NUMBER OF STUDENTS PER INTERNSHIP SITE, AS WELL AS THE INTERNSHIP SITES, NUMBER OF INTERNSHIP SITES, THE COMPLETION RATE OF THE CERTIFICATE OR DEGREE PROGRAM, AND THEN, IF POSSIBLE, THE INFORMATION ON WHETHER THOSE STUDENTS WILL BE STAYING IN SHASTA COUNTY POST-STUDY. GRADUATION OR COMPLETION AND THEN FOR THE STEP UP PROGRAM IT WOULD BE THE NUMBER OF ADDITIONAL STUDENTS THE COMPLETION RATE OF THE PROGRAM AND ANY DATA RELATED TO RECIDIVISM RATE FOR THOSE WHO HAVE COMPLETED VERSUS THOSE WHO HAVE NOT COMPLETED THE PROGRAM SO PERSONALLY I THINK I WOULD PREFER WAITING TILL THEY PRESENT IN JULY BEFORE WE START MAKING AMENDMENTS AND CHANGES BUT THAT'S JUST ME PERSONALLY THANK YOU. SO IS THAT IN THE FORM OF A MOTION? I WILL MAKE A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE THE CONTRACT AS IS TODAY, AND WE BRING BACK AN AMENDMENT WITH THOSE ADDITIONAL REPORTING REQUIREMENTS WHEN THIS ITEM COMES BACK IN JULY. HEY, MATT, I THOUGHT I HAVE A MINUTE. I'M IN QUEUE. OKAY. ONE OF THE THOUGHTS I HAVE IS SOMETIMES WHEN YOU GET TOO SPECIFIC AND YOU GET. THOSE ARE QUESTIONS THAT COULD BE ASKED BY THE BOARD AT THE TIME OF PRESENTATION, AND WE COULD GET ALL THAT DETAIL OUT, AND THEY WOULD BE PREPARED TO SHARE ALL THAT WITH US. IF WE CODIFY SOMETHING THAT IS TOO SPECIFIC, THEN THAT KIND OF MAKES IT MORE CONFUSING, I THINK. AND THEN ALSO, IT SOUNDS LIKE THAT'S THE ONLY THINGS WE MATTER ABOUT, BECAUSE THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT DETAILS. SO THAT'S THE ONLY REASON I WOULDN'T GO SPECIFIC NECESSARILY, BUT I APPRECIATE YOUR THOUGHTS. WELL, AND I THINK WHAT WE'VE FOUND IS THAT SOMETIMES WHEN THOSE PRESENTATIONS COME BACK, THERE ISN'T THAT INFORMATION AVAILABLE. AND ALSO SOME OF THAT INFORMATION, BY REQUIRING IT, MIGHT MEAN THAT THEY NEED TO COLLECT ADDITIONAL INFORMATION THROUGH THE PROCESS OF THEIR PROGRAM. AND SO THAT'S WHY I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO STIPULATE THAT SPECIFICALLY SO THAT THEY KNOW, OKAY, TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS FUNDING, WE ARE GOING TO BE REPORTING ON THOSE OUTCOMES. AND I THINK WHATEVER WE THINK IS THE DEFINITION OF SUCCESS THAT WE ARE CONSIDERING INVESTING THESE DOLLARS TO TRY TO ACHIEVE, THAT WE SHOULD THEN STIPULATE WHAT WE THINK THAT DEFINITION IS, BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT WE'RE INVESTING THE MONEY TO TRY TO ACHIEVE. ALL RIGHT, I'M WITH YOU, SUPERVISOR LONG. I'LL SOON WAIT UNTIL THE FIRST PRESENTATION. SUPERVISOR RICKER, I MEAN, CEO OVER HERE. THANK YOU FOR THAT CLARIFICATION, CHAIRMAN. I APPRECIATE THE EFFORT TO PROVIDE MORE INFORMATION TO EVALUATE THE PROGRAM. I DO HAVE SOME CONCERNS ON WHAT INFORMATION THE COLLEGE WOULD BE LEGALLY ABLE TO PROVIDE, BUT WOULD BE HAPPY TO MEET WITH SUPERVISOR PLUMMER TO REFINE THAT REQUEST WHEN THEY COME BACK FOR AUGUST. SO IF YOU WOULD CONSIDER THAT, I'D APPRECIATE IT. THANK YOU, CEO. RIGHT HERE, SUPERVISOR CRY. MATT, OR SUPERVISOR PLUMMER, HAVE YOU TALKED TO THE STEP UP PROGRAM ABOUT THESE ASKS? NO, I HAVEN'T. HOW ABOUT THE OTHER ORGANIZATION? BOTH ARE THROUGH SHASTA COLLEGE. I HAVEN'T TALKED TO THEM ABOUT THESE SPECIFIC OUTCOMES. BUT THESE WERE, THE ONLY CLARIFICATION IS, THESE WERE SOME OF THE QUESTIONS THAT I BELIEVE, WELL, I ASKED WHEN THIS CAME UP, AND I THINK... THERE WERE SOME SIMILAR QUESTIONS FROM OTHER BOARD MEMBERS AS WELL WHEN THIS WAS FOR CONSIDERATION OF FUNDING OKAY, I JUST WANTED TO KNOW THAT ALL RIGHT. WE HAD A MOTION ON THE TABLE. WE DID NOT RECEIVE A SECOND I'LL ENTERTAIN IN ANOTHER MOTION TO APPROVE AS IS OKAY MOTION BY SUPERVISOR CRY TO HAVE A SECOND SECOND BY SUPERVISOR LONG ALL THOSE IN FAVOR. I ANY OPPOSED OKAY, HE PASSES FOR ONE MOVING ON C18 PULLED THIS ONE, TOO SUPERVISOR PLUMMER. YES, THANK YOU, JOHN, FOR BEING HERE. AND I WOULD LOVE A LITTLE BIT MORE INFORMATION ON THIS. A NUMBER OF THINGS, I GUESS, TO START AS FAR AS SB1, HOW MUCH FUNDING ARE WE TALKING ABOUT IN TERMS OF THE ITEMS THAT WERE IN THAT RESOLUTION, I GUESS IT WAS, THAT IS GOING TOWARDS THAT? GOOD MORNING. CHAIR KALLSTROM, BOARD, SUPERVISOR PLUMMER, JOHN HEATH, INTERIM PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR. SO THE SB1 PROJECT LIST RESOLUTION THAT YOU'RE REFERRING TO, IT'S MORE OF A STRATEGY DOCUMENT THAN AN ACTUAL LIST OF PROJECTS. IT IS A FORM RESOLUTION THAT WE GET FROM THE STATE AND WE KIND OF FILL IN THE BLANK. SO WHAT I WOULD SAY IS THAT IT'S OUR STRATEGY AND OUR GOAL TO COMPLETE THOSE PROJECTS THIS YEAR. SOMETIMES THAT DOESN'T HAPPEN. SOMETIMES THEY GET EXTENDED FOR [01:40:01] VARIOUS REASONS OR OTHER PROJECTS MAY COME IN AND SUPPLANT THE PROJECTS ON THE LIST. WE'RE NOT NECESSARILY COMMITTED TO DELIVER ANY ONE OF THOSE SPECIFIC PROJECTS BECAUSE IT MAKES IT ONTO THE LIST. AGAIN, IT'S A STRATEGY TYPE OF A DOCUMENT. NOW, WE DO HAVE, THERE IS ACCOUNTABILITY THAT GOES WITH THE SB1 FUNDING. EVERY YEAR, THE DEPARTMENT FILES A ROAD REPORT TO THE STATE AUDITOR'S OFFICE, AND THAT AUDITS OUR USE OF BOTH THE HOODA GAS TAX MONEY, HIGHWAY USER TAX ACCOUNT GAS MONEY, AND THEN THE SB1 GAS TAX MONEY. THEY'RE KIND OF SEPARATE POTS. SO KIND OF TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, I DON'T KNOW THAT ALL OF THESE PROJECTS NECESSARILY ADD UP TO THE $8.6 MILLION THAT WE'RE SCHEDULED TO GET. THIS COMING FISCAL YEAR. THE ENTIRETY OF THE $8.6 MILLION WILL BE SPENT FOR ROAD MAINTENANCE OR ROAD EVENT OR ROADATION. THERE ARE JUST A COUPLE OF STRINGS THAT COME ATTACHED WITH THAT SB1 MONEY, ROAD MAINTENANCE, ROAD IMPROVEMENT, OR YOU CAN USE IT FOR ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS, PEDESTRIAN IMPROVEMENTS, BICYCLE IMPROVEMENTS. EVENTS, THOSE TYPES OF THINGS. DIRECTOR HEATH, BEFORE WE GO ANY FURTHER, I APOLOGIZE. WAS THERE ANY PUBLIC COMMENT ON CE4? THERE WAS, CHAIR. THERE WAS ONE SPEAKER, SO AFTER WE GET DONE WITH CE18, WE CAN GO BACK TO CE4 IF YOU'D LIKE AND DO THAT AGAIN. SO HANG AROUND IF YOU WERE SPEAKING ON CE4, AND MY APOLOGIES. OKAY. DID THAT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION? YES. SO THE $8.6 MILLION, IS THERE ADDITIONAL COUNTY FUNDS THAT GO TOWARDS ROAD MAINTENANCE AND ROAD IMPROVEMENTS, OR IS THAT THE WHAT PORTION OF OUR TOTAL SPEND ON ROAD MAINTENANCE IS THIS? SO ALL TOTAL FOR 26-27, WE'RE GOING TO GET ABOUT $20 MILLION FOR ROAD MAINTENANCE. THERE'S THE $8.6 MILLION FOR SB1. THEN THERE'S ABOUT $8 MILLION THAT COMES IN WITH THE HIGHWAY USER TAX ACCOUNT, WHICH IS ANOTHER SET OF GAS TAXES THAT GET PAID. THERE'S ABOUT $3 MILLION THAT COMES IN FROM THE LOCAL TRANSPORTATION FUND, LTF. THEN THERE'S THE LAST MILLION AND A MILLION AND A HALF OR SO IS FEDERAL TRANSPORTATION MONEY. AND IT SOUNDS LIKE THERE'S SOME FLEXIBILITY IN TERMS OF THIS, BUT IT LOOKS LIKE THERE'S ABOUT, I DON'T KNOW, 8 TO 10 ITEMS ON HERE. ARE THERE SPENDING AMOUNTS BY ROW OR BY PROJECT HERE ALREADY ALLOCATED, OR IS THAT? CHEERS. WE'RE PLANNING TO DO THESE, AND WE'LL SEE HOW IT SPLITS OUT LATER. SURE. SURE. SO THESE PROJECTS ARE, YOU KNOW, THEY'RE IN PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATION RIGHT NOW. SO I'M SURE EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM HAS A COST AMOUNT ALLOCATED TO IT RIGHT NOW. AGAIN, I DON'T KNOW THAT IT WOULD ADD UP TO THE $8.6 MILLION. THE ONE THAT COMES TO MIND... PROBABLY FIRST AND FOREMOST WOULD BE THE PAVEMENT REHABILITATION PROJECT, THE 2026 PAVEMENT REHABILITATION PROJECT. I THINK RIGHT NOW WE HAVE AN ESTIMATE OF ABOUT $2 MILLION FOR THAT WORK. OKAY. ONE SPECIFIC QUESTION. THE BIG BEND ROAD SLIDE AT SAND HILL CURVE, I BELIEVE THAT'S, AND IT SHOWS ON HERE THAT THAT START DATE WAS 2017. THAT'S THE ONE THAT GOT CAUGHT UP WITH THE... EASEMENT OR RIGHT AWAY THAT ARE WE IS THAT ROADBLOCK UH NO PUN INTENDED ACTUALLY STILL THERE OR AND WE'RE ABLE TO MOVE FORWARD OR IS IT STILL ARE WE STILL WAITING FROM WE I BELIEVE IT WAS FOR YEAH UM WE'RE GETTING THERE WE'RE CLOSE WE ARE SO CLOSE TO UM CLEARING THAT ROADBLOCK AND NO ACTUAL PUN INTENDED UM WITH WITH THE STATE UM YOU KNOW AND IT'S IT'S DICTATED BY THE STATE'S TIMEFRAME. I WOULD GUESS WE'RE PROBABLY 85% OF THE WAY THROUGH THAT PROCESS WITH THE STATE. SO WE'RE ANTICIPATING DELIVERING THAT PROJECT. I DON'T THINK IT WOULD BE THIS YEAR. I BELIEVE IT WILL BE NEXT CONSTRUCTION SEASON. OKAY. AND THEN WHEN IT COMES TO, YOU MENTIONED THE 2026 PAVEMENT REHABILITATION, AND THAT MENTIONS CHURN CREEK ROAD SPECIFICALLY. AND THEN THERE'S THE 2027 PAVEMENT REHABILITATION, WHICH THAT LEAVES IT. AT THIS TIME UNSPECIFIED. IF FOLKS ARE WONDERING WHICH ROADS THE COUNTY IS GOING TO BE WORKING ON, IS THAT, WHEN DOES THAT, OBVIOUSLY HERE THE CHURN CREEK ROAD IS SPECIFIED, BEYOND THAT, HOW IS THAT PROCESS DETERMINED? YEAH, WELL, SO I'LL TALK [01:45:02] OVERALL STRATEGY WHEN IT COMES TO ROAD REHABILITATION AND SPECIFICALLY ROAD PAVING. AND THAT IS THE CONCEPT THAT THE BUSIEST ROADS OR THE ROADS THAT SEE THE MOST TRAFFIC THAT ARE IN THE WORST CONDITION BECOME KIND OF RIGHT OFF THE TOP, OUR NUMBER ONE PRIORITY. NOW, WITHIN THAT STRATEGY, THERE ARE OTHER FACTORS THAT COME INTO PLAY, AVAILABLE RESOURCES, FUNDING. AND THEN PROBABLY MOST IMPORTANT WOULD BE KIND OF THE FEEDBACK THAT WE GET FROM OUR ROAD MAINTENANCE CREW. WHEN WE GET, YOU KNOW, WE GET ENGINEERING DATA, PCI, PAVEMENT CONDITION INDEX, WE GET THAT DATA, BUT IT'S KIND OF A SNAPSHOT IN TIME. REALLY, IT'S THE ROAD MAINTENANCE CREWS THAT ARE ON THESE ROADS DAY AFTER DAY. THEY UNDERSTAND HOW THE ROADS ARE OPERATING AND WHAT HAPPENS AFTER A BIG STORM ON THE ROAD, HOW MANY POTHOLES ARE THEY GOING TO GET. SO REALLY, THEY HAVE CONSIDERABLE AMOUNT OF INPUT ON WHERE WE'RE SPENDING, YOU KNOW. THAT ROAD REHABILITATION MONEY. WE GENERALLY HAVE ABOUT A THREE-YEAR PROJECT CYCLE THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT, AND IT GETS FINALIZED, YOU KNOW, PROBABLY STARTING IN JANUARY OR FEBRUARY EVERY YEAR. WE START NARROWING DOWN ON THE ROADS THAT WE'RE GOING TO PAVE FOR THE COMING CONSTRUCTION SEASON. THAT'S HELPFUL. AND ONE LAST QUESTION. SO A ROAD THAT DOESN'T HAVE MUCH TRAFFIC ON IT, THAT IS IN POOR CONDITION, HOW DO WE END UP GETTING THAT ON THE LIST EVENTUALLY? BECAUSE IF WE'RE LOOKING AT THE, AND I KNOW IT'S NOT LIKE SCIENTIFIC IN THE SENSE OF, OH, WELL, WE JUST DO THESE TWO NUMBERS TOGETHER. BUT I THINK THAT IS, FROM WHAT I'VE HEARD, YOU KNOW, FROM FOLKS UP IN LAKEHEAD, FOR EXAMPLE, THAT CAN BE A CONCERN IS THAT, WELL, SURE, THERE'S NOT THAT MUCH TRAFFIC ON IT, BUT IT'S ALSO IN POOR CONDITION. SO HOW DO YOU THINK ABOUT GETTING THOSE ONTO THE LIST AT TIMES? WELL, I MEAN, THERE'S DEFINITELY A RUB. THERE'S NOT ENOUGH RESOURCES AVAILABLE TO FIX EVERY ROAD. SO IT IS A CONTINUAL PROCESS OF PRIORITIZATION. AND IN PARTICULAR, THE LOCAL ROADS. SO, YOU KNOW, ROADS COME IN VARIOUS CATEGORIES. CHURN CREEK AND BALLS FERRY, THE ROADS THAT ARE ON THIS LIST, THEY ARE ARTERIALS. THEY'RE CARRYING A LOT OF TRAFFIC. BELOW AN ARTERIAL WOULD BE SOMETHING LIKE A COLLECTOR THAT'S KIND OF, YOU KNOW, A MEDIUM AROUND. OF TRAFFIC DOWN TO A LOCAL ROAD, WHICH IS PROBABLY THE ROAD THAT YOU DRIVE ON. YOUR HOUSE PROBABLY SITS ON A LOCAL ROAD. BECAUSE LOCAL ROADS DON'T CARRY A LOT OF TRAFFIC GENERALLY, THEY DON'T RECEIVE AS MUCH ATTENTION WHEN IT COMES TO THE BIG REHABILITATION PROJECTS. GENERALLY, THE STRATEGY IS TO TRY AND GET OUR MAINTENANCE CREWS IN THERE TO DO THE WORK ON THOSE TYPES OF ROADS, AS OPPOSED TO OUR GUYS GOING OUT AND GALS GOING OUT. AND TRYING TO OVERLAY TURN CREEK OR BALLS FERRY WE WERE LIMITED ON THE AMOUNT OF WORK THAT WE CAN DO ON THOSE TYPES OF ROADS SO REALLY THE BIG ROADS WE PUT OUT TO BIG PROJECTS THE SMALLER ROADS WE TRY AND ADDRESS WITH OUR LOCAL WITH OUR LOCAL ROAD CREWS AND UH... YOU KNOW I CAN'T EMPHASIZE AS MUCH UH... TOO MUCH JUST YOU KNOW UH... HOW BIG THE GAP IS BETWEEN AVAILABLE RESOURCES AND ROADS WE HAVE ABOUT YOU KNOW OVER OVER ELEVEN HUNDRED MILES OF PAVED ROADS IN THE COUNTY RIGHT SO YOU KNOW, POTHOLES ARE A THING THAT, YOU KNOW, I MEAN, WE CERTAINLY DO A LOT OF MAINTENANCE, AND WE TRY TO KEEP THE ROADS IN AS BEST CONDITION AS WE CAN. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, DIRECTOR HEATH, AND THANK YOU FOR THE NEW PAVEMENT BY THE POST OFFICE IN COTTONWOOD. IT WAS A LONG TIME COMING, AND IT LOOKS GREAT. AND, JOHN, THANK YOU FOR BEING AVAILABLE AFTER THE AGENDA CAME OUT. SO I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY DISCUSSED THIS WAY BEFORE NOW, SO THANK YOU. NO PROBLEM. IT'S MY JOB. THANK YOU. I KNOW. ALL RIGHT. DO WE HAVE ANY PUBLIC COMMENT ON THIS? NOT FOR C-18, CHAIR. OKAY. SO WE CAN TAKE A VOTE ON THIS ITEM. I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO APPROVE. MOTION MADE BY SUPERVISOR PRYE, SECOND BY SUPERVISOR LONG. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? AYE. ANY OPPOSED? PASSES 5-0. OKAY. BACK TO C-4. IS THAT SPEAKER IN THE ROOM? YES. DON DUCKETT, COME ON UP. SORRY, DON. MY APOLOGIES. NO WORRIES. OKAY. OKAY, JUST REAL QUICK, AND I WON'T TAKE THE FULL THREE MINUTES. I WAS AT THE ORIGINAL MEETING WHEN THESE FUNDS FOR THE STEP UP PROGRAM WERE APPROVED, AND YES, SUPERVISOR PLUMMER, YOU DID ASK FOR OUTCOMES AT THAT TIME, AND NONE WERE AVAILABLE. WHILE I APPRECIATE YOUR DUE DILIGENCE IN MAKING SURE THAT WE SPEND THESE MONIES AND THAT THESE AGENCIES ARE HAVING POSITIVE OUTCOMES, I ALSO WANT TO CAUTION YOU THAT YOU KNOW, WHAT YOU'RE GIVING THE STEP UP PROGRAM IS ROUGHLY $300,000 A YEAR. [01:50:01] AND MY SON WENT THROUGH THE STEP UP PROGRAM. I TALKED A LOT ABOUT MY SON WHO WAS ADDICTED TO OPIOIDS AND HOW THAT PROGRAM WAS A GAME CHANGER FOR HIM. BUT $300,000 DOESN'T GO A LONG WAY FOR A LITTLE PROGRAM LIKE THAT. THEY HAVE HEAVY EQUIPMENT. THEY HAVE INSTRUCTORS. AND SO WE DON'T WANT TO CREATE THINGS IN THE CONTRACT THAT ARE BURDENSOME AND CREATE EXTRA BUREAUCRACY AND ADMIN COSTS. ASSOCIATED WITH THAT. SO I JUST WANTED YOU TO KEEP THAT IN MIND. I APPRECIATE YOUR NEED FOR DATA, BUT ALSO LET'S LOOK AT THE BROAD SCOPE OF THINGS WHEN WE'RE LOOKING AT THESE LITTLE AGENCIES AND HOW MUCH MONEY WE'RE ACTUALLY GIVING THEM AND WHAT THEY'RE AVAILABLE TO DO AND HOW MUCH ADMIN STAFF THAT THEY HAVE. AND I THINK THAT THIS IS A GREAT USE OF THE OPIOID FUNDS. I'M GLAD YOU'RE SUPPORTING THE STEP UP PROGRAM. I TOLD YOU ABOUT THE POSITIVE... IMPACT AND OUTCOME WITH MY SON. HE WENT FROM HAVING A SUITCASE FULL OF CLOTHES AND BEING A PAROLEE TO MAKING SIX FIGURES A YEAR. HE RIGHT NOW IS GETTING READY TO TAKE HIS ENTIRE FAMILY TO SPAIN. HE'S A HOMEOWNER. THAT ONE OUTCOME SAVES YOU HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS IN REPEAT ACTIVITY IN THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM, WHICH I PERSONALLY WITNESSED WITH MY KID. SO LET'S JUST KEEP IT ALL IN PERSPECTIVE. THANK YOU. HIS ENTIRE FAMILY? THAT'S AWESOME. YES. ENTIRE FAMILY THAT'S GREAT THANK YOU MS DUGGETT OKAY SO WE'LL GO BACK AND RETAKE THAT VOTE UM SO ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF C4 AYE ANY OPPOSED STILL ONE [R4 Adopt a resolution which outlines and affirms the Board of Supervisors’ commitment to the responsible and strategic use of artificial intelligence (“AI”) to enhance public services, support an understaffed workforce, and promote long-term fiscal sustainability while maintaining strong ethical safeguards, privacy protocols, and human oversight (Sponsored by Supervisor Plummer).] OPPOSED YES SUPPOSE THE ONE OPPOSED OKAY PASSES 4-1 ALL RIGHT MOVING ON TO THE REGULAR CALENDAR ALSO BY SUPERVISOR POLLUTION WHICH OUTLINES AND AFFIRMS THE BOARD SUPERVISOR'S COMMITMENT TO THE RESPONSIBLE AND STRATEGIC USE OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE TO ENHANCE PUBLIC SERVICES SUPPORT AND UNDERS STAFFED WORKFORCE AND PROMOTE LONG-TERM FISCAL SUSTAINABILITY WHILE MAINTAINING STRONG ETHICAL SAFEGUARDS, PRIVACY PROTOCOLS, AND HUMAN OVERSIGHT. ARE WE GOING TO HAVE A PRESENTATION ON THIS OR JUST A DISCUSSION ITEM? NO PRESENTATION. I HAVE BEEN WORKING WITH OUR CHIEF ADMINISTRATOR OFFICE AS WELL AS IT ON BOTH THIS AND AS WELL AS A DETAILED POLICY THAT WOULD FOLLOW. THAT IS RELATED TO THE ADMIN POLICY. AND REALLY THE INTENT HERE IS THAT AS THIS NEW TECHNOLOGY COMES ON BOARD, RIGHT NOW WE HAVE VERY LIMITED IN TERMS OF... POLICY REGULATION AROUND THE USE OF THAT, AROUND HOW WE, WHETHER WE ARE ENCOURAGING USE, WHETHER WE'RE DISCOURAGING USE, AND SAFEGUARDS BOTH FOR THE PUBLIC AND FOR THE COUNTY ITSELF FROM A LIABILITY ISSUE. AND SO THIS IS A FIRST STEP TO SAY WE WANT TO BE, YOU KNOW, LOOKING TOWARDS WAYS TO USE THIS EFFECTIVELY, BUT WE ALSO WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THE HUMAN IS THE ONE MAKING THE DECISION, THAT PEOPLE'S DATA IS PROTECTED, THAT WE'RE BEING TRANSPARENT WHEN WE ARE USING THIS. AND SO THIS IS A FIRST STEP THAT I SEE IN A BROADER PROCESS OF MOVING IN THAT DIRECTION, ENCOURAGING THE USE TO GET THE BENEFITS OUT OF THAT WHILE SAFEGUARDING THE COUNTY AND THE PUBLIC AGAINST ANY POTENTIAL CONSEQUENCES. AND HAVE YOU HAD THESE DISCUSSIONS WITH IT DIRECTOR TOM SCHREIBER? YES, WE HAVE MET. WE'VE REVIEWED THIS. WE ARE WORKING ON A DETAILED POLICY THAT WOULD STIPULATE WHAT EXACT TOOLS COULD BE USED, HOW THEY COULD BE USED. SO THAT IS AND THAT'S CURRENTLY BRYCE IS WORKING ON THAT WITH IT IN MORE DETAIL. OKAY, BUT DIRECTOR SCHREIBER ISN'T IN THE ROOM, I SEE. NO, HE'S NOT. OKAY. YES. SUPERVISOR CRYE. YEAH, SO I HAVE QUESTIONS HERE THAT I'VE WRITTEN DOWN ABOUT THE SOLUTION. THE FIRST ONE, WE CAN BULLET POINT THROUGH THEM, BUT THE ONE, THE COMMITMENT TO SERVICE EXCELLENCE, I WOULD... I'D BE CURIOUS TO KNOW WHAT COMPANIES WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, AND THAT'S MORE OF A STATEMENT. THE QUESTION ON NUMBER TWO WOULD BE SUPPORT FOR THE WORKFORCE COMPONENT. MY QUESTION, MATT, WOULD AI BE ABLE TO REPLACE UPPER AND MID-LEVEL MANAGEMENT AND KEEP THE LOWER WORKS EMPLOYED? IS THIS SOMETHING YOU'RE MOVING TOWARDS REPLACING POSSIBLY LIKE MANAGEMENT AND DEPARTMENT HEADS? IN TERMS OF YOUR FIRST QUESTION, THIS IS NOT. SPECIFIC TO ANY COMPANIES IN PARTICULAR? WELL, NO, THE FIRST ONE WASN'T A QUESTION. THAT WAS JUST A STATEMENT. I'M JUST CURIOUS WHO WE'RE LOOKING TO CONTRACT WITH OR IF THERE'S ANYBODY OUT THERE YOU'RE THINKING TO CONTRACT WITH. THE SECOND PART IS I'M CURIOUS IF YOU'RE LOOKING TO SAVE MONEY BY ELIMINATING MANAGEMENT OR DIRECTOR OR, YOU KNOW, POSSIBLE SPOTS. THE INTENTION HERE IS NOT TO REPLACE ANY OF OUR EXISTING STAFF. AND THE NOTE ON THE VACANCIES IS THAT WE CURRENTLY HAVE SIGNIFICANT VACANCIES. WE HAVE SIGNIFICANT TURNOVER IN SOME OF THE POSITIONS. AND SO THIS IS BOTH TO HELP [01:55:02] WHERE WE HAVE VACANCIES, WHERE THE WORKLOAD IS ALREADY OVERWHELMING OUR DEPARTMENTS, AS WE KNOW, IN THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, PUBLIC DEFENDER'S OFFICE, THAT THESE TOOLS CAN HELP THEM GET TO, YOU KNOW, OPERATING AT CAPACITY VERSUS OVERCAPACITY. ABSOLUTELY. BUT THE QUESTION REMAINS, WOULD THIS BE SOMETHING YOU'D BE OPEN TO IF AI IS A VIABLE OPPORTUNITY TO REPLACE A DEPARTMENT HEAD OR UPPER MANAGEMENT? WOULD YOU SEE THAT AS A SOLUTION? I THINK HUMAN OVERSIGHT WILL ALWAYS BE CRITICAL, SO I DON'T SEE IT REPLACING DEPARTMENT HEADS. HOW THIS EVOLVES OVER THE NEXT FIVE TO TEN YEARS, I THINK THIS WILL BE A CONTINUOUSLY TOPIC THAT WE NEED TO COME BACK TO AND REVISIT. THIS IS JUST A STARTING POINT TO SAY. LET'S HEAD DOWN THAT ROAD. LET'S PUT SOME SAFEGUARDS IN PLACE, AND LET'S SEE WHAT OPPORTUNITIES EXIST AND HOW WE NEED TO CALIBRATE THIS AND ADJUST THIS AS THE TECHNOLOGY EVOLVES AND AS THE SCENARIO IN THE COUNTY. AND IT'S EVOLVING RAPIDLY. CORRECT. I MEAN, YEAH. AND YOU HIT IT PERFECTLY ON THE HEAD ABOUT WHAT YOU'RE SEEING. SO THERE'S COMPANIES OUT THERE THAT DO THAT. SO, YOU KNOW, WHERE I AM, I GOT OTHER QUESTIONS, BUT I'M JUST GOING TO MOVE BECAUSE I'VE BEEN MESSAGING WITH. CHIEF SCHREIBER, I'M GOING TO MAKE THE NEXT MEETING BECAUSE I WANT HIM HERE IN PERSON TO DISCUSS THIS BECAUSE WE HAVE ONE OF THE BEST CTOS IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, MAYBE EVEN IN THE COUNTRY TO A POINT. WHEN OUR SYSTEM CRASHED AS A COUNTY, WHAT WAS THAT, CEO RICKER, HOW LONG AGO WAS THAT? WHAT? I'D HAVE TO REFER TO STAFF. WHAT WAS THAT, ABOUT A YEAR? LESS THAN A YEAR? A LITTLE OVER A YEAR AGO. I REMEMBER AT LIKE 4 A.M. I WAS COMING BACK FROM THE GYM AND I RUN INTO A DISCUSSION BECAUSE I DO THINK IT'S VERY WARRANTED AND IT'S VERY NEEDED. BUT I DEFINITELY WANT, I MEAN WE HAVE ONE OF THE, I WOULD EVEN SAY THE COUNTRY'S EXPERTS FROM HIS EXPERIENCE IN THE MILITARY AND EVERYTHING ELSE. I WANT HIM HERE BECAUSE AS THAT IS CRAFTED IN A DIRECTION. I THINK HE NEEDS TO BE HERE IN THAT CONVERSATION WHEN WE TALK ABOUT DIRECTION. SO I'M GOING TO MAKE A MOTION THAT WE MOVE THIS. AND I FEEL THE SAME WAY, SO I'LL SECOND THAT MOTION. SUPERVISOR LONG. THANK YOU, CHAIR. SUPERVISOR PLUMMER, QUESTIONS I HAVE. DEPARTMENT HEADS HAVE BEEN INTEGRATING AI WITHOUT THE POLICY UP TO THIS POINT ON A CASE-BY-CASE BASIS. THAT'S MY UNDERSTANDING ANYWAY. YES, SOME DEPARTMENTS HAVE. YES, AND I KNOW THAT WE HAD MOVED TO INCLUDE IN THIS COMING BUDGET CYCLE FOR AN AI FOR THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, AND THAT WAS NOT APPROVED BECAUSE OF FUNDING. SO HERE'S THE QUESTIONS I HAVE WITH... WITH THIS AND AND I ALSO WOULD WOULD APPRECIATE UH... I T SHRIVERS INPUT AND BEING PRESENT DURING THIS CONVERSATION BECAUSE I THINK WE HAVE TO BE REALLY CAUTIOUS AS WE MOVE FORWARD WITH A I A I CAN HAVE AN INCREDIBLE ABILITY TO IN CREATE UH... INCREASED EFFICIENCIES BUT IT CAN ALSO BE VERY DESTRUCTIVE KIND OF A GARBAGE IN GARBAGE OUT KIND OF THING DEPENDING ON THE INPUT INTO THE AI PROGRAM. WE CAN END UP WITH A REALLY WEIRD OUTCOME. SO I'M REALLY CAUTIOUS ABOUT THIS. I THINK THIS IS A GOOD FIRST STEP TO DISCUSSING THIS, BUT I WOULD LIKE THE EXPERT'S OPINION, AND I HAVE NOT TALKED WITH MR. SCHREIBER INDIVIDUALLY. SO I THINK WE CAN BRING THIS BACK AND HAVE A FUTURE DISCUSSION BECAUSE I THINK THIS IS AN IMPORTANT TOPIC. BECAUSE AI IS GETTING INTEGRATED AT INCREASING LEVELS. BUT I THINK WE HAVE TO BE REALLY CAUTIOUS ABOUT HOW WE MAKE SURE THAT WE COVER ALL ASPECTS TO IT. OKAY, SO WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND ON THE TABLE. IS THERE ANY PUBLIC COMMENT ON THIS ITEM? THERE IS, CHAIR. WE HAVE ONE SPEAKER, ECHO BONGARDS. COME ON UP. HELLO, SUPERVISORS. AI. IS CAN BE USED FOR GOOD OR BAD. AND AS SOMEONE GOING THROUGH THE CHILD WELFARE SYSTEM, I HAVE LEARNED TO USE AI TO MY BENEFIT TO UNDERSTAND LAWS AND FIGURE THINGS OUT. SO ONE THING I WANTED TO SAY IS, YOU KNOW, WE'RE NOT HERE TODAY. I'M HERE WITH SOME SOLUTIONS AND THERE ARE SOLUTIONS TO THIS PROBLEM GUYS AND YEAH YOU MAY NOT BE ABLE TO INVESTIGATE INDIVIDUAL CASES BUT YOU CAN INVESTIGATE THE SYSTEM ITSELF YOU HAVE JURISDICTION OVER FUNDING SO [02:00:02] WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE AI PROGRAM GUYS UM AI CAN HELP NOT ONLY GOVERNMENT BUT THE CONSTITUENTS US SO UH I HAVE A PROPOSAL ACTUALLY UM YOU SO I'LL RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THAT THE BOARD PLACE AN AI FAMILY NAVIGATION PROGRAM DISCUSSION ON A FUTURE AGENDA AND ALLOW PRESENTATION OF THIS CONCEPT. THE PURPOSE IS GOVERNMENT SYSTEMS ARE INCREASINGLY COMPLEX. PARENTS AND FAMILIES OFTEN STRUGGLE TO UNDERSTAND COURT ORDERS, CASE PLANS, SERVICE REQUIREMENTS, DEADLINES, AVAILABLE RESOURCES, LEGAL TERMINOLOGY, AGENCY PROCESSES. MANY RESIDENTS SPEND COUNTLESS HOURS ATTEMPTING TO UNDERSTAND THE SYSTEM. SO... AI CAN ACTUALLY HELP PARENTS. SO WHEN YOU'RE CONSIDERING AI FOR COUNTY USE, GOVERNMENT USE, I WOULD LIKE YOU TO ALSO CONSIDER AI AND A PROGRAM FOR PARENTS IN THE SYSTEM AND PUT IT ON A FUTURE AGENDA FOR ME TO PROPOSE IT. OKAY, BUT THIS ISN'T ABOUT AI PROGRAMS. THIS IS ABOUT AI PROTOCOLS. OKAY. SO AI PROTOCOLS WOULD BE VERY HELPFUL TO FAMILIES. SO I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE IT PUT ON THE AGENDA TO PROTOCOL THAT IT IS USED FOR CONSTITUENTS AND FAMILIES, A FAMILY NAVIGATION PROGRAM. GUYS, I'M GIVING YOU A SOLUTION. SO THERE ARE SOLUTIONS. MR. CRY, WHEN YOU SAY THAT THERE ARE NOT SOLUTIONS, YOU CAN'T DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT. YOU HAVE A LOT OF OPTIONS. HERE'S ONE. THANK YOU. AI IS AN OPTION TO HELP PARENTS. ALSO, FUNDING THE ATTORNEYS FOR PARENTS WOULD BE NICE, TOO. THERE ARE THINGS YOU CAN DO. YOU HAVE CONTROL OVER BUDGET. YOU HAVE CONTROL OVER STAFF. AI CAN HELP THESE PARENTS NAVIGATE. YOU SAW ALL THE PARENTS HERE TODAY. THAT'S JUST A HANDFUL OF THEM, GUYS. THERE'S A LOT OF THEM THAT HAVE COME FORWARD. WHEN THERE'S THIS MANY PARENTS COMING FORWARD, AI CAN HELP THESE PARENTS. AND YOU GUYS CAN HELP THESE PARENTS AS WELL. SO I PLEAD THAT YOU DO. I PLEAD THAT YOU ALLOW. CHAIR, THAT WAS OUR ONLY SPEAKER. THANK YOU. OKAY, WE HAVE A MOTION ON THE TABLE. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? ANY OPPOSED? I'M FINE WITH IT COMING BACK. I JUST WANTED TO MAKE LOOKING AT THE SPECIFIC COMPONENTS OF IT AND SEEING WHERE DO YOU HAVE QUESTIONS, WHERE MIGHT YOU BE, HAVE DISAGREEMENTS, BECAUSE I DIDN'T HEAR ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THE SPECIFIC LANGUAGE ASIDE FROM SUPERVISOR CRY IN TERMS OF THAT. AND SO I THINK THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL GOING INTO THE NEXT TIME THIS COMES BEFORE THE BOARD. THANK YOU. THAT'S 5-0. YEAH, AND I DON'T DISAGREE. MATT, WITH WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, BUT THESE THREE, I'M NOT SURE HOW MUCH AI IS INTEGRATED INTO THEIR COMPANIES. IT'S HEAVILY INTEGRATED INTO MINE. I UNDERSTAND THE AMOUNT OF MONEY THAT'S FUNNELED THROUGH THESE ORGANIZATIONS. AND FOR ME, WHEN I RELY ON SOMEBODY LIKE A NOLDA SHORT, A CHRISTY COLEMAN, A SHERIFF JOHNSON, IN THAT SAME SPECTRUM, WE HAVE CHIEF SCHREIBER. THAT'S ALL I'M SAYING. I DON'T DISAGREE WITH SOME OF YOUR STUFF. I'M JUST SAYING WE'D BE MORONS NOT TO LEAN [R5 Discuss the possibility of an ordinance which would require any non-profit organization to limit their administrative costs in order to receive County funding or support and consider providing direction to staff.] ON THE EXPERIENCE. A GUY LIKE TOM SCHREIBER IN THE ROOM HAVING THOSE CONVERSATIONS. THANK YOU. MOVING ON, R5, DISCUSS THE POSSIBILITY OF AN ORDINANCE WHICH WOULD REQUIRE ANY NONPROFIT ORGANIZATION TO LIMIT THEIR ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS IN ORDER TO RECEIVE COUNTY FUNDING OR SUPPORT AND CONSIDER PROVIDING DIRECTION TO STAFF. WHO WOULD LIKE TO GO FIRST ON THIS ONE? OKAY, LET'S GO TO PUBLIC COMMENT. DO WE HAVE ANY PUBLIC COMMENT ON THIS ONE? ONE MOMENT. YES, WE HAVE THREE SPEAKERS. STEVE KAHN SHASTA COUNTY WATCHDOG AND NICK GARDNER IF I CALLED YOUR NAME PLEASE GET IN QUEUE THIS ITEM RECOMMENDS A OVERHEAD OF 10 PERCENT WHICH IS UNREASONABLE THE STANDARD ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS FOR NON-PROFITS IN THE UNITED STATES IS BETWEEN 20 AND 25 PERCENT, AND IN SOME CASES RANGES UP TO... I'M SORRY, ARE YOU LAUGHING ABOUT SOMETHING? CRY? WHY ARE YOU INTERRUPTING ME? STOP YOUR INTERRUPTION. THAT'S THE SIMPLE STATISTICS OF IT. SOMETIMES IT GOES UP TO ABOUT 35 PERCENT. SO, AND IT DEPENDS UPON THE OPERATIONS AND PURCHASES GOING [02:05:02] ON. IN THE NONPROFIT. SO WHOEVER CAME UP WITH THIS 10% OVERHEAD NUMBER HAS THEIR HEAD SOMEWHERE OTHER THAN IN THE REAL WORLD. AND I CAN IMAGINE WHO THAT IS. IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THIS IS JUST AN ATTEMPT TO UNDERMINE SOME OF THE NINE PROFITS THAT WE CURRENTLY SUPPORT AND THAT SUPERVISOR CRIES ATTACKED BEFORE. THAT'S NOT, IT DOESN'T EXIST IN THE REAL WORLD, THE 10%. WITH HIGHLY PRODUCTIVE NONPROFITS. PERHAPS IT EXISTS IN THE MIND OF A FORMER SUPERVISOR AND IS ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF WHY THE ONE BEHIND THIS WILL NO LONGER BE A SUPERVISOR. I WILL CAUTION SUPERVISORS THAT SUPPORT THIS ISSUE TO REALIZE THAT THEY WILL BE SCRUTINIZED VERY CLOSELY AND IT COULD IMPACT THEIR FUTURE EMPLOYMENT WITH THE COUNTY. NONPROFITS THAT DO RUN VERY LOW ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS GENERALLY SUFFER FROM TWO ISSUES, UNDERFUNDED STAFF AND OUTDATED TECHNOLOGY. IN THIS DAY AND AGE WHERE AI IS GOING TO PLAY SUCH A MAJOR ROLE IN PRODUCTIVITY, NON-PROFITS WILL LIKELY BE INVESTING IN AI TO HELP THEIR NON-PROFITS BE THE MOST PRODUCTIVE AND EFFECTIVE. THIS WILL LIKELY CONSIST OF SOFTWARE AND PEOPLE THAT ARE EFFECTIVE AT UTILIZING THE SOFTWARE. SO I WOULD SUGGEST OVER THE NEXT FEW YEARS THAT NON-PROFITS' ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS ON AVERAGE WILL ACTUALLY GO UP A BIT IN ORDER FOR THEM TO BE THANK YOU. TO TAKE THE BIGGEST ADVANTAGE OF IT. TO LIMIT THAT NUMBER BELOW A REASONABLE AMOUNT WOULD LIKELY JUST PREVENT THEM FROM BEING AS PRODUCTIVE AND EFFECTIVE AS THEY COULD BE. IF SHASTA COUNTY ONLY SUPPORTS NON-PROFITS THAT RUN VERY LOW ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS BUT ARE VERY INEFFECTIVE, THAT WILL NOT BE MONEY WELL SPENT. THERE IS NO GOOD REASON TO IMPLEMENT THIS POLICY, SO I THINK IT WOULD BE VERY INTERESTING... TO SEE WHETHER THE OTHER TWO SUPERVISORS THAT HAVE REPRESENTED CRY'S MAJORITY CONTINUE TO KISS HIS RING. IF SO, IT BEGS THE QUESTION WHY. NEXT UP, SHASTA COUNTY WATCHDOG, FOLLOWED BY NICK GARDNER. THIS ITEM, I'M SO BOTHERED BY THIS ITEM HERE BECAUSE, MR. PLUMMER, I SAW ONE OF YOUR VIDEOS. THAT YOU PUT OUT THERE REGARDING PATHWAY. PATHWAY CHURCH IS A NONPROFIT, AND I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT THAT NONPROFIT ORGANIZATION SHOULD BE RECEIVING ANY MONEY OR FOR YOU TO BE PUSHING THAT ORGANIZATION TO BE GETTING ANY MONEY BECAUSE I'M NOT SURE IF YOU'RE AWARE. I DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU KNOW. I KNOW KEVIN KNOWS. HE TRIED TO SWEEP IT UNDER THE CARPET AT ONE POINT. AT HIS COFFEE PLACE, WHATEVER HE DOES. BUT I'M TELLING YOU RIGHT NOW, I'M NOT JOKING. THIS IS SERIOUS. YOU PUSH THIS, YOU'RE PUSHING ANOTHER CASE OF EPSTEIN FILES IN THAT CHURCH. AND I'M SAYING SOMETHING HERE TO YOU, AND I HOPE YOU GET IT, BECAUSE OTHER PLACES UNDERSTAND, AND IT'S BEEN GOING AROUND FOR A LONG TIME. NOBODY SAID ANYTHING BECAUSE THEY'RE AFRAID TO SPEAK UP. SO I'M TELLING YOU THAT NONPROFIT SHOULD NOT EVEN BE ON THE LIST TO BE RECEIVING ANY FUNDING BECAUSE ALL YOU'RE GOING TO DO IS HELP THAT PERSON TO CONTINUE TO DO WHAT HE'S DOING. AND LES BALL AND HIS WIFE SHOULD NOT BE PART OF GETTING ANY FUNDING. I'M JUST LETTING YOU KNOW, YOU'RE WALKING INTO SOMETHING THAT YOU DON'T KNOW. NEXT UP, NICK GARDNER. I'VE NEVER SEEN A PRODUCTIVE NONPROFIT. THEY DON'T PRODUCE ANYTHING. THEY'RE MONEY PITS, AND THE FEW THAT DO HAVE GOOD RESULTS ARE FEW AND FAR BETWEEN, SO I THINK THIS IS A LONG TIME CALLED FOR, FOR AN OVERSIGHT AND A LIMIT ON THE MONEY THAT THEY'RE GOING TO SPEND ON ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS. ONE OF THE EXAMPLES THAT COMES TO MY MIND... IS KIMBERLY JOHNSON. I RECALL ABOUT FIVE YEARS AGO SHE WAS MAKING $18,000 FOR SOME NON-PROFIT AND SHE'S JUMPED UP TO $200,000 PLUS. HOW DO YOU DO THAT IN AN OUTFIT THAT DOESN'T PRODUCE ANYTHING? IN FACT, I BELIEVE HER FIRST NON-PROFIT WENT BELLY UP. THEN I THINK OF THE NON-PROFIT, THE CHILDREN'S LEGACY CENTER. THEY MIGHT HAVE DONE REALLY GOOD WORK, BUT IT SEEMS LIKE THEY GOT $7 MILLION OF THE ZOG FIRE MONEY, AND THEY WON'T TELL US WHERE THAT MONEY WENT. [02:10:01] IN FACT, IT WAS... THIS IS ABOUT COUNTY FUNDING ON ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS TO NONPROFITS. THANK YOU FOR BRINGING THAT TO MY ATTENTION. I DO APPRECIATE YOU TAKING A LOOK AT THIS, AND I HOPE IT GOES THROUGH. I CERTAINLY BELIEVE THAT SOMEBODY THAT IS RUNNING A NONPROFIT... IS NOT ENTITLED TO HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS. THANK YOU. THAT WAS OUR LAST SPEAKER, CHAIR. ALL RIGHT, BRING IT BACK TO BOARD DISCUSSION. SUPERVISOR LONG. THANK YOU, CHAIR. I'M NOT SURE WHERE THIS CAME FROM. THERE'S NO STAFF REPORT. ON THE 519 MEETING, WE ALL VOTED. THE REASON IT'S HERE IS BECAUSE WE ALL VOTED TO BRING IT BACK. IT DOESN'T SAY THAT I SPONSORED IT, BUT WE ALL VOTED. LESS THAN A MONTH AGO. OH, TO BRING, OH, OKAY, THIS IS PART OF THAT DISCUSSION. SUPERVISOR CRAIG MADE THE... I REMEMBER. AND I SECOND IT FOR DISCUSSION. OKAY. I THINK CREATING AN ARTIFICIAL LINE IN THE SAND OF 10%, WHAT IF A PROJECT COMES IN AT 14%? WHAT IF A PROJECT... CAN'T ADJUST THEIR DATA. I DON'T WANT THIS TO BE AN ABSOLUTE CRITERIA. EACH CASE SHOULD BE EVALUATED BASED ON THE MERITS OF THAT NONPROFIT AND THE REQUEST THEY'RE MAKING, THE FUNDING SOURCES, AND WE'LL FIGURE OUT IN REAL TIME AS INDIVIDUAL REQUESTS COME IN, WE'LL BE ABLE TO FIGURE OUT WHETHER THIS IS A LEGITIMATE USE OF OUR OPIOID MONEY OR OTHER MONIES FROM THE COUNTY. NOT THAT THAT WOULD BE APPLICABLE, GENERALLY SPEAKING, BUT SO I AM NOT IN FAVOR OF DRAWING A LINE OF SAND AT 10%. THANK YOU, SUPERVISOR LONG. SUPERVISOR CRAIG. SUPERVISOR LONG, THANK YOU FOR LETTING ME INTERRUPT. I APPRECIATE THAT. SO I TOTALLY AGREE WITH WHAT YOU SAID. SO WHEN WE HAD THE 519 MEETING AND I ASKED THIS TO COME BACK, WHAT WE HAD COMING BACK IS WHAT I'D SAID AT THAT MEETING. AND THIS IS WHERE I FEEL LIKE IN MAYBE THE FEW CONVERSATIONS OR AGREEMENTS WE'VE HAD ON SOME STUFF, WE'RE GOING TO PERFECTLY ALIGN AND YOU'RE GOING TO HEAR THAT. BECAUSE I AGREE, AFTER WE LEFT, I LOOKED AT IT, AND EVERYTHING YOU JUST SAID IS EXACTLY ARBITRARILY BOXES, BOARDS IN. SO I'M GOING TO PROPOSE THAT WE, I'M GOING TO MOVE TO A CHARTER AMENDMENT, AND I'M GOING TO READ THIS PRETTY BRIEF, STILL WORKING ON IT WITH STAFF, OR MY OWN STAFF, AND THEN WORKING ON IT MORE WITH THE COUNTY STAFF. BUT SHASTA COUNTY BOARD SHALL REQUIRE A FOUR-FIFTHS VOTE TO APPROVE A CONTRACT THAT EXPEND PUBLIC FUNDS TO SUPPORT INSTITUTIONS PROVIDING MORE THAN 50% OF THEIR SERVICES TO NON-RESIDENTS IN SHASTA COUNTY FOR SUBSTANCE ABUSE TREATMENT, MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES, OR SEX OFFENDER PROGRAMS. SO LOOKING AT THE ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS, LIKE PEOPLE IN HERE CAN SCREAM AND YELL AND SAY WHATEVER THEY WANT, BUT WHEN YOU LOOK AT CHARITY NAVIGATOR, CHARITY NAVIGATOR, IT USED TO BE MORE OF LIKE A 15%. YOU KNOW, MENDOZA LINE, SO TO SPEAK, WITH ADMIN COSTS, BUT THAT'S SWELLED BECAUSE THE LARGE NUMBER OF NONPROFITS. I MEAN, IF YOU LOOK AT THE IRS FILINGS, THERE'S LIKE EVIDENTLY 1,200 NONPROFITS IN SHASTA COUNTY. IT DOESN'T MEAN THEY'RE ALL ACTIVE, BUT THAT JUST MEANS THAT'S WHAT'S ON FILE. SO BECAUSE THE WORLD NOW HAS BECOME SO AWARE OF THESE MONEY FUNNELS OR VACUUMS, NOT UP. AND I THINK THERE HAS TO BE, I WILL, ONE OF THE SPEAKERS TALKED ABOUT, THEY DON'T, THERE'S NO OUTCOMES. I MEAN, THERE ARE LIKE JONATHAN ANDERSON, THE GOOD NEWS RESCUE MISSION. I WAS HIGHLY CRITICAL WHEN I FIRST STARTED TO GET INVOLVED, WALKING HOMELESS CAMPS IN 21, THEY DO PHENOMENAL QUANTIFIABLE WORK. THAT'S WHY I SUPPORT THEM SO WHOLEHEARTEDLY. SO I THINK THIS CHARTER AMENDMENT IS GOING TO, TO DO SOMETHING IN TERMS OF MAKING SURE THAT WE'RE BOTTOM LINE WITH THE NONPROFITS AND THE DOLLAR AMOUNT. I'M MOVING MORE ACTION BECAUSE I JUST WANT TO SEE US TAKE CARE OF SHASTA COUNTY FIRST AND NOT SO MUCH LET'S TAKE CARE OF A GROUP OF PEOPLE THAT ARE DOING A BUSINESS. NOT THAT THEY'RE DOING GOOD WORK, BUT LET'S NOT BRING TONS OF PEOPLE FROM OUT OF THE COUNTY TO DO IT BECAUSE THE MOST MONEY IS USUALLY FROM OUT-OF-COUNTY PEOPLE. SO THIS IS THE DIRECTION I'M GOING. I AM NOT FOR THE 10% IN THAT CAPACITY. WHERE'S THE PLUMBER? JUST TO CLARIFY, IN WHAT YOU READ, I MIGHT HAVE MISSED IT, BUT YOU SAID YOU WOULD CAP THE AMOUNT OF TOTAL FUNDING THAT A NONPROFIT CAN SPEND TO 50% BEING ON NON-RESIDENTS? NO. BUT NOT INDIRECT COSTS? NO, PURPOSE VOTE. YEAH, NOT FUNDING. IT'S SERVICES RENDERED. SO THAT MEANS THE BOARD, IF THERE'S A $3 MILLION CONTRACT, THEN THEY THEY CANNOT EXPEND ANY OF THAT MONEY IF THEY'RE GOING OR THEY WOULDN'T EVEN GET THAT UNLESS IT'S FOR THIS VOTE AND IT HAS [02:15:02] TO BE SHASTA COUNTY RESIDENTS. THE FOR THIS VOTE PART IS REALLY JUST MAKING SURE THAT THERE IS A CONSENSUS FOR THAT. SO YOU'RE SAYING THAT THE FOR THIS WOULD APPLY IN THE SCENARIO WHERE IF IT WANTS TO GO OUTSIDE, IF IT WANTS TO GO OUT, IF THEY'RE GOING TO DO IT MORE THAN 50 PERCENT. FOUR-FIFTHS OF THE BOARD. FROM THE CONTRACT THAT, OF THE CONTRACT AMOUNT THAT WERE. OF THE PEOPLE SERVICED. NO, THE. BY THE COUNTY CONTRACT? CORRECT. BECAUSE I DON'T, I MEAN, AND I'M NOT SURE THAT WE'RE, OUR COUNTY DOLLARS ARE EVER GOING TO PAY FOR NONPROFITS DELIVERING SERVICES TO PEOPLE OUT OF THE COUNTY. I MEAN, THE ORGANIZATION MIGHT SERVE PEOPLE OUT OF THE COUNTY, BUT THAT WOULD SEEM. BUT THAT'S PART OF IT. I DON'T WANT. SHASTA COUNTY DOLLARS GOING TO AN ORGANIZATION WHERE ITS ADMIN FEES ARE DEPLOYABLE TO SERVICES FOR PEOPLE OUTSIDE THE COUNTY. THAT'S ALARMING. WE SEEM TO BE KIND OF GOING INTO THE WEEDS NOW. YEAH, I WANT TO BE CAREFUL HERE. WHAT WE CAN DISCUSS IS AN ORDINANCE RELATED TO ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS. IF YOU WANT TO BRING SOMETHING BACK THAT'S DIFFERENT, LET'S MAKE A VOTE TO DO THAT. I WILL SAY IF THE INTENT IS FOR A CHARTER AMENDMENT THAT WAS DESCRIBED, WE'LL NEED SUBSTANTIAL LEGAL REVIEW RELATED TO A FOR FIST VOTE RESTRICTIONS ON FUTURE BOARDS IS A IS AN ISSUE THAT I WOULD NEED TO RESEARCH. BUT RIGHT NOW, IT HAS TO BE STRICTLY RELATED TO ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS. SO IF YOU WANT TO HAVE A MOTION TO BRING BACK WHAT YOUR DISCUSSION IS, WE CAN READ AND PUT THAT ON CORRECTLY. I MEAN, AT THE END OF THIS DISCUSSION, I'M GOING TO MAKE MY MOTIONS. BUT IT SEEMS PRETTY. I KNOW WE CAN'T HELP BUT MAKE IT COMPLICATED, BUT WE CAN'T HAVE, WE CANNOT NOT HAVE A LIMIT. YOU CAN'T JUST PUT A, AND I'LL EXAGGERATE FOR EFFECT, IF WE HAVE A $5 MILLION GRANT TO A NON-PROFIT, I'M EXAGGERATING, 10%, YOU KNOW, $500,000 TO GO TO THE ADMINISTRATOR. MAYBE THERE'S ONE ADMINISTRATORS GOT TO BE SOME KIND OF LIMITS SO THAT IT DOESN'T GET ABUSED PEOPLE ABUSE EVERYTHING SO IT'S OUR JOB TO TO UH... MAKE SURE THAT DOESN'T HAPPEN SO THERE'S GOT TO BE SOME KIND OF LIMIT I'M JUST SAYING I'M GONNA I'M GONNA SUPPORT SOME KIND OF LIMIT FOR THE COST FOR THE COST TO THE ADMINISTRATORS IF IT HAS ANY COUNTY FUNDING I THINK WE'RE PRETTY CAREFUL WITH WHO WE GIVE THE ACCOUNTING FUNDING TO NOW. I KNOW A STEP-UP PROGRAM JUST LEFT OUT OF HERE, AND, YOU KNOW, WE TOOK A PRETTY GOOD, LONG, HARD LOOK AT THEM AND HAVE WORKED WITH THEM, AND, YOU KNOW, OUR HEROES OF DREAMS ARE SOME AMAZING PEOPLE. SO I'D HATE TO ARBITRARILY SAY IT'S THIS PERCENTAGE, BUT SUPERVISOR LONG. OH, I WAS GOING TO ITERATE EXACTLY WHAT COUNCILOR MOORE SAID. I THINK WE'RE GETTING OFF TOPIC. THIS IS A VOTE. ABOUT AN ORDINANCE FOR TEN PERCENT AND I'D I DON'T THINK UH... OTHER DISCUSSION WAS APPROPRIATE SO YOU YOU ALREADY SAID THAT SO SO R5, I HAVE NOT, I KNOW, I SEE YOU, SETTLE DOWN. SEE WHAT THAT SAYS THERE, THAT SAYS CHAIRMAN. YEAH, BUT YOU DON'T HAVE TO LOOK AT YOUR SCREEN. SO R5, I DON'T THINK WE HAD A MOTION TO APPROVE. THERE HASN'T BEEN ANYTHING RISEN UP THERE. SO GO AHEAD, SUPERVISOR CRYE. WOULD YOU LIKE TO BRING SOMETHING BACK FOR DISCUSSION? DOES IT SAY CHAIR UP THERE? THAT'S NOT WHAT WE'RE BRINGING BACK FOR DISCUSSION. OKAY. ALL RIGHT, SO I GOT TWO THINGS. I'M GOING TO MAKE A MOTION THAT WE MOVE THAT 10% UP TO... 13% AND IT COULD ONLY BE EXCEEDED BY A FOUR-FIFTHS BOARD VOTE. SO YOU COULD STILL WORK WITH A NON-PROFIT? MR. CHAIRMAN, SO JUST THE WAY THIS IS AGENDIZED, THE MOST YOU CAN DO IS GIVE DIRECTION TO STAFF TO BRING SOMETHING BACK WITH THAT IN IT. YEAH, SO I MAKE A MOTION TO BRING BACK TO STAFF ADMIN FEES NOT TO EXCEED 13%. AND IF THE BOARD WANTS TO... GIVE TO AN ORGANIZATION THAT HAS COSTS ABOVE THAT, IT TAKES A FOUR-FIFTHS VOTE. THAT'S MY MOTION. OKAY, SO WE COULD STILL WORK WITH A NON-PROFIT. IT'D HAVE TO BE A VAST BOARD OF MAJORITIES. WE COULD STILL WORK WITH A NON-PROFIT THAT HAD A 14% ADMINISTRATIVE FEE IF FOUR OF THE FIVE STILL VOTED TO DO THAT. CORRECT. OKAY, I'LL SECOND THAT. NO. NO, THIS IS AN ORDINANCE. SEPARATE MOTION. SO I MOVED IT FROM 10 TO 13, AND THEN, BUT... IF SOMEONE, IF A BOARD DECIDED THERE'S A NONPROFIT THAT HAS A 99% ADMIN OVERHEAD, AS LONG AS IT'S FOUR-FIFTHS VOTE, THEY CAN STILL DO THAT. BUT IT TAKES FOUR-FIFTHS. [02:20:02] THREE-TWO. CURRENT, WHICH IS THREE. CORRECT. ANY MORE BOARD DISCUSSION ON THE NEW MOTION? SUPERVISOR PLUMMER. YES, SO THIS IS A TOPIC THAT I'VE... I SPENT A LOT OF TIME ON WITH THE LAST ORGANIZATION I WORKED FOR. THEY PUBLISHED AN ARTICLE BACK IN 2009 CALLED THE NONPROFIT STARVATION CYCLE, AND IT WAS BASICALLY THE IDEA THAT FUNDERS, BY ARTIFICIALLY CAPPING THE OVERHEAD RATE, DO A FEW THINGS. ONE, THEY STARVE THE NONPROFITS FROM BEING ABLE TO DO THINGS LIKE MEASURE AND EVALUATE THEIR RESPONSES TO SEE IF THEY'RE SUCCESSFUL, TO DEVELOP THE CAPACITY TO GROW AND SCALE AND SERVE MORE PEOPLE. AND WHAT THEY FOUND AT THE TIME IS THAT... IF YOU LOOK IN THE FOR-PROFIT TOO, THAT USUALLY THE RESEARCH FOUND LOOKED AT 220,000 IRS FORMS AND THAT THE RATE IS TYPICALLY CLOSER TO 25% IN THE MEDIAN. BUT THE OTHER THING THAT HAPPENS IS THIS CREATES KIND OF AN ARTIFICIAL GAME-PLAYING EXERCISE IN THE ACCOUNTING BOOKS BECAUSE BASICALLY... WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT INDIRECT VERSUS DIRECT COSTS, THOSE ARE JUST TERMS THAT ARE APPLIED TO CERTAIN LINE ITEMS. AND THAT CAN BE BASICALLY WHAT IT CAUSES THEM TO DO IS TRY TO PLAY GAMES WITH WHAT COUNTS. OKAY, WELL, WHAT PORTION OF MY DIRECTOR CAN I PUT INTO THE DIRECT COST BUCKET THEN SO I'M NOT CHARGING INTO OVERHEAD? AND SO IT CREATES THESE WEIRD DISINCENTIVES TO PLAY FINANCIAL GAMES. AND I ACTUALLY GOT TO WORK ON THIS PROJECT BECAUSE THIS WAS PROBABLY ABOUT 12 YEARS AGO WHERE WE THE TEAM I WAS ON, WE LOOKED AT 20 ORGANIZATIONS AND WE FOUND, WE LOOKED AT THEIR BOOKS BECAUSE WHAT THEY REPORT, THEY'RE GOING TO REPORT SOMETHING THAT IS LOWER, RIGHT, SO THAT THEY CAN MEET THESE FUNDERS' ARTIFICIAL DEADLINES. BUT WHEN WE LOOKED AT THEIR BOOKS, AND THIS TOOK US PROBABLY 12 MONTHS TO LOOK AT 20 ORGANIZATIONS, THAT THE RANGE WAS FROM 21% TO 89% IN TERMS OF THEIR INDIRECT COST RATE. AND SO IT VARIES WIDELY. I MEAN, SUPERVISOR HARMON, TO YOUR POINT, THIS ISN'T JUST ABOUT, SAY, A CEO OR AN EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S SALARY. SAY, FOR EXAMPLE, YOU HAVE A NONPROFIT PUBLIC HEALTH LAB, FOR EXAMPLE. ALL THAT EQUIPMENT AND FACILITIES, THAT IS INDIRECT COSTS BECAUSE THAT IS BEING SPREAD ACROSS ALL THEIR PROGRAMS AND SERVICES, RIGHT, AND BEING USED THERE. SO THOSE ARE SIGNIFICANT CAPITAL EXPENSES. AND SO. IT VARIES WIDELY BASED ON THE TYPE OF ORGANIZATION, THE TYPE OF CAPITAL INFRASTRUCTURE THAT THEY REQUIRE, AND THE TYPE OF EQUIPMENT. THE OTHER THING IS THAT IF YOU LOOK AT HOW THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT DOES THIS, PARTICULARLY FOR NONPROFITS THAT ARE DELIVERING SERVICES GLOBALLY, THEY REQUIRE THAT GOVERNMENT TO PRESENT THEIR FINANCIALS, AND THEN THEY AGREE TO WHAT'S CALLED A NICRA, A NEGOTIATED INDIRECT COST RATE. SO EVERY ORGANIZATION HAS A COST RATE, AND THEN THEY HAVE TO STAY. TO THAT AND THAT'S BASED ON AN AUDIT OF THEIR FINANCES AND A REVIEW OF THEIR FINANCES. SO THEY ARE NOT APPLYING A BLANKET APPROACH OR SAYING, OKAY, PRESENT YOUR FINANCES, MAKE THE CASE FOR IT, AND WE'LL AGREE TO A CERTAIN RATE. AND THEN THE LAST THING THAT I THINK IS, YOU KNOW, WE JUST APPROVED TWO AGREEMENTS, BLOCK GRANTS, APPLICATIONS, THE COMMUNITY MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES BLOCK GRANT, AND THE SUBSTANCE USE PREVENTION TREATMENT AND RECOVERY SERVICES BLOCK GRANT. IF YOU LOOK AT THE BUDGET IN THERE, WHAT IS THE INDIRECT COST RATE THAT THE COUNTY WAS ALLOWED FOR THAT? TWENTY-FIVE PERCENT. SO IT WOULD BE KIND OF HYPOCRITICAL FOR US TO SAY, OKAY, WE CAN TAKE A 25 PERCENT INDIRECT COST RATE, BUT WE'RE ONLY GOING TO ALLOW OUR NONPROFITS TO TAKE 13 PERCENT. SO I THINK THAT THIS SHOULD BE, I'M HAPPY TO, AND THIS WAS THE ORIGINAL CONVERSATION BACK IN APRIL, WHERE TO HAVE THIS AS PART OF A POLICY DISCUSSION THAT WE LOOK AT AND WE HAVE THEM REPORT ON THAT TO US, AND THAT CAN BE INFORMATION THAT THE BOARD CONSIDERS, BUT I CANNOT SUPPORT A BLANKET RATE. SUPERVISOR LONG. YEAH, HE CRIES NEXT. WELL, YOU STAYED IN QUEUE. BECAUSE I'M IN. I WENT BACK HERE. SO YOU'RE JUST GOING TO STAY IN QUEUE THE REST OF THE DAY? I JUST WENT BACK IN. GO AHEAD. ALL RIGHT, SO I WANT TO ADDRESS THAT STUFF. MATT, YOU SAID YOU WORKED ON A PROJECT FOR 12 MONTHS. TWELVE MONTHS. WHAT WERE YOU PAID FOR THAT? I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S NOT THE DOLLAR AMOUNT, BUT WERE YOU PAID BY THE NONPROFIT? WE WERE PAID BY A FUNDER WHO HAD AN ARTIFICIALLY SET RATE AND WAS LOOKING TO SAY, IS THIS ACTUALLY SERVING US? IS THIS HELPING OUR NONPROFITS? SO THEY FUNDED A STUDY TO SAY, WHAT ARE THE ACTUAL INDIRECT COSTS AND WHAT SHOULD WE BE PAYING? SO WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT THE EQUIPMENT IN THAT FEE, THE EQUIPMENT IS NOT ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS. ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS, AS YOU PROBABLY KNOW, BECAUSE YOU'RE IN THE NONPROFIT WORLD, THIS IS WHERE YOU'VE SPENT YOUR ENTIRE ADULT LIFE CAREER, IS [02:25:01] IN THE NONPROFIT WORLD. SO WHAT I'M SAYING IS THE ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS ARE SALARIES, BENEFITS, LOADED LABOR, AND DOLLAR AMOUNTS THERE. IT'S NOT ABOUT CARS OR VACATION HOMES THAT PEOPLE HAVE ACCESS TO. THAT'S ALL ANCILLARY. THE ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT SALARY AND BENEFITS. WOULD YOU AGREE WITH THAT? THAT SALARY AND BENEFITS IS THAT ADMINISTRATIVE COST SET BY THE NAVIGATOR. SO I THINK THAT'S AN IMPORTANT DISTINCTION TOO. SO IN THE STAFF REPORT, THE TERM USED IS OVERHEAD RATE. AND ACTUALLY THE FORMULA PUT IN THE STAFF REPORT WAS DIVIDED BY REVENUE, WHICH IS ALSO KIND OF STRANGE BECAUSE YOU WOULD DIVIDE IT BY... THE EXPENSE IS NOT REVENUE, SINCE REVENUE COULD DIFFER FROM THAT. BUT THERE'S A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT TERMS. SO IT DEPENDS ON, AND THOSE MEAN DIFFERENT THINGS TO DIFFERENT ORGANIZATIONS, DIFFERENT PEOPLE. SO YOU HAVE OVERHEAD RATE. YOU HAVE WHAT YOU'RE CALLING ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS. NO, IT'S NOT WHAT I CALL IT. IT'S WHAT THE U.S. GOVERNMENT CALLS IT, ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS. IT'S NOT WHAT KEVIN CRAIG CALLS IT. SO AS I MENTIONED WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. HOLD ON. CAN YOU CLARIFY YOUR DISTINCTION? YES, I AM. SO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS WHAT I MENTIONED EARLIER, WHICH IS A NEGOTIATED INDIRECT COST RATE. SO THEY USE THE WORD INDIRECT COST RATE. TO STIPULATE FUNDS THAT ARE NOT SENT, DIRECTED SPECIFICALLY TO THE PROGRAM OR SERVICE THAT THEY ARE PAYING FOR. THAT TERM IS ADMINISTRATIVE COST. INDIRECT, NEGOTIATED INDIRECT COST RATE. OKAY, BUT IT'S RELATED, IT'S INFERRING TO ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS, SALARIES, BENEFITS. IT IS REFERRING TO COSTS THAT CANNOT BE ATTRIBUTED SOLELY TO THE PROGRAM OR SERVICE THAT IS BEING FUNDED. TO THE DELIVERY SERVICES, YES, EXACTLY. BUT WE'RE ON THE SAME PAGE ON THAT. AND THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING. WELL, I DON'T THINK YOU REPHRASED IT DIFFERENTLY THAN I SAID. BUT THE BECAUSE IF YOU THINK OF DIRECT COSTS VERSUS INDIRECT COSTS, DIRECT COSTS ARE COSTS THAT ARE DIRECTLY ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE PROGRAM THAT'S BEING SERVICED. INDIRECT COSTS IT'S FOOD TO A PERSON. LIKE THAT DIRECT COST IS FOOD YOU'RE GIVING TO A FAMILY. THAT'S A DIRECT BENEFIT TO THE BENEFICIARY OF THE PROGRAM. BUT SAY, FOR EXAMPLE, WE TAKE THE EXAMPLE OF A FOOD BANK. SO SAY YOU WERE TO SAY, I WANT TO FUND SENIOR FOOD BANK SERVICES. THE COST OF THAT REFRIGERATOR TO HOLD ALL THE FOOD, IF THEY'RE PROVIDING THAT FOOD TO MORE THAN SENIORS, THEN THAT COST OF THE REFRIGERATOR CAN'T BE DIRECTLY ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE SERVICE UNLESS THEY COULD BREAK IT OUT, WHICH IS THE MATH, THE FUNNY MATH THAT GETS, SO YOU START TAKING, SO YOU COULD MAKE EVERYTHING A DIRECT COST, RIGHT? BECAUSE YOU COULD GO AND YOU COULD LOOK AT EVERY SALARY AND YOU COULD SAY, WELL, 10% OF OUR SPACE, 5% OF THAT PERSON'S SALARY. AND SO IT CAUSES THEM TO DO THESE INTERESTING FINANCIAL, YOU KNOW, MATH QUESTIONS. SO. THAT'S WHY I'M SAYING IT'S KIND OF THIS GAME, THE SHELL GAME OF MOVING THINGS AROUND TO TRY TO MEET WHATEVER THE FUNDER'S FORMULA IS. AND YOU JUST PROVED MY POINT BECAUSE YOU SAID IT'S HYPOCRITICAL FOR US TO LOOK AT THIS BUT NOT BE OVER HERE. THE DIFFERENCE IS COUNTY JURISDICTION, COUNTY JURISDICTION VERSUS PRIVATE ORGANIZATIONS. IF HHSA IS CONTRACTED OR THIS COUNTY, PEOPLE VOTE. WE SIT UP HERE. WE VOTE. WE GIVE DIRECTION TO STAFF. STAFF CARRIES THAT OUT. IF HHSA IS OVER THAT ENTITY OR ORGANIZATION OR IS ACTUALLY THE FUNDER, EVERYBODY THAT SITS UP HERE WHO WAS PUT IN PLACE BY VOTERS HAS THAT SAY. IF WE GIVE THAT TO PRIVATE ENTITIES, NONPROFITS, IT IS THE WILD WEST. THEY COULD DO WHATEVER. THERE'S NO OVERSIGHT. SO WHAT I'M SAYING IS, AND THAT'S WHY I'M MOVING THIS TO, AND THAT WILL BE LATER IN THIS COMPONENT ABOUT THE AMENDMENT, IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT TO ME THAT… WE MAKE SURE, AND AGAIN, I AGREE, BECAUSE WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT THE SHIFTING OF DOLLARS AND THE SHELL GAME, IT HAPPENS. AND WHAT I WANT TO MAKE SURE IS THE PUBLIC IS AWARE OF HOW THOSE DOLLARS ARE SHIFTING, BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT I FOUND. AND THAT'S WHY THERE'S OTHER NONPROFITS THAT AREN'T OPERATING THE WAY THEY ARE, BECAUSE THE SHELL GAME HAS BEEN BURNT DOWN. WE HAVE TO GET THE MONEY TO THE PEOPLE. I DON'T DISAGREE WITH SOME OF THE INTENT OF WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. I'M JUST PROTECTING BECAUSE THE MINNESOTA LEARING CENTER AND... ALL OF THE DOGE STUFF OR ALL THE CORRUPTION WE'RE SEEING. I MEAN, WHERE IS THE 20-SOMETHING BILLION DOLLARS IN HOMELESSNESS IN CALIFORNIA? AND NOW THEY'RE PASSING LAWS AT THE STATE LEGISLATURE THAT ARE NOT ALLOWING PEOPLE TO LOOK INTO IT. IT'S CRAZY. SO THE LEAST WE CAN DO IS PROTECT SHASTA COUNTY. SO, YOU KNOW, IF YOU WANT TO RAISE THAT PERCENTAGE, LET'S HAVE THAT DISCUSSION. I THINK 13. 13'S LEAN. I AGREE WITH THAT. BUT I LOOK AT MY PRIVATE COMPANIES. AND I LOOK AT WHAT MY ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS. SO I'M BASING THIS OFF OF THAT. I KNOW PRIVATE VERSUS PUBLIC IS WAY DIFFERENT. BUT I'M SAYING, WHAT'S THAT NUMBER THEN? BECAUSE PART OF MY POINT IS THAT THERE ISN'T A NUMBER BECAUSE DEPENDING ON THE SERVICES AND THE FRAUD THAT YOU'RE MENTIONING WOULD NOT BE SAFEGUARDED FROM AN INDIRECT COST RATE LIMITATION. BUT ALLOCATING THE MONEY IS. ALLOCATING THE MONEY IS WHERE WE'RE GOING TO GET STARTED. WELL, THERE'S I THINK THERE ARE [02:30:02] SEPARATE ISSUES. THE... WHAT I'M SAYING IS THAT NUMBER ONE, ORGANIZATIONS HAVE DIFFERENT INDIRECT COST RATES ON THE BASIS OF THEIR STRUCTURAL MODEL OF THE TYPES OF SERVICES THEY'RE PROVIDING. SO SETTING ONE RATE DOESN'T WORK. AND THEN SECONDLY, 13% IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH WHAT THE RESEARCH ON WHAT REAL RATES ARE SHOW. WELL, AND THAT'S WHAT I SAID. AND THAT'S THE DISCUSSION IS IF YOU SAY THE RESEARCH DOESN'T SHOW THAT, AND I KNOW THAT NUMBER IS LEAN. THAT NUMBER IS LEAN, AND I KNOW THAT. AND THERE'S PROBABLY OUT OF THE FIVE OF US. WE'RE THE ONLY TWO THAT PROBABLY UNDERSTAND THIS AS DEEP AS WE DO IN THE SENSE OF, YOU KNOW, I CONTRACT WITH SCHOOLS, A LOT OF SCHOOLS, HUNDREDS OF SCHOOLS, THOUSANDS, ACTUALLY. AND FOR ME, I UNDERSTAND THIS MODEL. AND THE REASON MY COMPANIES HAVE RAPIDLY GROWN SINCE COVID IS BECAUSE THE FRAUD THAT EXISTS THROUGHOUT THE STATE AND THE NATION IN ORGANIZATIONS IS SO BAD THAT. SOME OF US ARE JUST DOING IT THE RIGHT WAY AND HAVE DONE IT THE RIGHT WAY FOREVER, AND IT'S JUST EXPLODING. I'M TRYING TO PROTECT THE COUNTY FROM MAKING SURE WE'RE NOT CONTRACTING WITH PEOPLE THAT ARE JUST SLIPPING IT BY. BECAUSE NOBODY PAYS ATTENTION, BUT NOW WE'RE PAYING ATTENTION. SO WHAT'S THAT PERCENTAGE? IS IT 18? I MEAN, LET'S WORK TOGETHER. WHAT'S THAT PERCENTAGE? WELL, I THINK MY FIRST POINT EXPLAINS WHY I'M NOT WILLING TO SET A SINGLE CAP, IS THAT IT VARIES. I MEAN, THE... THE RESEARCH THAT WAS PUBLISHED, AND ANYONE CAN GO SEE IT, IS THAT IT WAS BETWEEN 21% AND 89%. SO THE VARIATION IS SO SIGNIFICANT THAT TO SET A SINGLE RATE... BUT WHO PAID FOR THE STUDY? A NON-PROFIT. A FUNDER WHO IS FUNDING NON-PROFITS, AND IN THE SAME WAY THAT WE ARE A FUNDER FUNDING NON-PROFITS, WANTS TO HAVE ACCOUNTABILITY FOR WHETHER THEIR DOLLARS ARE BEING SPENT WELL. IT ALSO DOESN'T WANT TO UNDERMINE THE ABILITY OF NONPROFITS TO DELIVER RESULTS. OKAY, SO, COUNCIL LARMOR, THIS ORDINANCE REALLY WOULDN'T HAVE A TIMELINE. THE CHARTER COMPONENT DOES, CORRECT? I SAID THE SECOND PART OF THE MOTION I WILL MAKE ABOUT THE CHARTER AMENDMENT, BRINGING THAT BACK IN CONJUNCTION WITH THIS CONVERSATION. THE TIMELINE IS PRETTY STRICT ON THAT. THE ORDINANCE PART CAN BE PUSHED BECAUSE IF YOUR INTENT IS TO ADOPT THIS AS AN ORDINANCE FOR A CHARTER, IT HAS TO BE COMPLETED AND ADOPTED BY THE BOARD AND THEN MOVED TO THE ELECTION. SO FOR THE, BUT FOR THE ORDINANCE VERSUS THE OTHER AMENDMENT OF THE 50% SERVICES, THOSE WOULD BE TWO SEPARATE ITEMS IN THIS DISCUSSION. SO IS THE, IS THE CORRECT PROTOCOL FOR. SO WE ONLY HAVE ONE ITEM, BUT THE OTHER ITEM THAT YOU'RE DISCUSSING, YOU WOULD HAVE TO PLACE THAT ON A FUTURE AGENDA. SO, UM, CUE SO I CAN HEAR SUPERVISOR LONG TO GET AN ORDINANCE WITH SOME PERCENTAGE. LAST YEAR, I THINK IT'S GETTING DARK OUT. MILLIONS OF DOLLARS. NO, WHEN I WAS IN A FORMER CAREER AS A BANKER, I WAS A COMMERCIAL LOAN OFFICER, AND I KNEW THAT PEOPLE THAT WERE COMING, BUSINESSES THAT WERE COMING TO ME FOR A LOAN, THEY HAD TWO SETS OF BOOKS. THEY PRESENTED THE BANK LOAN BOOK, AND THEY PRESENTED THE ACTUAL FACTUAL BOOK THAT THEY HAD, AND THEY WERE DIFFERENT. I THINK THERE'S DIFFERENT INTERPRETATION OF WHAT IS FACTUALLY BEING PRESENTED AS FAR AS, TO SUPERVISOR PLUMMER'S POINT, ADMINISTRATIVE OVERHEAD COSTS. I THINK THOSE CAN BE MANIPULATED. AND I THINK THAT WHEN PEOPLE KNOW WHAT THEY NEED TO DO TO GET A LOAN OR TO GET APPROVAL, THEY WILL ADJUST RECORDS ACCORDINGLY. SO WITH THAT HAVING BEEN SAID, I WILL NOT SUPPORT. DRAWING A THRESHOLD TO WHERE WE HAVE TO DECIDE IF THEY'RE UNDER OR OVER, THEN IT REQUIRES A FOUR-FIFTHS VOTE. I'M NOT GOING TO GO THERE WITH THAT. I THINK EACH CASE GETS EVALUATED ON ITS OWN MERIT, AND THAT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE BOARD TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE HANDING OUT TRUSTED PUBLIC FUNDS, OPIOID FUNDS TO WORTHY NONPROFITS. THAT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE BOARD, SO I WILL NOT SUPPORT THIS. ALL RIGHT, I MEAN, SUPERVISOR LONG, I JUST VERY RECENTLY, AND IT WAS IN ANOTHER COUNTY, I'LL PUT THAT OUT THERE RIGHT NOW, BUT THIS IS TOWARD A NON-PROFIT, AND NICOLE, SIR, FROM ANOTHER AREA, KIND OF LOOKING AROUND, LIKE, HERE, AND STUFF, AND... NEW FRIENDS STARTED LOOKING INTO IT AND IT WAS KIND OF [02:35:05] LIKE IT WAS KIND OF WHAT WE THOUGHT SO I APPRECIATE SUPERVISOR CRIES YOU KNOW WANTING TO BE VERY DILIGENT WITH COUNTY FUNDS THAT WERE GIVEN TO THESE THINGS AND NOT JUST DOING STATUS QUO AND I THINK HE'S LEFT AN OUT THERE WHERE IT WITH THE FOUR-FIFTHS VOTE MAJORITY TO GO AHEAD AND EVEN IF THERE IS ONE THAT'S RUNNING AN 18 PERCENT OR 20 PERCENT THAT THERE'S STILL FOUR-FIFTHS IF FOUR-FIFTHS OF THE SUPERVISORS SEE THAT IT'S A GOOD PROGRAM JUST HAPPENS TO HAVE A LITTLE HIGHER ADMINISTRATION RATE YOU KNOW, THERE'S STILL A PATH FORWARD TO GIVE THOSE FUNDS. SO, SUPERVISOR PLUMMER. YES, SO WHAT I WOULD BE WILLING TO SUPPORT WOULD BE THAT WE REQUIRE NON-PROFITS TO REPORT THEIR INDIRECT COST RATE WHEN THEY ARE APPLYING FOR GRANT, AND THEN WHEN WE ARE CONSIDERING WHETHER THIS CAN LOOK AT THAT AND MAKE OUR OWN DETERMINATION OF WHETHER THAT'S TOO HIGH OR TOO LOW BASED ON THE ORGANIZATION, WHAT WE KNOW ABOUT THEM, A SITE VISIT, ET CETERA, I THINK THAT WOULD BE... A MORE APPROPRIATE WAY OF MAKING SURE THE INFORMATION IS TRANSPARENT AND VISIBLE WITHOUT HANDCUFFING US TO A CERTAIN AMOUNT. AND I THINK THE OTHER THING IS THAT IF WE'RE GOING TO REQUIRE NONPROFITS, 13% OR WHATEVER THE NUMBER IS THAT IS CURRENTLY BEING CONSIDERED, THEN I THINK WE SHOULD APPLY IT TO OURSELVES AND SEE IF THAT WORKS THERE AS WELL. WE SHOULD EXPAND AND APPLY IT TO OURSELVES. SO, FOR EXAMPLE, WHEN WE PROVIDE... WHEN WE CONTRACT WITH, SAY, FOR EXAMPLE, A MENTAL HEALTH SERVICE PROVIDER, WE GIVE THEM A CERTAIN PORTION OF THE DOLLARS THAT COME THROUGH, AND THEN WE HOLD A CERTAIN PORTION FOR OUR ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS. THOSE ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS, FROM WHAT I HAVE HEARD, ARE OFTEN MUCH HIGHER THAN 13%. AND SO, WHICH I THINK, AGAIN, I'M... I THINK THAT'S VALID BECAUSE THE COSTS ARE PROBABLY THERE. BUT I DON'T THINK IT MAKES SENSE FOR US TO APPLY A STANDARD TO NONPROFITS THAT WE'RE NOT WILLING TO APPLY TO OURSELVES. OKAY. YEAH, I DON'T, THAT'S A, THE DIFFERENCE, I'M SORRY. DO YOU HAVE A SUBSEQUENT MOTION, SUPERVISOR PALMER? I WILL MAKE A MOTION THAT WE INCORPORATE THE REQUIREMENT THAT NONPROFITS SHARE THEIR INDIRECT COST RATE OR OVERHEAD RATE IN THE POLICY THAT WE'RE CURRENTLY WORKING TO BRING BACK LATER THIS MONTH FOR NONPROFIT FUNDING AND DUE DILIGENCE TRANSPARENCY. SUPERVISOR PLUMMER, WOULD YOU BE STILL STAYING WITH THE THREE-FIFTHS VOTE VERSUS MOVING IT TO A FOUR-FIFTHS? YES, THIS WOULDN'T HAVE ANY IMPACT ON VOTING. IT WOULD JUST BE THAT WE ARE REQUIRING NONPROFITS TO PROVIDE THAT INFORMATION WHEN SEEKING FUNDING FROM THE COUNTY. OKAY, I'LL SECOND THAT. COUNCIL WARMER, WOULDN'T IT TAKE A FOUR-FIFTHS VOTE NO MATTER WHAT UNLESS IT WAS BUDGETED INTO THE BUDGET? A BUDGET AMENDMENT ALWAYS TAKES A FOUR-FIFTHS VOTE. CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE DOES NOT ALLOW THE BOARD TO CREATE. FURTHER RESTRICTIONS ON VOTES AND SUPERVISOR CRAIG WHAT WE TALKED ABOUT WAS I WASN'T SURE WHETHER THAT APPLIES TO CHARTER AMENDMENTS BUT TO A SPECIFIC ORDINANCE YOU WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO REQUIRE A FOUR-FIFTHS VOTE. BUT I THINK YOUR STATES WOULD BE BUILT IN. YEAH I MEAN WE ALREADY REQUIRE FOUR-FIFTHS VOTE IF WE'RE ONLY FOR A BUDGET AMENDMENT. SO IN OTHER WORDS IT'D HAVE TO BE IN THE BUDGET TO PASS BY THREE-FIFTHS VOTE. CORRECT. AND IF A NONPROFIT CAME TO US AFTER BUDGET, AFTER THE BUDGET WAS PASSED AND WAS ASKING FOR FUNDING, WOULD IT HAVE TO BE A FOUR-FIFTHS VOTE AT THAT POINT? NOT NECESSARILY THROUGH A CONTRACT. IF THE MONEY'S ALREADY BUDGETED, I'D THROW THAT TO ERIN. SHE CAN EXPLAIN THAT TO YOU IN MORE DETAIL. BUT A LOT OF THE CONTRACTS THAT COME TO YOU DON'T REQUIRE A FOUR-FIFTHS VOTE. OKAY. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. ARE YOU STILL ON CUE, CRI? YES, SIR. I GOT ONE. DOUBLE CHECK ONE MORE THING. SO ALAN, WHEN YOU TALKED ABOUT, OR SUPERVISOR PLUMMER, SUPERVISOR LONG, WHEN YOU TALKED ABOUT THE TWO SETS OF BOOKS AND STUFF LIKE THAT, AND THAT'S WHAT, YOU KNOW, CIRCUMVENTING THAT PART IS, YOU'RE EXACTLY RIGHT. I MEAN, I DON'T DO THAT, BUT I KNOW THAT THAT HAPPENS. IT'S JUST LIKE DRIVERS, YOU KNOW, YOU GET TRUCK DRIVERS AND STUFF WHERE IT'S LIKE THEY'VE GOT TWO DIFFERENT LOGS. AND SO MY QUESTION TO YOU IS, DO YOU HAVE A PERCENTAGE I'M GOING TO AMEND MY EMOTION, AND I HAVE IT AT 13. DO YOU HAVE A PERCENTAGE THAT YOU'RE MORE COMFORTABLE WITH MOVING THAT UP? I'VE ASKED SUPERVISOR PLUMMER. HE WON'T GIVE THAT ANSWER BECAUSE THIS IS A COLLABORATIVE. THIS VOTE ONLY TAKES THREE-FIFTHS, BUT I WANT TO MAKE SURE I ENGAGE EVERYBODY IN THIS PROCESS. AND SO IS THERE A PERCENTAGE [02:40:01] ABOVE 13 THAT YOU FEEL MORE COMFORTABLE WITH? BECAUSE THE DIFFERENCE WITH THE MOTION OF SUPERVISOR PLUMMER'S, IS WE OVERSEE THE COUNTY. LIKE WE CAN TELL THEM, HEY, YOU'RE SPENDING WAY TOO MUCH MANPOWER ON THIS OR ON THAT. I KNOW THAT FROM THE POINT OF MY FIRST TWO OR THREE MONTHS IN 2023, WHEN WE SENT TEAMS OUT TO MERCY CANYON, WE CUT COSTS WAY DOWN BY HAVING PEOPLE GO OUT THERE, GET IT DONE, OPPOSED TO JUST DOING TONS OF STUFF IN THIS BUILDING. SO I GET THAT, BUT WE HAVE JURISDICTION OVER THAT. WE DON'T HAVE JURISDICTION. WHEN WE SEND IT TO A NONPROFIT AND IT'S GONE. IT'S GONE. WE CAN ASK HIM FOR STUFF, BUT REALLY ONCE THAT MONEY'S GONE, IT'S GONE. WE CAN'T DIRECT THEM. SO IS THERE A PERCENTAGE THAT YOU FEEL COMFORTABLE WITH ABOVE 13? SO BEFORE WE GET INTO THAT, AND I APOLOGIZE FOR THE INTERRUPTION, THAT'S NOT THE MOTION WE'RE CURRENTLY ON RIGHT NOW. WE DO HAVE A SUBSTITUTE MOTION ON THE TABLE. SO IF WE TAKE A VOTE ON THAT AND THEN MOVE TO THE ORIGINAL MOTION. CORRECT, BUT YOUR MOTION IS NOT ON THE TABLE. CORRECT. SO DO WE HAVE ANY PUBLIC COMMENT ON THIS ITEM? WE DO. LET'S GO AHEAD AND DO THE PUBLIC COMMENT BEFORE WE START PUTTING A THIRD MOTION ON THE TABLE. WE ONLY HAVE ONE, AND THAT'S CHESTER COUNTY WATCHDOG. OKAY. THAT WAS OUR ONLY SPEAKER CHAIR. YOU PASSED? YEAH, THAT'S WHAT I THOUGHT, TOO. WE ALREADY HAD PUBLIC COMMENT ON THIS. I DON'T HAVE IT LISTED THAT WE TOOK PUBLIC COMMENT, BUT IF WE DID, THEN WE CAN MOVE ON. OKAY. SO, AMENDED. SO, SUPERVISOR LONG, DO YOU HAVE, FOR THE DISCUSSION PART? FOR DISCUSSION PART, I THINK WE HAVE TO MAKE, HAVE TO VOTE ON PLUMMER'S MOTION FIRST. WELL, NO, BUT IF I, THAT'S WHAT I'M ASKING BECAUSE I CAN MAKE A WHOLE NEW MOTION. WELL, IN ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION, I DON'T BELIEVE IN AN ABSOLUTE NUMBER. I BELIEVE IN JUDICIOUS, CAUTIOUS ANALYSIS OF EACH PROJECT AS IT COMES FORWARD AND THEN MAKING A CASE-BY-CASE BASIS AS TO WHETHER IT'S APPROPRIATE. BUT I WILL NOT COME UP WITH IT. IT WOULD BE ARTIFICIAL OR ARBITRARY. WHICH IS THE MOTION THAT YOU SECONDED. RIGHT. YEAH. YEAH, SO I THINK... THERE ARE GOING TO BE SITUATIONS WHERE WE BUILD IT INTO THE BUDGET AND IT'S GOING TO TAKE THREE-FIFTHS AND WE'RE GOING TO AND IT JUST GOES THROUGH. I THINK THERE ARE GOING TO BE MOST THINGS WILL COME TO THE BOARD AFTER THE FACT AND THAT WILL NOT BE DURING OUR BUDGET HEARINGS, SETTING THE BUDGET. AND THEN IT'S GOING TO BE A FOUR-FIFTHS VOTE BECAUSE IT'S LIKE ANY OTHER, WHETHER IT'S THE ELECTIONS AND HE COMES TO US AND WANTS AN AMENDMENT OR ANY APPROVAL OF MORE FUNDING. IT'S GOING TO THROW A JUMP UP TO THAT THRESHOLD I THINK THAT'S GOING TO COVER ALMOST ALL SITUATIONS UNLESS WE BUILD INTO THE BUDGET CERTAIN KNOWN SO NON-PROFIT UH... WORK FUNDING REQUESTS I THINK UH... MOST OF THEM THAT WILL REQUIRE A FOUR-FIFTHS VOTE I DON'T FEEL COMFORTABLE WITH A UH... DEFINITE LINE IN THE SAND I WOULD HAVE THAT WOULD JUST BE PURE GUESSWORK ON MY PART AND I THINK IT'S INCUMBENT UPON EACH ONE OF US AS BOARD MEMBERS TO DO OUR DUE DILIGENCE BEFORE ANY REQUEST FOR FUNDING. AND I THINK IF WE HAVE THEM COME OUT WITH THEIR INDIRECT COSTS AND REPORT THOSE OUT TO US WELL AHEAD OF TIME SO THAT WE CAN MAKE INTELLIGENT DECISIONS AND WE CAN TALK TO THEM ABOUT THOSE, THEN I THINK THE FOUR-FIFTHS VOTE PROBABLY WILL BE MORE THAN ADEQUATE AND NOT. HAVING TO DIG DOWN HEELS INTO A DEFINITE THRESHOLD BECAUSE I DON'T WANT TO LOCK OUT A PROJECT. AND I'M WITH YOU. I AM WITH OVERHEAD CAN BE EXHAUSTIVE AND IT CAN BE EXTENSIVE TO WHERE, YOU KNOW, 10 CENTS ON THE DOLLAR REACHES THE RECIPIENT, AND THAT'S RIDICULOUS. SO THERE'S THAT EXTREME AND THEN THERE'S THE OTHER EXTREME, WHICH I THINK IS A 10% THRESHOLD, WHICH IS NOT WORKABLE FOR MOST. AND WHERE THAT FALLS IN BETWEEN THAT, THAT'S ON US AS SUPERVISORS TO INDEPENDENTLY EVALUATE EACH REQUEST. AND IT'S GOING TO PROBABLY HAVE A FOUR-FIFTHS VOTE IN MOST CASES BECAUSE THEY'RE GOING TO COME TO US THROUGHOUT THE YEAR. SO THAT'S WHY I WAS SECONDING SUPERVISOR PLUMMER'S MOTION BECAUSE THAT WILL HAVE THAT CONVERSATION WELL AHEAD OF TIME WHERE THEY HAVE TO TELL US THE INDIRECT COSTS OF THE OPERATION. SO EVERYTHING YOU'RE SPEAKING TO, I HEAR, BUT THAT'S... EVERYTHING THAT EXISTS IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA RIGHT NOW. AND THAT'S WHY THERE'S $24 BILLION MISSING IN HOMELESSNESS, BECAUSE WHAT YOU'RE SUPPORTING IS THE SAME PROCESS THAT'S ALREADY IN PLACE THAT HAS DESTROYED OUR STATE, WHETHER THAT'S TALKING ABOUT GREEN ENERGY BUSES TO BERNIE OR ANYTHING ELSE. SO I'M GOING TO AMEND MY MOTION. I'M GOING TO MOVE IT. AND THIS IS CRAZY TO ME, BUT IN JUST AN EFFORT TO SHOW THAT. [02:45:01] 18%. I'LL MOVE THAT TO 18%, WHICH I, YOU KNOW. SO IS THIS A SUBSTITUTE MOTION? I'M AMENDING MY MOTION. WE'RE ON THE SUBSTITUTE MOTION AT THIS TIME. BUT AREN'T I ALLOWED TO? WHEN IT COMES BACK, WE CAN. OKAY, PERFECT. OKAY, MOTION MADE BY SUPERVISOR PALMER. DID YOU WANT TO, BASICALLY, YOU JUST NEED A STATUS QUO? IT'S GOING TO TAKE A FORFEITS MAJORITY MOST TIMES ANYWAYS. IT'S NOT JUST STATUS QUO. WHAT I WAS SAYING IN THE MOTION IS TO PROVIDE THAT INFORMATION, THEIR INDIRECT COST RATE WHEN THEY ARE SEEKING FUNDING FROM THE COUNTY. THAT'S HOW YOU UNDERSTAND THE SECOND ALSO. YES. AND MR. CHAIRMAN, I JUST WANT TO MAKE CLEAR THAT MOST OF THESE WON'T COME TO YOU AS FORFEITS BECAUSE THEY ARE RELATED TO PROGRAMS, STATE PROGRAMS AND THINGS OF THAT NATURE. SO THESE CONTRACTS THAT YOU RECEIVE, YOU SEE THEM ON THE CONSENT AGENDA? EXACTLY. THAT'S WHY... THANK YOU, COUNCIL LARMER. ROLL CALL VOTE, STARTING WITH SUPERVISOR PLUMMER. SUPERVISOR PLUMMER? YES. CAN WE READ IT AGAIN? SUPERVISOR KAI? HOLD ON. ONE MORE TIME. SO HE WANTS, ANYTIME THAT WE DO THESE NON-PROFITS, THAT THEY REPORT HOW MUCH THEIR ADMINISTRATIVE COST IS. WE TAKE THAT INTO ACCOUNT WHEN WE DECIDE TO FUND THEM OR NOT. SO YOU'RE REQUIRED TO REPORT THAT? NO LIMIT. THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE SAYING? CORRECT. CORRECT. SO WHAT IT COMES TO IS IT COMES TO WHAT THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IS CURRENTLY DOING, THAT MODEL. AND THEN, OKAY, I'M READY TO MOVE ON. NO, IT'S DIFFERENT THAN THAT. WELL, IT'S PRETTY CLOSE. WELL, THE $24 BILLION, IF WE LOOK AT THAT IN THE HOMELESSNESS FUNDING, THEY DIDN'T TRACK WHERE THE MONEY WENT TO. LET ME JUST FINISH THIS UP, PLEASE. THEY DIDN'T TRACK WHERE THE MONEY WENT TO. WE JUST HAD AN ITEM COME BEFORE THE BOARD WHERE I ASKED THAT WE PROVIDE VERY SPECIFIC. OUTCOMES AROUND WHAT THEY REPORT ON AND THIS BOARD INCLUDING YOURSELF VOTED AGAINST IT AND SO THE VERY THINGS THAT YOU'RE THAT ARE AT BLAME FOR THE PROBLEMS IN CALIFORNIA YOU ARE REJECTING OKAY BECAUSE THE THING IS IS SUPERVISOR LONG JUST SAID SUPERVISORS WOULD DO THE WORK AND GUESS WHAT YOU DIDN'T DO THE WORK YOU DIDN'T GO OUT TO SHASTA COLLEGE YOU DIDN'T DO ANY OF THAT THIS IS ALL ABOUT SHOVELING MONEY TO PEOPLE SO HOLD ON LET ME FINISH AND THAT'S WHY I'M FIRED UP BECAUSE HERE'S A DEAL. I MEAN, FOR ME, THIS IS ABOUT. ALL OF EVERYBODY ELSE, LIKE I DON'T GET A DIME FOR THIS, BUT I SEE WHAT HAS HAPPENED AND I SEE IT ACROSS THE STATE MORE THAN MOST PEOPLE CAN IMAGINE. SO WHEN SUPERVISOR LONG SAYS, I BELIEVE THE SUPERVISORS WILL DO THE WORK, YOU PULLED TWO CONSENT ITEMS, DIDN'T TALK TO ANYBODY. CHIEF SCHREIBER SAYS YOU BARELY TALKED TO HIM ON YOUR AI ISSUE. SO THE REALITY IS PEOPLE DON'T DO THE WORK. THEY SIT UP HERE WITH AGENDAS. THIS IS COSTING ME SO MUCH MONEY BEING HERE. I CARE. ABOUT THAT. I CARE ABOUT WHAT'S GOING ON OUT THERE. SO FOR ME, CORKY, CHRIS, IT'S UP TO YOU. YOU'RE IN THE MIDDLE OF A ROLL CALL. IT'S A YES OR NO. SORRY. SUPERVISOR HARMON, DO YOU NEED CLARIFICATION ON THE MOTION? IS THAT WHAT YOU WERE ASKING? HE DID. AND YOU GOT IT? YOU OKAY? YES. OKAY. OKAY. SUPERVISOR PLUMMER? YES. SUPERVISOR CRAY? NO. SUPERVISOR KALLSTROM? NO. SUPERVISOR HARMON? NO. AND SUPERVISOR LONG? YES. OKAY, FAILS 3-2. NOW WE GO TO THE ORIGINAL MOTION. DID YOU WANT TO AMEND THE ORIGINAL MOTION? YES, I'D LIKE TO AMEND IT. AND MATT, I'M GOING TO ASK YOU AGAIN, DO YOU WANT TO MOVE THAT? BECAUSE I'M TRYING TO WORK WITH YOU AND SAYING, LOOK, YOU ARE MR. NONPROFIT IN SHASTA COUNTY. THAT IS UNDOUBTED. MY QUESTION IS, 13 IS PROBABLY PRETTY LOW. 13 IS LOW. FOR ME, I LOOK AT A PRIVATE INDUSTRY, RIGHT, A C CORP, AN S CORP, ETC. I'M SAYING, I'LL MOVE THAT. HELP ME. BUT I WANT TO PUT SOMETHING IN PLACE. WHAT IS THAT PERCENTAGE BEFORE I AMEND MY MOTION? AND I'VE GIVEN YOU THE ANSWER, WHICH IS SETTING A SINGLE RATE I DON'T THINK IS THE ANSWER. BUT A FOUR-FIFTHS CAN CHANGE IT. BUT WHY SET IT THEN? IF WE ACKNOWLEDGE THAT NONPROFITS ARE GOING TO HAVE A SIGNIFICANT VARIATION IN RATE, THEN WHY SET A SINGLE RATE? SUPERVISOR CRY, WHAT IS YOUR AMENDED MOTION? UP TO 18%, WHICH IS... CRAZY BUT THAT JUST SHOWS IF THEY HAVE A HIGHER OVERHEAD THAN 18 PERCENT THEN IT NEEDS TO GO TO FOUR-FIFTHS VOTE YES OKAY THAT'S NOT ALLOWED CHAIR CAN I GET SOME CLARIFICATION YES YEAH THE TWO POINTS I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY IS THE FIRST WAS THAT WHAT JOE MENTIONED IS THAT IT DOESN'T SOUND LIKE THE BOARD CAN SET AN ADDITIONAL AUTHORITY ON THE VOTING UM THE OTHER IS THE PART ABOUT THE ORDINANCE TRADITIONALLY WHAT WE SEE AROUND GOVERNANCE AROUND OUR CONTRACTING IS AN AMENDMENT TO ADMINISTRATIVE POLICY SIX, WHICH IS THE SHASTA COUNTY CONTRACTS MANUAL. SO ANY DIRECTION THE BOARD GIVES, WHATEVER THAT MAY BE, I WOULD ASK THAT THE DIRECTION BE THAT STAFF BRING THAT BACK IN THAT FORMAT RATHER THAN AN ORDINANCE. [02:50:02] OKAY, SO IT SOUNDS LIKE, SUPERVISOR CROW, THE ONLY WAY YOU'RE GOING TO GET A FOUR-FIFTHS IS IF YOU GET IT IN A CHARTER AMENDMENT. OKAY, SO FOR THIS ORDINANCE, IT WOULD JUST BE 18% WITH NO FOUR-FIFTHS. WITH NO FOUR-FIFTHS. OKAY. IS THAT CORRECT? YES. I MEAN, IF THAT'S A COUNCIL ARM, IS THAT CORRECT? OKAY, AND THEN BRYCE, REALLY QUICK, IS THAT ADMIN POLICY DASH 101? 6-101, YEAH. 6-101. OKAY, THANK YOU. APPRECIATE THAT. SO ALL RIGHT, I'LL AMEND IT AGAIN TO 18%. SO IF THE FOUR-FIFTHS VOTE PIECE IS NOT PART OF THE MOTION, THEN WHAT IS THE MOTION DOING AROUND THE 18%? THE MOTION IS JUST THAT IT'S CAPPED AT 18%. SO THAT MEANS THAT IF THEY'RE OVER 18%, THE COUNTY CANNOT CONTRACT WITH THEM? CORRECT. OKAY. ALL RIGHT, AND I SECOND THAT MOTION. AND JUST TO CLARIFY, THAT MEANS THAT AN ORDINANCE WILL BE BROUGHT BACK FOR INTRODUCTION AND A SUBSEQUENT MEETING FOR ADOPTION. IS THAT CORRECT, COUNCIL MEMBER? YEAH. OKAY, SO THIS IS TO BRING IT BACK AT 18% CAP. ALL RIGHT, AND I SECOND THE MOTION. HOW ABOUT WE DO A ROLL CALL VOTE AGAIN? START WITH SUPERVISOR PLUMMER. SUPERVISOR PLUMMER? [CLOSED SESSION ANNOUNCEMENT] NO. SUPERVISOR CRI? YES. SUPERVISOR KALLSTROM? YES. SUPERVISOR HARMON? YES. AND SUPERVISOR LONG? NO. S IS 3-2. ALL RIGHT. I'M SORRY FOR THE STAFF THAT'S HERE. I THINK WE NEED TO GO INTO CLOSED SESSION, SO I VERY MUCH APOLOGIZE. WE NEED TO GO INTO CLOSED SESSION AT NOON. WE'VE ALREADY MISSED THAT. DO WE HAVE ANY PUBLIC COMMENT ON CLOSED SESSION? YES, WE DO, CHAIR. MY COMPUTER NEEDS TO UPDATE. FOR R9, WE HAVE TWO SPEAKERS, SHASTA COUNTY WATCHDOG AND ECHO BONGARDS. AND R10, WE HAVE SHASTA COUNTY WATCHDOG. YOU WANT TO TAKE CARE OF BOTH OF THEM WHILE YOU'RE UP THERE, OR DO YOU WANT TO COME BACK? YEAH. OKAY. THE FIRST ONE I WANT TO DEAL WITH, WELL, LET ME SEE. I'LL JUST DEAL WITH 10. THE LITIGATION REGARDING ONE POTENTIAL CASE, AND THAT YOU MENTIONED IT WAS SECRETARY OF STATE. WELL, I REALLY NEED... THAT WAS SATURDAY. YEAH, SATURDAY. OKAY. WELL, YOU GUYS TAKE SO LONG, YOU KNOW, TALKING HERE, SO... BUT ANYWAYS... I WARNED YOU GUYS THIS WAS GOING TO HAPPEN. THE SECRETARY OF STATE WAS GOING TO GET INVOLVED. I TOLD YOU. TWO MONTHS PRIOR. AND OTHER CASES ARE COMING. ACLU IS GOING TO BE INVOLVED TOO. AND THIS ISN'T WHAT THIS IS. NUMBER 10. I KNOW, BUT ALL IT SAYS IS ANTICIPATE LITIGATION. SEE, YOU'RE DOING IT AGAIN. DOES IT SAY ANYTHING? I'M JUST TRYING TO KEEP YOU ON TRACK. OKAY, YOU CAN'T TELL... TELL SOMEBODY TO STAY ON TRACK WHEN THERE'S NOTHING TO STAY ON TRACK. OKAY? BUT YOU JUST DISCLOSED THAT. MS. OSTERLITZ-LANE, SO THE ONLY THING THAT YOU COULD DISCUSS IN AN INITIATION OF LITIGATION WITH NO DESCRIPTION OF WHAT THE CASE IS, WHICH IS ALLOWED BY LAW, IS WHETHER YOU AGREE THAT WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO DO THAT IN CLOSED SESSION. SPECULATION OF WHAT'S ON CLOSED SESSION ISN'T AN APPROPRIATE COMMENT. CONTROLLING THE SPEAKERS. IT'S ON. OKAY. WELL, STILL, YOU SHOULD DISCUSS THIS ITEM. EVERY TIME WHEN YOU HAVE SOMETHING LIKE THIS, YOU SHOULD DISCUSS THIS AND OPEN. WE NEED TO KNOW WHAT GOES ON BECAUSE WE ACTUALLY DO KNOW WHAT'S GOING ON. AND BECAUSE WE DON'T COME UP HERE AND SAY IT ALL THE TIME DOESN'T MEAN WE DON'T KNOW. PEOPLE TALK. PEOPLE ARE ALWAYS TALKING. SO WE KNOW. SO WHY IS IT THAT YOU NEED TO? KEEP IT A COOL SESSION. DID YOU WANT TO GO BACK AND TALK ON R9? BECAUSE IT ACTUALLY SAYS THE CASE THERE. JENNIFER, YOU'S ON VERSUS SHASTA COUNTY. WELL, ANYTHING REGARDING SHASTA COUNTY AND THE R9, I MEAN, THE LITIGATION, YOU KNOW, LITIGATIONS, EVERYTHING SHOULD BE OPEN TO THE PUBLIC. WHEN YOU MAKE DECISIONS, IT SHOULD BE INVOLVED WITH US TO KNOW WHAT YOU'RE DOING AND SAYING. BECAUSE I KNOW SOMETIMES SOMEBODY ALWAYS TRIES TO OVERWHELM THE OTHERS AND TRY NOT TO SAY, YOU KNOW. THEY GET MISTREATED BEHIND CLOSED DOORS. I KNOW THAT. BUT WE HAVE A RIGHT. COME TO MEETINGS TO KNOW WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT, EVEN THOUGH YOU SAY CLOSED SESSION. THE PEOPLE HAVE A RIGHT. WE'RE THE BOSS, BUT YET YOU'RE TREATING US LIKE WE DON'T MATTER. SEE, IT'S ON THE LINE. THE WAY YOU TREAT US. BASICALLY, PEOPLE ARE NOT GOING TO VOTE FOR YOU BECAUSE OF THE WAY YOU TREAT US. SO THEREFORE, YOU KNOW, I HOPE MY GALLERY GETS IT. NEXT UP, ECHO BONGARD. AND YOU GOT TO STICK TO [02:55:01] JENNIFER YUZON. DO YOU KNOW ABOUT THE CASE JENNIFER YUZON VERSUS SHASTA COUNTY ECHO? ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH THE CASE? OKAY. I WOULD LOVE TO DISCUSS R8, R9, R10. SO JUST R9 AND R10 ARE ON CLOSED SESSION, NOT R8. I'M SORRY? R8'S NOT ON CLOSED SESSION, JUST R9 AND R10. R9, WHICH IS JENNIFER YUZON VERSUS COUNTY OF SHASTA ET AL. OKAY, SO DID I MARK THE WRONG R IN ORDER TO SPEAK? NO, YOU WERE ON R9. NO, YOU'RE GOOD. YOU CAN SPEAK. OKAY. IT'S A CLOSED SESSION. OKAY. SO, YEAH, WHAT I REALLY WANT TO SPEAK TO IS THE FACT THAT WE HAVE SO MANY LEGAL CASES HERE IN SHASTA COUNTY THAT YOU GUYS ARE DOING ALL THESE CLOSED SESSIONS. I THINK SOME OF THAT NEEDS TO BE PUBLIC, AND THE PUBLIC NEEDS TO BE AWARE OF HOW MANY CASES YOU GUYS ARE DEALING WITH. YOU GUYS JUST INCREASED THE BUDGET FOR SOPHIA MEYER. AND I BELIEVE SHE'S PROBABLY THE ATTORNEY THAT IS REPRESENTING THE COUNTY AGAINST THESE TWO CASES. THESE ARE COUNTY CASES. I HAVE AN IDEA. THEY'RE PROBABLY APPEALS IF I LOOKED THEM UP. AND, YOU KNOW, THE COUNTY HAS LIKE 17 APPEALS FROM CPS. YOU'VE GOT TO STICK THE JENNIFER HUGHES ON. OKAY. WELL, I'M TALKING ABOUT THE FACT THAT THE COUNTY IS BEING, IS VERSUS THE COUNTY, OKAY? VERSUS THE COUNTY. THE REASON WHY IT'S VERSUS THE COUNTY IS BECAUSE... GUYS, PREVENTION FIRST. IF YOU GUYS TOOK YOUR MONEY AND SPENT IT ON COUNSEL FOR PARENTS, IT'S REALLY UNFAIR THAT WE HAVE COUNTY COUNCIL HAS THEIR OWN DEPARTMENT, PUBLIC DEFENDER HAS THEIR OWN DEPARTMENT, DA HAS THEIR OWN DEPARTMENT. BUT WHEN IT COMES TO FAMILIES IN CPS, WE GET CONTRACTED OUT. THESE ARE PROBABLY CPS CASES. IF YOU DIDN'T LOOK AT JENNIFER, YOU COULD USE GENERAL. OKAY, YOU'RE NOW DISTURBING THE PEACE. OKAY, THIS IS YOUR WARNING. THIS IS YOUR ONE MORE. QUIT INTERRUPTING THE MEETING. OKAY, I'M ASKING YOU TO LEAVE NOW. ASKING YOU TO LEAVE. YOU'RE CLOSED. YEAH, ESTIMATED TIME IS 20 [REPORT OF CLOSED SESSION ACTIONS] MINUTES ON THIS, SO WE'RE GOING TO SAY NO SOONER THAN 1230. COMING BACK FROM CLOSED SESSION, COUNCIL ARMOUR, DO WE HAVE ANY REPORTABLE ACTION? THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. ITEM R9, THERE IS NO REPORTABLE ACTION. ITEM R10, THE BOARD HAS AUTHORIZED THE INITIATION OF LITIGATION. TO OBTAIN, IF NECESSARY, AN INJUNCTION AGAINST THE REDDING ROCK CIRCUITS OF THE [R6 Take the following actions: (1) Conduct a public hearing; (2) find that Zone Amendment 25-0003 is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3), is categorically exempt from CEQA pursuant State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15301, 15303, and 15304, and is statutorily exempt from CEQA pursuant to State Public Resources Code Sections 21080.17 and 21080.085(a); (3) adopt the recommended findings listed in Planning Commission Resolution 2026-002; and (4) introduce, waive the reading of, and enact “An Ordinance of the Board of Supervisors of the County of Shasta Repealing and Replacing the Provisions of Chapter 17.88, Article II. – Uses Permitted with a Residence or in Selected Residential Districts, Section 17.88.132 – Accessory Dwelling Units of the Shasta County Code (Zone Amendment 25-0003),” to amend the Shasta County Zoning Plan, Title 17, of the Shasta County Code, concerning Accessory Dwelling Units and identified as Zone Amendment 25-0003 (Accessory Dwelling Units).] WICKED ADVERTISED EVENT AT 21091 HAWES ROAD, ANDERSON, CALIFORNIA, 96007. NO FURTHER ACTION. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, COUNCILMAN LARIMER. MOVING ON TO R6. TAKE THE FOLLOWING ACTIONS. CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING. FIND THAT ZONE AMENDMENT 25003 IS NOT SUBJECT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT. PURSUANT TO STATE CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION, I THINK I'LL JUST GO AHEAD AND LET LEO SALAZAR EXPLAIN IT FROM THERE. WELCOME, LEO. THANK YOU, CHAIR KARLSTROM. CONTINUING TO FIND THAT ZONE AMENDMENT 25-003 IS NOT SUBJECT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, PURSUANT TO STATE CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 15061B3, IS CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT FROM CEQA PURSUANT TO STATE CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 15301. 15303 AND 15304 AND IS STATUTORILY EXEMPT FROM CEQA PURSUANT TO STATE PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE SECTIONS 21080.17 AND 21080.085A. THREE, ADOPT THE FINDINGS LISTED IN PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2026-002 AND FOUR, INTRODUCE, SWAY THE READING OF, AND ENACT. ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF SHASTA REPEALING AND REPLACING THE PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER 17.88 ARTICLE 2 USES PERMITTED WITH THE RESIDENTS OR IN SELECT RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS SECTION 17.88.132 ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS OF THE SHASTA COUNTY CODE AGAIN ZONE AMENDMENT 25-003 AND TO AMEND THE SHASTA COUNTY ZONING PLAN TITLE 17 OF THE SHASTA COUNTY CODE CONCERNING ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS AND IDENTIFIED AS ON AMENDMENT 25-0003, ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS. OKAY. YOU DID IT SO MUCH BETTER THAN I COULD HAVE WHEELED. THANK YOU. [03:00:01] THANK YOU. SO ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS COMMONLY REFERENCED AS ADUS ARE A SIZE RESTRICTED DWELLING UNITS THAT THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA MANDATES ARE ALLOWED IN ALL ZONE DISTRICTS THAT ALLOW ONE-FAMILY RESIDENCE. THESE MANDATED UNITS ARE IN ADDITION TO ONE-FAMILY RESIDENCES ALLOWED UNDER STATE COUNTY, EXCUSE ME, UNDER SHASTA COUNTY GENERAL PLAN POLICIES AND ZONING STANDARDS AND IN MANY CASES ALLOW FOR ADDITIONAL DWELLING UNITS ON PROPERTIES. AND IN AREAS WHERE THEY WOULD OTHERWISE NOT BE DEVELOPED BASED ON LOCAL COMMUNITY DESIRES AND VALUES AND REGARDING HOUSING DENSITY AND DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS THAT ARE EXPRESSED BY THESE DOCUMENTS, THE GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING. THE STATE ADU MANDATE IS IN RESPONSE TO HOUSING AFFORDABILITY CONCERNS AND IS INTENDED TO PROVIDE GREATER OPPORTUNITIES FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND ALLOWS FOR LIMITED LOCAL CONTROL OVER THE ESTABLISHMENT OF ADUS. IN 2017, SHASTA COUNTY ADOPTED A LOCAL ADU ORDINANCE TO ESTABLISH THE LOCAL STANDARDS FOR ADUS. THE GENERAL POLICIES OF THE COUNTY'S ADU ORDINANCE, INCLUDING SIZE LIMITATIONS, HAVE, IN COMBINATION WITH THE PROVISIONS OF STATE ADU LAWS, BEEN A PRIMARY DRIVER OF REPORTABLE LOCAL AFFORDABLE HOUSING PRODUCTION. UPDATES TO STATE ADU LAWS HAVE OCCURRED SINCE OUR LOCAL ADU ORDINANCE WAS ADOPTED. ADDITIONAL MANDATES... UPDATES ISSUED WITH THESE UPDATES HAVE BEEN IMPLEMENTED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLANNING DIVISION BUT ARE NOT REFLECTED IN CURRENT ZONING CODE TEXT. SO THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT WOULD REPEAL AND REPLACE THE CURRENT SHASTA COUNTY ZONING CODE TEXT REGARDING ADUS TO UPDATE IT FOR THE PURPOSES OF MAKING CERTAIN REFINEMENTS TO ENSURE IT IS CONSISTENT WITH CURRENT STATE LAWS CONCERNING THE ESTABLISHMENT OF ADUS AND TO IMPLEMENT A RELATED SHASTA COUNTY GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT PROGRAM. THE UPDATE CARRIES FORWARD THE STANDARDS OF THE COUNTY'S CURRENT ADU ORDINANCE TO THE GREATEST EXTENT FEASIBLE, WHILE ENSURING CONSISTENCY WITH CURRENT STATE ADU LAWS. HIGHLIGHTS OF THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE INCLUDE, BUT ARE NOT LIMITED TO, LOCAL PROVISIONS TO ALLOW EXCEEDANCE OF A DETACHED ADU SIZE REQUIREMENTS FOR MANUFACTURED HOMES THAT ARE USED AS ADUS, CLARIFICATION OF CERTAIN LOCAL STANDARDS, AND ELIMINATION OF A STANDARD THAT REQUIRES A DETACHED ADU TO BE LOCATED BEHIND THE PRIMARY. THERE ARE SOME STATE STANDARDS THAT MAY OR MAY NOT BE CONSIDERED APPROPRIATE LOCALLY, BUT ARE MANDATED FOR ADUS REGARDLESS OF THE PROPOSED NUMBER OF BEDROOMS PROPOSED IN THE ADU AND WHETHER OR NOT THAT ADU IS LOCATED IN A RESIDENTIAL OR MIXED-USE ZONE DISTRICT OR OTHER SPECIFIED LOCATION. THESE ARE PROPOSED TO BE DIRECTLY INCORPORATED, AND THEY APPEAR AS LOCAL STANDARDS IN THE PROPOSAL. SUCH STANDARDS INCLUDE CERTAIN ALLOWANCES FOR THE EXPANSION. OF BUILDINGS THAT ARE CONVERTED TO ADUS, FOUR-FOOT SIDE AND REAR YARD SETBACKS FOR NEWLY CONSTRUCTED ADUS, ALLOWANCE OF WHAT'S CALLED A JUNIOR ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT IN ADDITION TO AN ADU, AND LIMITATIONS ON CODE ENFORCEMENT AND ON LOCAL STATE BUILDING STANDARDS WITH RESPECT TO APPROVAL OF UNPERMITTED ADUS THAT WERE CONSTRUCTED PRIOR TO JANUARY 1ST OF 2020. STATE STANDARDS, AGAIN, THAT MAY OR MAY NOT BE CONSIDERED APPROPRIATE LOCALLY. BUT THAT ARE MANDATED FOR ADU BASED ON THE NUMBER OF BEDROOMS AND OR LOCATION WITHIN A RESIDENTIAL OR MIXED-USE ZONE DISTRICT OR OTHER SPECIFIED LOCATIONS, ARE PROPOSED TO BE INCORPORATED INDIRECTLY AND THEY ARE PRESENTED AS STATE EXCEPTIONS AND EXEMPTIONS IN THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE. THESE EXCEPTIONS INCLUDE THE ALLOWANCE OF A TOTAL OF THREE ADUS, INCLUSIVE OF A JUNIOR ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT, AND LIMITED APPLICATION OF LOCAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR ADUS THAT ARE PROPOSED IN RESIDENTIAL AND MIXED-USE ZONE DISTRICTS. THIS IS A CHANGE THAT WOULD ALLOW FOR UP TO FOUR OR FIVE DWELLING UNITS ON CERTAIN PROPERTIES UNDER LOCAL GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING STANDARDS THAT WOULD OTHERWISE ONLY ALLOW A SINGLE OR TWO FAMILY OR TWO ONE FAMILY RESIDENCES. UNDER THIS, UNDER THESE EXCEPTIONS, THE ALLOWANCE OF AN ATTACHED OR DETACHED ADU OF AT LEAST UNDER 850 SQUARE FEET IS REQUIRED. AND FOR AN ATTACHED OR DETACHED ADU THAT PROVIDES MORE THAN ONE BEDROOM OR AN ATTACHED OR DETACHED ADU OF UP TO A THOUSAND SQUARE FEET. SQUARE FEET FOR A ADU THAT HAS TWO OR MORE BEDROOMS. ALL OF THAT WOULD BE CONSISTENT WITH THE SHASTA COUNTY GENERAL PLAN ON THE BASIS THAT THE ORDINANCE PROVIDES ADDITIONAL HOUSING OPTIONS FOR FAMILY MEMBERS, STUDENTS, THE ELDERLY, IN-HOME CARE PROVIDERS, THE DISABLED, VETERANS AND OTHERS IN EXISTING URBAN AND SUBURBAN AS WELL AS RURAL RESIDENTIAL AREAS WITHOUT SUBSTANTIALLY CHANGING. THE USE OR APPEARANCE OR CHARACTER OF THOSE AREAS AND AGAIN IMPLEMENTS THE SHASTA COUNTY GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT PROGRAM THE PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEWED THIS APPLICATION ON JANUARY 22ND [03:05:01] IN THE YEAR OF 2026, BY 5-0 VOTE, THE COMMISSION RECOMMENDED THAT THE BOARD TAKE THE ACTIONS I DESCRIBED EARLIER. IT SHOULD BE STATED THAT THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS HCD, WHICH IS THE STATE AGENCY RESPONSIBLE FOR IMPLEMENTING THE STATE ADE LAW, HAS REQUESTED THE COUNTY REPEAL OR UPDATE ITS ORDINANCE, AS HAS BEEN PROPOSED IN THIS ITEM. ULTIMATELY, THE ORDINANCE WILL BE REVIEWED BY HCD FOR CONFORMANCE WITH STATE LAW. AND IF FOUND TO BE INCONSISTENT WITH STATE MANDATED ALLOWANCES FOR ADUS, MAY NEED TO BE AMENDED ONCE AGAIN OR SUBSTANTIATED BY BOARD ADOPTED FINDINGS. SO THEREFORE, IT IS IMPERATIVE THE COUNTY ADOPT AN UPDATED ADU ORDINANCE AS SOON AS POSSIBLE TO BE RESPONSIVE TO HDD AND PROVIDE GUIDANCE TO PEOPLE WHO WISH TO DEVELOP AN ADU ON THEIR PROPERTY. TO DATE, WE HAVEN'T RECEIVED ANY PUBLIC COMMENTS REGARDING THIS, SO WITH THAT, IT'S RECOMMENDED THAT THE BOARD TAKE THE ACTIONS THAT WERE SPECIFICALLY RECOMMENDED AND THAT CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION. I'M AVAILABLE TO ANSWER QUESTIONS. WE DISCUSSED THIS WHAT THREE YEARS AGO WITH AN ADU THAT I THOUGHT IS A MORE 1200 FIRE SAYS 1200 AND SIZE OF THE EXISTING STRUCTURE. FOR 1200 WHATEVER IT IS LESS SO THANK YOU SOMEBODY NEEDED IF YOU COULD EXPLAIN TO ME WHY THAT'S STILL IN THERE THAT'S STILL PART OF THAT AND I KNOW SEAN WE HAD VERY BRIEF MOMENT WE HADN'T YOU KNOW WHAT YOU REMEMBER WHAT I'M TALKING 1800 AND HER FOOT HOME AND YOU'RE TOLD THEM IF SHE COULD ONLY PLAY TO YOU ON THERE. YEAH, MY SPECIFICS IN THAT CASE, BUT JUST SPEAKING WITH RESPECT TO THE SIDE STANDARDS, STANDARDS FOR SIZE THAT ARE IN SHASTA COUNTY'S ADU ORDINANCE, THEY ARE CONSISTENT WITH STATE LAW. AND AS I MENTIONED IN THE PRESENTATION, WE, YOU KNOW, OUR INTENT WASN'T TO MODIFY THE EXISTING ORDINANCE. STATE LAW LOWERED THEIR, THE STATE ACTUALLY, I MEAN, I ACTUALLY AGREE WITH STATE ON ONE ITEM. WE WANTED TO LESSEN THE RULES. 1200 FEET AND PROMOTE ADUS ON YET WE HAD A MORE RESTRICTIVE 50% LESS OF THE EXISTING STRUCTURE. WE HAD THE ONE OUT MEMBER WAS OUT TOWARDS SHINGLETOWN BETWEEN SHINGLETOWN AND MILLVILLE AND WHAT YOU WERE INVOLVED IN. THE SHORT ANSWER IS, WELL, AND ACTUALLY I'M GOING TO BACK UP A LITTLE BIT. SO OUR LOCAL ORDINANCE FOR ZONING IS TO IMPLEMENT THE GENERAL PLAN, WHICH LIMITATIONS ON THE OPPORTUNITY FOR SECOND FAMILY DWELLINGS OR SECOND DWELLINGS ON A PROPERTY. SO. AT ONE POINT THE STATE ENDED UP COMING UP WITH THE ADU ORDINANCE THAT THEN ALLOWED, OPENED UP THE OPPORTUNITY FOR ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS TO BE, TO IN A WAY CIRCUMVENT LOCAL ORDINANCES AND BE BUILT MORE MINISTERIALLY IN ACCORDANCE WITH STATE LAW. AND SO WHEN THE ORDINANCE WAS ORIGINALLY ADOPTED, IT WAS BASED OFF THE STATE LAW AT THE TIME. I DON'T KNOW THE SPECIFIC DETAILS OF IT. BUT IT WAS GENERALLY IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE STATE LAW AND TRYING TO BE CONSISTENT WITH EXISTING ORDINANCE. SO THE STATE LAW THEN HAD SOME AMENDMENTS TO IT, AND THERE WERE SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT SQUARE FOOTAGE. SO WHEN WE APPROACHED THIS TASK OF UPDATING THE ADU ORDINANCE, OUR FOCUS WAS TO ENSURE THAT OUR LOCAL ORDINANCE WAS CONSISTENT WITH STATE LAW. SO IN ORDER TO BE CONSIDERED AN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT, THAT STATE LAW BASICALLY PUTS A THRESHOLD OF 1,200 SQUARE FEET ON IT, AND MANY OTHER CRITERIA THAT LIMITS OUR ABILITIES TO REGULATE THEM. BUT IF IT'S OVER 1,200 SQUARE FEET, GENERALLY NOT. SO WHEN WE UPDATED THIS ORDINANCE, AGAIN, WE LOOKED AT STATE LAW TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE BEING CONSISTENT. AND THE STATE LAW HAS SOME REQUIREMENTS WHERE WE HAVE 50% OF THE PRIMARY, THE EXISTING SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTS. THAT IS STILL IN HERE, BUT THEN THE ACTUAL MINIMUM THAT THE STATE MANDATES, WHICH IS ALSO IN HERE AS AN EXCEPTION, IS 850 SQUARE FEET FOR A SINGLE FAMILY ADU, AND IT'S 1,000 SQUARE FEET [03:10:04] FROM... YOUR SPECIFIC QUESTION IS, WHY DIDN'T WE JUST OPEN IT UP STRAIGHT TO 1,200 SQUARE FEET? YES. BECAUSE AT THIS POINT, WHEN WE'RE LOOKING AT STATE LAW, THE STATE LAW DOESN'T SAY THEY SHALL BE 01,200. THEY SAY THEY CAN BE UP TO 01,200. SO THE DIRECTIVE, THE WAY THAT WE APPROACHED THIS DIRECTIVE WAS TO ENSURE THAT WE WEREN'T OUT OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE STATE LAW. AND SO WE TRIED TO BALANCE THAT AS FAR AS THE STATE REQUIREMENT AND, TWO, STAYING TRUE TO OUR ZONING ORDINANCE AND SUCH. AND SO THAT'S WHERE WE ENDED UP. IT'S 850 OUTRIGHT FOR A SINGLE BEDROOM AND IT'S A THOUSAND FOR TWO OR MORE. SO IS 850 OR A THOUSAND ON OUR ORDINANCE OR STATE? THE STATE'S 1200. BOTH. WE ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE STATE LAW. SO THE STATE LAW SAYS 850 SQUARE FEET FOR A SINGLE BEDROOM AND A THOUSAND FOR TWO OR MORE. I THOUGHT IT SAID 1200 FOR TWO OR MORE. UP TO THAT. YEAH, RIGHT. SO THE REQUIRE AN ADU OF A CERTAIN SIZE, A MINIMUM IS 850 AND THE MAX IS 1200. AND THEN WHAT I SHOULD, WE CAN'T MAKE THEM MAKE IT SMALLER THAN THAT. WE ARE MAKING IT SMALLER THAN THAT. HAVE YOU HAD ANY SENSE THAT THAT WAS. CEO RICKARD, I'M SURE REMEMBERS THIS BECAUSE HE CAME UP WITH THE SOLUTION. YEAH. YEAH. I MEAN, YOU CAN'T REMEMBER THIS. SO THEY HAD AN 1890 SQUARE FOOT HOME. SHE WANTED A 1200 SQUARE FOOT ADU AND CAME TO YOU GUYS AND THEY SAID, NO, IT'S HALF THE SIZE OF THE EXISTING STRUCTURE SO YOU CAN HAVE AN 845 SQUARE FOOT ADU. AND AT THAT TIME, I WAS LIKE, LET'S JUST REPEAL THIS WHOLE ORDINANCE, GO WITH THE STATE LAW, GO WITH THE FIRE LAW. AND, YOU KNOW, AS LONG AS WE'RE WITH STATE... STANDARDS AND FIRE STANDARDS, THEN WE DON'T NEED AN ORDINANCE THAT'S MORE RESTRICTIVE. CEO RICKARD ENDED UP COMING UP WITH THE SOLUTION AFTER MANY WEEKS OF ARGUING. SO NOW WHEN I SAW THIS, I MEAN, I'M ALL FOR AN ADU, BUT I DON'T WANT A COUNTY ORDINANCE THAT MAKES IT MORE STRICT THAN STATE LAW. I MEAN, TO ME, THAT'S JUST RED TAPE. I MEAN, AGAIN, SO IF THIS SAME GIRL WERE TO COME TO YOU TODAY AND SAY, MY PARENTS' HOME IS IN SHINGLETOWN, I GOT 890 SQUARE FEET ON THERE. CAN I GET A 12 FOOTER? 1200 SQUARE FOOT ADU THE ANSWER INITIALLY WOULD BE 850 SQUARE FEET UNLESS YOU PROPOSE IF IT'S A SINGLE BEDROOM UNLESS IT'S PROPOSED TO BE FLIPPED SHE WANTS A TWO-BEDROOM 1200 SQUARE FOOT ADU BUT THE EXISTING STRUCTURE IN THE HOME IS 1890 SQUARE FEET OKAY I MEAN JUST FOR THE PUBLIC RECORD SUPERVISOR KELSTROM OR CHAIR KELSTROM WHY DON'T YOU TELL PEOPLE LIKE REMIND PEOPLE OF WHAT CEO RICKERT WHO'S FROM COMPLETELY DIFFERENT STATE I MEAN JUST HOW SIMPLE THAT WAS YEAH THERE THERE WAS TO EMPLOYEES THAT WEREN'T ABLE TO FIND A SOLUTION. AND I BELIEVE CEO RICKARDS SAID, COULDN'T WE MAKE A SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE PERMIT FOR THE EXISTING STRUCTURE AND MAKE THAT THE ADU, AND THEN YOU COULD PUT ANYTHING ON THE PROPERTY YOU WANTED TO. RIGHT, AND I DON'T. BEFORE YOUR TIME. AGAIN, IN THIS CASE, WE MODIFIED THE LOCAL ADU ORDINANCE TO BE CONSISTENT WITH STATE LAW. THAT'S WHAT I'M TRYING TO GET AT. STATE LAW, AND I GET IT, 80 SQUARE FEET ON A SINGLE BEDROOM, BUT THERE'S NO COMPONENT EXISTING STRUCTURE IN STATE LAW. THE STATE LAW, CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, AND I DON'T THINK ANYWHERE IN THE STATE LAW FOR ADUS DOES IT HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH EXISTING STRUCTURE. I THINK IT'S UP TO 1,200 SQUARE FEET OR 850 FOR ONE BEDROOM. FOR A DETACHED ADU. CORRECT. CAN I... BUT INTO THIS CONVERSATION, OKAY, SURE. OKAY, SO I KNOW THAT THE GENERAL PLAN HAS BEEN DEVELOPED AND THERE ARE MORE RESTRICTIVE REQUIREMENTS SO FOR EXAMPLE IN ADU YOU HAVE TO RENT FOR 30 DAYS OR LONGER YOU DON'T GET THE VRBO TYPE NIGHTLY RENTALS AND THOSE TURNOVERS AND THE NOISE AND CONGESTION AND ALL THAT ALL THAT STUFF BECAUSE IN THE GENERAL PLAN THE GENERAL PLAN TAKES INTO ACCOUNT THAT PEOPLE LIVING IN THE RURAL AREAS DON'T WANT ALL THAT ACTIVITY, SO THEY RESTRICT IT MORE THAN THE STATE LAW ACTUALLY REQUIRES. SO I THINK WE WOULD HAVE TO HAVE DISCUSSION GOING BACK INTO CHANGING THE GENERAL PLAN ITSELF, AND THEN THAT WOULD INVOLVE A MASSIVE STUDY BECAUSE SOME PEOPLE MIGHT, LIVING IN THESE RURAL AREAS, THEY MOVE OUT THERE FOR THAT PURPOSE AND THEY DON'T WANT MASSIVE ADUS. [03:15:02] THEY DON'T WANT. 380 IS THE STRUCTURE. I'M JUST SAYING. I'M JUST SAYING. MR. CHAIRMAN. HOLD ON JUST FOR A MINUTE. SO WE HAVE WE HAVE AN ADOPTION OF A SINGLE ITEM HERE AND THIS BROADER DISCUSSION THE PUBLIC WOULD PROBABLY BE INTERESTED IN. THIS IS AN ADOPTION FOR THE ADU. FOR AN ADU NOT FOR THE ADU ORDINANCE. AND NOT TO CHANGE GENERAL PLAN OR ADU ORDINANCE. THIS IS JUST TO COME INTO COMPLIANCE WITH STATE LAW. THIS SOUNDS LIKE IT'S RIGHT PER DISCUSSION, AND IF YOU WANT TO PUT IT ON AS AN AGENDA ITEM TO CHANGE THE ORDINANCE. BUT WHAT THIS IS IS THE APPROVAL FOR AN ADU. JUST ONE SIMPLE ADU. JUST ONE ADU. UNDER OUR CURRENT ORDINANCE. UNDER OUR CURRENT ORDINANCE. WE ARE NOT REWRITING LAW. AND I'VE KIND OF LET IT. YEARS NOW. I KNOW AND IF YOU WANT TO PUT IT ON THE AGENDA WE CAN DEFINITELY DO THAT AND I TRIED TO GIVE YOU SOME LEEWAY BUT WE'RE REALLY GETTING FAR OUT. AND WE'RE NOT REALLY EVEN ADDRESSING OUR GENERAL PLAN WE'RE NOT ADDRESSING ADU REQUIREMENTS THAT WE HAVE UNDER GENERAL PLAN WE'RE JUST SAYING YOU'RE LOOKING AT APPROVAL UNDER THE CURRENT ORDINANCES AS THEY ARE. OKAY SO DO I NEED TO OPEN A PUBLIC HEARING? ALRIGHT THIS IS RELATED TO A SPECIFIC ADU. CAN I ADD SOME ADDITIONAL INFORMATION? I DON'T SEE ANY. JUST FOR CLARIFICATION, THE WAY THAT THE ADU LAW IS WRITTEN AND THE LOCAL ORDINANCE BEING CONSISTENT WITH THAT IS THEORETICALLY IF SOMEONE HAS A 02,400 SQUARE FOOT HOME, THEY COULD DO A 1,200 SQUARE FOOT DETACHED ADU. THEY COULD DO A 1,200 SQUARE FOOT ATTACHED ADU, AND THEN THEY COULD DO A 500. SQUARE FOOT JUNIOR ADU, AND THEN IF THAT PROPERTY IS LARGE ENOUGH, IT MAY EVEN ALLOW A SECOND FAMILY RESIDENCE. SO ESSENTIALLY WHAT WE'RE DOING IS WE'RE TAKING ZONING FOR A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE AND WE'RE OPENING IT UP FOR MULTIFAMILY. SEAN, LET ME ASK YOU, SO THIS IS TO PERMIT SOMEBODY BUILDING AN ADU, CORRECT? THIS IS AN ORDINANCE, THE COUNTY'S... OKAY, THEN I MIGHT HAVE... YEAH, I THOUGHT THAT'S WHAT WE'RE DOING IS UPDATING OUR ADU ORDINANCE. SO THERE'S DIFFERENT TYPES OF ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS. THERE'S A JUNIOR ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT. THERE'S AN ATTACHED ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT AND A DETACHED ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT. AND THEN UNDER CURRENT ZONING, CERTAIN CRITERIA SOMEONE COULD HAVE IN FAMILY IS ON THAT AS WELL. SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE TO POTENTIALLY A SECOND FAMILY RESIDENCE, A JUNIOR ADU THAT'S 500 SQUARE FEET, AN ATTACHED ADU AT 1,200 SQUARE FEET, AND THEN A DETACHED OF 01,200 SQUARE FEET. SO I PERSONALLY VERY MUCH VALUE CHAIR KALLSTROM'S POSITION, AND WE'RE TRYING TO BALANCE, AS STAFF, WE'RE TRYING TO BALANCE OUR ZONING AND GENERAL PLAN AND THE THANK YOU. INTENT OF THE ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT. SO WE WORK AT THE DIRECTION OF THE BOARD. IF THAT IS THE DIRECTION, WE'RE HAPPY TO DO IT. BUT THE WAY THAT WE APPROACH THIS TASK IS CONSISTENCY WITH STATE LAW. SO WHAT WOULD BE THE RAMIFICATIONS IF WE HAD YOUR EXACTLY LIKE IT'S WRITTEN, BUT WE JUST TOOK OUT THAT WHOLE EVERY WORD SAID OR HALF THE SIZE OF THE EXISTING STRUCTURE? LEO, WHAT WOULD BE THE RAMIFICATIONS THERE? DO YOU WANT TO SPEAK? I WAS INCORRECT ON THAT, SO DEBATE AWAY. I THOUGHT I READ IT. YOU GOT ME WORRIED THERE. ISSUE IN SHINGLETOWN. YOU WERE. ULTIMATELY, IT WAS RESOLVED UNDER THE EXISTING STANDARDS, I BELIEVE. AND I THINK ONE OF THE THINGS THAT CHAIRMAN RICKER POINTED OUT WAS THAT THE ADU THEY WERE PROPOSING, I THINK, MIGHT HAVE BEEN LARGER THAN THE EXISTING HOME. NO, THE EXISTING HOME WAS FOUR FEET. THEY WANTED TO PUT A 1,200 SQUARE FOOT ADU, AND WHEN THEY WENT TO THE COUNTY, THE COUNTY SAID, OH, NO, THE STRUCTURE IS 1890, SO YOU CAN ONLY PUT A 945 SQUARE FOOT ADU. AND, I MEAN, SHE JUST HAPPENED TO CALL ME TO COMPLAIN. ALMOST 1,900 SQUARE FOOT HOME, THEY WANT TO PUT A 1,200 SQUARE FOOT ADU. BUT OUR ORDINANCE, OUR LANGUAGE, THEY HAD TO... ONE OF THE ADUS ARE ABOUT THE ONLY UNITS THAT ARE EVER ABLE TO, THAT THEY'RE AFFORDABLE. AND EVEN THOUGH THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A TWO-BEDROOM ADU THAT [03:20:01] WE HAVE TO ALLOW, THE THOUSANDS... AND SOMETHING WILL WELL NO BECAUSE YOU SHE COULDN'T HAVE HAD A THOUSAND SQUARE FOOT ADU THE EXISTING STRUCTURE IS 19 WAS 1890 RIGHT BUT UNDER THE CURRENT STATE LAW SHE CAN SHE COULD I'M NOT SURE IF THAT WAS IN EFFECT NOW BUT THAT'S MY ARGUMENT THE CURRENT STATE LAW STATE LAW SHE COULD HAVE A 1200 SQUARE FOOT ADU BUT UNDER OUR COUNTY ORDINANCE, YOU CAN ONLY HAVE 845 SQUARE FEET. THAT'S FOR COUNTIES THAT DON'T HAVE A, THEY CAN BE UP TO 01,200 SQUARE FEET. THE COUNTY HAD ADOPTED A LOCAL ORDINANCE STANDARDS DISCUSSING AT THE TIME. BUT OUR COUNTY ORDINANCE LIMITED HER. OUR COUNTY ORDINANCE LIMITED HER TO 945 SQUARE FOOT WHEN SHE COULD HAVE HAD 1,200 IF WE DIDN'T HAVE THE ORDINANCE IN PLACE. BECAUSE THE STATE LAW SAID 01,200. AND THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING. ON THIS ORDINANCE, I MEAN, I READ THE WHOLE THING. AND IT'S LIKE, IS THERE ANY POSSIBLE WAY WE CAN TAKE THAT HALF THE SIZE OF THE EXISTING STRUCTURE, JUST TAKE THAT OUT OF THERE AND DO THE STANDARDS OF THE CALIFORNIA STANDARDS, WHICH IS 850 SQUARE FEET FOR A SINGLE BEDROOM, UP TO 01,200 SQUARE FEET FOR A MULTI-BEDROOM. I MEAN, WHY DO WE... HOW CAN WE TAKE THAT OUT OF THERE? THIS IS WHAT I ASKED THE PREVIOUS... THERE IS THE POTENTIAL THAT WE COULD. THAT WAS WHAT THIS IS DOING AND BEING RESPONSIVE TO HCD TO ENSURE THAT THE ORDINANCE THAT WAS IN PLACE WAS CONSISTENT WITH STATE LAW. WHICH IT IS. IT IS. MY WAY WOULD BE CONSISTENT WITH STATE LAW. YOURS WOULD BE AS WELL, YES. THE IMPLICATION OF THAT IS... 200 SQUARE FEET FROM A TWO-BEDROOM, 01,000-SQUARE-FOOT ADU, OR HOWEVER MANY BEDROOMS YOU CAN FIT IN A 1,000-SQUARE-FOOT ADU, DOESN'T SEEM LIKE A SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE. HOWEVER, IN AFFORDABILITY, THAT 200-SQUARE-FOOT MAKES A BIG DIFFERENCE. WELL, I MEAN, YOU LOST ONE OF THE STRUCTURES FOR YOUR, YOU KNOW, TO MAKE UP THE COMPONENT OF OUR GENERAL PLAN WITH AFFORDABLE HOUSING. THEY ENDED UP WALKING AWAY FROM IT AND DIDN'T PUT IT UP. I MEAN, THEY WOULD HAVE HAD ONE HAD THEY COME TO THE... I THINK THAT'S THE BALANCE THAT SEAN WAS GETTING TO IS THAT OUR CURRENT GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING, WE WOULDN'T BE HAVING THIS DISCUSSION AT ALL ABOUT EXTRA UNIT ON THE PROPERTY. IT JUST WOULDN'T BE PERMISSIBLE FOR THE STATE SAYING, NO, EVEN THOUGH YOU MIGHT EXPECT THERE TO BE JUST ONE RESIDENCE ON THAT, FOUR RESIDENCES. THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IS PUSHING THESE ADUS BECAUSE... HUGE HOMELESS AFFORDABLE HOUSING. IT'S TRUE AND YOU KNOW IT BUMPS UP AGAINST WHAT WE WANT TO SEE LOCALLY JUST TO KEEP IT RURAL. YEAH WELL I MEAN I'M ALL FOR IF WE CAN TAKE THAT VERBIAGE OUT OF THERE I MEAN I'D SAY AGAIN I WAS ASKED THIS THREE YEARS AGO WITH THE PREVIOUS DIRECTOR IT'S LIKE YOU KNOW I WANTED TO REPEAL THAT THAT THING AT THE TIME AND SO BUT IT'S STILL IN THIS ONE. YEAH SO THERE'S A THERE'S A COUPLE OF SCENARIOS BECAUSE RIGHT NOW WE HAVE AN ORDINANCE IN FRONT OF YOU THAT NECESSARILY WANT TO CHANGE WITHOUT GOING BACK TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION THAT WOULD BE REQUIRED UNDER ZONING CODE. GET THIS ORDINANCE PASSED IN FRONT OF THE STATE. THEY WILL INDICATE TO US WHETHER OR NOT THEY BELIEVE IT TO BE CONSISTENT WITH STATE LAW. IF THAT COMES BACK, THEN WE CAN TAKE A LOOK AT THE EFFECT OF IT. I WISH I HADN'T MISSED THAT. STILL IT HAS A SO IT STILL BOTHERS ME I THINK THAT'S WHAT LEO SAYING IS WE HAVE A COUPLE OPTIONS HERE IS UH... AGAIN THE DIRECTED THAT WE HAD WE HAVE A RESOLUTION OF INTENT OBVIOUSLY WE HAD CONVERSATIONS SO I APOLOGIZE FOR THAT WE WE UPDATED THE ORDINANCE TO MAKE IT CONSISTENT WITH STATE LAW IF WE'RE LOOKING TO EXPAND THAT NOW I THINK THAT THE BOARD GIVES US DIRECTION WE HAVE A COUPLE OPTIONS AS WE CAN JUST DO AWAY WITH ALL LIMITATIONS ON SQUARE FOOTAGE OF AN ADU. SO WHETHER YOU HAVE A 500-SQUARE-FOOT HOUSE AND YOU WANT 1,200, THEN IT'S NOT REALLY ACCESSORY ANYMORE. IT'S JUST A SECOND BIGGER HOME. BUT IF THAT'S THE DIRECTION WE WANT TO GO, WE COULD EITHER DO TWO THINGS. THE BOARD COULD POTENTIALLY ADOPT THE ORDINANCE AS IT IS NOW, SEND IT TO THE STATE, GET FEEDBACK. WE MODIFY IT IN THE MEANTIME BASED ON THIS DIRECTION. WE WE UPDATE IT RIGHT NOW. WE TAKE IT IMMEDIATELY BACK TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND THEN BRING IT BACK TO YOU. YEAH, I PREFER TO TAKE IT BACK TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND [03:25:02] JUST UPDATE IT RIGHT NOW. AND HOPEFULLY I WON'T MISS MEETING ELLEN. I GUESS I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO BREAK WITH CHANGES. OKAY. SUPERVISOR LONG. SO, SEAN, WHEN I TALKED TO YOU GUYS ABOUT THIS BEFORE IT WAS PULLED LAST MONTH, I THINK I TALKED WITH LEO, MY UNDERSTANDING AT THAT TIME WAS THAT WE WERE GOING TO ADOPT THIS JUST TO STAY IN COMPLIANCE WITH STATE LAW, BUT WE WERE NOT GOING TO CHANGE OUR GENERAL PLAN AND WE WERE NOT GOING TO CHANGE OUR LOCAL ORDINANCE. I WOULD NOT BE IN FAVOR OF JUST CHANGING IT ON THE FLY HERE. I THOUGHT THAT THIS DISCUSSION WAS SIMPLY TO COME UP TO STATE STANDARD. EVEN THOUGH SHASTA COUNTY MAINTAINS A MUCH STRICTER STANDARD IN SOME AREAS, LIKE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT WITH THE SIZE OF THE ADU AND THE SHORT-TERM RENTALS AND NIGHTLY RENTALS AND ALL THOSE KINDS OF THINGS. I THINK THOSE ARE PART OF A BIGGER DISCUSSION AT A LATER TIME. I WOULD MOVE THAT WE JUST ADOPT THIS AS YOU'VE RECOMMENDED. TO COME INTO COMPLIANCE WITH THE STATE AND THEN WE CAN AGENDIZE IT AT A FUTURE TIME IF THAT'S APPROPRIATE TO FIGURE OUT IF THE ORDINANCE IS STILL WORKING FOR EVERYBODY BECAUSE I CAN'T JUST GET ON BOARD WITH CHANGING THE FLAVOR OF THE ORDINANCE WHEN I HAVEN'T TALKED TO CONSTITUENTS. I HAVEN'T REALLY EVEN THOUGHT THIS THING THROUGH BECAUSE IT WAS NOT, THIS IS GOING WAY BEYOND THE SCOPE OF WHAT I WAS PREPARED FOR TODAY. SUPERVISOR LONG, THIS IS AT A LATER TIME FOR ME. AS I DEALT WITH THIS THREE YEARS AGO, I THOUGHT IT WAS GOING TO BE FIXED. IT NEVER GOT FIXED. AND, I MEAN, AGAIN, I DON'T THINK WE NEED ANY REGULATIONS IN THIS COUNTY. WE HAVE THOUSANDS UPON THOUSANDS UPON THOUSANDS OF STATE REGULATIONS THAT OUR HANDS ARE TIED WITH. THIS IS ONE AREA THE STATE ACTUALLY LOOSENED THEIR RULES UP A LITTLE BIT, AND OUR RULES ARE MORE RESTRICTIVE. WELL, THEY'RE RESTRICTIVE IN MANY AREAS, ACTUALLY. THE LOCAL ORDINANCE IS MORE RESTRICTIVE. SO, FOR EXAMPLE, THE STATE DOESN'T CARE ABOUT HOW LONG YOU RENT IT. YOU CAN RENT IT FOR A NIGHTLY BASIS. THE COUNTY SAYS UNDER THEIR ORDINANCE THAT IT'S 30 DAYS. RIGHT, AND THAT'S ALL GOOD AND FINE, AND YOU CAN LEAVE THAT IN THERE. BUT I'VE DEALT WITH THIS AGAIN THREE YEARS AGO. I HAD TO DEAL WITH THIS. I THOUGHT IT WOULD BE FIXED BY NOW, AND I'M NOT GOING TO ADOPT A NEW ORDINANCE THAT HAS THE SAME PROBLEM THAT WAS THERE THREE YEARS AGO. SO YOU'RE, YOU'RE, WHAT YOU'RE GOING TO... I MAKE A MOTION TO GO AHEAD AND TAKE THE VERBIAGE OUT OF THERE THAT SAYS HALF THE SIZE OF THE EXISTING STRUCTURE. GO AHEAD AND FOLLOW ALL THE STATE GUIDELINES. ABSOLUTELY, WE'RE GOING TO FOLLOW ALL THE STATE GUIDELINES. BUT THE STATE GUIDELINES ARE LESS RESTRICTIVE THAN OUR COUNTY ORDINANCE. BUT YOU WOULD NOT BE MOVING TO CHANGE ANYTHING ELSE UNDER OUR ORDINANCE FOR OUR GENERAL PLAN? NOTHING ELSE HAS BEEN BROUGHT TO MY ATTENTION THAT'S A PROBLEM. BUT THIS HAS BEEN BROUGHT TO MY ATTENTION THAT'S A PROBLEM. AND I ASKED THE PREVIOUS DIRECTOR TO FIX IT AND IT'S NOT. SO WHAT WOULD IT WOULD GO FROM A MINIMUM OF A THOUSAND TO A MINIMUM OF TWELVE HUNDRED? NO. RIGHT NOW, AN EXAMPLE AGAIN, THIS IS AN ACTUAL REAL CASE SCENARIO. THE 1,809 FOOT HOME. THEIR DAUGHTER IS GETTING ALZHEIMER'S OR STARTING TO GET DEMENTIA. THE DAUGHTER WENT TO THE COUNTY. 1200 SQUARE FOOT ADU TO PUT ON THE PROPERTY. IT WAS LIKE FIVE ACRES AND SHINGLES, PLENTY OF ROOM. AND THEY APPLIED FOR PRINT AND OUR COUNTY TOLD THEM, NO, YOU CAN ONLY HAVE. AND SO I QUESTIONED THEN THREE YEARS AGO. AND AGAIN, IT WAS BEFORE YOUR TIME. I MEAN, WHEN I SAY PREVIOUS DIRECTOR, NO, SEAN IS, HE KNOWS HE'S MY GUY. HE'S DONE A TREMENDOUS JOB AND I RESPECT THE HECK OF EVERYTHING HE'S DONE. BUT I TOLD HIM AT THE TIME. WE DON'T NEED MORE RESTRICTIVE RULES IN SHASTA COUNTY. WE ALREADY HAVE OUR HANDS TIED BY THE STATE, AND HERE'S AN AREA WHERE THE STATE LOOSENED UP THE RULES TO HAVE MORE AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND GET MORE AFFORDABLE HOUSING, GET MORE PEOPLE OFF THE STREET AND UNDER A SHELTER, AND WE HAVE THIS MORE RESTRICTIVE COMPONENT TO IT SAYING, YOU KNOW, 1,200 SQUARE FEET IS WHAT THE STATE SAYS, BUT WE'RE GOING TO TELL YOU THAT YOU HAVE TO HAVE HALF THE SIZE OF THE EXISTING STRUCTURE AS THE MAXIMUM. BUT DO YOU AGREE THAT AS YOU INCREASE THE SIZE OF THE ADU, YOU CREATE POTENTIALLY MORE PEOPLE LIVING IN THE ADU. YOU CREATE MORE NEIGHBORHOOD DISTURBANCE, IF YOU WILL, MORE TRAFFIC. THERE'S GOING TO BE MORE CARS ASSOCIATED WITH ALL THOSE KINDS OF THINGS. I DON'T THINK THEY PUT THESE ADUS ON LOTS INSIDE NEIGHBORHOODS. CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, BUT... THEY THEORETICALLY CAN GO ANYWHERE WHERE USE IS ALLOWED. I DO HAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS. AS FAR AS COUNCIL, I CAN TELL YOU, BECAUSE DISTRICT 1, WE HAVE VERY LITTLE, SO THIS WOULD ONLY APPLY... CITY OF ANDERSON, CITY OF [03:30:02] SHOSH, LAKE, CITY OF REDDING. JURISDICTIONS WOULD HAVE OVERSIGHT OVER THOSE. SO FOR THE COUNTY, SO IN SHINGLETOWN, MAN, LAKEHEAD, JUST KNOW THAT BECAUSE THE ONLY PART I'M GOING TO INTERJECT IN IS THIS ONE PART BECAUSE DISTRICT 1 IS LIKE, THERE'S NO ADU TYPE STUFF. IT'S ALL CITY OF REDDING. AND, I MEAN, TO YOUR POINT THERE, ALAN, IS LIKE, OKAY, SO... YOU CAN HAVE PROBLEMS IN A 900-SQUARE-FOOT ADU JUST AS MUCH AS YOU CAN HAVE A 01,200-SQUARE-FOOT ADU. I MEAN, IT'S NOT GOING TO BE LIKE, OH, WELL, THEY'RE GOING TO BE A PROBLEM IF THEY HAVE 300 MORE SQUARE FEET. I MEAN, THAT'S KIND OF A LITTLE BIT SILLY IN MY OPINION. BUT, I MEAN, AGAIN, YOU HAVE PROBLEM NEIGHBORS OR YOU HAVE GOOD NEIGHBORS. I MEAN, THAT'S JUST IT. YOU KNOW THAT. WE HAVE PROBLEM PROPERTIES ALL OVER THE PLACE. AND, YOU KNOW, THE SIZE OF AN ADU DOESN'T MAKE UP THAT THEY'RE GOING TO GET RID OF THEIR 25 JUNK CARS AND, YOU KNOW, 12 DILAPIDATED BUILDINGS AND TWO JUNK TRAILERS. WOULD YOU WOULD YOU BE AMENABLE TO. SOME FUTURE DISCUSSION AS TO THE ORDINANCE IN ALL ITS PARTICULARS, AND THAT WOULD BE ONE OF THEM, BECAUSE WE'VE GOT A LOT OF VERY RESTRICTIVE THINGS THAT WE HAVE BUTTONED DOWN BASED ON, I DON'T KNOW, PRIOR BOARD DISCUSSION. I'M NOT PROPOSING TO CHANGE ANYTHING IN HERE OTHER THAN THE WORDS OR HALF THE SIZE OF THE EXISTING STRUCTURE. THAT'S ALL. I WANT THAT TAKEN OUT OF THERE. EVERYTHING ELSE STAYS IN THERE. 01,200 SQUARE FOOT, 854 ONE BEDROOM. IF THEY HAVE NOISE RESTRICTIONS OR THEY HAVE THAT THIRTY DAYS RENTAL I DON'T I DON'T CARE ABOUT ANY OF THAT THAT CAN ALL STAY IN THERE BUT I WANT THAT HALF THE SIZE OF THIS INSTRUCTOR TAKEN OUT AT YOUR HOUSE YES SIR ECHO A COUPLE POINTS JUST ONE POINT IN PARTICULAR UH... IS WHEN WE SAY THAT THE STATE LOOSEN UP THEIR STANDARDS IT'S ACTUALLY NOT THE CASE WHAT IT IS IS THAT THIS STATUS OR CONVENING LOCAL CONTROL THROUGH ITS GENERAL PLAN ZONING PLAN SO IT'S NOT THAT IT LOOSENED UP BY M JUST I WANT TO MAKE CLEAR THAT THIS IS ONE ORDINANCE THAT THEN IS KIND OF UNDERMINING OUR OTHER ORDINANCE. SO AGAIN, WHEN WE APPROACHED IT, IT WAS TO BE CONSISTENT WITH STATE LAW. IT DOESN'T MEAN THAT THE STATE OPENED IT UP. IT BASICALLY GAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO UNDERMINE OUR CURRENT STANDARDS. THEN THE OTHER PART IS WHATEVER DIRECTION THE BOARD IS LOOKING TO GO WITH. I KNOW YOU HAD MENTIONED TAKING AWAY THE 50%. I WOULD ASK FOR FURTHER CLARIFICATION AS TO ARE WE JUST OUTRIGHT ALLOWING 1,200 SQUARE FOOT AS LONG AS WE CAN? FITS AND MEETS ALL THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS REGARDLESS OF THE... IF IT FOLLOWS STATE LAW, YES. IF IT FOLLOWS STATE LAW. SO STATE LAW IS... STATE LAW IS ONE BED UP TO 850 SQUARE FEET. IS THAT WHAT YOU SAID? SO THAT'S CORRECT. SO CURRENTLY THE WAY THAT IT'S WRITTEN IS IF YOU HAVE A 800-SQUARE-FOOT HOUSE AND YOU SAID, I WANT AN ADU, I WOULD... THE DEPARTMENT WOULD... MANDATED TO ALLOW UP TO 850 SQUARE FEET. SO THAT 50% ISN'T CONSIDERED AT THAT POINT BECAUSE THE STATE IS MINIMUM OF 850. SO WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IS... SO IF THEY WANTED A TWO-BEDROOM HOUSE, WOULD IT BE 1,000 SQUARE FEET? YES, THAT'S CORRECT. SO WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT FOR A SINGLE-BEDROOM ADU, IF THE EXISTING STRUCTURE IS... ANYWHERE FROM, YOU KNOW, WHATEVER THE MINIMUM TO 1,700 SQUARE FEET, THEY'RE ALLOWED A SINGLE BEDROOM OF 850 SQUARE FOOT, REGARDLESS. THE 50% IS NOT A FACTOR. WELL, THAT WOULD BE HALF OF 01,700 SQUARE FOOT HOMES. RIGHT. THAT'S MY POINT. AND SO THEN ONCE YOU START GETTING UP INTO THIS 1,700 SQUARE FEET, THEN THE 50% APPLIES ALL THE WAY UP TO 02,500 PERCENT OR 22,400 SQUARE FEET. THEN AT THAT POINT YOU'RE 01,200. NO, I UNDERSTAND THAT. WHAT I'M LOOKING FOR IS IF YOU HAVE A, LET'S JUST SAY YOU HAVE A 02,200 SQUARE FOOT HOME, YOU COULDN'T GET A 1,200 SQUARE FOOT ADU RIGHT NOW WITH OUR COUNTY ORDINANCE, YOU COULD GET 1,100 SQUARE FOOT ADU. RIGHT. AND THAT'S, BUT CALIFORNIA STATE LAW SAYS YOU COULD HAVE A 01,200 SQUARE FOOT ADU. IF YOU HAD A 2,200 SQUARE FOOT HOME AND YOU WANTED TO PUT AN ADU ON IT, CALIFORNIA'S LAW IS OKAY WITH A 1,200 SQUARE FOOT ADU. A 1,200 SQUARE FOOT ADU WOULD FIT WITHIN STATE LAW. THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING. YES, I UNDERSTAND. I WANT TO TAKE THAT PART OUT OF THERE WHERE WE'RE RESTRICTIVE. ABSOLUTELY. CHRIS, COULD WE POTENTIALLY BIFURCATE THIS VOTE SUCH THAT WE CAN GET THIS COMPLIANCE WITH THE STATE LAW FOR ADUS, THAT ONE VOTE, AND THEN THE SECOND ONE WOULD BE TO CHANGE THE LANGUAGE OF OUR LOCAL ORDINANCE? I MEAN, WE COULD DO IT, ALAN, BUT I'VE BEEN WAITING THREE YEARS TO DO THAT. BUT I MEAN, IF YOU'VE GOT THE BOARD SUPPORT, THEN YOU'VE GOT IT, AND THEY'LL REDUCE IT TO 01,200. I'M JUST SAYING, I THINK WE SHOULD. INCREASE IT TO 1,200. YEAH, CORRECT. WHAT DID I SAY? YOU SAID DECREASE IT. DID I? YEAH. CAN WE JUST KEEP THEM IN TWO [03:35:03] PIECES SO THAT I CAN VOTE ON ONE AND I CAN VOTE ON THE SECOND AND YOU'LL PROBABLY GET BOARD SUPPORT. SEE, I MEAN, AND HERE'S MY FRUSTRATION BECAUSE I WAITED ON A CHICKEN ORDINANCE FOR TWO AND A HALF YEARS. TWO AND A HALF YEARS I WAITED ON A CHICKEN ORDINANCE AND I'VE BEEN WAITING ON THIS ORDINANCE FOR THREE YEARS. SO I'M NOT FORCING, OH, WE'LL PASS IT NOW AND TAKE ANOTHER LOOK AT IT. I MEAN, NOT THAT I'M COMPARING THE TEAM NOW TO THE TEAM THEN, BUT I TWO DIFFERENT MOTIONS. TWO DIFFERENT MOTIONS RIGHT NOW. STEPHANIE, DO YOU HAVE A MOTION WITH A SECOND? YES. I WAS TYPING VERY QUICKLY, I WAS ACTUALLY GOING TO ASK YOU TO CLARIFY BECAUSE THE FIRST MOTION THAT I HAVE IN MY NOTES WAS THAT YOU JUST WANTED IT BROUGHT BACK FOR THE PLANNING COMMISSION. AND THEN LATER ON IN THE DISCUSSION YOU HAD MENTIONED ABOUT REMOVING THE 50% NO, I WANT 50% OF THE EXISTING STRUCTURE TAKEN OUT OF THERE, THEN IT GOES BACK TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND I WANT TO BE THERE THAT DAY AND THEN IT'LL COME BACK. THAT'S WHAT I HAD. YEAH, OKAY. WAS THERE A SECOND ON THAT? YES, KEVIN SAID. THAT'S JUST ONE MOTION. PLUMBER. YEAH, AND I SUPPORT THAT, AND I THINK LET'S JUST GET IT THE WAY WE WANT IT AND THEN DO IT. BUT THE ONE QUESTION I HAD WAS THE 1,000-FOOT SITUATION IN THE ORDINANCE, BECAUSE THERE'S A COUPLE EXAMPLES OF THAT, AND IT SAYS DOES NOT EXCEED IN A FEW CASES. IS THAT ALSO AN ADDITIONAL? RESTRICTION OR IS THAT STATE LAW WHERE IT SAYS A THOUSAND THE WAY THAT THE STATE LAWS RISK OR THE WAY THAT ARE 50% OF THE EIGHT OF THE EXISTING SINGLE-FAMILY READ 850 SQUARE FOOT ADU IS ALLOWED OUTRIGHT REGARDLESS OF THAT 50% FOR A SINGLE BEDROOM AND A THOUSAND IS ALLOWED OUTRIGHT REGARDLESS OF THE CURRENTLY, I KNOW SHE WAS TOLD 945 SQUARE FOOT WAS HER AND AGAIN BEFORE YOUR TIME, BUT IT WAS THAT WAS WHAT SHE WAS TOLD NO, 945 SQUARE FEET IS HALF THE SIZE OF THE EXISTING STRUCTURE SO I MEAN YOU'RE SAYING STATE LAW SHOULD HAVE BEEN OUTRIGHT OF A THOUSAND FEET BUT I MEAN STATE LAW WOULD HAVE GIVEN HER 1200 FEET. I DON'T KNOW WHEN THAT WAS UPDATED SO I'M JUST BASING IT OFF OF I THINK THIS SO JUST TO BE CLEAR IN SECTION 3B UNDER YARDS, IT SAYS AN ATTACHED ADU AND THE OTHER TYPES MAY ENCROACH WITHIN A REQUIRED FRONT YARD PROVIDED THAT THE ADU DOES NOT EXCEED 800 SQUARE FEET IN SIZE OR IF MORE THAN ONE BEDROOM, 1,000 SQUARE FEET IN SIZE. SO IS THAT 1,000, THAT'S 3B. IS THAT JUST AROUND THE FRONT YARD REQUIREMENT OR ARE WE ADDING? AN ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT THAT AT THE THOUSAND SQUARE FOOT LEVEL. YES, SO THE FRONT YARD IS LIKE THE SETBACK FROM THE STREET. SO UNDER THE STATE LAW, I THINK IF IT'S WITHIN THE FRONT YARD, IT DOES ALLOW THAT LIMITATION TO BE 100 SQUARE FEET. THAT GETS TO JUST TRYING TO MAINTAIN SOME CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD THAT THESE ARE GOING IN, WHETHER THAT'S A RURAL NEIGHBORHOOD OR... SO THAT'S STATE LAW THAT'S LIMITING THE SIZE IF THERE'S AN ENCROACHMENT INTO THE FRONT YARD. IF IT ENCROACHES INTO A FRONT YARD, YES. OKAY. NOT, WHICH IS TO BE DISTINGUISHED BETWEEN WHETHER IT HAS TO BE TO THE REAR OR IN FRONT OF THE RESIDENCE. YOU COULD BE IN FRONT OF THE RESIDENCE BUT NOT ENCROACHING IN THAT FRONT YARD AREA. WE CALL IT A FRONT YARD. IT'S COMMONLY CALLED A SETBACK. SO, ARE YOU DOING GOOD AS A PLUMBER? YEAH, I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT IF WE'RE GOING TO CHANGE IT AND THAT THERE'S IF THERE'S OTHER THINGS IN THERE RELATED TO 1000 FEET THAT ISN'T PART OF STATE LAW THAT WE SHOULD ALSO ADDRESS THOSE THEN. SO I WAS JUST TRYING TO CLARIFY THAT. THAT'S CONSISTENT WITH STATE LAW. SUPERVISOR CRAIG. I WAS JUST GOING TO SUPPORT YOU AND THEN ALSO TELL SEAN AND MR. SALISBURY, THANK YOU GUYS. YOU GUYS ARE DOING GOOD WORK. I KNOW YOU'RE BRINGING IT FORWARD. THIS BOARD HAS TO MAKE THOSE DECISIONS AND SHOULDN'T TAKE TWO HOURS TO DO IT. THANK YOU. MS. BLANKENSHIP, DO WE HAVE ANY PUBLIC COMMENT ON THIS ITEM? I DID HAVE ONE. LET ME GET TO IT. AND I DON'T BELIEVE SHE'S HERE. IT WAS THE SHASTA COUNTY WATCHDOG AND SHE'S NOT HERE. SO NO. DARN IT. OKAY. SO I GUESS WE CAN BRING THIS BACK TO THE BOARD DISCUSSION, WHICH WE'VE ALREADY HAD. SO I HAVE A MOTION TO TAKE THE VERBIAGE OUT OF HALF THE SIZE OF THE EXISTING STRUCTURE AND KEEP EVERYTHING ELSE THE SAME, STAY WITHIN STATE LAWS. EVERYTHING ELSE YOU GUYS HAVE DONE TO COMPLETELY STAY THE SAME, BUT JUST TAKE THAT VERBIAGE OUT. AND I HAVE A SECOND. AND BRING IT BACK TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION. SORRY. CLARIFICATION, THAT WOULD BE FOR A DETACHED ADU, BECAUSE I DO BELIEVE THE STATE LAW [03:40:01] REQUIRES THAT AN ATTACHED BE 50% OF THE PRIMARY. OKAY, IF THE STATE LAW REQUIRES IT, THEN WE HAVE TO LIVE WITH THAT. THAT'S WHAT WE WANT TO MAKE. I APPRECIATE THAT, YEAH. WHATEVER STATE LAW SAYS, WE LIVE WITH THAT, BUT WE DON'T WANT TO BE ANYTHING MORE SUPERVISOR CRY. DO I NEED TO OPEN THIS PUBLIC HEARING, OR IS THIS... CHAIR, THERE ARE NO... TO SPEAK. OKAY, FANTASTIC. THEN WE CAN CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. NOW WE CAN COME BACK FOR ROLL CALL. LET'S DO ROLL CALL. SUPERVISOR LONG. WE CAN DO ROLL CALL. I JUST WANT TO PUT ON THE RECORD THAT ANYTHING RELATED TO THIS MATTER, THIS SCHEDULED HEARING IS ON FILE WITH THE CLERK OF THE BOARD. IT'S AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION UPON REQUEST. SUPERVISOR LONG? YES. SUPERVISOR HARMON? SUPERVISOR KELLSTROM? YES. SUPERVISOR CRY? 40 MINUTES AGO, YES. AND SUPERVISOR PLUMMER? YES. AND THANK YOU, LEO AND SEAN. I APPRECIATE YOU GUYS VERY [R7 Conduct a public hearing and receive a presentation regarding the status of vacancies and recruitment and retention efforts, in accordance with Government Code Section 3502.3.] MUCH. I HOPE I DIDN'T CAUSE YOU TOO MUCH TROUBLE OR TOO MUCH WORK, BUT I APPRECIATE THE WORK YOU DID. OKAY, MOVING ON. THEY HUNG AROUND ALL MORNING. THE PUBLIC HEARING RECEIVED A PRESENTATION REGARDING THE STATUS OF VACANCIES AND RECRUITMENT AND RETENTION EFFORTS IN ACCORDANCE WITH GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 3502, MS. FUGIT. GOT IT, YES, YOU DID. GOOD JOB. GOOD AFTERNOON, CHAIR KALLSTROM, MEMBERS OF THE BOARD, MONICA FUGATE, DIRECTOR OF SUPPORT SERVICES. I AM HERE TO MAKE A PRESENTATION TODAY IN ACCORDANCE WITH GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 3502.3. AND WHAT THIS NEW GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION STATES IS THAT ANNUALLY WE WILL MAKE A PRESENTATION DURING A PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE BOARD. AT LEAST ONCE PER FISCAL YEAR REGARDING THE STATUS OF OUR VACANCIES, RECRUITMENT AND RETENTION EFFORTS, AND NECESSARY CHANGES TO POLICIES, PROCEDURES, AND RECRUITMENT ACTIVITIES THAT COULD LEAD TO OBSTACLES IN OUR HIRING PROCESS. IT ALSO PROVIDES THAT IT SHALL BE MADE PRIOR TO ADOPTION OF THE FINAL BUDGET, WHICH IS WHY WE'RE HERE AT THIS MEETING TODAY IN ADVANCE OF THE BUDGET HEARINGS, AND THAT RECOGNIZED EMPLOYEE ORGANIZATIONS ARE ENTITLED TO MAKE A PRESENTATION DURING THE PUBLIC HEARING. IN ORDER TO MEET THIS REQUIREMENT, I HAVE NOTIFIED ALL EMPLOYEE ORGANIZATIONS OF THIS PUBLIC HEARING AND THEIR ABILITY TO MAKE A PRESENTATION. AS OF THIS POINT IN TIME, NO EMPLOYEE ORGANIZATIONS HAVE NOTIFIED ME OF THEIR INTENT TO MAKE A PRESENTATION DURING THE PUBLIC HEARING. ADDITIONALLY, IF ANY ORGANIZATION'S VACANCY RATE EXCEEDS 20%, THE COUNTY'S PRESENTATION MUST INCLUDE THE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION DESCRIBED HERE IF REQUESTED. SO LOOKING AT THE STATISTICS AS OF THE PAY PERIOD ENDING MAY 2ND, THE COUNTY HAS A TOTAL OF 2,072 FULL-TIME EQUIVALENT POSITIONS WITH 1,754 OF THEM FILLED. THIS EQUATES TO AN OVERALL 15.3% VACANCY RATE. THIS TIME LAST YEAR, IT WAS AT 14.5%. IT IS ALSO WORTH NOTING THAT THE INFORMATION AND THE STATISTICS I'M PRESENTING TO YOU TODAY DO NOT INCLUDE TEMPORARY EXTRA HELP OR VOLUNTEER POSITIONS AS THEY'RE NOT ALLOCATED. YOU WILL NOTE THAT THE ONLY UNIT IN EXCESS OF 20% IS THE DEPUTY CORONER INVESTIGATOR UNIT, WHICH IS UNIQUE BECAUSE THEY ONLY HAVE FOUR POSITIONS, SO ONE VACANCY EQUALS A 25% VACANCY RATE. THERE IS A CANDIDATE CURRENTLY IN BACKGROUND TO FILL THE VACANCY, AND WHILE THAT UNIT IS OVER THE 20%, THE UNION HAS NOT REQUESTED ADDITIONAL INFORMATION BE PROVIDED IN THIS PRESENTATION. ASIDE FROM THE DEPUTY CORONER INVESTIGATOR UNIT, THE UNITS WITH THE HIGHEST VACANCY RATE INCLUDE THE UNITED PUBLIC EMPLOYEES OF CALIFORNIA LOCAL 792 GENERAL AND PROFESSIONAL UNITS. WE'LL TOUCH ON THIS A BIT MORE. SO LOOKING AT THIS SLIDE, THIS PROVIDES A THREE-YEAR COMPARISON OF VACANCY RATES. I DO THINK, THOUGH, IT IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT THESE RATES REFLECT A POINT IN TIME AND THAT THE VACANCY RATES IN AND OF THEMSELVES ARE INSUFFICIENT TO REALLY BE ABLE TO DRAW A CONCLUSION. ABOUT THE SUCCESS IN RECRUITMENT AND RETENTION. AND YOU'LL SEE AS WE PROCEED THAT I PROVIDED SOME ADDITIONAL INFORMATION TO HELP KIND OF FILL THE GAPS AND PROVIDE SOME INFORMATION TO DRAW SOME CONCLUSIONS. IT IS ALSO POSSIBLE THAT THERE CAN BE SWINGS IN VACANCY RATES THROUGHOUT A YEAR AS POSITIONS VACATE AND ARE FILLED OR AS POSITIONS ARE ADDED AND DELETED IN BUDGET AND MID-YEAR. THIS DOES, THOUGH, HOWEVER, GIVE YOU AN IDEA OF THE VACANCY RATES AND HOW THEY TREND RELATIVE TO THE OTHER UNITS. A COUPLE OF OBSERVATIONS RIGHT NOW. THE PROFESSIONAL UNIT'S AT 19.4% AND LIKELY HIGHER TODAY AFTER A FEW RECENT RESIGNATIONS OF ATTORNEYS IN THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE. THESE UNITS TEND TO HAVE A HIGHER VACANCY RATE OVERALL AS THE POSITIONS REQUIRE PROFESSIONAL CERTIFICATIONS AND OR LICENSURE. [03:45:02] THOSE TYPES OF CANDIDATES IN GENERAL, EVEN ATTORNEYS ASIDE, ARE IN HIGH DEMAND ACROSS THE STATE AND OFTEN WE ARE COMPETING WITH PRIVATE SECTOR. YOU'LL ALSO NOTE THE GENERAL UNIT IS UP TO A 19% VACANCY RATE. WHILE THIS IS HIGH AS WELL, IT IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT HHSA HAS BEEN PULLING BACK ON SOME OF THEIR RECRUITMENTS, AND THEY'VE BEEN IN A HIRING FREEZE FOR SOME TIME. HHSA DOES ACCOUNT FOR HALF OF OUR ALLOCATIONS APPROXIMATELY, AND THE GENERAL UNIT IS ALSO OUR LARGEST BARGAINING UNIT. SO THIS TENDS TO RISE TO A HIGHER THAN TYPICAL VACANCY RATE. WHICH IS AT LEAST PARTIALLY ATTRIBUTED TO THAT HIRING FREEZE AND NOT NECESSARILY AN INDICATOR OF GREATER RECRUITMENT AND RETENTION CHALLENGES. TYPICALLY, THE POSITIONS IN THIS UNIT ARE GOING TO BE YOUR MORE ENTRY-LEVEL POSITIONS WITH LOWER CRITERIA TO ENTER THOSE POSITIONS. SO WE TEND TO HAVE GREATER SUCCESS IN THE RECRUITMENT. SO WE'LL TOUCH ON SEPARATIONS HERE IN THIS NEXT SLIDE, AND I THINK THAT SPEAKS TO THE RETENTION. SO AS YOU'LL SEE BEFORE YOU, A TOTAL OF SEPARATIONS BY CALENDAR YEAR FROM 2023 THROUGH 2025 AND THEN 2026 YEAR TO DATE. SO IT IS NOTABLE THAT THERE'S BEEN A SIGNIFICANT DECREASE IN SEPARATIONS FROM 2024 TO 2025, WHICH SPEAKS TO THE RETENTION. SO THAT DOES MEAN THAT MORE EMPLOYEES ARE CHOOSING TO STAY WITH THE COUNTY THAN THEY HAVE OVER THE PRIOR YEARS. THAT COULD BE DUE TO A VARIETY OF FACTORS. IT DOESN'T NECESSARILY MEAN THAT THEY'RE NOT MOVING AROUND WITHIN BARGAINING OR THAT THEY'RE NOT. BUT THERE ARE FEWER THAT ARE EXITING. WOULD YOU MIND EXPANDING ON THE FACTORS OF WHY PEOPLE ARE STAYING MORE THAN IN YEARS? WE SO. I THINK, AND I KNOW IT'S SPECULATIVE, I KNOW YOU CAN'T SPEAK FOR THE SHERIFF, BUT WHAT DO YOU THINK AS THE HR DIRECTOR? I THINK THAT YOU'RE GOING TO TEND TO SEE THAT AS THINGS TIGHTEN UP IN TERMS OF OUR BUDGET AND THE ECONOMY, THAT PEOPLE TEND TO STAY, RIGHT? AND THEY'RE GOING TO BE MORE HESITANT TO LEAVE THE ORGANIZATION. HOW MUCH DOES CULTURE PLAY INTO THAT? WELL, THAT'S DIFFICULT FOR ME TO MEASURE. IN GENERAL? HOW IMPORTANT IS CULTURE TO A WORKPLACE ENVIRONMENT, IN YOUR OPINION? EXTREMELY IMPORTANT. OKAY, THANK YOU. OKAY, SO THE LARGEST NUMBER OF SEPARATIONS THAT YOU CAN SEE HERE ARE IN UPEC GENERAL, IN THE PROFESSIONAL UNIT, AND THE TEAMSTERS SUPERVISOR UNIT. THIS IS WHAT I WOULD EXPECT TO SEE. THESE ARE THE LARGEST BARGAINING UNITS IN THAT SAME ORDER. HOWEVER, EVEN FOR THOSE UNITS, YOU'LL SEE THEY HAVE TRENDED DOWNWARD. I DO WANT TO NOTE AND CALL OUT AS WE PROCEED THAT I DID NOTE A FEW MINOR DISCREPANCIES IN THE TOTALS BETWEEN THIS SLIDE AND THE NEXT. I WANT TO CALL THAT OUT TO LET YOU KNOW I HAVE REVIEWED THAT. IT IS IMMATERIAL IN THE PRESENTATION HERE, AND I DO STILL BELIEVE THAT THIS PROVIDES YOU THE INFORMATION TO BE ABLE TO REALLY JUST EVALUATE THE REASONS FOR SEPARATION AND THE RELATIVE RATE OF SEPARATION FOR THESE UNITS. OKAY, SO GETTING INTO SOME OF THE REASONS WHY PEOPLE MIGHT BE LEAVING. THIS BREAKS IT DOWN BY A SEPARATION REASON. AND WHAT WE'VE SEEN IS THAT TYPICALLY OTHER EMPLOYMENT TENDS TO BE ONE OF THE HIGHEST REASONS WHY PEOPLE ARE LEAVING THE ORGANIZATION. BUT THAT PERCENTAGE OF EMPLOYEES WHO ARE LEAVING FOR OTHER EMPLOYMENT HAS DECREASED. KEEP IN MIND THIS IS NOT A PERFECT SYSTEM. THIS INFORMATION IS BASED UPON WHAT THE EMPLOYEE IDENTIFIES IN THEIR SEPARATION PACKET. SO IT RELIES ON THEM PROVIDING THAT INFORMATION TO US. SOMEONE MAY SELECT, FOR EXAMPLE, OTHER AS A REASON, AND THEY MAY HAVE A DIFFERENT REASON THAT THEY WERE NOT PUTTING ON THIS. SO I JUST WANT TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT, BUT ALSO JUST PRESENT WHAT WE HAVE HERE FOR YOU. IN GENERAL, AGAIN, THESE SEPARATIONS ARE TRENDING DOWNWARD, THE HIGHEST REASONS BEING OTHER EMPLOYMENT, RETIREMENT, AND THIS YEAR, VOLUNTARY QUIT FOR OTHER REASONS. SO THE RECRUITMENT PROCESS, IT IS LENGTHY. WE ESTIMATE IT TAKES APPROXIMATELY THREE MONTHS TO WORK YOUR WAY THROUGH THE ENTIRE PROCESS. IT VARIES GREATLY BASED UPON THE POSITION. IF IT'S A SAFETY POSITION, FOR EXAMPLE, IT MAY TAKE LONGER BECAUSE THERE'S TESTING AND BACKGROUND PROCESSES THAT ARE EXTENSIVE. LOOKING AT THE RECRUITMENT STATISTICS, WHILE THE NUMBER OF SEPARATIONS MAY BE DECREASING, OUR NUMBER OF RECRUITMENTS IS HELD PRETTY STEADY. IT'S DIFFICULT TO IDENTIFY THE [03:50:01] SPECIFIC CAUSE OF THIS. THIS COULD MEAN THAT WE ARE HAVING FEWER SUCCESSFUL RECRUITMENTS. IT ALSO COULD BE THAT THERE'S A DIFFERENT RATIO OF TYPES OF POSITIONS THAT ARE BEING RUN. SO IF THE SAME TYPE OF POSITION IS BEING RAN MULTIPLE TIMES AND THEY CAN USE AN ELIGIBLE LIST, NOW TODAY, LOOKING AT THAT INFORMATION, WE MAY NEED TO RUN MORE RECRUITMENTS BECAUSE THERE'S A DIFFERENT NUMBER THAT ARE BEING VACATED. THE NUMBER OF APPLICANTS HAS DECREASED SLIGHTLY, HOWEVER, THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE INVITED TO PARTICIPATE IN INTERVIEWS IS ACTUALLY UP, WHICH TELLS ME THAT WE HAVE MORE QUALIFIED APPLICANTS THAT ARE MOVING THROUGH THAT PROCESS. LOOKING AT THE NEW HIRES, PROMOTIONS AND DEMOTIONS, WHEN A RECRUITMENT IS RUN, IT IS RAN AS EITHER AN INTERNAL DEPARTMENT ONLY, COUNTY ONLY, OR AS AN OPEN RECRUITMENT. WHILE WE'RE EXCITED TO ALWAYS BRING PEOPLE NEW PEOPLE INTO COUNTY EMPLOYMENT YOU'LL ALSO NOTE THAT WE DO HAVE A FOCUS ON INTERNAL PROMOTIONS. OKAY. IT IS ALSO WORTH NOTING THAT PROMOTIONS WOULD INCLUDE PROMOTIONS NOT NECESSARILY ASSOCIATED WITH THE RECRUITMENT. SO WHILE THAT NUMBER MAY SEEM A LITTLE HIGH, YOU HAVE ALTERNATELY STAFFED RECRUITMENTS LIKE AN OFFICE ASSISTANT, ONE, TWO, FOR EXAMPLE, WHERE WITHIN A YEAR SOMEONE CAN PROMOTE WITHOUT APPLYING AGAIN. SO WE CAN'T REALLY PARSE THOSE OUT, SO I JUST POINT THAT OUT FOR YOUR INFORMATION. LOOKING AT RECRUITMENT AND RETENTION EFFORTS. WE HAVE, OVER THE LAST YEAR, REALLY LEVERAGED OUR USE OF NEOGOV'S ATTRACT SOFTWARE. IT ALLOWS US TO CREATE CANDIDATE POOLS AND COLLECT INTEREST FORMS FROM POTENTIAL CANDIDATES AT EVENTS WE ATTEND. WE'VE COLLECTED A TOTAL OF 621 FORMS OVER THE LAST YEAR. WE HAVE SENT OUT 9,275 EMAILS OVER THE LAST YEAR TO CANDIDATES WHO MAY BE QUALIFIED FOR DIFFERENT POSITIONS WITH A RELATIVELY DECENT SUCCESS RATE IN TERMS OF AT LEAST THEIR ENGAGEMENT, WHICH IS THAT THEY OPENED IT. YOU'LL SEE WE'LL GET INTO IN JUST A MOMENT ALSO THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE WHO ACTUALLY FOLLOW THROUGH IS MUCH LESS, BUT WE'RE GETTING IN FRONT OF MORE PEOPLE, RIGHT? SO IF YOU LOOK AT THE ANALYTICS DOWN AT THE BOTTOM OF THIS SLIDE, 10% OF THE APPLICATIONS WE'RE RECEIVING ARE BECAUSE OF ATTRACT CAMPAIGNS AND BECAUSE OF THOSE EMAILS. 563 APPROXIMATELY APPLICATIONS ARE RECEIVED VIA ATTRACT. AND THERE'S 197 PEOPLE WHO MADE IT ALL THE WAY THROUGH THE RECRUITMENT PROCESS. AND WERE PLACED ON AN ELIGIBLE LIST. SO THAT'S A PRETTY, THAT'S A GOOD STATISTIC FOR US, AND THOSE ARE PEOPLE THAT WE MAY NOT HAVE REACHED OTHERWISE. WE ALSO HAVE BEEN CREATING PAGES, LANDING PAGES, FOR EVENTS THAT WE HOST, AS WELL AS FOR CAREER SERIES TO PROVIDE MORE INFORMATION TO OUR CANDIDATES. OKAY. OTHER EFFORTS, WE HAVE TWO DEDICATED OUTREACH STAFF AND PERSONNEL. OVER THE LAST YEAR, WE HAVE INCREASED THE NUMBER OF EVENTS THAT WE ARE ATTENDING FROM 28 TO 37, AND WE'VE ALSO SHIFTED OUR FOCUS TO BE MORE COLLEGE-FOCUSED. SO THE PRIOR YEAR, WE HAD A LITTLE BIT BIGGER PRESENCE IN HIGH SCHOOLS, AND WE'RE STILL ATTENDING SOME EVENTS AND JOB FAIRS AND THINGS OF THAT NATURE, BUT WE'RE REALLY TRYING TO GET OUT TO COMMUNITY COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES IN SOUTHERN OREGON AND NORTHERN CALIFORNIA. AND WE'VE MADE SOME REALLY GOOD CONTACTS THAT WILL CONTINUE TO ATTEND THESE EVENTS IN THE FUTURE. THESE STAFF ALSO MEET WITH CURRENT AND POTENTIAL EMPLOYEES AND CONDUCT CAREER EXPLORATION MEETINGS. THEY REVIEW RESUMES AND WORK HISTORY AND PROVIDE OPPORTUNITIES FOR MOCK INTERVIEWS FOR THE PUBLIC. THIS IS AVAILABLE TO CURRENT EMPLOYEES AS WELL AS MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC WHO MAY BE JUST TRYING TO GET INTO COUNTY EMPLOYMENT. IT'S ON DEMAND, AND WE DO PUT THIS INFORMATION OUT THERE AND TRY TO ENCOURAGE PEOPLE TO USE IT. WE HAVE SEEN A... SLIGHT INCREASE IN THE NUMBER OF REQUESTS. WE'VE ALSO SEEN THAT THE FOLKS WHO FOLLOW THROUGH ON THESE MEETINGS TEND TO HAVE A HIGHER SUCCESS RATE IN FINDING COUNTY EMPLOYMENT BECAUSE THEY'RE PRETTY MOTIVATED BY THE TIME THEY'VE SPENT THE TIME TO COME IN AND WORK WITH OUR STAFF. LOOKING AT SPECIFIC BARGAINING UNITS, UPEC, LOCAL 792 PROFESSIONAL UNIT, WE DID AMEND THE HIRING SIGN-ON BONUS FOR THE DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY AND PUBLIC DEFENDERS. AND THAT WAS YOU IT WAS LARGELY PROMPTED BY A CHANGE IN LAW, BUT IT DID ALSO REDUCE THE TIME COMMITMENT ASSOCIATED WITH A SIGN-ON BONUS FROM THREE YEARS TO TWO YEARS. SO THAT'S WORTH NOTING. LAST YEAR, WE ADDED A LAW CLERK CLASSIFICATION, WHICH WE HAVE STARTED TO RECRUIT FOR AS LAW SCHOOLS ARE COMING TO A CLOSE HERE AND PEOPLE ARE PENDING THEIR BAR RESULTS. THIS IS VERY MUCH DRIVEN BY THE DEPARTMENTS BEING THE PUBLIC DEFENDER, COUNTY COUNCIL. DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, AND WE'RE HAPPY TO SEE THEM USING THAT AND SUPPORTING THAT. [03:55:01] WE HAVE DONE SOME ADDITIONAL OUTREACH TO LAW SCHOOLS. WE'VE HAD THOSE OUTREACH STAFF THAT I DISCUSSED PREVIOUSLY HAVE ATTENDED IN PERSON MULTIPLE LAW SCHOOLS OVER THE LAST YEAR, WHICH WERE REFLECTED IN THE STATISTICS I PROVIDED. AND THEN LAST, WE CREATED A NEW HIRING BONUS FOR THE CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGIST, AND THAT IS A $15,000 HIRING. THE DEPUTY SHERIFF'S ASSOCIATION, AGAIN, WE MODIFIED THE SIGN-ON BONUS TO BE CONSISTENT WITH LAW, WHICH DECREASED THE TIME COMMITMENT FROM THREE YEARS TO TWO YEARS AND EXTENDED THOSE HIRING SIGN-ON BONUSES AS WELL AS THE REFERRAL PROGRAM. OKAY, LOOKING AHEAD TO THE NEXT YEAR. WE ARE ALWAYS LOOKING FOR WAYS TO IMPROVE AND ATTRACT NEW CANDIDATES. WE TALKED ABOUT THE ATTRACT MODULE. WE'RE GOING TO CONTINUE TO UTILIZE THAT AND FIND WAYS TO REALLY LEVERAGE THOSE CAMPAIGNS TO GET IN FRONT OF GOOD CANDIDATES AND DRIVE THEM TO OUR JOB POSTINGS. WE HAVE MADE EFFORTS TO CREATE CAREER-SPECIFIC LANDING PAGES, AND WE'LL CONTINUE TO DO THAT AS WE LOOK AHEAD. AN EXAMPLE WAS THE SOCIAL WORKER SERIES. IT DESCRIBES ALL THE DIFFERENT TYPES OF ASSIGNMENTS THAT ARE AVAILABLE WITHIN THE COUNTY, CAREER LADDERS. JUST TO ADD SOME CONTEXT TO WHY SOMEONE MIGHT WANT TO WORK IN A SPECIFIC POSITION IN FORT SHASTA COUNTY. SO WE'LL CONTINUE TO EXPAND OUR EFFORTS THERE. WE'RE ALSO GOING TO CONTINUE TO REVIEW CLASSIFICATIONS WITH DEPARTMENTS. RIGHT NOW IT'S LARGELY BY REQUEST, BUT WE'RE MOVING TOWARDS HAVING A MORE REGULAR REVIEW PROCESS. AND WE THINK THAT'S IMPORTANT TO ENSURE THAT THOSE ARE AN ACCURATE REFLECTION OF THE WORK THAT IS BEING PERFORMED BY THE POSITION. WE'RE WORKING TOWARDS CENTRALIZING ELIGIBLE LISTS, EXCEPT UNDER SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES WHEN REQUESTED BY A DEPARTMENT. WE HAVE CONTINUED TO PROMOTE THIS OVER THE LAST YEAR. IT STREAMLINES RECRUITMENT PROCESSES. IT REDUCES THE NUMBER OF RECRUITMENTS, AND IT CAN EXPEDITE THE HIRING PROCESS IF THE DEPARTMENT USES A LIST. AND THEN LAST, BUT CERTAINLY NOT LEAST, WE'RE GOING TO BE CONTINUING TO TEST OUT DIFFERENT FORMATS OF JOB FLYERS SO WE CAN ENTICE OUR CANDIDATES. SO WITH THAT, I HAVE MORE THAN ENOUGH INFORMATION. IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, I'M HAPPY TO RECEIVE THAT. THANK YOU SO MUCH. SUPERVISOR CRYE. GREAT PRESENTATION, MONICA. I THINK IT'S NOT JUST THOROUGH, BUT IT'S VERY POIGNANT. AND THE EFFORT YOUR TEAM HAS PUT. AND WORKING WITH THE OTHER DEPARTMENTS AND I DON'T TALK TO THEM A LOT I ALWAYS GO THROUGH CEO RICKER BECAUSE THAT'S OUR PROTOCOL BUT WHEN THINGS COME UP ESPECIALLY WITH THE THE SO THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE I JUST APPRECIATE YOUR DILIGENCE TO CONTINUE TO TRY AND PARE THINGS DOWN BUT UNDERSTAND THERE'S A LOT OF WORK THAT NEEDS TO BE DONE BUT DO IT AS LEAN AS POSSIBLE AND YOUR BELIEF AND UNDERSTANDING ABOUT HOW IMPORTANT CULTURE IS TO THE WORKPLACE ESPECIALLY WITH 2,000 EMPLOYEES I MEAN I'M WEARING A MY SPORTS TEAM JERSEY BECAUSE IT'S SOMETHING YOUR DEPARTMENT INITIATED AND I'D MUCH RATHER WEAR A TIE, BUT I SUPPORT YOUR EFFORTS. SO HERE I AM WEARING A JERSEY. SO THANK YOU. THANK YOU. AND WHAT IS TOMORROW? I KNOW WEDNESDAY IS WHAT RED, WHITE AND BLUE DAY. HOLD ON. I'LL TELL YOU. SUPPORT A CAUSE DAY. NO, WE COULD HAVE SAID SOMETHING ELSE LIKE OVERALLS AND LIKE A BUCKET HAT. WE CAN BREAK OUT OUR BODIE T-SHIRTS AGAIN. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU AGAIN. THANK YOU SO MUCH, MONICA. GREAT PRESENTATION. ANYBODY ELSE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? MOVING ON. AWESOME. THANK YOU SO MUCH. THIS IS A SCHEDULED HEARING, SO WE'LL NEED TO OPEN IT UP. OKAY. THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS WILL NOW RECESS AND CONVENE. CHAIR KALLSTROM. SORRY, CHAIR KALLSTROM. THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING. OH, WE DON'T HAVE ANY PUBLIC COMMENTS. WE DON'T, BUT YOU STILL NEED TO OPEN IT. IT'S NOW OPEN. THANK YOU. AND WE DON'T HAVE ANY REQUESTS TO SPEAK, BUT ONE THING I'LL SAY, ANY CORRESPONDENCE RELATED TO THIS MATTER IS ON FILE WITH THE CLERK OF THE BOARD. IT'S AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION UPON REQUEST. FANTASTIC. NOW WE'LL CLOSE IT. ALL RIGHT. NOW WE GO TO THE HOUSE. THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS WILL NOW CONVENE AS THE SHASTA COUNTY HOUSING AUTHORITY. THE SHASTA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS WILL RECEIVE ANY ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION OR STIPEND FOR ACTING AS THE SHASTA COUNTY HOUSING AUTHORITY. PUBLIC COMMENT, OPEN TIME. MS. BISHOP, HAVE WE RECEIVED ANY REQUESTS TO SPEAK? WE HAVE NOT, CHAIR. OKAY. WITH THAT, I WILL NOW LOOK FOR A MOTION AND A SECOND TO APPROVE THE CONSENT CALENDAR. MOTION MADE BY SUPERVISOR CRYE. DO I HAVE A SECOND? I HAD ONE QUESTION ON THIS. OKAY. I HAD A QUESTION FOR STAFF ON THIS. ON C1 OR C2? C2. C2. HI, JOHN. THANK YOU. JUST REGARDING C2, COULD YOU JUST ELABORATE A BIT MORE IN TERMS OF THIS INCREASE [04:00:01] IN APPROPRIATIONS TO THE BUDGET FOR CODING TIME? AND JUST FOR CLARIFICATION, ARE YOU PULLING THIS ITEM OR IS THIS GOING TO JUST BE A BRIEF RESPONSE? JUST A BRIEF RESPONSE, YES. OKAY. I APOLOGIZE. I DID NOT KNOW IT WAS. THANK YOU, EMILY. I'LL TAKE THIS ONE. MORNING, MY NAME IS A QUESTION FOR THE INCREASED SUPERVISOR PLUMBER. WE THINK IT'S MOSTLY DUE TO A COUPLE OF OPTIONS. ONE IS THAT YOU'RE GOING TO SEE COMING TO THE BOARD SHORTLY OUR NEW ADMIN PLAN. SO THIS IS THE ANNUAL PLAN TODAY. ADMIN PLANS TAKING QUITE A BIT OF WORK BECAUSE WE HAVE TO UPDATE. TO GO WITH HOT HOT MAN INSPIRE STANDARDS AND SO IT'S TAKEN INCREASED TIME FROM OUR HOUSING AUTHORITY OKAY THANK YOU AND THE SECOND THING ON THAT YOU'RE GOING TO SEE OUR FAMILY SELF-SUFFICIENCY PROGRAM HAS ALSO INCREASED A BIT THIS YEAR AND THAT ALSO CHARGES TO THE 593 BUDGET HOUSING AUTHORITY BUDGET THANK YOU SO WE HAVE A MOTION ALL RIGHT. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? AYE. ANY OPPOSED? PASSES 5-0. OKAY. SO NOW WE ARE GOING TO THE PUBLIC SCHEDULED HEARING. OKAY. NOW WE HAVE THE... THAT WAS CONSENT. THAT WAS JUST A PERSON. OKAY. SO NOW WE ARE OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. WE NEED A PRESENTATION. ARE WE HAVING A PRESENTATION? OH, THERE WE GO. ALL RIGHT. THAT'S WHAT WAS CONFUSING ME. SO GOOD AFTERNOON CHAIRMAN KALLSTROM, FELLOW BOARD MEMBERS, JOHN TAYLOR, BRANCH DIRECTOR FOR ECONOMIC MOBILITY BRANCH OF HHSA, AND BEFORE YOU TODAY IS A REQUEST TO ADOPT A RESOLUTION FOR A PUBLIC HOUSING AGENCY, OR PHA, ANNUAL PLAN FOR FISCAL YEAR 26-27 FOR THE SHASTA COUNTY HOUSING AUTHORITY. THE PLAN SATISFIES THE ANNUAL REQUIREMENTS SET FORTH BY THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, OR HUD, AND ALLOWS US TO MAINTAIN OUR HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHER. RENTAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM. THIS ALSO DESIGNATES SIGNING AUTHORITY TO OUR SHASTA COUNTY DIRECTOR OF HOUSING AUTHORITY OR THEIR DESIGNEE TO SIGN REQUIRED FORMS AND OR CERTIFICATIONS. THE HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHER PROGRAM PROVIDES MONTHLY RENTAL ASSISTANCE DIRECTLY TO LANDLORDS ON BEHALF OF THE CLIENTS WE WORK WITH. THERE ARE CURRENTLY 1,055 TENANT-BASED VOUCHERS, AND 859 HOUSEHOLDS RECEIVED RENTAL ASSISTANCE IN 2025 IN OUR FOUR-COUNTY REGION. WHICH INCLUDES MODOC, SISKIYOU, TRINITY, AND CHASTITY COUNTY. THE PLAN INCLUDES ONE PROPOSED AMENDMENT, A REVISION IN THE WAITING LIST PREFERENCES TO GIVE HIGH PREFERENCE TO HOUSEHOLDS LIVING WITHIN THE PHA'S JURISDICTION. IT ALSO INCLUDES THE PROJECT-BASED VOUCHERS FOR SUNRISE COTTAGES IN THE CITY OF ANDERSON. OF NOTE, THE HOUSING AUTHORITY RECEIVED A SCORE OF 96 ON THEIR SECTION 8 MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT PROGRAM REVIEW. MAKING THEM A HIGH-PERFORMING HOUSING AUTHORITY, AND THERE WERE NO FINDINGS IN THE MOST RECENT FISCAL YEAR AUDIT. THIS CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION, AND I'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, JOHN. I GUESS WITH THAT, I'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. CALL FOR ANY PUBLIC COMMENT. DO WE HAVE ANY PUBLIC COMMENT? WE DON'T HAVE ANY PUBLIC COMMENT. AND LIKE I SAID, FOR ALL THE OTHER SCHEDULED HEARINGS, ANY CORRESPONDENCE RELATED TO THIS MATTER IS ON FILE WITH THE CLERK OF THE BOARD. OKAY. AND THEN I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING, AND I'LL BRING IT BACK FOR BOARD DISCUSSION. ANY BOARD DISCUSSION? MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE. AND I'LL HAVE A SECOND. MOTION MADE BY SUPERVISOR CRY, SECONDED BY SUPERVISOR LONG. WE CAN JUST BE OPPOSED. ABSTENTION. OKAY. IS IT GOING TO BE YOU AGAIN, JOHN, OR SOMEBODY ELSE? R2? R2 WILL BE COMMENCED ON THURSDAY, JUNE 11TH. OH, I'M SORRY. I GUESS I SHOULD READ THE WHOLE THING. THANK YOU, JOHN. APPRECIATE YOU. NEXT ON THE AGENDA IS ITEM R2, A SCHEDULED HEARING REGARDING THE HOUSING AUTHORITY'S BUDGET, WHICH WILL COMMENCE ON THURSDAY, JUNE 11TH, 2026 AT 9 A.M. OR AS SOON THEREAFTER AS MAY BE HEARD AND MAY CONTINUE FROM DAY TO DAY UNTIL BUDGET HEARINGS ARE CONCLUDED BUT NOT TO EXCEED A TOTAL OF 14 CALENDAR DAYS. WITH THAT, THE SHASTA COUNTY HOUSING AGENCY WILL RECESS AND CONTINUE TO THURSDAY, JUNE 11TH. 2026 AT 9 A.M. AS SOON THEREAFTER AS POSSIBLE. IHSS, WE WILL NOW CONVENE IN THE IN-HOME SUPPORT SERVICES PUBLIC AUTHORITY GOVERNING BOARD. THE SHASTA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS DOES NOT RECEIVE ANY ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION OR STIPEND FOR ACTING AS A SHASTA COUNTY IN-HOME SUPPORT SERVICES PUBLIC AUTHORITY GOVERNING BOARD. FIRST ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS PUBLIC COMMENT. OPEN TIME IS BLANK. DO WE HAVE ANY REQUESTS TO SPEAK? WE DO NOT, CHAIR. OKAY, I'LL NOW LOOK FOR MOTION ANY SECOND TO APPROVE THE CONSENT CALENDAR [04:05:03] MOTION MADE BY SUPERVISOR CRY, SECONDED BY SUPERVISOR LONG, ANY OPPOSED? PASSES 5-0. NEXT ON THE AGENDA IS ITEM R1, THE SCHEDULED HEARING REGARDING IHSS ANNUAL BUDGET HEARINGS, WHICH WILL COMMENCE ON THURSDAY, JUNE 11, 2026 AT 9 A.M. OR AS SOON THEREAFTER AS MAY BE HEARD AND MAY CONTINUE FROM DAY TO DAY UNTIL BUDGET HEARINGS ARE CONCLUDED BUT NOT TO EXCEED A TOTAL OF 14 CALENDAR DAYS. WITH THAT, THE SHASTA COUNTY IHSS PUBLIC AUTHORITY GOVERNING BOARD WILL RECESS. AND CONTINUE TO THURSDAY, JUNE 11, 2026 AT 9 A.M. OR AS SOON THEREAFTER. WATER AGENCY. WE WILL NOW CONVENE AS A SHASTA COUNTY WATER AGENCY. THE SHASTA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS DOES NOT RECEIVE ANY ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION OR STIPEND FOR ACTING AS A SHASTA COUNTY WATER AGENCY. FIRST ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS PUBLIC COMMENT. OPEN TIME IS BLANKISHIP. DO WE HAVE ANY REQUESTS TO SPEAK? WE DO NOT. WE DO NOT. AND WE HAVE ALL CORRESPONDENCE. ANY CORRESPONDENCE RELATED TO WE DON'T HAVE A SCHEDULED HEARING RIGHT NOW. OKAY. I'LL NOW LOOK FOR A MOTION IN A SECOND TO APPROVE THE CONSENT CALENDAR. MOTION BY SUPERVISOR LONG, SECOND BY SUPERVISOR CRY. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? ANY OPPOSED? PASSES 5-0. NEXT ON THE AGENDA IS ITEM R1, THURSDAY, JUNE 11, 2026 AT 9 A.M. OR AS SOON THEREAFTER AS MAY BE HEARD. IT MAY CONTINUE FROM DAY TO DAY UNTIL BUDGET HEARINGS ARE CONCLUDED, BUT NOT TO EXCEED A TOTAL OF [R8 This public hearing will commence Tuesday, June 9, 2026 at 9:00 a.m. FISCAL YEAR (FY) 2026-27 BUDGET HEARINGS The Board of Supervisors welcomes you to its Fiscal Year 2026-27 Budget Hearings being held in the Board of Supervisors Chambers on the second floor of the Shasta County Administration Center located at 1450 Court Street, Room 263, Redding, California.  Your interest is encouraged and appreciated. COMMENCE THE FY 2026-27 BUDGET HEARINGS Receive the FY 2026-27 Recommended Budget and the County Executive Officer’s Overview of the FY 2026-27 Recommended Budget. Consider making any revisions, reductions, or additions to the Recommended Budget after providing an opportunity for comment from any official or person whose budget requests may be revised. Conduct a public hearing.  Any revisions to the Recommended Budget after the start of the public hearing shall be made only if the revision is proposed in writing and filed with the Clerk of the Board prior to the close of the public hearings, or approved by a four-fifths vote of the Board of Supervisors after the close of the public hearing. Pursuant to Government Code Section 29081, the Board of Supervisors may continue to meet from day to day until budget hearings are concluded but not to exceed a total of 14 calendar days. Consider approving those budget units which have not been formally appealed and which have no major policy considerations or outstanding issues. Consider approving those budget units which have been formally appealed.  Formal appeals have been received for the Elections Budget (BU 140), Building Inspection Budget (BU 282), and Planning Budget (BU 286). Consider directing the County Executive Officer to prepare, for subsequent Board consideration and action, a FY 2026-27 Adopted Budget Resolution.  The budget resolution will reflect changes to the FY 2026-27 Recommended Budget, as directed by the Board of Supervisors before and after budget hearings and subsequent technical adjustments required as additional information regarding State legislative action becomes available.] 14 CALENDAR DAYS. WITH THAT, THE SHASTA COUNTY WATER AGENCY WILL RECESS AND CONTINUE TO THURSDAY, JUNE 11, 2026 AT 9 A.M. OR AS SOON THEREAFTER AS MAY BE POSSIBLE. THAT BRINGS US BACK TO THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA, WHICH BRINGS US TO R8, A SCHEDULED HEARING REGARDING THE COUNTY'S ANNUAL BUDGET, WHICH WILL COMMENCE TOMORROW, TUESDAY, JUNE 9TH, 2026 AT 9 A.M., WHICH MAY CONTINUE FROM DAY TO DAY UNTIL BUDGET HEARINGS ARE CONCLUDED, BUT NOT TO EXCEED A TOTAL OF 14 CALENDAR DAYS. WITH THAT, THE SHASTA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS WILL RECESS AND CONTINUE TUESDAY, JUNE 9TH AT 2026 AT 9 A.M. CAN YOU READ THAT ALL AGAIN? YES, I WILL. * This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.