Jun 16, 2026 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting

HOW ARE YOU ALL DOING THIS MORNING? MY NAME IS GRAHAM KNAUSS, AS YOU INDICATED.

I'M THE CEO OF THE CALIFORNIA STATE ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES, AND SO THAT MEANS I HAVE THE GREAT HONOR OF REPRESENTING ALL FIVE SUPERVISORS OF SHASTA AND YOUR 291 COLLEAGUES ACROSS THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THAT ARE LEADING THE 58 COUNTIES.

WE'VE BEEN AROUND FOR A VERY, VERY LONG TIME.

THIS IS OUR 131ST YEAR, AND THE CORE OF WHAT WE DO HAS REALLY NOT CHANGED, WHICH IS TO ENSURE THAT EVERY COMMUNITY HAS THE RESOURCES, THE AUTHORITY, AND THE FLEXIBILITY TO DO THINGS IN A WAY THAT MAKES SENSE TO THEM.

AND THAT'S DIFFERENT IN SHASTA THAN IT IS IN LA OR HUMBOLDT OR SAN DIEGO.

AND IT'S DIFFERENT BECAUSE YOUR COMMUNITY IS DIFFERENT, AND WE SHOULD CELEBRATE THAT.

CELEBRATE THE PRIORITIES THAT ARE LOCAL HERE THAT MAKE SENSE AND WHAT YOU NEED IN ORDER TO CARRY THOSE OUT.

SO WE SEEK TO DO THAT IN OUR ADVOCACY WORK ON A DAILY BASIS.

WE'VE BEEN DOING THAT AROUND THE CLOCK RELATED TO THE STATE BUDGET OVER THE PAST COUPLE OF MONTHS.

THE LEGISLATURE ADOPTED WHAT I WOULD FRAME AS THE INITIAL STATE BUDGET LATE LAST NIGHT.

ACTUALLY IN THE WEE HOURS OF THIS MORNING, AND SO THAT IS NOW HEADED TO THE GOVERNOR, AND THERE'S FINAL NEGOTIATIONS THAT ARE OCCURRING BETWEEN THE ASSEMBLY, THE SENATE, AND THE GOVERNOR OVER THE COURSE OF THE NEXT 12 DAYS.

THAT IS RELEVANT BECAUSE SO MUCH OF WHAT COUNTIES DO IS INTERDEPENDENT ON THE STATE AND THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, AND I WOULD SAY MORE THAN TWO-THIRDS OF WHAT IS DONE BY COUNTIES IS DONE AS A MANDATED SERVICE.

ON BEHALF OF THE FEDERAL AND STATE GOVERNMENT.

AND SO ENSURING THAT YOU HAVE AN ACTIVE VOICE IN SACRAMENTO IS CRITICAL, AND HAVING AN ACTIVE VOICE IN D.C.

IS CRITICAL AS WELL.

AND SO WE HAVE BEEN FOCUSING ON THAT ON A NUMBER OF FRONTS, AND I'LL REFERENCE A FEW OF THOSE HERE.

IF THE VOTERS INDICATE SOMETHING AS A PRIORITY BY APPROVING IT ON THE BALLOT, THEN IT SHOULD BE FUNDED.

AND SO COUNTIES CERTAINLY CAN'T CARRY IT OUT FOR FREE BECAUSE IT HAS INCREASED DYNAMICS RELATED TO WORKLOAD AND ENSURING THAT THE SERVICES CAN BE PROVIDED.

SO WE'VE BEEN WORKING ON THAT.

THERE IS SOME FUNDING.

ASSOCIATED WITH THAT IN THE BUDGET AND SO WE'RE THANKFUL FOR THAT.

IT'S NOT ENOUGH BUT IT IS MORE THAN WHERE WE BEGAN FOR SURE.

THERE'S 50 MILLION DOLLARS IN THERE RELATED TO THAT.

SO WE'VE BEEN WORKING ON THAT.

WE'VE BEEN WORKING ON WHAT YOU WERE BEING ASKED TO DO IN TERMS OF IMPLEMENTING PROVISIONS OF HR 1 FROM THE FEDERAL LEVEL AND THAT INCLUDES A NUMBER OF COST SHIFTS.

TO COUNTIES.

IT ALSO INCLUDES SOME POTENTIAL COST SHIFTS FROM THE STATE AND SO WE'VE BEEN VERY ACTIVELY ENGAGED IN THAT.

WE HAD A 1.1 BILLION DOLLAR REQUEST FOR COUNTIES AS A WHOLE TO BE ABLE TO TO BE ABLE TO ENSURE THAT YOUR COMMUNITY SERVICES CAN CONTINUE TO BE PROVIDED AND THERE'S ABOUT 830 MILLION OF THAT 1.1 BILLION DOLLAR REQUEST THAT IS IN THE VERSION OF THE BUDGET THAT JUST WENT TO THE GOVERNOR.

THAT IS A POSITIVE SIGN TO MITIGATE SOME OF THE HARMS THAT MAY OTHERWISE OCCUR IN COMMUNITIES.

AND ONE OF OUR AREAS OF FOCUS HAS BEEN AROUND HOSPITALS, WHICH ARE PRIMARILY IN RURAL AREAS.

AND AS SOMEONE THAT GREW UP IN HUMBOLDT, I GET THE CHALLENGES THAT CAN EXIST RELATIVE TO CAPACITY AND ACCESS TO FACILITIES IN MORE RURAL AREAS IN CALIFORNIA.

AND THERE ARE COUNT THERE ARE NEARBY COUNTIES ACTUALLY, THAT HAVE HAD HOSPITALS THAT HAVE CLOSED.

AND WE WANT TO ENSURE THAT THAT'S NOT OCCURRING IN OTHER PARTS OF THE STATE AND THAT THOSE THAT HAVE CLOSED HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO REOPEN.

SO THERE'S $190 MILLION IN THE BUDGET THAT WAS APPROVED TO THOSE DISTRESSED HOSPITALS SO THAT THEY CAN KEEP THOSE DOORS OPEN.

AND THAT'S BEEN RELEVANT IN MODOC. IT'S RELEVANT IN GLENN.

AND A WHOLE HOST OF OTHER STATES, SO A CRITICAL AREA OF FOCUS.

THERE ARE A NUMBER OF OTHER AREAS THIS MORNING, BUT SIMPLY REFERENCE THAT WORK

[00:10:01]

ISN'T DONE, AND THERE ARE STILL...

THOUSANDS OF A COUPLE THOUSAND BILLS IN THE LEGISLATURE THAT ARE ALSO MOVING THROUGH AND SO WE'RE SEEKING TO ENSURE THAT COUNTY PERSPECTIVE IS PRESENT THERE SO THAT YOUR COMMUNITY CAN HAVE SERVICES THAT MAKE SENSE TO THEM AND SO WE'RE CONTINUING TO WORK ON THAT BEYOND OUR ADVOCACY WE HAVE A NUMBER OF OTHER AREAS THAT WE FOCUS ON ENSURING THAT OF THAT THE BROAD POPULATION AND CERTAINLY THE LEGISLATURE AND THE MEDIA UNDERSTAND WHAT COUNTIES DO AND WHAT AUTHORITY YOU DO HAVE AND SO WE'VE BEEN WE CONTINUE TO WORK ON THAT AS IT RELATES TO MANY MANY BILLS THAT IMPACT COUNTIES AND THE COMMUNITIES YOU'RE ATTEMPTING TO SERVE WE ALSO OPERATE WE HAVE A BUSINESS ARM, OUR CSAC FINANCE CORPORATION, WHICH IS ESSENTIALLY PARTNERING WITH COUNTIES TO PROVIDE SERVICES IN THE MOST COST-EFFECTIVE, COST-EFFICIENT MANNER.

AND SO WE CONTINUE TO DO THAT ON A NUMBER OF FRONTS, WHETHER IT BE BENEFITS TO YOUR EMPLOYEES OR IT'S ABOUT GETTING SCALE RELATED TO.

FLEET MANAGEMENT OR IT'S ABOUT WHAT YOU MAY BE DOING IN THE REAL ESTATE WORLD TO THE DEGREE THAT THERE ARE ASSETS FOR THE COUNTY TO BRING ON IN ORDER TO HAVE FACILITIES TO PROVIDE SERVICES OR TO DISPOSE OF AS WELL.

SO WE'RE ON A WHOLE HOST OF FRONTS ON THE BUSINESS SIDE OF THE HOUSE TRYING TO ENSURE THAT YOU'RE WHERE IT MAKES SENSE THAT THERE'S A PARTNERSHIP OPPORTUNITY TO GET A MUCH BIGGER SCALE TO THEN DRIVE DOWN SOME COSTS.

SO WE WORK ON THAT.

WE ALSO OPERATE OUR CALIFORNIA COUNTIES FOUNDATION, WHICH WILL BE MY SECOND HAT HERE THIS MORNING, AND SO I'LL CIRCLE BACK TO THAT.

BUT IT IS THE CROWN JEWEL ACROSS THE COUNTRY IN TERMS OF COUNTY LEADERSHIP AND POLICY DEVELOPMENT.

IT'S BEEN IN PLACE SINCE 2008, AND I'VE BEEN DELIGHTED THAT IT HAS BEEN HOUSED IN OR NEAR SHASTA FOR MANY YEARS.

AND SO...

INCLUDING THE MOST RECENT COHORT THAT WE'LL TALK ABOUT IN THE NEXT ITEM.

THAT IS RELEVANT BECAUSE WHEN THAT BEGAN, EVERYTHING WAS IN SACRAMENTO.

AND SO THE ONLY WAY THAT YOU COULD ACCESS THAT LEADERSHIP AND POLICY DEVELOPMENT AND REALLY INVEST IN YOUR OWN EMPLOYEES WAS FOR THEM TO GO TO TRAVEL TO SACRAMENTO.

AND SINCE THEN, WE HAVE GOTTEN OUT AND HAD CAMPUSES IN THE FIRST.

REGIONAL CAMPUS WE HAD WAS ACTUALLY RIGHT HERE IN SHASTA.

SO DELIGHTED TO HAVE THAT PARTNERSHIP TO ENSURE THAT YOUR 2,000 PLUS EMPLOYEES HAVE ACCESS TO WORLD-CLASS, COST-EFFECTIVE LEADERSHIP AND POLICY DEVELOPMENT.

I THINK I'LL PAUSE THERE.

I'M DELIGHTED TO HAVE ANY DIALOGUE WITH THE BOARD THAT YOU MAY WISH TO HAVE FOR THIS ITEM.

SUPERVISOR LONG.

IS THIS GENERAL QUESTION TIME OR IS THIS JUST UP UNTIL THIS POINT IN YOUR PRESENTATION? BECAUSE YOU HAVEN'T COVERED SOME OF THE THINGS THAT I'M GOING TO ASK ABOUT.

PLEASE ASK AWAY.

OKAY, YOU READY? I AM.

FIRST OF ALL, THANK YOU FOR THE PRESENTATION THUS FAR, AND THANK YOU FOR ALL THE GOOD WORK YOU DO IN SACRAMENTO ON BEHALF OF ALL COUNTIES.

WELL, WE'LL SEE.

IT'S GREATLY APPRECIATED, AND THAT PARTNERSHIP IS INVALUABLE.

SO...

MY QUESTIONS ARE, WE'RE FACING ALL KINDS OF BUDGETARY ISSUES WITH UNFUNDED MANDATES THAT ARE COMING FROM THE STATE.

AND THOSE ARE PARTICULARLY AFFECTING OUR HEALTH AND HHSA AND SOME OF THE SOCIAL SERVICES FUNDS AND SOME OF THOSE KINDS OF THINGS.

AND WE DON'T REALLY KNOW WHERE TO GO.

I MEAN, WHAT IT'S TO TRY TO KEEP COSTS AT A MINIMUM.

THERE'S ONLY SO MUCH WE CAN CUT UNTIL WE START BUMPING INTO UNFUNDED MANDATES AND SOME OF THOSE KINDS OF THINGS.

CAN YOU TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT WHAT CSAC IS DOING WITH THE COUNTIES ON THAT LEVEL AT THE STATE? ABSOLUTELY.

THAT'S A GREAT QUESTION.

AND IT'S A CORE, REGRETFULLY, IT IS A CORE AREA OF FOCUS OF OURS AND OF MOST COUNTIES BECAUSE OFTEN WHAT YOU ARE REQUIRED TO DO BY THE FEDERAL AND STATE GOVERNMENT IS NOT SUFFICIENTLY FUNDED.

AND SO THE EXPECTATIONS ARE UP HERE, BUT THE FUNDING TO MEET THOSE EXPECTATIONS IS WAY DOWN HERE, WHICH IS A DISSERVICE TO YOUR COMMUNITY.

AND THEN YOU GET HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR NOT MEETING THE EXPECTATIONS WHEN YOU GET A

[00:15:01]

NICKEL INSTEAD OF THE DOLLAR THAT YOU NEED IN ORDER TO GET IT.

WHERE FROM OUR FROM AN ADVOCACY PERSPECTIVE, WE ARE THROUGH THE STATE BUDGET PROCESS AND ALSO IN INDIVIDUAL LEGISLATION THAT IS MOVING THROUGH THAT MIGHT CHANGE POLICY.

WE'RE VERY ACTIVE IN THAT SPACE TO ENSURE THAT TO THE DEGREE THAT THERE'S AN INCREASE IN RESPONSIBILITY AT THE COUNTY LEVEL, THAT IT IS FUNDED TOO OFTEN.

THERE'S A REFERENCE TO THERE'S FUNDING.

COUNTIES GET FUNDING OVER HERE.

JUST USE SOME OF THAT TO FUND THIS NEW SERVICE OVER HERE, AND THAT'S NOT A WORKABLE WAY TO DO BUSINESS.

NO ONE WOULD DO THAT IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR.

WE DON'T DO THAT IN OUR HOUSEHOLDS, AND IT SHOULDN'T WORK THAT WAY IN TERMS OF GOVERNMENT.

SO WE CONTINUE TO PUSH FROM AN ADVOCACY PERSPECTIVE ON THERE.

WE ARE ALSO WORKING FAR MORE ACTIVELY WITH THE COMMISSION ON STATE MANDATES, AND THAT IS AN ENTITY THAT FOLKS ARE NOT VERY WELL AWARE OF.

BUT THEY DETERMINE WHETHER SOMETHING IS A MANDATE OR NOT.

AND THEN ONCE DETERMINED TO BE A MANDATE, THE DEGREE, THEN THERE'S A LEGISLATIVE PROCESS TO SEEK FUNDING FOR SAID MANDATE.

SO WE'VE BEEN WORKING VERY ACTIVELY WITH THEM, BOTH IN THE CRAFTING OF THE RULES WHERE WE CAN PROVIDE INPUT SO THAT THEY'RE KINDER AND HAVE A GREATER ACKNOWLEDGEMENT TO COUNTIES IN TERMS OF THE ROLE.

THAT YOU HAVE BECAUSE THAT'S SO CRITICALLY IMPORTANT AND ALSO PARTNERING WITH COUNTIES IN TERMS OF IDENTIFYING WHAT NEW MANDATES MIGHT BE MOVING DOWN MOVING TOWARDS US BECAUSE WE HAVE WE HAVE TWO PROBLEMS THE FIRST PROBLEM IS YOU'RE ASKED TO DO FAR MORE THAN YOU ARE TOLD TO DO DIRECTED TO DO FAR MORE THAN YOU'RE ABLE TO ACCOMPLISH LOCALLY SO THAT'S CURRENT STATE THE SECOND PROBLEM IS THERE ARE ONGOING ATTEMPTS TO MAKE IT WORSE, WHICH WE ARE TRYING TO FIGHT OFF AS WELL TO ENSURE THAT THERE'S FUNDING.

SO THERE'S THAT PART OF THE ADVOCACY.

THE OTHER PART IS BASIC, WHICH IS DON'T TELL COUNTIES TO DO SOMETHING YOU'RE NOT WILLING TO FUND.

IT'S VERY BASIC.

AND SO WE HAVE BEGUN TO OPPOSE A WHOLE HOST OF BILLS.

IRRESPECTIVE OF WHAT THEIR POLICY INTENT IS BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT SUFFICIENTLY FUNDED.

AND SO THAT IS A MORE AGGRESSIVE ADVOCACY STRATEGY.

IT HAS SOME POLITICAL CHALLENGES AS WE NAVIGATE THROUGH THAT, BUT YOU HAVE TO ELEVATE YOUR VOICE, AND SO WE'RE CONTINUING TO WORK FROM THAT PERSPECTIVE.

THERE'S ALSO, I MEAN, I GUESS I'LL JUST STOP ON THIS PARTICULAR ONE TO JUST REFERENCE.

DON'T TELL US TO DO WHAT YOU'RE NOT WILLING TO FUND.

AND IF WILLING TO FUND IT WITH THE RIGHT FLEXIBILITY, THEN COUNTIES WILL DELIVER THE SERVICES TO THEIR COMMUNITIES AND BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE.

THAT'S THE MODEL THAT WORKS IN STATE GOVERNMENT AND IN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.

THAT'S WHAT IT SHOULD BE.

AND REGRETFULLY, IT'S TOO OFTEN NOT THE CASE.

NO, I APPRECIATE THAT PERSPECTIVE AND THE ADVOCACY FOR US AT THE STATE LEVEL, ESPECIALLY WITH THAT COMMITTEE.

I DIDN'T KNOW ABOUT THAT COMMITTEE TO DISCUSS MANDATES AND FUNDING SOURCES FOR THE MANDATES.

THAT'S THAT'S AN IMPORTANT CONVERSATION GOING FORWARD.

AND SO, YEAH, IT'S A CHALLENGE BECAUSE WE'RE, YOU KNOW, IN CERTAIN ECONOMIES, DEMAND FOR SERVICES GO UP.

AND WE'RE MANDATED TO MEET THE SERVICES WHEREVER THEY LIE.

AND FUNDING SOURCES, CASH FLOW, REVENUE STREAMS, SOME OF THOSE THINGS CAN BE IFFY SOMETIMES OR TAKE A WHILE TO GET FROM THE STATE.

AND THEN THEY'RE NOT SUFFICIENT TO MEET THE MANDATES.

SO WE'RE HAVING TO LOAN, LIKE OUR HHSA, WE'RE LOANING THEM $10 MILLION FROM OUR GENERAL FUND, AND WE CAN'T SUSTAIN THAT MODEL.

SO ANY HELP YOU CAN GIVE ON THAT LEVEL AT THE STATE, PUSHING BACK, WOULD BE GREATLY APPRECIATED.

AND ONE OTHER AREA I WANTED TO TOUCH ON, FIRE INSURANCE, IT AFFECTS ALL OF US NEAR AND DEAR.

IT'S NEAR AND DEAR TO ALL OF US.

AND.

IT'S GETTING TO THE POINT WITHIN OUR RURAL SECTIONS OF THE COMMUNITY WHERE WE CAN'T, THAT PEOPLE ARE BEING FORCED UNDER THE FAIR PLAN.

AND SO CAN YOU DESCRIBE SOME OF THE LEVELS AT THE STATE THAT MAYBE YOU'RE ADVOCATING FOR? AND I'M NOT SURE WHAT MODELS ABOUT THIS, BUT SO I'M JUST CURIOUS.

WE'VE GOT A CRISIS GOING ON HERE WITH RURAL FIRE.

WE ABSOLUTELY HAVE A CRISIS.

THERE'S NO QUESTION ABOUT IT.

AND IT'S GOTTEN ALMOST UNTENABLE.

AND I DON'T KNOW WHY IT'S REFERRED TO AS THE FAIR PLAN BECAUSE IT CERTAINLY DOESN'T FEEL THAT WAY FOR THOSE THAT ARE ON IT.

[00:20:01]

IT'S ALSO UPSIDE DOWN.

SO THE FAIR PLAN IS ON THE BRINK OF BANKRUPTCY, EFFECTIVELY.

THERE'S INSUFFICIENT FUNDING EVEN FOR THAT PLAN TO EXIST.

WE'VE BEEN IN CONVERSATIONS WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF INSURANCE AND THE INSURANCE COMMISSIONER.

WE'VE BEEN IN CONVERSATIONS WITH THE LEGISLATURE, WITH THE GOVERNOR'S OFFICE, WITH INSURANCE COMPANIES AND OTHERS TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHAT CAN BE DONE.

IT'S NOT OUR AREA OF EXPERTISE.

AND WHEN YOU CAN'T GET HOMEOWNERS INSURANCE.

BECAUSE THERE IS A FIRE THREAT, NOTHING ELSE MATTERS.

AND SO IT MAY NOT BE PART OF OUR CORE IN TERMS OF COUNTY SERVICE, BUT IT IMPACTS EVERYTHING TO THE DEGREE IT'S NOT RESOLVED.

SO WE'VE BEEN MORE OF A CONVENER AND LINKING FOLKS UP WITH OTHER STATES HAVE A DIFFERENT MODEL.

AND SO THE STATE OF FLORIDA HAS A VERY DIFFERENT MODEL WHERE THEIR VERSION OF THE FAIR PLAN IS A LOT LESS EXPENSIVE THAN IT IS IN CALIFORNIA.

IT COVERS LESS ALSO, BUT IT'S A DIFFERENT MODEL TO MAKE IT A LITTLE BIT MORE ACCESSIBLE.

THERE'S ANOTHER PART TO THIS, WHICH IS WE HAVE A VERY UNIQUE SYSTEM IN CALIFORNIA IN TERMS OF PROPERTY INSURANCE, WHERE IT'S A PRIVATE SECTOR MARKET, BUT WITH A PUBLIC SECTOR.

OVERSIGHT AND IMPACT IN TERMS OF WHERE THE RATES GET APPROVED OR NOT.

AND SO THE INSURANCE COMMISSIONER MODEL REQUIRES SOMEONE IN THAT OFFICE TO ENSURE THAT THERE'S A VIABLE INSURANCE MARKET BECAUSE IF THE COMPANIES LEAVE CALIFORNIA, THEN THERE'S NO INSURANCE FOR ANYONE.

AND THAT'S A PROBLEM.

AND IT HAS TO BE SUFFICIENTLY AFFORDABLE SO THAT FOLKS CAN STAY IN THEIR HOMES.

AND THAT BALANCE POINT HAS BEEN VERY CHALLENGING IN CALIFORNIA.

SO WE DON'T HAVE A, THERE'S NOT A GOLDEN SOLUTION HERE.

EVERY OPTION IS CHALLENGING AND FAR FROM PERFECT.

WE'VE BEEN PRIMARILY INVOLVED IN TRYING TO BRING PEOPLE TO THE TABLE TO HAVE A REAL CONVERSATION SO THAT THEY CAN ENSURE THAT THERE'S A VIABLE MARKET IN CALIFORNIA AND THAT HOMEOWNERS DON'T GET PUSHED OUT BECAUSE THEY'RE UNABLE TO COVER THEIR HOMES.

OKAY, THANK YOU.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THAT INFORMATION, AND THANK YOU FOR THE CONTINUED WORK ADVOCATING FOR COUNTIES AT THE STATE LEVEL.

I GREATLY APPRECIATE THAT, AND I WILL NOT ASK ANY MORE QUESTIONS.

SUPERVISOR PLUMMER.

THANKS, GRAHAM, FOR BEING HERE, AND THANK YOU AND THE REST OF THE CSAC TEAM FOR CREATING THE SPACE FOR US TO CONNECT WITH AND...

YOU KNOW, KIND OF COORDINATE WITH THE OTHER COUNTIES.

I THINK THAT THAT'S BEEN SUPER VALUABLE AS WELL AS THE ACCESS TO, YOU KNOW, JUST THINKING ABOUT THE LEGISLATIVE CONFERENCE AND BEING ABLE TO CONNECT WITH THE STATE MEDICAID DIRECTOR ABOUT THE UPCOMING CALAIM WAIVERS AND, YOU KNOW, WHAT'S HAPPENING THERE.

SO SUPER VALUABLE.

ONE QUESTION, WHICH RELATES TO SOMETHING YOU ALLUDED TO, THE BUDGET TALKS, THAT'S BEEN A BIG TOPIC.

I KNOW WE'VE BEEN IN A LOT OF CONVERSATIONS ABOUT THOSE.

I KNOW YOU SENT OUT A TEXT KIND OF GIVING AN UPDATE ON THAT, BUT COULD YOU JUST GIVE US A BIT MORE DETAIL COMING OUT OF LAST NIGHT.

IN TERMS OF, I KNOW THE REQUEST ON BEHALF OF THE COUNTIES HAS EVOLVED OVER THE LAST MONTH OR SO, KIND OF WHERE WE STAND TODAY AND WHAT WE'RE EXPECTING FROM THE GOVERNOR, IF WE HAVE ANY INSIGHT INTO THAT.

YES, THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION.

SO RELATIVE, WHICH GOES TO HR1-RELATED IMPACTS DIRECTLY ON COUNTIES.

SO THERE'S THE COUNTY REQUESTS, THE ALL-COUNTY REQUESTS THAT WE MADE.

DEALT WITH INDIGENT CARE, WHICH IS ESSENTIALLY COUNTIES ARE REQUIRED TO BE THE PROVIDER OF LAST RESORT.

SO THAT IS, IT'S NOT FUNDED.

IN FACT, THE FUNDING THAT YOU USED TO HAVE FOR THAT WENT AWAY WHEN THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT WENT INTO EFFECT.

AND SO WE'VE BEEN SEEKING FUNDING RELATED TO INDIGENT CARE OR SOME ALTERNATIVE TO IT.

AND THAT IS FUNDED IN THE BUDGET.

AND SO $25 MILLION TO FUND THAT.

ALTERNATIVE WHICH REALLY HELPS IN TERMS OF MITIGATING THE IMPACTS TO YOUR GENERAL FUND.

THERE'S A PUBLIC HOSPITAL SYSTEM PIECE WHICH IS LESS RELEVANT UP HERE IT'S MORE RELEVANT IN MORE URBANIZED AREAS OF 250 MILLION THAT IS IN IN THE BUDGET AND THEN WHAT I MENTIONED EARLIER ABOUT THE DISTRESSED HOSPITALS THAT'S 190 MILLION DOLLARS THAT IS MORE RELEVANT UP HERE IN THIS BROADER REGION AND THAT AS WELL.

COUNTY ELIGIBILITY, WHICH ARE THOSE OF YOUR COUNTY EMPLOYEES THAT DO THE WORK TO DETERMINE WHETHER SOMEONE IS ELIGIBLE FOR A FEDERAL OR STATE PROGRAM.

[00:25:01]

THEIR WORKLOAD IS DOUBLING.

AND SO NORTH OF $450 MILLION SPECIFICALLY FOR THAT.

AND SO BASICALLY THAT'S OUR FULL ASK IN THAT SPACE.

AND THEN.

THERE WAS A REQUEST RELATED TO BEHAVIORAL HEALTH THAT IS NOT FUNDED IN THE BUDGET ON THE WHOLE, THOUGH IT'S ABOUT 85% OF WHAT WAS REQUESTED IN A YEAR THAT HAD A SIGNIFICANT STATE BUDGET DEFICIT AND OUT-YEAR DEFICITS.

AND SO IT MIGHT BE THE LARGEST INVESTMENT THAT IMPACTS COMMUNITIES IN THE OVERALL BUDGET RELATED TO THAT PIECE OF IT.

SO THAT'S WHERE WE STAND RELATIVE TO H.R.

I KNOW THE OTHER TWO COMPONENTS THAT WERE TALKED ABOUT WERE THE HHAP FUNDING, AND THERE WAS A DESIRE FROM THE COUNTIES TO INCREASE THAT FROM $500 MILLION TO A BILLION.

SO I'M CURIOUS WHERE THAT'S LANDING.

AND THEN ALSO, AND THIS MIGHT BE YOUR REFERENCE TO THE BEHAVIORAL HEALTH, BUT I KNOW THE GOVERNOR ORIGINALLY WITH MOBILE CRISIS SERVICES HAD INDICATED THAT THOSE WOULD BE OPTIONAL GOING FORWARD.

IS THAT STILL THE CASE AS THINGS CURRENTLY STAND? SO RELATIVE TO HAP, WHICH IS HOMELESSNESS-RELATED FUNDING, RELATIVELY...

DISCRETIONARY HOMELESSNESS RELATED FUNDING FOR COUNTIES AND CITIES.

THAT IS FUNDED AT $900 MILLION.

AND SO IT'S NOT THE FULL BILLION.

IT'S VERY CLOSE TO IT.

SO WE'RE THANKFUL FOR THE INCREASE ASSOCIATED WITH THAT.

RELATIVE TO THE MOBILE CRISIS UNIT, WHICH I WILL ACTUALLY LOOK AT MY NOTES HERE FOR A SECOND.

SO THE PROPOSAL FROM THE GOVERNOR WOULD HAVE ELIMINATED THAT AS A BENEFIT.

THAT HAS BEEN THE PROPOSAL WAS REJECTED, WHICH MEANS THAT PROGRAM CONTINUES.

AND THAT'S CRITICALLY IMPORTANT TO HAVE THOSE CROSS-DISCIPLINARY TEAMS TO ASSIST WHEN THERE'S A BEHAVIORAL HEALTH CRISIS.

AND SO THAT IS THE IT'S NOT A HUGE DOLLAR NUMBER IN TERMS OF OVERALL STATE BUDGET.

BUT HAVING THAT TEAM IN PLACE IS CRITICALLY IMPORTANT.

SO THE LEGISLATOR LEGISLATURE'S VERSION OF THE BUDGET.

INCLUDES THE FUNDING TO CONTINUE THAT PROGRAM.

THAT'S GREAT.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR WORK ON THAT.

ONE LAST QUESTION WHICH IS LESS TACTICAL BUT I THINK HELPFUL TO HEAR IS I KNOW I KNOW UP HERE WE OFTEN THINK ABOUT THE DRAMATIC DIFFERENCES AND YOU'VE YOU'VE ALLUDED TO THEM BETWEEN US AND SAY SOME OF THE BIG URBAN COUNTIES.

WHAT WOULD YOU SAY AS YOU LOOK ACROSS ALL THE 58 COUNTIES ARE SOME OF THE UNIFYING PIECES THAT YOU SEE ALL COUNTIES ARE SAYING THIS IS, YOU KNOW, WHAT WE CAN AGREE ON BECAUSE I KNOW THERE'S A LOT OF DIFFERENCES, BUT I THINK IT'S HELPFUL SOMETIMES TO HEAR WHERE THERE IS CONTINUITY AND COMMONALITY BETWEEN COUNTIES.

YEAH, THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION.

THE REALITY IS THAT MOST COUNTIES, ALL COUNTIES, MOST OF WHAT ALL COUNTIES DO IS THE SAME, MOST.

ROUGHLY TWO-THIRDS OF WHAT OCCURS HERE IN SHASTA OCCURS IN EVERY OTHER CALIFORNIA COUNTY AS WELL BECAUSE IT'S DRIVEN BY FEDERAL AND STATE GOVERNMENT.

AND SO THE UNIFYING ADVOCACY AROUND THAT GOES BACK TO THE DON'T ASK COUNTIES TO DO THAT WHICH YOU'RE UNWILLING TO FUND.

AND SO THAT IS AN AREA OF FOCUS.

THE NEED FOR FLEXIBILITY, WHICH YOU MAY USE DIFFERENTLY IN SHASTA THAN IS USED IN MERCED OR IN ALPINE, AND THAT'S AS IT SHOULD BE.

AND SO ENSURING THAT THERE'S A MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF FLEXIBILITY AND THAT YOU HAVE THE LOCAL AUTHORITY NECESSARY TO DELIVER ON BEHALF OF YOUR RESIDENTS.

AND SO THOSE THINGS ARE VERY COMMON.

AND THERE ARE SPECIFIC POLICIES THAT MAY BE MORE UNIQUE TO ONE PART OF THE STATE, FOR EXAMPLE, WOLVES.

WOLVES ARE NOT AN ISSUE IN URBANIZED AREAS IN CALIFORNIA, BUT THEY'VE BECOME A CRITICAL ISSUE HERE IN NORTH, WELL, ACTUALLY, TEHAMA AND NORTH IN CALIFORNIA.

AND SO THAT IS DIFFERENT THAN ONE OF THOSE MORE UNIFYING ISSUES, AND WE'RE ACTIVELY WORKING ON THAT AS WELL.

AND SO...

MOST OF IT IS GIVE US THE TOOLS, WE'LL DO THE WORK.

AND IF YOU GIVE US THE TOOLS AND FLEXIBILITY AND THE STATE DOESN'T LIKE THE RESULTS, THEN THEY HAVE AN OVERSIGHT ROLE AND THEY CAN STEP IN AND THAT'S FINE.

BUT YOU CAN'T BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE IF YOU DON'T HAVE THE TOOLS AND THE FLEXIBILITY TO DO IT IN A WAY THAT MAKES SENSE.

AND THAT REALLY PULLS FOLKS TOGETHER.

I WOULD ALSO SAY THAT THERE'S...

THERE'S A REALLY IMPORTANT DIALOGUE AND POWER THAT EXISTS WHEN ALL 58 COUNTIES STAND TOGETHER.

AND THAT IS THE TRADITIONALLY

[00:30:06]

IN OUR TOP PRIORITIES AS AN ORGANIZATION THAT ARE DRIVEN BY OUR BOARD, WHICH IS MAJORITY RURAL, OUR PRIORITIES WILL TYPICALLY HAVE ONE THAT IS PREDOMINANTLY URBAN, ONE THAT'S PREDOMINANTLY RURAL, AND PERHAPS ONE THAT BRINGS EVERYONE TOGETHER.

AND SO, FOR EXAMPLE, HOMELESSNESS IS PREDOMINANTLY, IT'S NOT EXCLUSIVELY URBAN, BUT IT'S PREDOMINANTLY URBAN.

AND SO THAT'S BEEN A TOP PRIORITY.

AND WILDFIRE PREVENTION HAS BEEN A TOP PRIORITY THAT IS PRIMARILY RURAL BUT NOT EXCLUSIVELY RURAL.

AND IN THAT CASE, WE NEED THE URBANS TO SUPPORT THE RURALS AND THE RURALS TO SUPPORT THE URBANS.

AND WHEN THOSE TWO THINGS HAPPEN AND WE ALL STAND TOGETHER, THEN WE'RE ABLE TO SAY TO THE GOVERNOR AND TO THE LEGISLATURE, EVERY SINGLE COUNTY IN CALIFORNIA BELIEVES YOU SHOULD DO X, AND THAT IS IMMENSELY POWERFUL BECAUSE THERE'S NO ONE IN CALIFORNIA THAT IS NOT LIVING IN A COUNTY.

SO YOU COLLECTIVELY, THE 296 OF YOU ELECTED SUPERVISORS IN CALIFORNIA REPRESENT EVERY SINGLE INDIVIDUAL IN THE STATE.

AND SO BEING ABLE TO BRING THAT MESSAGE IS IMMENSELY POWERFUL WHEN WE'RE ABLE TO DO IT.

THIS IS A NO VOTE ITEM, BUT MS. BLANKENSHIP, DO WE HAVE ANY PUBLIC COMMENTS? WE DO, CHAIR.

GIVE ME JUST ONE MOMENT.

WE HAVE ONE REQUEST TO SPEAK, AND THAT'S BY SHASTA COUNTY WATCHDOG.

COME ON UP.

I HAVE SOME CONCERNS REGARDING THIS ITEM.

I DID A LITTLE RESEARCH REGARDING THIS AND MY CONCERNS ARE THAT AS HE SAID THAT THERE IS 296 ELECTED SUPERVISORS WHO ATTEND THESE MEETINGS.

AND MY CONCERN IS THAT WHEN THEY MEET, THEY HAVE BIG DECISIONS TO MAKE.

THAT MEANS 58 COUNTIES.

WE HAVE TO HAVE SOMEONE WHO'S GOING TO HAVE COMMON SENSE TO MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE THE REPRESENTATION.

BECAUSE AS WE ALL SEE LATELY, AND WE ALL KNOW THAT WHEN WE HAVE SOMEBODY WHO'S NOT WILLING TO MAKE THE RIGHT DECISIONS, WE GET IN TROUBLE.

AS WE ALL KNOW, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL IS SUING US RIGHT NOW BECAUSE OF THE DECISIONS OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS.

SO MY QUESTION IS PROBABLY YOU CAN'T ANSWER THAT, BUT WAS HE, THE CEO HERE, WAS HE INVITED BY KEVIN CRYE OR MR. PLUMMER? BECAUSE MY CONCERN IS IF KEVIN CRYE IS GOING TO BE PUSHING FOR ANY MEDICAL SCHOOL IN THIS BOARD THAT, HOW MANY, 296 ELECTED SUPERVISORS, AS WE ALL KNOW KEVIN CRYE HAS TO HAVE A POWER, SOME KIND OF AGENDA.

SO WE NEED SOMEONE WHO'S GOING TO HAVE COMMON SENSE AND BETTER DECISION.

IT'S NOT GOING TO GET THE COUNTY INTO ANOTHER LAWSUIT.

AS WE KNOW, THAT'S HIS GOAL TO MEDICAL SCHOOL BECAUSE HE HAS NOTHING LEFT.

SO MY CONCERN IS WHO IS GOING TO THE MEETINGS BECAUSE I THINK IT'S YOU, PLUMMER, AND KEVIN CRACK.

DO YOU WANT TO SPEAK ON R2 WHILE YOU'RE UP THERE? DID YOU SIGN A CARD FOR R2? YEAH, THE PRESENTATION.

I DO HAVE CONCERNS REGARDING H-1 BECAUSE H-1 HAS A LOT OF THINGS THAT, YOU KNOW, A LOT OF PEOPLE LIKE THE REPUBLICANS, LIKE YOU GUYS, ALWAYS KEPT ON SAYING, NO, DONALD TRUMP IS NOT GOING TO DO THIS.

NO, HE'S NOT.

WELL, I GUESS SOMEBODY DIDN'T READ THE BEAUTIFUL BILL THAT WAS IN THERE.

SO IT IS GOING TO BE AFFECTING US.

IT'S THE CERTIFICATES OF RECOGNITION FOR OUR EMPLOYEES.

WELL, OKAY.

WELL, EITHER WAY, YOU KNOW, I MEAN, IT'S GREAT.

SORRY, GUYS.

YOU KNOW.

BUT NO, I THINK THERE'S A LOT OF CONCERNS HERE THAT I HAVE WHO'S GOING TO BE MAKING THOSE DECISIONS.

THAT WAS OUR LAST SPEAKER,

[R2 Receive a presentation from Graham Knaus, CEO of California State Association of Counties (CSAC), regarding the leadership courses provided to Shasta County employees and present certificates of completion to the graduates of the CSAC Institute courses held from January to May of 2026 in Shasta County.]

CHAIR.

MR. KNOPF, IF YOU WOULD GO ON TO R2, WE'LL RECEIVE A PRESENTATION.

CEO OF CSAC REGARDING THE COURSES PROVIDED TO SHASTA COUNTY EMPLOYEES AND PRESENT CERTIFICATES OF COMPLETION TO THE GRADUATES OF CSAC INSTITUTE COURSES HELD IN JANUARY TO MAY.

RIGHT.

IT WORKS GREAT.

THIS IS AWESOME.

SO, I MENTIONED THE CALIFORNIA COUNTIES FOUNDATION AND THE CSAC INSTITUTE, AND YOU HAVE A NUMBER OF GRADUATES HERE.

WHAT FOLKS SHOULD KNOW IS THAT THERE ARE 48 INDIVIDUALS THAT

[00:35:04]

HAVE GONE THROUGH THE SHASTA REGIONAL CAMPUS THIS YEAR.

HALF ARE FROM YOUR COUNTY, AND THEN THE OTHERS ARE FROM NEIGHBORING COUNTIES, WHICH WE'RE THANKFUL FOR THAT PARTNERSHIP.

IT'S FANTASTIC.

GOING TO DO IS I'M GOING TO CALL OUT THE NAMES OF THE GRADUATES.

AND THESE ARE INDIVIDUALS THAT HAVE INVESTED THEIR OWN TIME IN COMPLETING 50 HOURS OF INSTRUCTION THAT IS POLICY AND IS LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT.

AND THIS IS ABOUT INVESTING IN YOUR OWN EMPLOYEES SO THAT THEY CAN PROVIDE A HIGHER LEVEL OF SERVICE TO THE CONSTITUENTS HERE IN SHASTA COUNTY.

AND SO IT'S A PRETTY AWESOME THING.

SO I'M GOING TO PROVIDE, LET'S SEE IF I CAN DO THIS.

I'M GOING TO HOLD THE MICROPHONE IN ONE HAND.

I'M GOING TO CALL OUT NAMES, AND THEN I WILL PROVIDE THE CERTIFICATE AND, I'M SORRY, THE CREDENTIAL AND THE PIN THAT COMES WITH IT.

AND WE WILL BEGIN WITH BRITTANY BECHTOLD.

AWESOME.

BRITTANY'S FROM THE AG COMMISSION.

AND NEXT WE WILL GO TO STEPHANIE BLANKENSHIP FROM THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE.

CHRISTY COLEMAN, HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY.

SHELLY COSTA, CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES.

JASON, I'M GOING TO...

COLOMBE, JASON COLOMBE, WHO'S FROM PROBATION.

LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, THIS IS THE JASON COLOMBE FROM PROBATION.

YEAH, AWESOME.

PATRICK DALY FROM THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE.

AND JUST A NOTE TO THANK PATRICK BECAUSE HE HELPED ACTUALLY EXECUTE THE AGREEMENT SO THAT WE COULD ACTUALLY DO THIS WORK TOGETHER.

SO VERY THANKFUL FOR THAT.

SEAN EWING, RESOURCE MANAGEMENT.

MICHELLE GAMBEL FROM AUDITOR-CONTROLLER.

JAMES GOODWINE, PROBATION.

JOHN HEATH, PUBLIC WORKS.

AND JOHN INGRAM FROM THE AG COMMISSION.

SAMANTHA JACKSON, SUPPORT SERVICES PERSONNEL.

RACHEL KASKY, PUBLIC WORKS.

DOLENE LANE.

YES, I GOT IT RIGHT.

DOLENE LANE, SUPPORT SERVICES RISK MANAGEMENT.

MELISSA MANSFIELD, SUPPORT SERVICES PERSONNEL.

BRITTANY MURPHY, SUPPORT SERVICES.

BRYCE RITCHIE, COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE.

DON RENZ, PUBLIC WORKS.

AND SHANNON SHAVER, PROBATION.

NOEL DESHORT, AUDITOR-CONTROLLER'S OFFICE.

AND OUR FINAL ONE IN THE CHAMBERS, AARON WATTS FROM HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY.

THERE ARE TWO OTHER NAMES I WANT TO REFERENCE THAT WERE UNABLE TO JOIN US TODAY, BOTH HEIDI MOSS FROM CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES AND RICHARD VITHIER FROM THE AUDITOR-CONTROLLER'S OFFICE.

AND JUST A HUGE THANKS TO ALL THE GRADUATES FOR DOING THE GREAT WORK, INVESTING IN YOUR COMMUNITY, INVESTING IN YOURSELF.

THAT'S HOW WE PROVIDE A HIGHER LEVEL OF SERVICE AND CARRY OUT THE PRIORITIES OF THIS BOARD AND THE CAO'S OFFICE.

SO SUPER THANKFUL FOR ALL THE WORK THAT YOU HAVE DONE IN THAT.

I HAVE ONE FINAL THING THAT I'M GOING TO DO, KYLA.

BECAUSE IN MAY, WE CELEBRATED

[00:40:01]

THE WEEK OF MAY 8TH, WE CELEBRATED PUBLIC SERVICE WEEK IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA.

AND AS WE WERE DOING THAT AS AN ORGANIZATION, WE LOOKED FOR FOLKS ALL ACROSS THE STATE THAT WERE PROVIDING A GREAT LEVEL OF SERVICE IN THEIR COMMUNITY AND REALLY WENT ABOVE AND BEYOND.

AND IN SHASTA COUNTY, THAT IS KYLA BROWER.

OKAY, I THINK WE'RE GOING TO DO A PICTURE.

YEAH? OKAY.

SO HUGE THANKS TO THIS BOARD BECAUSE THIS CAN'T HAPPEN WITHOUT A BOARD OF SUPERVISORS THAT UNDERSTANDS THE IMPORTANCE OF INVESTING IN YOUR OWN EMPLOYEES AND PROVIDING A HIGH LEVEL OF SERVICE TO YOUR COMMUNITY.

SO HUGE THANKS FOR THE LEADERSHIP OF THIS BOARD.

THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO JOIN YOU.

ALL RIGHT, AS OUR WONDERFUL EMPLOYEES ARE FILTERING OUT OF HERE AND GETTING BACK TO WORK, THEY DO A GREAT JOB, EACH AND EVERY ONE OF THEM.

SUPERVISOR CRY, I BELIEVE YOU

[R6 Discuss amendments to the Shasta County Charter (“Charter”) regarding limitations on the exercise of eminent domain and the appointment of elected officials in the event of a vacancy and provide direction to staff to return at the next meeting to introduce one or more ordinances amending the Charter effective upon approval by the electorate (Sponsored by Supervisor Crye).]

WANTED TO MOVE R6 ABOVE R3.

YES, SO THANK YOU.

CHAIR, I'M BRINGING THIS BACK.

A COUPLE THINGS WITH THAT MEASURE P, WHICH FAILED ON THE BALLOT 40%.

I THINK THERE DOESN'T NEED TO BE A LOT OF...

WEEKS PER SE TO THAT ONE.

I THINK UNDERSTOOD CONSTITUENTS AND OTHERS PRETTY MUCH IT WAS VOTE NO ON EVERYTHING ON ALL THE PROPS ALL THE MEASURES EXCEPT PROP 36.

SO I'M NOT REALLY GOING TO TOUCH THAT.

WE'RE GOING TO MOVE MAYBE A LITTLE BIT OF LANGUAGE BUT IT'S IT'S PASSED IN EVERY COUNTY ESSENTIALLY SAN BERNARDINO.

ETC WHAT I THINK FAILED TO HAPPEN TOO IS JUST NOT GETTING ENOUGH PUBLIC INFORMATION OUT THERE AND THAT'S SOMETHING THAT UM I THINK THIS BOARD OF I KNOW SUPERVISOR PLUMBER SUPPORTED IT AS A CANDIDATE I KNOW SUPERVISOR HARMAN SUPPORTED AS A CANDIDATE WE SUPPORTED IT AS BOARD MEMBERS SO I THINK MEASURE P IS VERY RELEVANT I JUST THINK IT TAKES A LITTLE BIT MORE PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT MEASURE Q I HAVE SOME CHANGES ONE THAT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE ESPECIALLY IN LIGHT OF JUST THIS LAST APPOINTMENT, BUT IT GOES BACK TO EVEN THE APPOINTMENT OF THE PREDECESSOR OR THE SUCCESSOR TO TOM VAZENKO THAT HAD A DUAL VOTE OF NO ANOTHER ONE AFTER MAYBE WHAT WOULD BE THE FOUR FIFTHS OR IT GOES AN ELECTION.

YOU CAN'T PUT A PRICE ON THE ELECTORATE GETTING TO HAVE A VOICE.

SO I THINK MOVING THAT THREE-FIFTHS VOTE TO FOUR-FIFTHS WOULD BE AN IMPROVEMENT, BUT I'M OPEN TO HAVING THE DIALOGUE.

I'D LIKE TO HEAR THIS.

MS. BLANKENSHIP, DO WE HAVE ANY PUBLIC COMMENT ON THIS BEFORE WE MOVE FORWARD? WE DO, CHAIR.

WE HAVE SIX SPEAKERS.

CHAIR, DO YOU THINK IT WOULD BE GOOD TO HAVE A DISCUSSION SO THAT WAY AT LEAST PEOPLE KNOW WHERE PEOPLE SIT A LITTLE BIT? SURE.

SUPERVISOR LONG.

OKAY, THANK YOU, CHAIR.

SUPERVISOR CRI, I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT A COUPLE THINGS.

MEASURE P DEALS WITH THE TAKING OF PRIVATE PROPERTY THROUGH EMINENT DOMAIN AND GIVING IT TO ANOTHER PRIVATE PROPERTY.

IT DOES NOT TALK ABOUT PRIVATE PROPERTY BEING TAKEN TO GIVE TO PUBLIC GOOD.

[00:45:03]

IS THAT CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT.

AND PROP 99 CURRENTLY IS THE SAFEGUARD.

SO.

AT THIS POINT...

SO THIS WAS ORIGINALLY ORIGINATED JUST SEEING THAT.

AND EVEN NOW WE'RE SEEING WHAT HAPPENED WITH PROP 50.

I MEAN, THE STATE CAN JUST MAKE STUFF UP, DO WHATEVER THEY WANT.

SO IF PROP 99 IS EVER REPEALED, I WANT US TO HAVE WHAT ORANGE COUNTY, SAN BERNARDINO, AND OTHERS DO, A CONTROL WHERE WE CAN STOP THAT AS WELL.

OKAY, OKAY.

AND MY POINT IS THAT EMINENT DOMAIN FROM PRIVATE TO PRIVATE ARE ALREADY COVERED IN THE CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION.

SO WE'RE KIND OF DUPLICATING THE EFFORT THROUGH THIS MEASURE.

AND I THINK WE HAVE TO BE VERY MINDFUL OF THE COST OF THIS AND Q GOING FORWARD IN THE SENSE THAT THE ESTIMATE HERE WAS $20,000 TO $50,000 PER ITEM, SO IT COULD BE AN EXPOSURE ANYWHERE FROM $40,000 TO $100,000 FOR THESE TWO ITEMS. AND SO MY POINT IS THAT IF IT'S ALREADY COVERED IN CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, GOVERNING PRIVATE TAKING TO A PRIVATE ENTERPRISE, PROHIBITING THAT, I'M NOT SURE WHY AND AS WE ALL KNOW WITH SPECIAL ELECTIONS, IT DEPENDS COMPLETELY ON THE CALENDAR OF HOW MANY ITEMS ARE UP FOR SPECIAL ELECTION AT THE TIME AND SO IF IT'S IF IT WAS JUST THESE TWO WHICH I DON'T ANTICIPATE AND I KNOW THAT COUNTY PROBABLY RESEARCHED THIS THEN COME UP WITH THE 20 TO 50 BUT IF IT WAS IT COULD BE A MILLION DOLLARS IF IT'S SOMETHING THAT GOES TO A SPECIAL ELECTION FOR THE PURPOSE OF JUST THESE TWO ITEMS IT COULD BE SO IT COULD BE ANYWHERE FROM FORTY TO A HUNDRED TO ALL THE WAY OUT TO A MILLION WHICH I WOULD NEVER ANTICIPATE BECAUSE WE'RE GONNA HAVE A LOT OF SPECIAL ELECTIONS PACKED ON NOVEMBER'S BALLOT SO THAT THAT'S NOT A POSSIBILITY BUT THAT THAT IS THE CASE SOMETIMES WHEN YOU HAVE A SPECIAL ELECTION HELD FOR SIMPLY THE PURPOSE OF UH...

THE ONE ITEM SO I THINK THAT'S UH...

THE CASE AND WITH THE OTHER SIDE WHICH IT DOESN'T ADDRESS WHICH IS THE TAKING PRIVATE PROPERTY FOR PUBLIC GOOD UH...

I KNOW THIS DOESN'T ADDRESS THAT AT ALL BUT UH...

THAT'S BEEN VERY LIMITED IN THIS COUNTY'S HISTORY ANYWAY I I'M I'M AWARE OF THREE THREE TIMES THAT'S EVER BEEN USED SO I THINK IT'S UH...

A LITTLE BIT UH...

REPLICATED UH...

DUPLICATED UH...

IN THIS IN THIS MOTION HERE UH...

THIS THIS PROPOSAL SO ALSO, I WOULD SAY THAT THIS WAS DECIDED IN NOVEMBER OF 24 THROUGH A SPECIAL ELECTION, AND IT WAS HEARD, AND THE VOTERS DECIDED THAT THEY WERE NOT GOING TO GO FORWARD WITH IT.

MEASURE Q WAS LIKE 59-41, AND THE MEASURE P, WHICH IS...

ALREADY COVERED, I BELIEVE, IN THE STATE CONSTITUTION.

THE MEASURE P WAS VERY CLOSE.

THAT WAS A 49 POINT SOMETHING AND 50 POINT SOMETHING.

SO THAT WAS CLOSE.

AND AS FAR AS GETTING TO THE MEASURE Q, AGAIN, THIS HAS BEEN DECIDED HERE WITHIN THE LAST YEAR AND A HALF.

THE VOTERS WEIGHED IN AND THEY HAVE NOT APPROVED GOING FORWARD WITH BOTH.

AGAIN, THE COST OF MEASURE MEASURE Q, AND THE WAY I LOOK AT MEASURE Q, AND I NEVER SHARED THIS BECAUSE I WASN'T ON THE BOARD AT THE TIME THIS WAS VOTED ON BY THE VOTERS, BUT WITH MEASURE Q IN PARTICULAR, THAT HAS TO DO ONLY WITH ELECTED OFFICIALS THAT ARE NOT BOARD OF SUPERVISORS.

SO THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS HAS THE RIGHT CURRENTLY TO APPOINT.

TO HOLD A SPECIAL ELECTION OR TO WAIT TO THE GENERAL ELECTION TO FILL A BOARD SEAT ITSELF AMONG US.

OUR CHARTER.

YEAH, THAT'S OUR CHARTER.

SO THAT'S ALREADY COVERED, SO THAT IS NOT GERMANE TO THIS CONVERSATION.

SO THIS WOULD ONLY BE FOR ELECTED OFFICIALS SUCH AS THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY OR THE SHERIFF IF THEY VACATED THEIR TERM.

AUDIT CONTROLLER, TREASURER.

YEAH, SURE, SURE, ALL ELECTEDS OTHER THAN THE BOARD.

AND SO...

MY POINT IS TO CALL A SPECIAL ELECTION FOR ONE OR TWO ITEMS. IT COULD BE A MILLION DOLLARS.

THIS COUNTY CANNOT AFFORD THAT.

AND SO I THINK IT COMES DOWN TO BOARD.

THE BOARD HAS THE ABILITY

[00:50:02]

TO APPOINT IN THESE OTHER AUDITOR, CONTROLLER, SHERIFF, DA, ALL THOSE ELECTED OFFICIALS OTHER THAN BOARD.

THE BOARD CAN ALREADY APPOINT.

WHAT THEY CAN'T DO IS...

HOLD A SPECIAL ELECTION AND THAT'S I THINK THE GIST OF WHAT THIS IS IS I'M JUST SEEING MORE RIGHTS OF PEOPLE GETTING LIKE REPRESENTATION GETTING STRIPPED I MEAN PROP 50 IS A PERFECT EXAMPLE SO I'M JUST SAYING LET'S GET AS MUCH STUFF BACK TO THEM I MEAN AND YOU MAKE A GOOD ARGUMENT THAT IF MEASURE Q DIDN'T PASS BEFORE AND THAT'S THE WILL OF THE VOTERS THEN WHEN R9 COMES UP WELL THAT'S THE WILL OF THE VOTERS SO WE PROBABLY SHOULD BE SUPPORTING THE WILL OF THE ODOR.

SO WE CAN'T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS.

I FEEL REALLY STRONGLY, HOLD ON, I REALLY FEEL STRONGLY, PERSONALLY, AND THAT'S WHERE I SAID, LIKE, HEY, LIKE, NOEL DESHORT, I BELIEVE, WAS 5-0.

SHERIFF JOHNSON WAS 4-1.

SO THOSE STILL PASS.

I'VE WATCHED WHAT THE ROV ONE WAS, AND IT IS EXPENSIVE, BUT WHAT DOES IT COST US FOR PEOPLE TO CONTINUE TO LOSE MORE FAITH IN THE GOVERNMENT? AND IN OUR STRATEGIC PLAN...

NUMBER FIVE THAT YOU AND SUPERVISOR PLUMBER OR THE AD HOC COMMITTEE OVER THAT WAS IMPORTANT THING WAS WELL LET ME LET ME FOLLOW THROUGH WITH MY MY COMPLETE THOUGHT ON ON THIS SO YOU HAVE TWO TWO BOARD SITUATIONS AS I SEE IT YOU CAN HAVE A BOARD THAT CONSISTENTLY DOES THE WRONG THING OR YOU COULD HAVE A BOARD THAT DOES THE RIGHT THING ON BEHALF OF THE PEOPLE.

SO IF THERE'S A SITUATION WHERE THE BOARD IS DOING THE WRONG THING EVEN WITH MEASURE Q, THE BOARD WOULD HAVE THE OPTION AND THE DECISION TO DECIDE TO APPOINT OR TO RUN A SPECIAL ELECTION.

SO THAT'S BOARD DECISION AND IT'S UNDER BOTH SCENARIOS.

SO MY POINT IS, IF YOU HAD A BOARD THAT DOESN'T ALWAYS DO THE RIGHT THING, THEN THEY'RE JUST GOING TO APPOINT SOMEBODY TO THIS POSITION THAT WOULD BE FAVORABLE FOR THEIR CAUSE.

AND IF YOU HAVE A BOARD THAT YOU TRUST, THE PUBLIC TRUSTS THE OPINIONS OF THE BOARD, THEN THE BOARD SHOULD BE ABLE TO JUST MAKE A GOOD APPOINTMENT, ESPECIALLY TO FILL OUT A TERM THAT HAS BEEN VACATED.

AND SAVE THE COUNTY A MILLION BUCKS.

BUT WHO'S THE ARBITER OF THE GOOD DECISION? I MEAN, WHEN YOU SAY, THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING.

I'M SAYING THE, LISTEN.

WELL, THE WAY I LOOK AT IT IS A BOARD WILL MAKE THE DECISION TO APPOINT OR TO TURN IT OVER TO A SPECIAL ELECTION.

SO IF YOU HAVE A BOARD THAT IS INCLINED TO APPOINT WHOEVER THEY WANT REGARDLESS OF THE PUBLIC WILL, THEN THEY'RE JUST GOING TO APPOINT.

THEY'RE NEVER GOING TO LET IT GO TO A SPECIAL ELECTION.

IF YOU HAVE A DIFFERENT BOARD THAT THE PUBLIC TRUSTS, THEN THEY'RE GOING TO APPOINT, AND THAT IS THE DUTY OF A BOARD, A FUNCTIONING BOARD, IS TO APPOINT TO THESE KINDS OF POSITIONS.

AND SPECIAL ELECTIONS ARE EXTREMELY EXPENSIVE, ESPECIALLY, AS I JUST STATED, WHEN WE NARROW IT DOWN TO ONE OR TWO ITEMS, IT CAN COST US A MILLION DOLLARS.

AND THE COUNTY AS WE'VE JUST COME ON THE HEELS OF BUDGET HEARINGS, WE DON'T HAVE A MILLION DOLLARS.

AND SO THAT WOULD BE MY TAKE ON THIS MEASURE AT THIS TIME.

SUPERVISOR PLUMMER.

ON THE IMMINENT DOMAIN PIECE, I THINK I SUPPORT THE PRINCIPLE OF THAT.

AND I DID WANT TO GET A LITTLE BIT MORE INFORMATION ON YOU ON, LIKE, WHY BRING THIS BACK? LIKE, WHAT'S BECAUSE IT DOES SEEM LIKE IT HASN'T REALLY HAPPENED, BUT I HEAR YOU ON PROP 15 THAT THERE COULD BE, YOU KNOW, MOVEMENT AT THE STATE LEVEL THAT WOULD CAUSE THAT TO BE A CHALLENGE.

THAT'S ALL IT IS.

I MEAN, LIKE I SHOWED YOU, LIKE, JAMES GALLAGHER WAS CALLING ME WHEN WE FIRST STARTED, YOU KNOW, CONGRESSMAN GALLAGHER.

AND THE WHOLE THING IS, IT'S LIKE I MEAN, THESE ARE THE I THINK WE HAVE I DON'T THINK PEOPLE UNDERSTAND FULLY.

LIKE, YOU KNOW, CSAC COMES UP.

THAT'S GREAT.

I'VE BEEN IN THE REP FOR, THIS IS MY THIRD YEAR.

IT'S THE SAME CONVERSATION.

L.A.

DRIVES MOST OF IT.

WE JUST KEEP, I MEAN, WE ARE IRRELEVANT.

LIKE, RURAL COUNTIES ESSENTIALLY ARE IRRELEVANT.

SO THE MORE THINGS THAT WE CAN DO, THIS BOARD OR ANY FUTURE BOARD THAT CAN GIVE US AS MUCH LOCAL CONTROL AND SAFEGUARDS AND INSURANCE THAT IF THE STATE EVER GETS, BECAUSE.

AS MANY COMPANIES ARE LEAVING, TAX DOLLARS ARE LEAVING, THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO START GETTING REALLY CREATIVE OF HOW THEY'RE GOING TO EXTRACT MORE MONEY

[00:55:01]

FROM US.

AND I JUST WANT TO PROTECT PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS.

AND I THINK THIS IS SOMETHING THAT, I MEAN, SO MANY PEOPLE, I DON'T THINK, THERE WASN'T AN EFFORT.

AND THAT WAS MY FAULT IN THE SENSE THAT I SPONSORED THEM, I AUTHORED THEM.

SUPERVISOR KELSCHER AND I BOTH BROUGHT MEASURES FORWARD.

I WROTE THE CHARTER.

HE WROTE TERM LIMITS.

THEY PASSED.

WHEN I PUT THE OTHER TWO P AND Q FOR THEM, LIKE, OH, THESE ARE NO-BRAINERS.

SO MANY OTHER COUNTIES ALREADY HAVE THIS, SO THIS SHOULD PASS.

BUT IT DIDN'T.

AND NOW PEOPLE ARE LIKE, HEY, YOU KNOW, THAT WAS A MISTAKE.

WELL, IT'S OKAY.

AND I LEARNED THAT LESSON.

SO NOW I'M SAYING, I MEAN, IF IT WAS 30 TO 70, I WOULDN'T BRING IT BACK.

BUT I THINK THERE'S AN APPETITE FOR PEOPLE PROTECTING THEIR PRIVATE PROPERTY.

AND I'LL SUPPORT THAT, ASSUMING IT CAN BE ON THE NOVEMBER ELECTION.

I WOULDN'T SUPPORT PUTTING IT ON A SPECIAL ELECTION.

ON THE SECOND ITEM THERE, WHAT I HAD SAID IS I THINK IDEALLY WHEN WE FILL AN ELECTED OFFICIAL POSITION, THAT GOES TO THE VOTE OF THE PEOPLE, EXCEPT IN THE CASE WHERE THAT WOULD REQUIRE A HUGE AMOUNT OF TIME OR COST TO MAKE THAT HAPPEN.

AND SO WHAT I WAS THINKING, AND I DON'T KNOW IF THIS IS LEGALLY PERMISSIBLE IN THE SAME WAY THAT I LIKE THE FOUR-FIFTHS AMENDMENT, THOUGH, IT SOUNDS LIKE.

JOE WOULD HAVE TO DO SOME MORE RESEARCH TO SEE IF WE CAN DO THAT.

BUT WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO SAY IS RATHER THAN GIVING THE BOARD THE DECISION OF WHETHER TO HAVE IT GO FOR A SPECIAL ELECTION OR BE AN APPOINTMENT, IS WHAT I WOULD OFFER IS IF WE COULD MAKE IT SUCH THAT IF THERE'S GOING TO BE AN ALREADY SCHEDULED ELECTION WITHIN WELL, SEE, THE WAY THE STATUTE'S WRITTEN, IT'S GOT TO BE WITHIN A REASONABLE TIME.

SO LIKE THREE TO SIX MONTHS IS CONSIDERED REASONABLE.

THAT'S WHY YOU KNOW, LIKE WHAT IF IT'S NINE MONTHS? WELL, THAT'S NOT REASONABLE.

SO THAT'S WHY I PUT THERE THAT WE COULD MAKE IT THAT.

CORRECT.

IS IT JOE? I'M SORRY.

IS THAT COUNTY COUNCIL? IS THAT BECAUSE THAT'S WHY WE I PUT THAT IN THERE ORIGINALLY WAS BECAUSE REASONABLE WAS THREE TO SIX MONTHS.

I THINK THAT WAS THE TIME FRAME.

SO IF THE STATUTE SAYS THREE TO SIX MONTHS IS REASONABLE, THEN THAT'S WHAT IT WOULD BE.

IF IT'S NOT, IT WOULD BE INTERPRETED BY A COURT OF WHAT'S REASONABLE RATHER THAN WHAT YOU THOUGHT IT MIGHT BE.

BUT I THOUGHT WHERE WE LANDED WAS THREE TO SIX MONTHS WOULD BE CONSIDERED.

MOST LIKELY REASONABLE.

THAT WOULD BE INTERPRETED BY THE COURT.

SO WHAT I WAS THINKING IS THAT WE ACTUALLY SPELL OUT, AND I WAS THINKING WHEN WE HAVE, SAY, FOR EXAMPLE, A DEPARTMENT HEAD THAT LEAVES, AND WE'RE TRYING TO FILL THAT OFTENTIMES, AS RIGHT NOW WITH PUBLIC WORKS, WE HAVE AN ACTING DIRECTOR, I THINK, ACTING OR INTERN.

AND SO THAT OFTEN HAPPENS.

WE DID THAT WITH HSA FOR, I GUESS, NINE OR TEN MONTHS.

WHERE I'M GOING, THOUGH, IS THAT.

I WOULD SAY IF THERE'S GOING TO BE AN ELECTION WITHIN NINE MONTHS, AND WE CAN DISCUSS WHETHER NINE MONTHS OR SIX MONTHS OR 12 MONTHS, WHATEVER THE RIGHT NUMBER IS, BUT THEN IT AUTOMATICALLY GOES TO A SPECIAL ELECTION.

IF THERE IS NOT GOING TO BE AN ELECTION WITHIN THAT TIME PERIOD, THEN THE BOARD APPOINTS.

SO RATHER THAN LEAVING IT UP TO THE BOARD TO DECIDE WHETHER YOU APPOINT OR GO TO ELECTION, THEN IT IS ACTUALLY DICTATED ON THE BASIS OF WHEN THE ELECTION COMES.

LET'S DO IT LIKE 12 MONTHS.

THAT WOULD WORK.

BUT THE ONLY THING ABOUT THAT IS LIKE, NOEL, THE SHORT AUDITOR CONTROLLER.

12 MONTHS WORKS FOR ME.

I DON'T KNOW THAT YOU HAVE TO HAVE.

NOEL, CAN I PUT YOU ON THE SPOT? BECAUSE I KNOW YOU DID THIS.

YOU GOT 5-0, ARGUABLY THE GREATEST ELECTED OFFICIAL WE HAVE, SMARTEST PERSON IN THE COUNTY.

I THINK YOU SHOULD BE CARRIED UP HERE PERSONALLY.

BUT DIESEL, NEXT TIME, WHY DON'T YOU CARRY HER BACK TO HER SEAT? WELL, SHE IS.

SHE'S, I MEAN, SHE'S A SCHOOL.

ANYWAY, GENIUS.

SO IN YOUR OFFICE IN PARTICULAR, THERE'S FIVE ELECTED OFFICERS.

THERE'S A TREASURER, ASSESSOR, YOURSELF, THE DA, AND THE SHERIFF.

THERE'S SIX BECAUSE THERE'S ALSO THE CLERK.

LIKE, I MEAN, NO ONE CAN BE THE AUDITOR CONTROLLER.

THERE'S NO ONE CAN BE THE INTERIM AUDITOR CONTROLLER.

THEY DON'T GET THAT POWER AS AN ELECTED OFFICIAL.

SO IS THAT TOO LONG? GOOD MORNING, CHAIR CRYE, MEMBERS OF THE BOARD, AND ALL THE SHORT AUDITOR CONTROLLERS.

CHAIR KALLSTROM.

SORRY, I'M LOOKING AT YOU.

YEAH, SO THERE IS CODE THAT SAYS, WELL, AT LEAST I KNOW FROM MY POSITION I CAN'T SPEAK ON THE OTHER FIVE.

BUT FROM MY POSITION, IF I'M ABSENT, THE ASSISTANT AUDITOR CONTROLLER BY CODE AUTOMATICALLY TAKES MY ROLE UNTIL SOMETHING ELSE HAPPENS.

SO THAT PERSON, THERE'S NOTHING THAT YOU NEED TO DO.

THAT PERSON WOULD STEP UP AND ASSUME THAT POSITION IN THE VACANCY OF AN AUDITOR.

DO YOU KNOW IF THAT'S? THAT'S PROBABLY JUST YOUR OFFICE.

I DO NOT KNOW.

I'M NOT FAMILIAR WITH THE OTHER FIVE AS TO WHAT THAT COULD BE.

AND ULTIMATELY, YOU HAVE A SEPARATION OF ELECTED OFFICIALS.

SO WHAT IS TRUE WITH THE AUDITOR, CONTROLLER, THE SHERIFF, THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY IS NOT NECESSARILY TRUE WITH THE OTHER ELECTED OFFICIALS IN CALIFORNIA CODE.

BUT WHAT YOU'RE GETTING INTO IS PROBABLY A LITTLE TOO DEEP

[01:00:02]

FOR THIS DISCUSSION.

SO, SUPERVISOR PLUMMER, WHAT I THINK IS, AND THAT'S WHERE, I MEAN.

AND GOING BACK TO SUPERVISOR LONG'S POINT ABOUT THE BOARD, I MEAN, I THINK THE BOARD, MOST BOARDS ARE GOING TO KNOW WHAT'S CONTENTIOUS, WHAT'S NOT.

I MEAN, AND THAT'S WHY I THOUGHT THE FOUR-FIFTHS WOULD BE LIKE, WELL, FOUR-FIFTHS, YOU HAVE ONE OUTLIER THAT MAYBE FEELS REALLY STRONG, BUT YOU STILL HAVE, IT'S A SUPER MAJORITY, JUST LIKE WHEN WE HAVE BUDGET AMENDMENTS.

BUDGET AMENDMENTS ARE FOUR-FIFTHS.

SUPERVISOR CRY AND PLUMMER, CAN I CLARIFY SOMETHING? WHAT I HEARD SUPERVISOR PLUMMER SAYING WAS...

THERE WOULD BE NO SPECIAL ELECTION.

YOU'RE ABOUT SPECIAL ELECTIONS.

NO, WHAT I HEARD HIM SAY...

NOT SPECIAL ELECTION.

I'M SAYING IT JUST GOES TO VOTERS.

IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE...

WELL, I THINK WHAT HE WAS SAYING WAS BOARD WOULD APPOINT IF IT'S OUTSIDE A CERTAIN TIME FRAME, WHETHER IT'S 90 DAYS, SIX MONTHS, WHATEVER, BOARD APPOINTS.

AND IF NOT, IF IT'S WITHIN THE SIX MONTHS, THEN IT RUNS TO A...

GENERAL ELECTION, NOT A SPECIAL ELECTION WITH ALL THE COSTS ASSOCIATED, RUNS TO A GENERAL ELECTION AND THEN LET THE VOTERS DECIDE AND THEN YOU JUST RUN AN INTERIM OR A VACANT POSITION FOR, IS THAT WHAT I UNDERSTOOD YOU TO SAY? DID I GET THAT RIGHT? YES, IF THERE IS AN ELECTION AND WITHIN, LET'S CALL IT 12 MONTHS FOR THE SAKE OF DISCUSSION, THEN IT WOULD AUTOMATICALLY BE ON THAT NEXT ELECTION.

REGULAR, LESS SPECIAL ELECTION.

RIGHT, NOT SOMETHING THAT WAS SCHEDULED SPECIFICALLY FOR.

ELECTED OFFICIAL GETS REELECTED.

NOVEMBER, CHRISTMAS PARTY, CAR ACCIDENT, DIES, HAS A HEART ATTACK.

SO NOW WE'RE TOSSABLY TWO YEARS TO THE NEXT SCHEDULED ELECTION, UNLESS THERE'S A SPECIAL ELECTION IN BETWEEN.

AND THEN WHAT I HEARD SUPERVISOR PLUMMER SAY WAS, THEN THE BOARD WOULD APPOINT.

AND WHAT I'M SAYING IS, I THINK IF THE BOARD APPOINTS AND IT'S FOUR-FIFTHS, GREAT.

IF IT'S NOT FOUR-FIFTHS, THEN I THINK, I MEAN, YOU'RE PUTTING THE PRICE OF A MILLION DOLLARS, BUT...

AND I'M NOT SAYING THAT'S INACCURATE, BUT I'M JUST SAYING I THINK THERE ARE THERE'S A POINT THERE WHERE WE HAVE TO LOOK AT GETTING MORE OF THIS STUFF BACK TO THE PEOPLE.

THAT'S JUST MY THOUGHT.

AND I WOULD SAY THAT'S WHY MY BIAS IS TO UNLESS WE CAN'T WITHOUT INCURRING SIGNIFICANT COSTS, LET'S HAVE IT DEFAULT TO AN ELECTION VERSUS A BOARD APPOINTMENT.

SO THAT'S WHERE I WOULD WANT IT TO GO TO A AND THEN IF WE'RE LIKE, OH, WELL, THE NEXT ELECTION IS TWO YEARS OUT OR THREE YEARS OUT OR WHATEVER, I GUESS IT WOULD NEVER BE THREE YEARS.

BUT TWO YEARS OUT, THEN, OK, WE'LL APPOINT JUST BECAUSE WE DON'T WANT TO INCUR A MILLION DOLLARS TO HOST ELECTION JUST FOR THAT PURPOSE.

LET'S SEE WHAT THE PUBLIC HAS TO SAY.

WE HAVE SIX SPEAKERS, SO IT'LL BE THREE MINUTES EACH.

FIRST UP, DON DUCKETT, FOLLOWED BY SHASTA COUNTY WATCHDOGS, STEVE KAHN, THEN JEFF GORDER.

YOU KNOW, FRANKLY, I'M SHOCKED THAT WE ARE ENTERTAINING THIS IDEA ON THE HEELS OF OUR BUDGET HEARINGS WHERE WE WERE TOLD OF IMPENDING DOOM COMING WITH OUR PUBLIC SAFETY DEPARTMENTS.

GOOD MORNING, BOARD.

BOTH OF THESE ISSUES WERE VOTED DOWN.

THE ONE ABOUT INTIMATE DOMAIN, I REALLY SEE THAT AS A SOLUTION IN SEARCH OF A PROBLEM.

IT'S ONLY HAPPENED THREE TIMES.

SINCE THE COUNTY WAS CREATED AND IT JUST SEEMS LIKE A BIG WASTE OF TIME AND RESOURCES.

IN TERMS OF THE BOARD CALLING AN ELECTION OR APPOINTING AN ELECTED OFFICIAL THAT DOESN'T FINISH OUT THEIR TERM, SUPERVISOR CRY, YOU SAID THAT YOU CAN'T PUT A PRICE ON THE VOICE OF THE PEOPLE.

WELL, I REALLY WISH THAT I WOULD HAVE SEEN THAT SAME SENTIMENT WHEN YOU WERE APPOINTING THE REGISTRAR OF VOTERS TWO TIMES.

THIS ROOM WAS FILLED WITH CITIZENS URGING YOU TO APPOINT JOANNA, AND THIS BOARD DID NOT LISTEN.

I THINK THE SOLUTION TO THIS PROBLEM IS THAT WE ELECT BETTER LEADERS THAT MAKE BETTER DECISIONS AND LISTEN TO THEIR CONSTITUENTS.

IT'S THAT SIMPLE, GENTLEMEN.

EVERY DOLLAR YOU SPEND ON CHASING STATE BOOGEYMEN IS A DOLLAR OUT OF OUR...

PUBLIC SAFETY COFFERS.

SO BE THE FISCAL CONSERVATIVES THAT YOU ALL CLAIM TO BE.

[01:05:02]

NEXT UP, SHASTA COUNTY WATCHDOG, FOLLOWED BY STEVE KAHN, JEFF GORDER, THEN DAVID HALLIGAN.

I WANT TO BE STRAIGHTFORWARD WITH YOU GUYS HERE.

I'M GOING TO TELL YOU SOMETHING.

YOU, MR. PLUMMER, YOU NEED TO BE CAUTIOUS ABOUT YOUR DAMN DECISIONS YOU'RE MAKING, BECAUSE WHEN YOU'RE CONSTANTLY BACKING DOWN...

TO KEVIN KRACH AND GOING ALONG WITH HIS BULLSHIT.

THE BOTTOM LINE IS THE REASON HE WAS CALLING FOR A SPECIAL ELECTION, WHAT HE WANTS TO DO IS HAVE RECALL YOU AND MR. ALAN LONG.

THAT'S ALREADY ON THE WORKS.

SO YOU NEED TO BE CAUTIOUS.

YOU'RE TALKING TO THE WRONG PEOPLE.

SO HERE'S THE BOTTOM LINE.

WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO DO, KEVIN KRACH, YOU DON'T LISTEN TO THE PEOPLE.

YOU DO WHAT YOU WANT.

YOU'RE ON AN AGENDA.

YOU NEVER LISTEN.

THAT'S WHY WE'RE BEING SUED BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL AND SECRETARY OF STATE, BECAUSE YOU THREE ACTUALLY MADE BAD DECISIONS, AND YOU CONTINUE TO MAKE BAD DECISIONS.

IF YOU WANT TO SPEND THAT KIND OF MONEY, WHY DON'T YOU USE YOUR OWN MONEY? $20 MILLION, $1.13 MILLION, IT'S ALMOST $20 MILLION FROM ALL THE SCHOOLS IN THE COUNTY HERE.

THIS IS THE COUNTY COURT.

IF HE WANTS TO SPEND TAXPAYERS' MONEY, HE SHOULD USE HIS OWN MONEY.

NOT THE TAXPAYERS' MONEY.

HE'S USING FEDERAL AND STATE MONEY.

DO YOU WANT TO GET SUED AGAIN? THAT'S THE THING.

YOU KNOW, KEVIN, YOU'RE DONE.

YOU'RE OUT.

YOU LOST THE RACE.

HOW MUCH MORE YOU WANT TO PUT THE COUNTY IN DEBT? YOU WANT TO GO OUT WITH BASICALLY SHOWING THAT YOU NEVER CARED? HOW MUCH MORE? YOU DON'T LIKE THE COUNTY CHARTERS, THE AMENDMENTS.

THE CHARTER, YOU GUYS USE THAT AS LIKE THIS.

WHENEVER IT'S CONVENIENT FOR YOU, BECAUSE YOU TALK ABOUT FUNDING THAT YOU WANT TO STAY AWAY FROM THE STATE, BUT YET, KEVIN CRYER USES THE ELOP, STATE AND FEDERAL FUNDING, TO SUPPORT HIMSELF.

SO OVER $20 MILLION.

COME ON, MR. LAHRBERG, OKAY? YOU ALLOW THIS TO HAPPEN BECAUSE YOU AS A LEGAL COUNSEL DON'T GIVE CORRECT LEGAL ADVICE TO THE COUNSEL TO MAKE SURE THAT WE DON'T GET INTO LITIGATION.

SO I'M JUST LETTING YOU KNOW THAT ENOUGH IS ENOUGH.

KEVIN CHRIST STOPPED WASTING TAXPAYERS' MONEY.

WE HAVE TOLERATED YOU SO LONG, AND YET YOU CONTINUE.

SO WE KNOW YOUR PLAN.

HE'S PLANNING TO RECALL YOU TOO.

I HEARD HIM.

NEXT UP, STEVE KAHN, FOLLOWED BY JEFF GORDER, DAVID HALLIGAN, THEN JENNY.

WELL, WHAT I WAS GOING TO SAY ON THIS IS THAT WE'VE BEEN THROUGH THESE ITEMS, WE VOTED ON THEM, AND WE VOTED THEM DOWN.

SO I DON'T WANT TO SPEND ANY MORE MONEY.

IT SEEMS LIKE IT'S JUST A PUBLICITY STUNT TO GET CRY MORE ATTENTION.

WHEN IT COMES TO THE AMENDMENT WITH REGARDS TO EMINENT DOMAIN, THE DISCUSSION IS ABOUT SOMETHING THAT'S NEVER HAPPENED IN SHASTA COUNTY.

IT'S NEVER HAPPENED.

NOW, HE WANTS TO IMPLEMENT, YOU KNOW, AND SPEND MONEY ON IMPLEMENTING PROTECTIONS RIGHT NOW FOR SOMETHING THAT DOESN'T EXIST.

NOW, IF THE STATE PROPOSES SOMETHING THAT JEOPARDIZES THAT, FINE, WE CAN REACT.

WE CAN DO A CHARTER AMENDMENT IF NEEDED, BUT TO DO IT NOW IS MEANINGLESS.

IT SHOULDN'T EVEN BE BROUGHT UP.

I DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT'S GOING ON HERE.

IT'S NEVER HAPPENED.

WE'RE IMAGINING THINGS.

WE'RE PICKING THEM OUT OF THE SKY AND WANTING TO SPEND MASSIVE QUANTITIES OF MONEY PURSUING PROPERTY FAIRIES OR SOMETHING.

I DON'T KNOW.

ANYWAY, AND THEN WHEN IT COMES TO THE SECOND PART, WHICH WAS...

IF WE, IF WE, THE APPOINTMENT SITUATION.

SO IF WE HAVE A BAD BOARD THAT'S APPOINTING BAD THINGS, THEN WE REMOVE THEM LIKE WE HAVE YOU, CRY.

WHEN WE DON'T AGREE WITH YOU, THEN WE GET YOU OUT OF OFFICE, AND THEN WE HAVE PEOPLE THAT WE RESPECT AND RESPECT THEIR DECISIONS IN MAKING THE APPOINTMENTS.

WHEN IT COMES TO A SPECIAL ELECTION, I'M A BIT CONCERNED BECAUSE...

IN SPECIAL ELECTIONS, THERE'S GENERALLY VERY FEW PEOPLE THAT VOTE.

SO THE IDEA OF HAVING PEOPLE APPOINT THE REPLACEMENT IS FINE, BUT GENERALLY THAT PERCENTAGE IS VERY SMALL.

ALSO, I SEE THE POTENTIAL FOR SOMEBODY WITH DEEP POCKETS BEING ABLE TO INFLUENCE THAT ELECTION DISPROPORTIONATELY BECAUSE THERE MAY NOT BE A LOT OF ATTENTION TO INFLUENCING THAT ELECTION IN ONE SITUATION, BUT THEN THERE MAY BE A NEFARIOUS PERSON.

THAT HAS MONEY FROM SAN SALMO OR SOMEBODY, THAT GOES OUT

[01:10:01]

THERE AND DISPROPORTIONATELY IMPACTS IT TO PUT THE PERSON THAT THEY WANT IN WHEN IT COMES TO A SPECIAL ELECTION.

NOW, IF IT GOES TO A REGULAR ELECTION, I'M ALL FOR IT.

SO ANYWAY, THOSE ARE MY THOUGHTS ON THAT.

NEXT UP, JEFF GORDER, FOLLOWED BY DAVID HALLIGAN, THEN JENNY.

I WANT TO FOLLOW ALAN LOTT'S ANALYSIS.

GOOD MORNING, EVERYONE.

IT'S A COST-BENEFIT THING FOR ME.

I DON'T SEE THAT ANY BENEFITS OUTWEIGH THE POTENTIAL COST HERE.

AS HE SAID, LESS THAN A YEAR AND A HALF AGO, 58% OF THE VOTERS VOTED MEASURE Q DOWN, THE FILLING OF THE VACANCIES.

WHY IN A YEAR AND A HALF WOULD WE THROW THIS AGAIN BEFORE THE VOTERS AND INCUR ANY COST? IT MAKES NO SENSE.

IN THE BUDGET HEARINGS, THERE WERE ARGUMENTS ABOUT $11,000 HERE AND THERE, AND WHETHER THAT WAS...

AN ISSUE TO BE CONSIDERED AND WHY WOULD WE UNNECESSARILY PUT THIS MEASURE Q ESSENTIALLY UH...

RESURRECTED AND PUT IT BACK BEFORE THE VOTERS WHEN THERE'S NO INDICATION THAT IT'S A LACK OF UNDERSTANDING ON THE PART OF THE VOTERS THAT THE THE VOTED THIS DOWN FOR THAT REASON SO TO ME THE COST CLEARLY OUTWEIGH ANY BENEFITS ON THAT WITH REGARD TO EMINENT DOMAIN THAT IS AS STEVE SAID THIS ISSUE HAS NEVER HAPPENED IN CHASTITY COUNTY THERE'S A REFERENCE TO EMINENT TO OBEYING BEING USED THREE TIMES.

AND WHAT THAT WAS WAS THE TAKING OF PRIVATE PROPERTY FOR A PUBLIC USE, NOT THE TAKING OF PRIVATE PROPERTY AND THE GIVING TO ANOTHER PRIVATE PARTY.

THAT'S NEVER HAPPENED IN SHASTA.

THERE ARE ONLY, FROM MY UNDERSTANDING, JUST TWO COUNTIES IN CALIFORNIA THAT HAVE PUT THIS ON THERE.

AND THE REASON, AS ALAN LONG SAID, THERE'S A CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION.

IN OUR CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION THAT PREVENTS A COUNTY FROM TAKING A PRIVATE RESIDENCE, A PRIVATELY OCCUPIED RESIDENCE, AND GIVING THAT TO ANOTHER PRIVATE LANDOWNER, THAT WOULD NOT BE ALLOWED.

THE ONLY ISSUE THAT EVER OCCURS IS WHEN THERE'S A PRIVATE BLIGHT OF SOME KIND, LET'S SAY AN APARTMENT BUILDING THAT'S A DRUG HOUSE OR IT'S RUN DOWN AND IT'S...

IT'S A BLIGHT IN THE COMMUNITY AND THE BOARD DECIDES THEY WANT TO TAKE THAT PROPERTY AND GIVE IT TO A PRIVATE DEVELOPER SO THEY MIGHT DEVELOP LOW-INCOME HOUSING OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

NOW WHY WOULD YOU WANT TO LOSE THAT OPPORTUNITY? THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE LOSING BY THIS PROPOSAL.

IF YOU SAID YOU COULD NEVER TAKE ANY PRIVATE PROPERTY AND GIVE IT TO ANOTHER PRIVATE DEVELOPER, YOU'RE LOSING THAT OPPORTUNITY.

YOU MIGHT HAVE SOME RUN-DOWN APARTMENT BUILDING IN SHASTA COUNTY OR SOME OTHER BUILDING THAT'S NOT A PRIVATE RESIDENCE THAT YOU NEED TO, FOR HEALTH AND SAFETY REASONS, YOU NEED TO ELIMINATE THAT BLIGHT.

AND SOME PRIVATE DEVELOPER SAYS, I'LL DO IT AND I'LL DEVELOP THIS PROJECT.

SO THERE'S NO REASON FOR THIS.

IT'S NEVER HAPPENED IN SHASTA COUNTY, BUT IF IT EVER DOES, YOU WANT THE OPPORTUNITY AVAILABLE.

SO COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS MAKES NO SENSE.

NEXT UP, DAVID HALLIGAN, FOLLOWED BY JENNY.

GOOD MORNING, BOARD.

I WANT TO TALK ABOUT EMINENT DOMAIN IN MEASURE P FROM THE 2024 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION.

80,000 PEOPLE VOTED ON MEASURE P, AND IT WAS WITHIN 350 VOTES, SO IT WAS VERY CLOSE.

BUT I STILL DON'T THINK WE NEED TO TAKE THIS FURTHER WHEN WE ALREADY HAVE EMINENT DOMAIN IN OUR CONSTITUTION.

NOT AT ALL.

ON MEASURE Q, THE REPLACEMENT OF ELECTED OFFICIALS, AND I WANT TO REMIND EVERYONE, THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH BOARD OF SUPERVISOR REPLACEMENTS, WHERE THE BOARD CAN APPOINT, THE BOARD CAN DO A SPECIAL ELECTION, AND THE BOARD CAN ALSO LEAVE A SEAT VACANT UNTIL THE NEXT SCHEDULED ELECTION.

BUT ON MEASURE Q, 80,000 PEOPLE VOTED ON THAT.

GUESS WHAT? 13,600 PEOPLE VOTED AGAINST MEASURE Q.

AND MR. CRY, YOU JUST GOT DONE TELLING EVERYBODY, WELL, IF YOU'RE GOING TO COMPARE Q AND B, THEN WE SHOULD DO BOTH OF THEM.

NO, Q IS A LEGAL OPTION FOR OUR COUNTY.

MEASURE B IS ILLEGAL IN OUR STATE AND WOULD COST THIS COUNTY HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS.

REGARDING THE NOVEMBER ELECTION, OR LET'S GO BACK TO NOVEMBER 20, THE 25 SPECIAL ELECTION, EXACT NUMBERS, A MILLION BUCKS IS WHAT THE NOVEMBER 2025 SPECIAL ELECTION.

SPECIAL ELECTION WITH A PROPOSITION 50 AND MEASURE 8.

THAT WAS THE BILL INCURRED

[01:15:02]

BY THE COUNTY, A MILLION DOLLARS.

I DON'T WANT TO SEE A MILLION DOLLARS SPENT ON A SPECIAL ELECTION, ESPECIALLY IF YOU'RE GOING TO GET ONE FOR AN ELECTED OFFICIAL THAT YOU'RE GOING TO GET 25,000 VOTES TO.

YOU KNOW WHAT THAT WORKS OUT TO BE? FORTY DOLLARS FOR EVERY VOTE.

NOW, I UNDERSTAND WHY THE PUBLIC MAYBE SEES WHAT'S HAPPENED WITH THE LAST TWO.

ROV POSITIONS IN THE SCREW-UP, RIGHT? I MEAN, FROM THE APPOINTMENT OF MR. TOLER WITH KELLSTROM, CRYE, AND JONES VOTING FOR THAT, AND THEN LAST YEAR WITH KELLSTROM, CRYE, AND HARMON VOTING FOR MR. CURTIS.

I CAN KIND OF SEE THAT.

BUT I'M GOING TO PUT A LITTLE MORE FAITH ON THE BOARD MOVING FORWARD.

YOU'RE 0 FOR 2 WITH THAT.

LET'S SEE IF WE CAN GET A HIT.

I DON'T WANT TO SPEND A MILLION DOLLARS.

WHILE I NORMALLY HAVE HEARD IT SAID THAT WE SHOULD MIND OUR P'S AND Q'S, IN THIS CASE I MIGHT NOT MIND THAT MUCH.

NEXT UP, JENNY.

GOOD MORNING, BOARD.

MEASURE P ESPECIALLY.

IT MAKES ABSOLUTELY NO SENSE.

IT'S BEEN AROUND 20 YEARS SINCE M-NOTE DEMEAN'S EVEN COME UP IN SHASTA COUNTY, AND I DO BELIEVE IT WAS IN THE EARLY AUGHTS.

IMPROVEMENTS WERE MADE TO A ROAD FOR SOME LAND TAKEN, AND IT WAS LIKE FOR A SIDEWALK OR SOMETHING, AND ONCE AGAIN, THAT WAS PUBLIC PROPERTY, OR IT WAS GIVEN TO THE PUBLIC.

IT WASN'T PRIVATE TO PRIVATE, WHICH HAS NEVER HAPPENED IN SHASTA COUNTY.

I'VE ASKED BEFORE TO NO AVAIL, WHILE IT'S IMPORTANT TO YOU, THAT LAND CANNOT BE TAKEN FROM ONE INDIVIDUAL AND GIVEN TO ANOTHER.

WHERE DOES IT EVEN COME UP? LIKE, WHAT IS IT FOR? IS IT FOR LAWSUITS? WITH CALIFORNIA LAW AS IT EXISTS, I THINK YOUR PRIVATE BASKETBALL COURT MIGHT BE SAFE FOR NOW.

I KNOW IT MIMICS AN ITEM THAT PASSED IN ORANGE COUNTY.

I JUST DON'T SEE WHAT THE POINT OF IT IS.

NOW, MEASURE Q, I WOULD PREFER THE VOTERS HELD AN ELECTION ON THAT.

I ACTUALLY DID VOTE FOR IT.

I MIGHT AGREE WITH YOU, MR. CRY, THAT IT ORIGINALLY SIMPLY DIDN'T PASS BECAUSE YOUR NAME WAS ON IT AND PEOPLE WERE SUSPICIOUS.

I PERSONALLY WISH IT WOULD HAVE PASSED THE FIRST TIME.

IT WOULD HAVE AVOIDED THE MESS WITH CLINT CURTIS, AND I, FOR ONE, THINK THAT IT MIGHT PASS AFTER WHAT HAPPENED THIS LAST TIME.

MY ONLY QUESTION, BY THE WAY YOU ARE SPEAKING, WOULD PEOPLE WHO STEP UP TO FILL THE INTERIM POSITION IN BETWEEN ELECTIONS BE PAID FOR WORKING OUT OF CLASS? BECAUSE, LIKE JOANNA WAS NOT ALLOWED TO BE BECAUSE IT WAS FOR AN ELECTED POSITION.

I REMEMBER THIS DEBATE, SO WOULD THE MEASURE FIX THAT? THAT'S JUST ONE OF MY QUESTIONS.

I HOPE THAT IF IT IS PLACED BACK ON THE BOARD FOR THE MAJORITY, I HOPE IT GOES TO A REGULAR ELECTION AND NOT A SPECIAL ELECTION, AND THAT OUR COUNTY WILL...

THINKS ABOUT THE FACT THAT WE JUST DON'T HAVE THE MONEY FOR SPECIAL ELECTIONS.

SO THANK YOU.

SPEAKER? YES, CHAIR.

REPRESENTATIVE PLUMMER, YOU'RE STILL IN QUEUE.

YES, I WANTED TO MAKE A FEW POINTS AND THEN HAD SOME QUESTIONS FOR COUNTY COUNCIL.

SO ON THE EMINENT DOMAIN PIECE, I THINK THE EXAMPLE ACTUALLY PRESENTED OF A BLIGHTED PROPERTY THAT GETS SEIZED BY THE GOVERNMENT AND THEN TRANSFERRED TO A PRIVATE PARTY, THAT IS ACTUALLY A CONCERN OF MINE, PARTICULARLY IF WE'RE WATCHING WHAT'S HAPPENING IN NEW YORK CITY WHERE THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT MOVING DOWN THE ROAD OF...

YOU KNOW ONE CONTROLLING THE RENT SO THAT THEY CAN'T MAINTAIN THEIR PROPERTIES SUFFICIENTLY AND THEN IF THEY SCORE POORLY SEIZING THAT AND REDISTRIBUTING IT TO OTHER OWNERS WHICH I THINK IS REALLY UNDERMINES PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS SO I THINK THAT IS A CONCERN UH BUT UH I DO WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE NOT DOING SOMETHING THAT'S DUPLICATIVE SO UM AND I KNOW COUNTY COUNCIL WE WERE WE WERE KIND OF GOING BACK AND FORTH ON THIS UM BUT THE COULD YOU CLARIFY WHETHER THERE IS IN THE CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION, THOSE RIGHTS CURRENTLY THAT PROTECT THE ABILITY OF A GOVERNMENT TO SEIZE PRIVATE PROPERTY AND THEN TRANSFER IT TO A PRIVATE ENTITY.

YEAH, SO CALIFORNIA, AFTER THE KELO CASE WAS DECIDED, MUCH LIKE A LOT OF THE STATES, ENACTED ANTI-KELO LAWS, AND THE VOTERS OF CALIFORNIA PLACED THAT INTO THE CONSTITUTION.

AND SO, LIKE SUPERVISOR CRY MENTIONED WITH PROP 50, IF THE STATE, THROUGH BALLOT INITIATIVE OR OTHER MEANS, WERE TO CHANGE THAT AND ALLOW THE STATE TO DO THAT, AND WE HAD THIS IN PLACE, WHAT WOULD THAT PROTECT VERSUS WHAT WOULD IT NOT PROTECT? IT WOULD ONLY BE A LIMIT ON THE EXERCISE OF THIS BOARD FROM MOVING.

SO IF THE STATE WERE TO CHANGE THE CONSTITUTION AND WE HAD MEASURE P IN PLACE? BASICALLY, THE STATE COULD STILL COME IN AND SEIZE PRIVATE PROPERTY AND THEN REDISTRIBUTE THAT TO A PRIVATE ENTITY, EVEN IF WE HAD MEASURE P IN PLACE.

[01:20:01]

JUST THE COUNTY ITSELF COULD NOT DO THAT.

YEAH, WHAT YOU'RE DISCUSSING HERE COULD ONLY CONTROL THE COUNTY'S EXERCISE.

SO WHETHER THE CITY OR THE STATE WAS EXERCISING THAT POWER, YOUR CHARTER WOULDN'T CHANGE THAT.

SO THAT I'M A LITTLE TORN ON THAT ONE BECAUSE I DO THINK IF THIS WAS TO PROTECT US AGAINST THE STATE CHANGING THE CONSTITUTION, WHICH I COULD IMAGINE LIKE THAT SEEMS PLAUSIBLE AT SOME POINT, THEN I WOULD DEFINITELY BE IN FAVOR OF TAKING THE TIME AND ENERGY TO PUT THIS ON.

WOULD NOT.

IF IT'S ONLY GOING TO PROTECT BASICALLY THE COUNTY FROM DOING THAT THERE, I'M LESS CONCERNED GIVEN THE NATURE OF OUR COUNTY AND OUR ELECTED OFFICIALS.

AND SO I AM A LITTLE TORN ON WHETHER IT FEELS NECESSARY TO DO THIS AT THAT TIME.

ON THE, AND THEN JUST WANTED TO MAKE ONE COMMENT ON THE MEASURE Q POINT, WHICH IS.

SURE.

SHASTA COUNTY, I BELIEVE, WAS THE ONLY AT-HOME PROGRAM THAT ACTUALLY EXECUTED WHAT THE STATE HAD TALKED ABOUT.

LET'S SAY THAT HHSA, THERE'S FUNDING OR WHATEVER, AND THE STATE'S NOT GOING TO COME IN AND DO IT, BUT THEY'RE GOING TO PUSH HHSA TO WANT TO DO, YOU KNOW, SOME TYPE OF FUNDING WHERE THE COUNTY COULD STILL DO THAT.

LIKE, IT'S NOT OUT OF THE REALM OF POSSIBILITY.

THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING.

I MEAN, I THINK AS MUCH AS EVEN, I MEAN, ANYWAY, I'M JUST.

I THINK I HAVE GIVEN, I HAVE A RELATIVELY HIGH DEGREE OF CONFIDENCE THAT THIS BOARD WOULD.

THIS BOARD OR SOME CONSTITUTION OF THIS BOARD IN THE FUTURE WOULD REJECT THAT.

YOU WOULD HOPE.

RIGHT.

YOU WOULD HOPE.

I MEAN, IT'S NOT A FOREGONE CONCLUSION, BUT YOU WOULD HOPE THAT THAT WOULD BE THE CASE? I WOULD HAVE NEVER THOUGHT PEOPLE IN SHASTA COUNTY, REGARDLESS OF THE POLITICAL PERSUASION, WOULD SUPPORT PROP 50.

KNOWING THAT WHEN WE TALK ABOUT WOLVES AND ALL THAT OTHER KIND OF STUFF, THAT PEOPLE UNDERSTOOD WHAT WAS GOING TO BE LOST.

AND MOST VOTERS DON'T KNOW.

THEY DON'T KNOW.

IT'S PARTISAN, AND THAT'S WHERE IT GOES.

AND THAT'S...

I'M JUST TRYING TO PROTECT EVERYTHING WE CAN.

SO ANYWAY.

ON MEASURE Q, I AM SUPPORTIVE OF THAT.

AND WHAT I HEARD DURING THE CONVERSATIONS, THOUGH WITH SOME AMENDMENTS, WHAT I HEARD IN THE CONVERSATIONS WHEN PEOPLE WERE TALKING ABOUT IT AT THE TIME IS, NUMBER ONE, SOME PEOPLE THOUGHT THAT THAT GAVE THE AUTHORITY TO THE BOARD TO APPOINT.

CORRECT.

WHICH WAS NOT THE CASE.

IT ACTUALLY JUST GAVE THEM THE OPTION TO GIVE IT TO AN ELECTION WHEN THEY ALREADY HAD THE AUTHORITY TO APPOINT.

SO I THINK THERE WAS SOME CONFUSION THERE.

WHICH PROBABLY CAUSED SOME OF THE OPPOSITION TO IT.

AND THEN OTHERS SAID, WELL, IF THEY CAN APPOINT NOW AND THEY COULD APPOINT IN THE FUTURE, WHAT'S THE POINT? AND SO THAT'S WHERE I THINK WITH AN AMENDMENT TO IT THAT WOULD SAY, WELL, IT DEFAULTS TO AN ELECTION.

IF THERE'S AN ELECTION WITHIN 12 MONTHS, I THINK THAT WOULD HELP THOSE WHO FEEL LIKE, OH, THIS ISN'T REALLY CHANGING ANYTHING BECAUSE THE BOARD COULD JUST CHOOSE TO APPOINT ANYWAY, EVEN IF THEY HAVE THE OPTION OF DOING A SPECIAL ELECTION.

SO IF THAT WAS DICTATED BY THE AMENDMENT RATHER THAN...

PURELY TO THE BOARD TO DECIDE.

SO HOW ABOUT THE FOUR-FIFTHS OF THE 12 MONTHS? DO YOU LIKE THAT? I MEAN, BECAUSE I WAS KIND OF...

I LIKE BOTH OF THOSE.

THEN THAT'LL BE MY MOTION.

GREAT.

I MEAN, BECAUSE I THINK THE SHERIFF JOHNSON'S, HE WAS 4-1, BUT IT WAS LIKE NINE MONTHS.

I THINK, YOU KNOW, AND I SUPPORT SHERIFF JOHNSON.

I MEAN, I WORK WITH HIM.

HE'S GREAT.

I'M JUST SAYING I THINK THAT'S WHERE...

I'M JUST, ARE YOU GOOD? I'M GOOD.

SO WE'RE GOOD ON THAT.

SO I'M JUST GONNA MAKE A COUPLE, I'M SORRY, YOU WANT TO CALL ME? I'M IN QUEUE.

I JUST WANT TO SAY LIKE, I THINK IT'S THE HYPOCRISY IS GOING TO BE ASTOUNDING WHEN A BUNCH OF YOU GET UP HERE AND TALK ABOUT THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE HAVE VOTED AND MEASURE Q SHOULD BE GONE.

AND THEN YOU'RE GOING TO COME UP IN PUBLIC COMMENT IN AN HOUR AND SAY, WOW, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO.

IT DOESN'T EQUATE THERE.

IT'S EITHER YOU'RE HERE OR YOU'RE THERE AND WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT HOW MANY OF YOUR GUYS' HOUSES HAVE BURNED DOWN? WELL, IF YOUR HOUSE HAS NEVER BURNED DOWN, YOU PROBABLY SHOULDN'T HAVE INSURANCE.

BECAUSE THAT'S MEASURE Q.

TO ME, IT'S ABOUT, YOU KNOW, YOU ALWAYS NEED IT WHEN YOU DON'T HAVE IT.

AND IF YOU DON'T HAVE IT, YOU PROBABLY NEED IT.

SO, MY THING WITH GO IS, I THINK IT'S JUST, IT'S A LAYER OF PROTECTION FOREVER.

FOR 50 GRAND ON WHEN IT'S ON, AND I AGREE, IT SHOULDN'T BE A SPECIAL ELECTION, JUST PUT IT ON ANOTHER ELECTION.

THAT'S A DROP IN THE BUCKET FOR WHAT WE'RE PROTECTING BECAUSE YOU DON'T KNOW.

AND THEN ON MEASURE Q, I THINK WE'RE GOOD AT THAT.

BUT I JUST, I MEAN, PEOPLE SHOULD CUT THAT VIDEO STUFF OUT BECAUSE YOU'RE GOING TO GET PEOPLE COMING UP HERE TALKING OUT OF BOTH SIDES OF THEIR MOUTH ABOUT LISTENING TO THE ELECTORATE.

AND THAT'S WHAT JUST DRIVES ME INSANE IS PEOPLE THAT DON'T HAVE ANY PRINCIPLES.

ONE OF THE SPEAKERS BROUGHT UP SOMETHING ABOUT TAKING

[01:25:01]

FROM PRIVATE AND GIVING TO ANOTHER PRIVATE.

AND I WOULD ARGUE THAT IN THE CASE THAT WAS PRESENTED, IT WAS ACTUALLY PRESENTING FOR PUBLIC GOOD, WHICH WOULD BE, YEAH, YOU MIGHT HAVE A PRIVATE CONTRACTOR, YOU'VE GIVEN IT TO A PRIVATE ENTITY TO IMPLEMENT THE WILL.

BUT, BUT COUNSEL, CAN I GET AN INTERPRETATION OF THAT FROM YOU AS TO THAT WOULD BE MY, MY TAKE ON THAT WOULD BE FROM PRIVATE TO PRIVATE, BUT THAT WOULD BE FOR THE PUBLIC GOOD.

IT WOULDN'T BE A PRIVATE TO A PRIVATE.

SO SOMEBODY ELSE CAN JUST DEVELOP THEIR OWN BUSINESS AND SEE SOMEBODY'S PERSONAL PROPERTY.

THAT, THAT WAS THE HEART OF THE KILO CASE AND NOT WELL TAKEN BY THE PUBLIC.

MOST STATES HAVE ANTI-KELO STATUTES BECAUSE OF IT.

ESSENTIALLY, WHAT THAT ALLOWED WAS THE SOVEREIGN WHO WAS TAKING THAT PROPERTY TO DECIDE WHAT WAS IN THE PUBLIC'S BENEFIT WHILE TAKING PRIVATE PROPERTY WAS NOT WELL RECEIVED.

AND SO ULTIMATELY, YOU KNOW, ALL YOU HAVE TO DETERMINE IS A SMALL PUBLIC BENEFIT.

IN THE KELO CASE, ESSENTIALLY, IT WAS A...

MULTI-GENERATIONAL FAMILY FARM THAT WAS TAKEN FOR A PHARMACEUTICAL BUILDING.

THE FINDING WAS THE PHARMACEUTICAL BUILDING HAS PUBLIC BENEFIT.

OKAY, SO LET'S STAY WITH THAT LINE OF THOUGHT FOR JUST A SECOND.

SO IN THE KELO, THEN, BUILT INTO OUR STATE CONSTITUTION, PROHIBITING PRIVATE TO PRIVATE, DID THEY COME UP WITH A THRESHOLD AS TO THE AMOUNT THAT WOULD BE FOR A PUBLIC GOOD SO IT WASN'T? CAPRICIOUS AND RANDOM ARBITRARY AND OR DID THEY THEY ARE OUR CURRENT CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENT IS THAT YOU CAN'T TAKE IT FROM A PRIVATE MEMBER AND HAND IT OVER TO A PUBLIC USE OR TO A PRIVATE USE PRIVATE YEAH OKAY THREW ME THERE SO RIGHT NOW IF YOU'RE GOING TO EXERCISE EMINENT DOMAIN YOU HAVE TO TAKE IT FOR A PUBLIC A PUBLIC USE LIKE ROADWAY SO THEY'VE DEFINED BECAUSE, LIKE YOU SAID, THERE COULD BE A LIMITED AMOUNT OF PUBLIC GOOD ASSOCIATED, BUT MY THOUGHT WOULD BE IF IT PROHIBITS UNDER THAT CASE DECISION, IF IT PROHIBITS PRIVATE TO PRIVATE, AND THAT'S BUILT.

THE CASE DECISION DOES NOT.

KELO WAS THE OPPOSITE OF THAT.

EXACTLY.

SO EXACTLY WHAT PROTECTIONS ARE THERE FROM A PRIVATE TO A PRIVATE? CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT THAT WAS PUT IN.

WELL, I WAS JUST GOING TO SAY, ANOTHER EXAMPLE, RIGHT? LIKE, YOU HAVE OUR PRESIDENT, AND THEN THE PAST PRESIDENT.

YOU HAVE, YOU KNOW, THIS MASSIVE EXHIBITION OF WHATEVER.

I'M NOT GOING TO GET INTO THE POLITICS OF WHAT IT WAS.

AND THEN YOU HAVE THE ONE THAT TRUMP JUST DID.

AND HOW ABOUT THIS? HOW ABOUT, LIKE, NO PARTIES ON THE WHITE HOUSE LAWN? LIKE, HOW ABOUT THAT? AND WHAT I'M SAYING IS.

I DON'T THINK WE'RE THE ARBITERS OF SAYING WHAT'S GOOD FOR THE PUBLIC.

THAT'S WHY I'M TRYING TO RETURN IT TO THE PUBLIC AND PROTECT IT.

I MEAN, BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, THERE WAS PEOPLE THAT WEREN'T IRATE UP IN ARMS WHEN BIDEN DID A BIG PARTY, YOU KNOW, THREE YEARS AGO.

BUT THEY'RE UP IN ARMS HERE.

I'M JUST TIRED OF THE HYPOCRISY.

SO I'M GOING TO MAKE A MOTION.

IS THIS TWO MOTIONS, COUNCIL MEMBER? YOU HAVE A DISCUSSION ITEM IN FRONT OF YOU.

THE MOST YOU CAN DO IS ASK TO HAVE SOMETHING BROUGHT BACK.

AND CAN WE BRING THEM BACK SEPARATELY? YOU COULD, ABSOLUTELY.

I'M GOING TO MAKE A MOTION THAT WE BRING, AND IT WON'T BE P, IT'LL BE THE M&A.

JUST TO CLARIFY, YOU SAID AN ORDINANCE.

ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT AN ORDINANCE OR A CHARTER AMENDMENT? I'LL SECOND THAT MOTION.

AND JUST FOR CLARIFICATION, A CHARTER AMENDMENT IS DONE VIA AN ORDINANCE.

WELL, IT'S A READING OF THE ORDINANCE, THEN IT GOES TO THE BALLOT.

SO, YEAH.

AND THEN MY SECOND MOTION IS THAT WE BRING...

WHO MADE THE SECOND MOTION? OR WHO MADE THE SECOND TO THE FIRST MOTION? THEN I'LL MAKE ANOTHER MOTION THAT WE BRING BACK...

BEFORE WE MOVE ON, I'M SORRY TO KEEP INTERRUPTING.

CAN WE TAKE THE VOTE ON THAT FIRST MOTION? YEAH, LET'S HAVE A ROLL CALL VOTE STARTING WITH SUPERVISOR PLUMMER.

SUPERVISOR PLUMMER? NO.

SUPERVISOR CRY? YES.

SUPERVISOR KALLSTROM? YES.

SUPERVISOR HARMON? YES.

AND SUPERVISOR LONG? NO.

IT'S INTERESTING BECAUSE YOU SUPPORTED IT BEFORE, BUT THAT'S OKAY.

WELL, AND AT THE TIME I SAID, AND, YOU KNOW, AT THE TIME I SAID I SUPPORT IT NOW THAT IT'S

[01:30:01]

ON THE BALLOT, BUT I WOULD HAVE HAD DISCUSSION.

AND IT'S THE SAME THING HERE.

OKAY, THAT'S FINE.

ALL RIGHT, AND THEN I'M GOING TO MAKE A MOTION THAT WE BRING BACK THE ELECTED.

THE ELECTED ITEM AND THAT WE MAKE IT A FOUR-FIFTHS VOTE AND IF THE ELECT IF THE SOONEST REGULARLY SCHEDULED ELECTION IS WITHIN 12 MONTHS IT GOES TO A SPECIAL ELECTION AND IF THE BOARD WANTS TO APPOINT IT'S FOUR-FIFTHS THAT THAT'S MY MOTION AND I WILL SECOND THAT ALSO SO SO YOU GUYS UNDERSTAND IF I CAN JUST YES SO I DON'T THINK YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT A SPECIAL ELECTION SO IF YOU'RE TALKING YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT A GENERAL THE NEXT SCHEDULED ELECTION OKAY SO SO FOR BOARD DISCUSSION HERE.

SO WHAT WE'RE VOTING ON IS TO BRING THIS BACK.

WE'RE NOT VOTING TO PASS THE CHARTER AMENDMENTS.

WE'RE VOTING TO BRING IT BACK AND HAVE ANOTHER DISCUSSION.

SO YOU SECOND IT, RIGHT? YES.

BUT WHAT WE WANT IS WE WANT TO BE CLEAR SO WHEN THEY BRING IT BACK, VOTING ON THAT, AND IT'S NOT ANOTHER DISCUSSION.

SO IF THERE'S ANY AMENDMENTS, SUPERVISOR PLUMMER.

I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY SOMETHING IN WHAT YOU SAID.

SO IF IT'S WITHIN 12 MONTHS, IF THERE'S A REGULARLY SCHEDULED ELECTION WITHIN 12 MONTHS, THEN IT MUST GO ON TO THAT ELECTION.

IF IT'S.

IF THE NEXT REGULARLY SCHEDULED ELECTION IS AFTER 12 MONTHS THEN IT WOULD BE UP TO THE BOARD TO APPOINT A FOUR-FIFTH VOTE CORRECT OKAY YEAH I'M GOOD ALL RIGHT MOTION BY SUPERVISOR CRY SECONDED BY MYSELF WE'LL START WITH UH SUPERVISOR LONG LET ME FINISH MY NOTES REAL QUICK SORRY SUPERVISOR NO.

COUNCILLOR HUTCHISON, SUPERVISOR HARMON.

AND THIS IS JUST TO CLARIFY, THIS IS JUST TO BRING IT BACK.

SUPERVISOR KALLSTROM.

SUPERVISOR CRAY.

I'M SORRY, I DO HAVE A CLARIFICATION.

AND SUPERVISOR PLUMMER.

WHEN YOU SAY BRING THIS BACK, ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT A DISCUSSION OR THE INTRODUCTION OF AN ORDINANCE? AN INTRODUCTION OF AN ORDINANCE.

AND SUPERVISOR PLUMMER.

CHIEF O'HARA, THANK YOU FOR YOUR PATIENCE.

[R3 Take the following actions: (1) Receive a presentation from Chief O’Hara on the 2025 Shasta County Fire Department Annual Report; (2) receive a compliance report on fire safety inspections (“Report”); and (3) adopt a resolution which certifies the receipt of the Report.]

PASSES FOR ONE.

ALL RIGHT, MOVING ON.

R3.

MY NAME IS SEAN O'HARA.

TODAY I'M GOING TO, IT'S FOR THE 2020, 2025.

I'LL MAKE IT A LITTLE BIT QUICKER THAN NORMAL.

PORT OBVIOUSLY IT HAS A LETTER FROM ME BUT OBVIOUSLY IN THAT LETTER I HAVE FIVE POINTS THAT I'M TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH THIS NEXT COMING YEAR 2026 APPARATUS REPLACEMENT OF FLEET MODERNIZATION THAT IS SHRINKING THE FLEET AND MODERNIZING THE ACTUAL FLEET TO WHERE WE CAN HAVE MORE DRIVERS AND I WILL CALL IT MORE PEOPLE RESPONDING BECAUSE SOME OF OUR EQUIPMENT NOW IS AGING AND IT STILL HAS BRAND NEW TIRES THAT ARE NOT BEING UTILIZED.

SO WE'RE TRYING TO GET MORE EQUIPMENT SMALLER IN ORDER FOR PEOPLE TO BE MORE COMFORTABLE.

RECRUITMENT AND RETENTION FOR OUR PAY CALL FIREFIGHTERS NATIONWIDE.

THERE'S A, I'LL CALL IT A NEED FOR EVERYBODY TO VOLUNTEER.

AND IT'S NOT IN JUST THE FIRE DEPARTMENTS, BUT IT'S EVERYTHING, RIGHT? AS COSTS RISE, LESS PEOPLE VOLUNTEER BECAUSE THEY NEED TO HAVE MORE AND MORE STABILITY AT THE HOUSE.

YEAR ONE.

THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COUNTYWIDE FIRE MASTER PLAN, IMPLEMENTATION OF THE AP TRITON STUDY RECOMMENDATIONS, AND THEN OBVIOUSLY ON THE, I'LL CALL IT THE WEEK AFTER OUR PRESENTATION OF BUDGETS, WORKING WITH EVERYBODY HERE TO DEVELOP A LONG-TERM FUNDING STRATEGY FOR THE COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT.

TABLE OF CONTENTS, OUR MISSION, VISION AND VALUES.

THIS IS ONE THING THAT WE'VE BEEN TRYING TO PAINT A BETTER PICTURE FOR EVERYBODY TO SHOW THE ON-DUTY STRENGTH OF THE COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT IN COOPERATION WITH CAL FIRE.

AS YOU CAN SEE, THERE'S 203 PEOPLE ON A DAY.

THERE'S 480 UNIFORMED PERSONNEL IN TOTALITY.

AND THEN WE HAVE 34 NON-UNIFORMED.

THAT'S EVERYBODY THAT BASICALLY KEEPS THE FIRE DEPARTMENT TOGETHER.

THIS IS THE FIRST YEAR THAT WE ACTUALLY DROPPED BELOW 100 PAID CALL FIREFIGHTERS AND THAT WAS DUE TO A LONG-STANDING GROUP OF THEM HAD JUST GOTTEN TO THE AGE WHERE THEY SAID THEY NO LONGER WANT ANYTHING ELSE OF PEOPLE THAT CHIEFS UP IN MONTGOMERY CREEK TERESA SHE'D BEEN DOING IT FOREVER AND SHE WANTED TO TAKE A LITTLE BIT MORE TIME TO SPEND TIME WITH FAMILY AND MAKE SURE THAT SHE HAD THAT HIGHLIGHT IN HER LIFE TOWARDS THE END.

OBVIOUSLY, THE DEPARTMENT

[01:35:01]

ORGANIZATIONAL CHART, WE TRIED TO HIGHLIGHT AS MANY PEOPLE THAT THE COOPERATIVE FIRE AGREEMENT ALLOWS US TO USE.

WHILE WE HIGHLIGHTED THE COUNTY FUNDED SIDE, YOU'LL SEE THOSE MARKED BY A BOX AROUND EACH ONE.

WE DECIDED TO MAKE IT HIT HOME TO EVERYBODY.

TO WHICH FIRE STATIONS ARE WITHIN THEIR DISTRICT.

PAID CALL FIREFIGHTER YEARS OF SERVICE.

SO THIS IS ONE THING THAT I WANT TO HIGHLIGHT BECAUSE WE CANCELED THE PAID CALL FIREFIGHTERS APPRECIATION DINNER DUE TO BUDGET CONSTRAINTS.

I WILL BE BRINGING SOMETHING LATER TO DO A VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTER APPRECIATION AWARD.

BUT THESE ARE THE FOLKS BEHIND THE SCENES WITHIN THEIR COMMUNITIES.

YOU CAN SEE THE HATHAWAY FAMILY, IT'S A GENERATIONAL CALLING OUT THERE.

STARTS WITH RICHIE HATHAWAY IV, AND THEN IT GOES TO RICHIE HATHAWAY III, AND THEN RICHIE HATHAWAY JR., WHICH HAS 50 YEARS OF SERVICE.

THAT'S OLDER THAN I AM.

FIRE COMPANIES, BY RESPONSE VERSUS TOTALITY OF CALLS.

YOU CAN SEE SOME ARE DOWN IN THE 1% RANGE, SOME ARE IN THE 40S, 30S, AND THEN LAKEHEAD HAS 100%, BUT THAT IS ALSO OUR RESERVE PROGRAM, WHICH IS A HIGHLIGHT BECAUSE THOSE FOLKS ARE THERE 24 HOURS A DAY THROUGH A COST AGREEMENT WITHIN OUR BUDGET THAT WE HAVE PEOPLE THERE THAT ARE PAID CALL FIREFIGHTERS STAYING AT THE STATION THAT ARE NOT, I WOULD CALL IT, CAL FIRE EMPLOYEES.

SO THIS IS A SUCCESS THAT WE STARTED ABOUT THREE, ALMOST FOUR YEARS AGO, AND IT'S FINALLY AT 100% OF RESPONSES, AND THAT IS A HUGE BENEFIT TO THE NORTHERN PORTION OF THE COUNTY, ESPECIALLY IN MR. PLUMMER'S AREA.

THIS IS RESPONSES BY ACTIVITIES, AND THEN OBVIOUSLY THE FIRE MARSHALL PROTECTION AND PLANNING.

I HAVE TO REPORT ON ALL THESE NUMBERS BECAUSE IT'S ACTUALLY...

REGULATED WITHIN THE STATE THAT I HAVE TO GIVE YOU GUYS THESE NUMBERS ON WHAT THEY'RE INSPECTING.

A HIGHLIGHT OF THE STAY READY SHASTA.

I IMAGINE SOME OF YOU GUYS HAVE SEEN OUR BEAUTIFUL FACES BETWEEN THE SHERIFF AND MY UGLY FACE EVERY MORNING AND LOOK DOWN INTO SIGNIFICANT INCIDENTS.

THAT IS ALL THE EQUIPMENT THAT WE'VE BASICALLY PURCHASED OVER THIS LAST YEAR.

THEY FINALLY CAME INTO INTO PLAY.

IT'S BEEN A THREE TO FOUR TO, WELL, ENGINE 555 ALL THE WAY AT THE FAR LEFT-HAND SIDE.

THAT'S ACTUALLY BEEN ABOUT FIVE YEARS IN THE MAKING, SO WE FINALLY GOT THAT.

THAT ONE WILL BE GOING TO WEST VALLEY PROBABLY WITHIN THE NEXT WEEK, WEEK AND A HALF.

WE HAD TO GET IT, HAD TO GO BACK FOR SOME ENGINE CHECK LIGHT THAT, WHEN THEY DROVE IT HERE, THEY GAVE AN ENGINE CHECK LIGHT, SO IT HAD TO GO BACK TO THE MANUFACTURER.

THAT'S A PROCESS.

THIS IS HIGHLIGHTS FOR THE COUNTY BOAT PROGRAM, THE AIRTAC BASE, THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER THAT WE HAVE UNDERNEATH CAL FIRE.

HIGHLIGHTS EVERYTHING THAT, IT'S ALL THE STUFF BEHIND THE SCENES AND PEOPLE GET PRETTY, I WILL CALL IT, THEY'RE VERY HAPPY TO SEE THE AIR TANKERS AND AIRTAC AND COPTER IN THE AREA ON ANY FIRE.

WE HAVE BASES HERE IN REDDING.

THE ONLY WAY IT BEATS US EVERY YEAR IS...

IT'S A RELOAD BASE.

IT'S NOT CONSIDERED AN AIR ATTACK BASE.

WHAT MAKES THE DIFFERENCE IS AIR ATTACK IS THE PERSON THAT IS IN CHARGE OF THE TANKERS.

THE MCCLELLAN AIR BASE IS JUST A TANKER RELOAD.

WE GET ASKED CONSTANTLY HOW MANY CLASSES THAT WE PUT ON FOR ALL OF OUR PAID CALL FIREFIGHTERS.

THERE WAS 89 CLASSES THAT WERE DONE AND 113,185 HOURS OF TRAINING.

I BROKE DOWN THE QUESTION THE OTHER DAY OF WHAT WAS THE HIGHLIGHT OF ALL THE BREAKDOWN FOR ALL OF OUR DISTRICTS.

SO FORTUNATELY, I HAD THOSE NUMBERS ON HAND WHEN YOU HAD YOUR PLUMBER, BUT HERE'S THE NUMBERS FOR THEN.

AND THAT'S IT.

TRY TO GET YOU GUYS BACK ON SCHEDULE.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH, CHIEF O'HARA.

BEFORE I GET TO YOU, DO WE HAVE ANY PUBLIC COMMENTS ON THIS ONE? SORRY, THOSE MICS ARE TAKING A LONG TIME TO TURN ON TODAY.

WE DO.

WE HAVE ONE PUBLIC COMMENTER, SHASTA COUNTY WATCHDOG.

SHE'S SKIPPING, SO NO OTHER COMMENTERS.

THANKS FOR THIS PRESENTATION.

SUPERVISOR PLUMMER.

YES, CHIEF.

A COUPLE QUICK QUESTIONS, AND ONE YOU MIGHT HAVE ADDRESSED THIS WHILE I WAS USING THE RESTROOM, BUT THE SLIDE OR PAGE,

[01:40:02]

IT'S PAGE 18 WITH THE PIE CHART, DONUT CHART.

WHERE IT SAYS STATION RESPONSE ACTIVITY BY CALL TYPE, I SEE THE 11% VEGETATION FIRES, 39% NON-STATE, AND THEN THAT 50%, THAT'S STATE CALLS THAT ARE, OR WHEN IT SAYS TOTAL CALLS? YEAH, THOSE ARE ALL, IF YOU CAN SEE, THOSE ARE ALL THE CALLS IN TOTALITY.

SO WE TRY TO BREAK IT DOWN TO VEGETATION FIRES, THAT IS PRETTY MUCH ALL ON US.

THERE'S A VERY SMALL AMOUNT OF LRA WITHIN SHASTA COUNTY.

STATE CALLS THAT WE RESPOND ON IS WHAT A COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT IS PART OF.

AND THEN ALL THE OTHERS ARE EVERYTHING THAT YOU GUYS ARE, PCFS, ARE RESPONDING TO.

AND THEN THE CHART BELOW THAT THAT HAS MEDICAL, WHICH IS, IT LOOKS LIKE IN MOST AREAS, THE HIGHEST TYPE OF RESPONSE.

ARE THERE ANY AREAS IN YOUR...

STANDING WHERE JUST EMS RESPONDS TO MEDICAL CALLS AND FIRE DOES NOT RESPOND TO MEDICAL CALLS? SO THE CHART BELOW IS ACTUALLY ALL MY CHIEF OFFICERS THAT ARE RESPONDING.

THAT'S JUST NOT OUR ENGINES.

SO THE ONLY REASON WHY I HIGHLIGHTED THOSE ARE THAT SHOWS THE BCS, BATTALION CHIEFS, THAT ARE RESPONDING, AND MOST OF THEIR MEDICAL AIDS ARE TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS.

SO IF A BC SHOWS UP ON A REGULAR HOUSE MEDICAL AID, SOMETHING HAS DRASTICALLY GONE WRONG BECAUSE THAT'S USUALLY JUST A SINGLE ENGINE RESPONSE TO THE AREA WITH AN AMBULANCE.

DO I KNOW ANYWHERE THAT MIGHT HAVE JUST AN AMBULANCE RESPONSE? OFF MY HEAD, BUT I IMAGINE IT'S NOT IN SHASTA COUNTY UNLESS THERE'S NO, SAY THAT WE HAVE THE CAR IN.

SOMETIMES YOU HAVE TO JUDGE BASICALLY WHAT WE'RE GOING TO BE ABLE TO RESPOND TO AND WHAT WE'RE NOT WHEN EVERYTHING IS DEPLETED.

AND WE ARE BACKFILLING WITH OTHER RESOURCES.

THAT'S THE NICE PART ABOUT HAVING A CONTRACT WITH THE STATE IS THAT WE HAVE THE ABILITY TO BACKFLOW A LOT OF OUR STATIONS.

BUT IF YOU DISPATCH EVERYBODY TO THE CAR INCIDENT, FOR AN EXAMPLE, YOU HAVE TO HAVE SOME TYPE OF RESERVES THAT ARE RESPONDING TO ANOTHER EMERGENCY.

WE ALSO HAVE TO HAVE...

PRE-PLANNED OUT IN FRONT OF IT, AND THAT'S WHAT YOU GUYS HAVE A CONTRACT WITH US FOR, TO MAKE SURE THAT EVERYTHING'S PLANNED ABOUT, RIGHT? BUT GOING BACK TO YOUR ORIGINAL QUESTION, I DON'T KNOW OF ANYTHING, BUT I DO KNOW THAT SOMETIMES THERE'S NOT RESPONSES READILY AVAILABLE, SO THAT AMBULANCE MIGHT BEAT US TO THAT INCIDENT.

SO MEANING IN THAT AREA, LET'S USE BELLA VISTA FOR AN EXAMPLE.

BELLA VISTA MIGHT BE ON ANOTHER CALL.

WHERE THAT AMBULANCE WOULD BEAT THEM, BUT YOU HAVE ANOTHER PIECE OF EQUIPMENT RESPONDING FROM SOUTH READING.

DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? AND TYPICALLY ON A MEDICAL CALL, THE FIRE FIGHTERS WILL BEAT THE EMS TO IT? YEAH, I WOULD SAY FOR THE, I WOULD GO OUT ON A LIMB AND SAY PROBABLY 80% OF THE TIME, FIRE IS USUALLY BEATING MOST RESPONSES TO ANYTHING.

OKAY, THANK YOU.

SUPERVISOR LONG, YOU'RE RELATED, ALL RIGHT.

WELL, WITH THAT, I WILL CERTIFY THE RECEIPT OF THIS REPORT.

I MAKE A MOTION TO ADOPT THE RESOLUTION CERTIFYING THE RECEIPT OF THIS REPORT.

AND I'LL SECOND.

MOTION MADE BY SUPERVISOR PLUMMER, SECONDED BY SUPERVISOR LONG.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH, SEAN.

PASSES 4-0.

APPRECIATE YOU.

[R4 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.]

FOR AN UPDATE FROM COUNTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER ON COUNTY ISSUES AND CONSIDER ACTION ON SPECIFIC LEGISLATION.

MOVING ON.

CEO RICKERT.

GOOD MORNING, CHAIRMAN KELSMAN, MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS.

DAVE RICKERT, COUNTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER, REPORTING.

ON JUNE 11TH, I RECEIVED A THANK YOU LETTER FROM SHASTA LAKE CITY MANAGER JESSICA LUGO, RECOGNIZING THE ACCOMPLISHMENTS OF TWO OF OUR EMPLOYEES.

FIRST, KEN HENDERSON, OUR ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SPECIALIST, HAS BECOME FAMILIAR AND A VALUED RESOURCE TO THE CITY, PARTICULARLY AT THE SUMMIT CITY AREA WHERE WASTEWATER INFRASTRUCTURE DOES NOT EXIST.

KEN HAS CONSISTENTLY BEEN ACCESSIBLE BOTH FOR CITY STAFF AND RESIDENTS WHERE ISSUES ARISE, ESPECIALLY WITH THE FAULTING AND FAILING.

SEPTIC SYSTEMS AND HIS EXPERTISE IN THE AREA.

HE'S ALMOST ALWAYS BRINGING SOLUTIONS TO THE TABLE.

SECOND, I HAVE DARREN BROOKE, ENGINEERING TECHNICIAN, WAS A PRIMARY CONTACT DURING THE, AND I'M GOING TO PROBABLY GET THIS NAME WRONG, ST.

MOODY WATER TANK PROJECT AND THE ASSOCIATED ENCROACHMENT PERMIT.

THE PROJECT IS LOCATED NEAR THE ST.

MOODY BOAT RAMP.

ACCESS OFF A COUNTY AND FEDERAL LAND REQUIRING COORDINATION AMONG CITY AND COUNTY AND STATE

[01:45:01]

AND FEDERAL AGENCIES.

THE TANK ITSELF IS MASSIVE.

AND CONSTRUCTION OCCURRED WITHIN A VERY CONSTRAINED AREA ADJUTANT TO THE BLAKE BOULEVARD.

DURHAM WAS FLEXIBLE AND RESPONSIVE AND QUICK TO ACT WHEN THE PROJECT REQUIRED ROAD CLOSURE AND SAFETY, COMPLETE CRITICAL CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES.

HIS WILLINGNESS TO WORK COLLABORATIVELY WITH THE CITY ALLOWED THE IMPROVEMENT TO MOVE FORWARD.

I APPRECIATE THE POSITIVE FEEDBACK REGARDING INTERACTIONS WITH OUR EMPLOYEES.

THIS CONCLUDES MY REPORT.

THANK YOU, CEO RICKERT.

AND, YEAH, SHOUT OUT TO KEN HENDERSON AND DARREN BOTH, HAVE WORKED QUITE A BIT WITH KEN HENDERSON IN THE PAST, HAVE NOT SO AS MUCH WITH DARREN, BUT, UM, SUPERVISOR PLUMBER.

YES, THANK YOU.

SO A FEW QUICK UPDATES HERE, SINCE WE PRIMARILY WERE IN BUDGET HEARINGS LAST WEEK, BUT THE.

I WAS ABLE TO MEET WITH DIGNITY HEALTH CONNECTED LIVING AND TALK ABOUT SENIOR HOMELESSNESS IN PARTICULAR, AS WE HAVE A NUMBER OF FOLKS OVER 65 WHO ARE ENDING UP HOMELESS.

THEY'RE ON FIXED INCOME, COSTS ARE INCREASING, AND IT'S NOT KEEPING UP WITH THE PACE OF THOSE EXPENSES.

AND SO THEY ALREADY, APPARENTLY THEY ARE THE LARGEST PROVIDER OF WHAT'S CALLED ECM, OR ENHANCED CARE MANAGEMENT, WHICH IS KIND OF LIKE A CASE MANAGEMENT SERVICE.

AND SO SEEING IF THEY COULD, IF THEY'RE ALREADY CONNECTING WITH FOLKS WHO ARE HOMELESS AND IF THEY COULD HELP CONNECT THEM INTO HOUSING SERVICES AND HELP THOSE FOLKS GET OFF THE STREET.

SO MORE TO COME THERE, BUT THAT'S ANOTHER POINT OF COLLABORATION WHERE WE'RE TRYING TO BRING PEOPLE TOGETHER AND ESSENTIALLY TRIAGE THOSE WHO ARE HOMELESS AND GET THEM TO THE RIGHT PROVIDER QUICKLY SO THAT WE CAN HELP THEM GET OFF THE STREET.

SO THAT WAS ANOTHER CONVERSATION THAT KIND OF INTERSECTS WITH HOMELESSNESS AND SUBSTANCE USE IS WITH A PRIVATE COMPANY THAT RECENTLY HAS KIND OF TAKEN ON THE MISSION OF WANTING TO HELP ADDRESS SUBSTANCE USE AND HOMELESSNESS IN THE COMMUNITY.

AND THEY HAVE THE ABILITY TO SCALE UP THE NUMBER OF UNITS THROUGH, YOU KNOW, HOMES.

WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT MULTIFAMILY HERE.

THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT BRINGING ONLINE.

SOBER LIVING HOMES THAT COULD SERVE A LARGE NUMBER OF THOSE FOLKS WHO ARE EITHER CONNECTED TO COMING ON PROBATION, WHO ARE COMING OUT OF RESIDENTIAL INPATIENT SUBSTANCE USE TREATMENT PROGRAMS, WHICH WE, AS WE'VE TALKED ABOUT HERE, THOSE ARE INCREASING.

SO VISIONS OF THE CROSS GOT MONEY TO DOUBLE THEIR CAPACITY.

THE GOOD NEWS RESCUE MISSION IS BUILDING A 75-BED RESIDENTIAL TREATMENT FACILITY.

SO AFTER THEY GO THROUGH THAT, THERE NEEDS TO BE A PLACE FOR THOSE FOLKS TO GO THAT INTEGRATES THEM BACK INTO THE COMMUNITY WHERE THEY'RE THEN LIVING MORE AND MORE.

AND SO SOBER LIVING IS KIND OF THAT NEXT PIECE OF THE PUZZLE.

AND SO I'M EXCITED TO BEGIN TO EXPLORE WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE TO HAVE PRIVATE SECTOR WHO HAS THE ABILITY TO SCALE WITH SOME OF THE MORE PUBLIC SECTOR AND NONPROFITS AND SEE THAT COLLABORATION COME TOGETHER.

SO MORE TO COME ON THAT, BUT GOOD INITIAL CONVERSATIONS THERE.

I...

THIRD UPDATE HERE IS AROUND FOOD INSECURITY.

THIS IS A TOPIC THAT CAME TO MY ATTENTION LAST FALL WHEN THERE WAS THE PROLONGED GOVERNMENT SHUTDOWN AND THE CALFRESH BENEFITS WHICH SERVE ABOUT OVER 30,000 INDIVIDUALS WITHIN THE COMMUNITY WERE TEMPORARILY BASICALLY PUT ON HOLD AND SO DID SOME WORK AT THAT TIME TO UNDERSTAND HOW CAN WE HELP PEOPLE FROM YOU KNOW, FALLING OFF A CLIFF IN TERMS OF THOSE BENEFITS.

AND SO THERE WAS A CONVERSATION THIS PAST WEEK ABOUT WHAT DOES IT LOOK LIKE TO ADDRESS FOOD INSECURITY, WHICH ACCORDING TO 2023 DATA, THAT'S ABOUT 14% OF THE POPULATION OR ABOUT 26,000 INDIVIDUALS IN SHASTA COUNTY.

AND SO ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I WAS KIND OF BRINGING TO THAT CONVERSATION WAS THAT WE NEED TO NOT JUST LOOK AT HOW WE GET FOOD TO THOSE WHO NEED FOOD AT THE TIME, BUT HOW DO WE REDUCE THEIR RELIANCE ON WHETHER IT'S A FOOD BANK OR GOVERNMENT ASSISTANCE, FOR A FEW REASONS.

ONE, BECAUSE WE, AS WE HEARD IN THE INITIAL CONVERSATION TODAY, WE HAVE DECREASING RESOURCES FOR THESE, BUT ALSO, YOU KNOW, ULTIMATELY WE WANT TO GET THEM IN A POSITION WHERE THEY CAN SUSTAIN THEMSELVES.

AND SO LOOKING AT HOW DO WE REDUCE FOOD INSECURITY AND INCREASE SUFFICIENCY OUTSIDE OF DEPENDENCE ON GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS. NO OBVIOUS ANSWERS THERE, BUT THAT IS SOMETHING THAT I HOPE THAT GROUP CAN COME UP WITH SOME IDEAS AROUND.

THE LAST UPDATE I'LL SHARE IS I MET WITH SOMEONE.

WHO WORKS FOR A COMPANY THAT PROVIDES.

SO WE'VE TALKED A LOT ABOUT MEDICALLY ASSISTED TREATMENT, WHICH IS WHEN SOMEONE'S ON OPIOIDS, FOR EXAMPLE, THAT THEY CAN ACCESS THIS TREATMENT, AND IT HELPS THEM SUSTAIN COMING OFF OF OPIOIDS WITHOUT

[01:50:02]

HAVING CRAZY CRAVINGS AND BE LIKELY TO COME BACK.

AND I'VE TALKED ABOUT HOW IN THE PAST THAT WITH JUST COUNSELING, THERE'S ABOUT A 10% SUCCESS RATE, BUT WITH COUNSELING PLUS MEDICALLY ASSISTED TREATMENT, IF IT GOES UP TO 70%, WELL, THIS PERSON WAS WORKING FOR A COMPANY THAT HAS DEVELOPED AN INJECTABLE.

SO RATHER THAN HAVING TO TAKE YOUR MEDICATION EVERY DAY, YOU WOULD INJECT IT AND IT LASTS FOR 30 DAYS OR A BIT MORE.

SO THAT IS A PRETTY INTERESTING INNOVATION, I WOULD SAY, PARTICULARLY IF WE HAVE PEOPLE LEAVING THE JAIL, IF WE CAN HAVE THEM ON THAT SO THAT WE KNOW THAT NEXT 30 DAYS THEY'RE GOING TO BE TAKEN CARE OF VERSUS, OKAY, HOW DO WE CONNECT THEM TO GET THEIR PILLS? SO THE ONLY CHALLENGE IS AT THIS POINT IT'S MUCH MORE EXPENSIVE.

SO MORE RESEARCH I WANT TO DO ON THAT, BUT THAT COULD BE A WAY TO INCREASE THE EFFECTIVENESS OF OUR TREATMENT SO THAT WHEN PEOPLE ARE COMING OUT OF OUR JAILS OR OTHER FACILITIES, THEY ARE MORE LIKELY TO BE SUCCESSFUL AND OFF OF SUBSTANCES.

THANK YOU, SUPERVISOR PLUMMER.

SUPERVISOR HARMON.

JUNE 11TH.

THE ASPHALT COWBOYS SEARCH AND RESCUE DID THEIR LUNCH FUNDRAISER.

MOST OF MY INVOLVEMENT WAS IN THE SAND.

BUT IT'S A PRETTY COOL DEAL.

NEXT YEAR, THEY DO IT EVERY YEAR.

AND NEXT YEAR, IF YOU WANT TO PROVIDE FOR YOUR OFFICE OR YOUR CREW, THEY HAVE A DRIVE-THRU.

SO YOU CAN DRIVE THROUGH AND PICK UP HOWEVER MANY LUNCHES YOU NEED.

THEY DO A GOOD JOB.

IT'S PRETTY GOOD.

I SPENT GETTING CIRCULATION BACK AFTER SITTING HERE FOR SO LONG.

I WENT OUT AND DID A GOOD JOB.

THANK YOU, SUPERVISOR HARMON.

SUPERVISOR LONG.

THANK YOU, CHAIR.

WELCOME, EVERYONE.

SO I HAD A PRODUCTIVE MEETING WITH THE DAY AFTER OUR BUDGET HEARINGS WITH...

WHISKEYTOWN SUPERINTENDENT JOSH HOINUS AND A NEWLY FORMED, AND I TALKED ABOUT THIS A LITTLE BIT BRIEFLY, BUT IT'S THE CASCADE UNIT, WHICH WILL BE SISKIYOU COUNTY, SHASTA COUNTY, AND IT'S UNDER THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR.

THEY LAUNCHED THE U.S.

WILDLAND FIRE SERVICE TO CONSOLIDATE ALL DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR.

ENTITIES UNDER ONE ADMINISTRATION BASICALLY SO YOU HAVE BLM, YOU HAVE FOREST SERVICE, SOME OF THEIR FUNCTIONS.

SO, IT WAS VERY PRODUCTIVE AND I WAS GOING TO READ A COUPLE THINGS THAT WERE NOTEWORTHY TO ME.

THIS CASCADE UNIT, THIS NEW CASCADE FORMED HAZARDOUS FUELS WORK.

CURRENT PROJECTS INCLUDE THE WHISKEY TOWN NATIONAL RECREATION AREA, 350 ACRES.

SEND IN PILED UH...

READING THE LM IS WORKING IN THE OLD SHASTA UNITS ONE AND TWO AND A PILE BY CAL FIRE COMPLETED THE OLD SHASTA COMMUNITY PROTECTION HUNDRED FIFTY-FIVE ACRES OF MASTICATION UH...

BUREAU OF RECLAMATION IS WORKING ON SENDING AND PILING UH...

WITHIN THE SHASTA DAM AREA HUNDRED ACRES COMPLETED THUS FAR UH...

AND I GOT INVITED TO WHICH WAS AFTER THE FACT OF THE NEXT ANNUAL OPERATING PLAN MEETING WHICH WILL BE NECK THEY HOLD THEM EVERY MAY AND IT'S KINDA THE INSIDE SCOOP ON WHAT WHAT ALL IS GOING ON WITH FIRE AND SO I I REALLY LOOK FORWARD TO THAT MEETING AND BEING INCLUDED IN THAT PROCESS DISCUSSION WITH THIS NEW CASCADE UNIT GOING FORWARD AND THEN I ATTENDED THE THE EMPLOYEES APPRECIATION LUNCH DAY WAS AT TURTLE BAY WAS A GREAT VENUE WAS HOT-AIR AND BLAZES.

AND, BUT IT WAS A BEAUTIFUL SETTING.

IT WAS GREAT TO WORK WITH AND MEET WITH ALL THE SHASTA COUNTY EMPLOYEES AND THEIR FAMILIES.

AND SUPERVISOR PLUMMER TALKED ME INTO GETTING DUNKED.

AND SO, YEAH, THAT WAS, THAT WAS ACTUALLY QUITE REFRESHING.

SO I APPRECIATED THE COOL OFF.

BUT NO, THAT WAS GREAT.

AND I JUST WANT TO SAY TO OUR EMPLOYEES THAT.

WE VALUE YOU, WE VALUE THE CONTRIBUTIONS EVERY EMPLOYEE MAKES TO OUR COUNTY, AND IT'S A GREAT WAY TO CELEBRATE WITH EVERYBODY IN A RELAXED SETTING AND JUST VISIT AND BUILD THOSE RELATIONSHIPS.

SO GOING FORWARD, I THINK THAT'S SUPER IMPORTANT THAT WE VALUE OUR EMPLOYEES AND THAT WE APPRECIATE THEIR EFFORTS TOWARD

[01:55:01]

MAKING OUR COUNTY BETTER AND THE SERVICES THEY PROVIDE.

WE JUST SAW THAT WITH...

CSAC'S PRESENTATIONS THIS MORNING OF THOSE EMPLOYEES THAT ARE WILLING TO GO ABOVE AND BEYOND EVEN AND GET SPECIAL SKILLS AND CERTIFICATIONS THAT WILL MAKE THEM.

MORE ABLE TO PROVIDE AN EVEN HIGHER QUALITY SERVICE.

SO MY HAT'S OFF TO OUR EMPLOYEES.

AND THAT'S IT.

THANK YOU, SUPERVISOR LONG.

YEAH, I, TOO, ON THE 12TH, I DID A GENDER REVIEW, AND THEN I, TOO, WENT BY THE SEARCH AND RESCUE DRIVE-THROUGH LUNCHEON HELD AT THE ASPHALT COWBOYS CLUBHOUSE THERE IN THE RODEO GROUNDS.

IT'S THEIR BIG FUNDRAISER FOR SEARCH AND RESCUE, SO IT WAS REALLY GREAT.

AND I APOLOGIZE TO THE EMPLOYEES.

I DID NOT MAKE THE EMPLOYEE APPRECIATION ON SATURDAY.

ONLY BECAUSE I WAS COMMITTED MONTHS AGO TO DO A FUNCTION IN MANTON THAT SAME DAY.

SO ON MY WAY TO MANTON, I SWUNG INTO SHINGLETOWN JAMBOREE.

THE CLAMPERS WERE HAVING A CORNHOLE TOURNAMENT THERE, AND THEN I WENT ON DOWN TO MANTON FIRE DEPARTMENT WHERE THEY HAD THEIR CHILI COOK-OFF.

AND THEN I WAS DOING THEIR DESSERT AUCTION FOR THEM, WHICH IS WHAT I COMMITTED TO.

BUT WHILE I WAS THERE, I TALKED TO A GENTLEMAN SITTING AT A TABLE THAT I RECOGNIZED, BUT I DIDN'T REALIZE WHO IT WAS, AND IT WAS STEVE ZANE OF TEHAMA COUNTY.

SUPERVISOR FOR MANTON SO MANTON'S LIKE COTTONWOOD IS SPLIT HALF AND HALF 50% OF THE TAMEY COUNTY 50% SHASTA COUNTY SO IT WAS KIND OF NICE I AUCTIONED OFF THE DESSERTS AND THEN STEVE CARRIED THEM AROUND AND SHOWED THE CROWD SO I ASKED PEOPLE IN MANTON WHEN WAS THE LAST TIME YOU HAD BOTH THE SHASTA COUNTY SUPERVISOR AND THE TAMEY COUNTY SUPERVISOR BOTH IN MANTON THEY KIND OF FEEL NEGLECTED UP THERE A LOT IN THE PAST SO THAT WAS REALLY GREAT AND THEN YESTERDAY I HAD A SORT OF EXECUTIVE MEETING IN THE MORNING AND THEN I WENT AND TOURED THE NORTH STATE CARE CLINIC, WHICH SUPERVISOR PLUMMER, SOUNDS LIKE YOU'VE BEEN THERE.

IT'S QUITE THE FACILITY.

I WAS VERY IMPRESSED WITH THAT.

AND THEN AFTER THE TOUR OF THE NORTH STATE CARE CLINIC, I HAD A ROBIN MEETING LAST NIGHT AT READING CITY

[PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD - OPEN TIME]

COUNCIL CHAMBERS, AND THAT CONCLUDES MY REPORT.

ALL RIGHT, THE MOMENT YOU'VE ALL BEEN WAITING.

WE DO, CHAIR.

WE HAVE 22, SO IT'LL BE TWO MINUTES EACH.

FIRST UP, SABRINA JURICH, FOLLOWED BY TYLER LOCKEME.

CAROL JOHNSON, THEN DAWN DUCKETT.

OKAY, SABRINA, COME ON UP.

GOOD MORNING, SUPERVISORS AND STAFF.

AFTER NEARLY 10 YEARS SERVING AS YOUR FILM COMMISSIONER, I WANTED TO JUST PERSONALLY SHARE THAT I'M GOING TO BE TRANSITIONING FROM MY ROLE WITH FILM SHASTA UNDER THE UPSTATE CALIFORNIA FILM COMMISSION UMBRELLA AT THE END OF THIS MONTH.

SINCE I ACCEPTED THIS POSITION IN 2016, TOGETHER OUR COMMUNITY HAS HELPED GROW FILM PRODUCTION IN OUR REGION, STRENGTHENED RELATIONSHIPS WITH THE ENTERTAINMENT INDUSTRY, AND SHOWCASED OUR COMMUNITY TO AUDIENCES AROUND THE WORLD.

WE'VE HOSTED 426 PRODUCTIONS, REPORTING OVER $18 MILLION IN LOCAL ECONOMIC IMPACT, RETURNING $9 TO $14 FOR EVERY DOLLAR THAT'S BEEN INVESTED IN THE PROGRAM.

THE SUPPORT OF OUR COMMUNITY MEMBERS HAS HELPED CREATE A REPUTATION.

A PROFESSIONALISM, HOSPITALITY, AND COLLABORATIVE SPIRIT FOR FILMMAKERS.

I WANT TO EXPRESS MY SINCERE GRATITUDE TO EACH OF YOU FOR YOUR BELIEVING IN THE VALUE OF THIS WORK.

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT THROUGH FILM PRODUCTION IS UNIQUE BECAUSE IT NOT ONLY BRINGS DIRECT SPENDING INTO OUR COMMUNITY, BUT ALSO SHOWCASES OUR REGION AS A PLACE WHERE CREATIVITY, BUSINESS, AND COMMUNITY CAN THRIVE TOGETHER.

AS I TRANSITION INTO A NEW ROLE WORKING, WITH THE FILM LIAISONS IN CALIFORNIA STATEWIDE HELPING PROMOTE CALIFORNIA AS A WHOLE, I REMAIN INCREDIBLY PASSIONATE ABOUT THE FUTURE OF FILMING IN OUR REGION.

AND I ENCOURAGE THE COUNTY TO CONTINUE SUPPORTING FILM-FRIENDLY INITIATIVES AND THE LOCAL FILM OFFICE.

I AM EXCITED TO INTRODUCE TYLER LOCKAMY, WHO WILL BE STEPPING INTO THE ROLE OF FILM LIAISON FOR SHASTA AND TEHAMA COUNTIES.

TYLER IS AN ACCOMPLISHED LOCAL FILMMAKER WITH FIRST-HAND PRODUCTION EXPERIENCE.

COMMUNITY CONNECTIONS AND A GENUINE PASSION FOR OUR REGION.

I'VE WORKED CLOSELY WITH TYLER AND HAVE COMPLETE CONFIDENCE IN HIS ABILITY TO CONTINUE SERVING FILMMAKERS AND STRENGTHENING THE FILM INDUSTRY LOCALLY.

THANK YOU AGAIN FOR YOUR SUPPORT AND THE TRUST YOU HAVE PLACED IN ME OVER THE YEARS.

IT HAS BEEN ONE OF THE GREATEST PRIVILEGES OF MY PROFESSIONAL LIFE TO SERVE THIS COMMUNITY AND I LOOK FORWARD TO SEEING ALL THAT COMES NEXT.

NEXT UP, TYLER LOCKAMY, CAROL JOHNSON, FOLLOWED BY RICK HUTCHINSON.

GOOD MORNING, SUPERVISORS.

MY NAME IS TYLER LOCKAMY AND I'M HONORED TO STAND IN FRONT OF YOU AS THE NEW FILM LIAISON FOR FILM SHASTA.

FIRST, I WOULD LIKE TO ACKNOWLEDGE SABRINA JURICICH'S WORK FOR HER YEARS OF DEDICATION TO BUILDING FILM SHASTA INTO A RESPECTED RESOURCE FOR FILMMAKERS THROUGHOUT CALIFORNIA.

SHE CREATED A STRONG FOUNDATION AND I'M EXCITED TO CONTINUE THAT WORK.

THE TRANSITION HAS BEEN SMOOTH BECAUSE PROMOTING SHASTA COUNTY.

THROUGH FILMMAKING IS SOMETHING I'VE ALREADY BEEN DOING FOR SEVERAL YEARS.

AS A FILMMAKER AND PRODUCER, I'VE SPENT MUCH OF MY CAREER SHOWCASING THE INCREDIBLE LOCATIONS AND OPPORTUNITIES

[02:00:01]

THAT EXIST RIGHT HERE IN OUR REGION.

I ALSO BRING A UNIQUE PERSPECTIVE TO THIS ROLE BECAUSE I'VE EXPERIENCED FILM SHASTA FROM THE FILMMAKER SIDE OF THE TABLE.

AS A PRODUCER, I HELPED BRING THE DRESDEN SUN, A FEATURE FILM STARRING CHRISTINA RICCI, THANK YOU.

STEVEN OGG, MEENA SUVARI, AND LINUS ROACH TO SHASTA COUNTY.

THAT EXPERIENCE SHOWED ME FIRSTHAND HOW VALUABLE IMPACT FILM PRODUCTIONS HAVE ON LOCAL COMMUNITIES.

PRODUCTIONS SUPPORT HOTELS, RESTAURANTS, LOCAL VENDORS, TRADESPEOPLE, ACTORS, AND CREW MEMBERS.

WHILE FILM IS OFTEN VIEWED AS AN ART FORM, IT IS ALSO AN INDUSTRY, ONE THAT CREATES JOBS, ATTRACTS VISITORS.

AND BRINGS OUTSIDE DOLLARS INTO OUR LOCAL ECONOMY.

COMMUNITIES THAT RECOGNIZE FILMMAKING AS AN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT TOOL ARE OFTEN THE ONES THAT SEE THE GREATEST RETURN.

MY GOAL IS TO CONTINUE BUILDING RELATIONSHIPS, SUPPORTING LOCAL FILMMAKERS, ATTRACTING OUTSIDE PRODUCTIONS, AND HELPING MORE PEOPLE DISCOVER WHAT SHASTA COUNTY HAS TO OFFER.

WE HAVE INCREDIBLE LOCATIONS, TALENTED PEOPLE, AND TREMENDOUS OPPORTUNITY.

I LOOK FORWARD TO WORKING WITH ALL OF YOU.

TO CONTINUE GROWING FILMMAKING'S IMPACT ON OUR COMMUNITY.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.

NEXT UP, CAROL JOHNSON, FOLLOWED BY RICH HUTCHINSON, RICK HUTCHINSON, SALLY, THEN KIM MOORE.

MY NAME IS CAROL AND AS AN AMERICAN AND CITIZEN OF SHASTA COUNTY DISTRICT 5, YOU ARE THE PEOPLE THAT I MUST COUNT ON.

TO REPRESENT ME AND PROTECT MY RIGHTS AS A CITIZEN OF THIS COUNTY, ALL OF YOU.

I WANT NOTHING LESS THAN FREE AND FAIR ELECTIONS.

MANY IN THIS COUNTY WORKED HARD TO HELP US BECOME A CHARTER COUNTY WITH THE RIGHT TO CREATE AND PUT UP FOR VOTE BY THE CITIZENS MEASURE B.

BECAUSE OF THE HARD WORK OF THOSE CARING CITIZENS, MEASURE B WAS PASSED DESPITE CONTENTIOUS OPPOSITION.

I CANNOT PERSONALLY UNDERSTAND WHY ANY CITIZEN OF THIS COUNTRY WOULD NOT WANT FREE AND FAIR ELECTIONS CONCERNING THE PEOPLE AND LAWS WHICH GOVERN OUR DAILY LIVES.

THAT IS A LOT OF POWER WHICH IS BEING ABUSED REGULARLY AGAINST US BY THE PEOPLE WHO ARE CURRENTLY IN GOVERNING OUR DAILY LIVES.

WE NEED TO STAND UP STRONGLY AGAINST A STATE GOVERNMENT WHO WOULD TAKE THIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT AGAINST US AND AWAY FROM US.

UNFORTUNATELY MISTER LAURA MORE BY HIS OWN WORDS IS BIASED IN THIS MATTER AND NEEDS TO BE RECUSED FROM ANY INVOLVEMENT WHATSOEVER IT IS IMPERATIVE FOR ALL OF THE CITIZENS OF SHASTA COUNTY THAT WE HIRE AN ATTORNEY WHO IS KNOWN NATIONALLY FOR SUCCESSFULLY REPRESENTING PEOPLE LIKE US I AM HERE TO ASK YOU TO HIRE MR ALEXANDER HABERBUSCH WHO IS NOT ONLY NATIONALLY KNOWN FOR HIS EXPERIENCE IN ELECTION LAW BUT HE HAS INTIMATE KNOWLEDGE OF THE SITUATION HERE IN THIS COUNTY.

HIS REPUTATION FOR REPRESENTING THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES WITH ELECTION ISSUES IS OUTSTANDING.

WE, THE PEOPLE OF SHASTA COUNTY, DESERVE NOTHING LESS.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.

JUST A REMINDER.

THE CORNERSTONE OF WHAT BUILT THE UNITED STATES, OUR FOUNDER OF THE LORD AND SAVIOR JESUS CHRIST.

THANK YOU, LORD, FOR GIVING ME THE STRENGTH TO COME DOWN HERE TODAY.

I WANT TO ECHO WHAT CAROL SAID.

I THINK THAT THAT WAS SAID VERY ELOQUENTLY, AND I DON'T USUALLY HAVE ALL THAT UP HERE, SO I WANT TO ECHO WHAT SHE SAID COMPLETELY.

I ALSO WANT TO ECHO WHAT KEVIN CHRIST SAID, AND WHAT'S THE HYPOCRISY.

GAVIN NEWSOM SIGNED AN EXECUTIVE ORDER THAT BLOCKS INVESTIGATIONS INTO OUR ELECTIONS AND HERE WE ARE HAVING A LAWSUIT BY THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SUING OUR PUBLIC, THE PUBLIC.

I FIND THAT TO BE JUST COMPLETELY INTERESTING.

ARE WE DISCUSSING CUTTING MY MIC? NO, BUT...

HOPEFULLY NOT, BECAUSE YOU CERTAINLY DON'T...

THIS IS ITEMS THAT ARE NOT ON THE...

THIS IS ELECTIONS.

THAT'S ON THE AGENDA.

MEASURE B PASSED WITH A MAJORITY, AND OUR BOARD SHOULD ACCEPT THAT THE PEOPLE PASSED IT.

IT PASSED WITH THE MAJORITY

[02:05:03]

OF THE PEOPLE.

WE NEED TO ACCEPT THAT.

THIS IS JUST PLAIN AND CLEAR.

WE NEED TO GET BEHIND ALEXANDER HABERBUSCH FOR BEING OUR REPRESENTATION BECAUSE WE DON'T TRUST LAMAR AT ALL IN REPRESENTING US.

THE PUBLIC DOES NOT TRUST HIM, OR SOME OF US PROBABLY DO, BUT I CERTAINLY DO NOT.

AND I WANT TO MAKE THAT KNOWN FOR THINKING UP FOR THE PEOPLE THAT VOTED TO PASS.

AND THANKS FOR NOT CUTTING MY MIC THIS TIME.

FOLLOWED BY KIM MOORE, DAVID MUNG.

SALLY HERE? OH, HI SALLY, COME ON UP.

IN LIGHT OF OUR NATION'S 250TH BIRTHDAY, IT'S GOOD TO BE REMINDED OF WHAT THE PURPOSE OF GOVERNMENT IS.

IN THE PREAMBLE TO THE CONSTITUTION, THE PURPOSE OF GOVERNMENT, AMONG OTHER THINGS, IS TO SECURE LIBERTY TO OURSELVES AND OUR POSTERITY.

THE PEOPLE OF SHASTA COUNTY VOTED FOR MEASURE B.

YOUR JOB IS TO SECURE THE LIBERTIES OF THE PEOPLE WHO, USING THEIR FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHT TO PETITION THEIR GOVERNMENT FOR REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES, GATHERED ENOUGH QUALIFYING SIGNATURES AND PUT IT ON THE BALLOT.

ONCE THE PEOPLE APPROVED IT, THE MEASURE IS NOW THE OBLIGATION OF THE BOARD TO SECURE IT.

IT IS NO LONGER THE PURVIEW OF THE PROPONENTS.

IT'S UP TO YOU.

MR. LARMORE MUST RECUSE HIMSELF AND HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS LAWSUIT.

HE HAS PROVEN HIMSELF TO BE BIASED AGAINST IT AND IS REGARDING THAT HAS GIVEN THIS BOARD SOME REALLY BAD...

DON'T GO DOWN THAT ROAD AGAIN.

INSTEAD, YOU SHOULD HIRE SOMEONE WHO'S FAMILIAR WITH THE CASE AND ELECT SHASTAKASH WILL EFFECTIVELY ARGUE THE MERITS OF THIS CASE.

YOU'VE RECEIVED A LETTER FROM LEX REX INSTITUTE OFFERING HIS SERVICES.

THE PEOPLE OF SHASTA COUNTY EXPECT YOU TO TAKE THEIR SIDE AGAINST CALIFORNIA TYRANNY.

JUST LIKE OUR FOUNDING FATHERS DID 250 YEARS AGO.

HE'S GETTING KILLED.

DISTRICT 1, RESIDENT OF THE WOODLANDS, AND I AM HERE TODAY TO SIMPLY PUT IT ON THE RECORD.

THERE'S A LOT OF FRAUD, WASTE, AND ABUSE.

I'VE ASKED NOLDA SHORT FOR CONTACT INFORMATION.

SORRY THAT R8 GOT REMOVED.

I'D LIKE TO SEE IT DISCUSSED.

THE MONEY THAT YOU GAVE FOR THE WOODLANDS RESIDENTS, THEY HAD CUT IT DOWN TO WHERE ONLY 200 OF THAT WAS GOING INTO THE COMMUNITY TO TAKE CARE OF THE KIDS' CLUB AND THEIR SNACKS, THEIR CRAFT SUPPLIES.

NOW IT'S BEEN CUT TO $175,000, AND THERE'S STILL FRAUD.

SO WHEN A NORTHERN VALLEY CATHOLIC SOCIAL SERVICES EMPLOYEE DECIDES TO HAVE FOOD DELIVERED AND START TO THINK ABOUT INSTEAD OF ALLOWING THE CALFRESH EMPLOYEE TO GO PICK IT UP, THEY'RE COSTING US MONEY.

THAT'S FRAUD.

THAT'S WASTE.

THAT'S ABUSE.

AND THAT'S NOTHING COMPARED TO THE BIG PART OF IT.

OUR MANAGER, AND I'M SORRY KEVIN'S NOT HERE, BUT I THINK HE'S LISTENING.

OUR MANAGER, OUR ON-SITE MANAGER, OUR NEW TENANT'S LOVER, AFTER COMPLAINING FOR LIKE, WHAT, EIGHT YEARS ABOUT ALL THE BS MANAGERS THAT THEY BROUGHT IN THERE, WE FINALLY HAVE A MANAGER THAT CARES ABOUT THE PEOPLE.

AND I'M WATCHING HIM SABOTAGE HER.

AND I'D LIKE TO HAVE ANOTHER MEETING.

KEVIN WAS REALLY GOOD.

HE SET UP A MEETING WHERE HE CAME IN.

HE BROUGHT IN CHRISTY COLEMAN.

HE BROUGHT IN A LOT OF LEGAL EAGLES FROM HHSA, MHSA.

AND I GUESS BECAUSE AARON GOT KEVIN'S SEAT, AND WE'LL HAVE IT IN 2027, THEY'VE DECIDED THAT THEY CAN ALL SLIP BACK AND GO BACK TO WHAT THEY WERE DOING.

SO WE NEED YOU GUYS TO COME IN, MHSA, HHSA, BIG WIGS.

WE NEED YOU GUYS TO COME BACK TO THE WOODLANDS.

AND LET'S HAVE A MEETING AND TALK ABOUT HOW WE HAD GOTTEN EVERYTHING ON TRACK AND NOW NORTHERN VALLEY CATHOLIC SOCIAL SERVICES IS DERAILING IT AGAIN.

NEXT UP, DAVID MUNG, FOLLOWED BY JEFF PORTER, JIM BURNETT, THEN DAN.

I'M STOPPING BY TODAY JUST TO GIVE A VERY BRIEF UPDATE ON SOME OF MY TEAM.

[02:10:01]

LOCAL GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS HAS BEEN WORKING.

IT STANDS ON THREE PILLARS.

THE FIRST ONE BEING PROTECTING PEOPLE FROM WILDFIRE.

SECONDS.

MAKING INSURANCE AVAILABLE AND AFFORDABLE AGAIN, AND THIRD, MAKING SURE THAT WILDFIRE VICTIMS ARE PAID FIRST, FAST, AND FAIRLY.

SO WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE IS IN MAKING SURE PEOPLE ARE PROTECTED, BETTER COORDINATION ACROSS THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA WITH BOTH RESOURCES FROM THE STATE, BETTER EFFORTS FROM UTILITIES, WHICH PG&E HAS ALREADY EXCEEDED THE REQUIREMENTS THAT ARE THERE AND ALL THEIR VEGETATION MANAGEMENT, NEW TECHNOLOGIES FOR SAFETY, AND ALSO UNDERGROUNDING PROJECTS.

AND MUCH MORE, BUT NOT EVERY UTILITY IS HELD TO THE SAME STANDARDS.

AND THEN ALSO CLARITY AND BETTER INCENTIVES FOR PROPERTY OWNERS TO MAINTAIN PRIVATE PROPERTY AND THE WORK THAT THEY'RE DOING, BUT ALSO MORE PROPERTY OWNERS TO BE TAKING CARE OF THAT PRIVATE PROPERTY.

THE SECOND PART, WE ALL KNOW IT COSTS WAY TOO MUCH AND JUST DOING WAY TOO LITTLE FOR WAY TOO LONG, SO MAKING SURE THAT STEPS ARE TAKEN TO SOLVE THAT INSURANCE CRISIS IN CALIFORNIA.

AND THEN THAT LAST PIECE, MAKING SURE OUR WILDFIRE VICTIMS ARE PAID FIRST, FAST, AND QUICKLY, MAKING SURE THAT LAWYERS AREN'T ABLE TO DIP IN AND GET THEIR MONEY FIRST, OR ALSO THIRD PARTIES COMING IN AND TAKING A PIECE OF THE PIE.

SO THERE'S NO LANGUAGE FOR LEGISLATION RIGHT NOW.

THIS COALITION IS A STEP TOWARD MAKING SURE THAT AS LANGUAGE IS WRITTEN THIS SUMMER BEFORE END OF SESSION, THAT THESE PRIORITIES ARE ADDRESSED AND TAKEN CARE OF.

SUPPORT IS GREATLY APPRECIATED AND GOES A LONG WAY.

SO IF YOU GO TO...

WILDFIREVICTIMSFIRST.COM.

THAT'S OPEN TO THE PUBLIC OR ALSO OUR GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS.

YOU CAN LEARN MORE ABOUT THE COALITION, WHAT THEY'RE SUPPORTING, AND EVEN HIT THAT JOIN BUTTON.

JOIN ON THESE CHANGES HAPPENING IN OUR STATE.

AND I'LL SEND YOU ALL AN EMAIL AT THIS MEETING, TOO, SO YOU HAVE IT IN THERE.

THANK YOU, DAVID.

NEXT UP, JEFF GORDER, FOLLOWED BY JIM BURNETT, DAN, THEN SHASTA COUNTY WATCHDOG.

HELLO AGAIN.

NICK GARDNER MADE THE CLAIM LAST WEEK THAT MY LAWSUIT CHALLENGING THE COUNTY'S CONTRACT WITH HEALTH CARE CONSULTANT CHRIS STREET WAS FRIVOLOUS AND HAD NO MERIT.

AS USUAL, NICK IS WRONG.

SOME IMPORTANT FACTS TO BE AWARE OF.

NICK, DON'T YELL OUT AND INTERRUPT THE MEETING.

THAT'S YOUR WARNING.

FIRST, ACCORDING TO HHSA DIRECTOR LAURA BIRCH, SUPERVISOR CRY HAD TRIED ON NUMEROUS OCCASIONS BEFORE THE HEALTH CARE CONSULTANCY TO FIND CHRIS STREET SOME TYPE OF POSITION WITH THE COUNTY.

WHETHER AS EMPLOYEE OR CONSULTANT.

MS. BIRCH STATED UNDER OATH IN HER SWORN DECLARATION THAT IN JUNE OF 2024, CRY TOLD HER THAT, QUOTE, HE NEEDED TO HIRE CHRIS STREET TO PAY HIM BACK FOR WORK STREET HAD DONE FOR HIM.

MS. BIRCH TESTIFIED THAT SHE THOUGHT THIS WOULD BE AN UNLAWFUL QUID PRO QUO AND A MISUSE OF PUBLIC FUNDS, SO SHE CONTACTED CEO RICKERT TO ADVISE WHAT HAD HAPPENED AND WHAT HER CONCERNS WERE.

MR. RICKERT, RECOGNIZING THE SERIOUSNESS OF THE MATTER, CONTACTED THE DA'S OFFICE TO REPORT THIS.

THE SECOND FACT TO BE CONSIDERED IS CHRIS STREET HAD ADVANCED NOTICE OF THE HEALTH CARE CONSULTANCY.

BY THE TIME SUPERVISOR CRYE ANNOUNCED HIS INTENTION TO HIRE A HEALTH CARE CONSULTANT ON DECEMBER 10TH, MR. STREET HAD ALREADY COMPLETED HIS SCOPE OF WORK FOR THAT PROPOSAL.

STREET WROTE IN HIS SCOPE OF WORK DATED DECEMBER 2ND THAT, QUOTE, THE COUNTY OF SHASTA.

IS RESPONDING TO THE PRIMARY CARE PHYSICIAN CRISIS BY EMPLOYING A SUBJECT MATTER EXPERT TO DEVELOP A STRATEGY TO CREATE A RURAL MEDICAL SCHOOL IN SHASTA COUNTY.

NOW, AT THE LAST COURT HEARING IN MAY, WHICH I WON ALMOST EVERY OTHER HEARING IN THIS CASE, THE COUNTY ARGUED THAT THE CASE HAD NO MERIT AND SHOULD NOT GO TO TRIAL.

THE JUDGE DISAGREED, WRITING, HERE THE COURT FINDS THE EVIDENCE WOULD ALLOW A REASONABLE TRIER OF FACT TO FIND IN FAVOR OF THE PLAINTIFF, ME.

FURTHER, QUOTE, THE DECLARATION OF LAURA BIRCH, THE FORMER DIRECTOR OF HHSA, PROVIDES EVIDENCE THAT SUPERVISOR CRY INFLUENCED THE EXECUTION OF THE CONTRACT WITH STREET DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY TO PROMOTE HIS PERSONAL INTERESTS IN VIOLATION OF GOVERNMENT CODE 1090.

JIM BURNETT, FOLLOWED BY DAN, SHASTA COUNTY WATCHDOG, THEN STEVE KAHN.

WHY ARE THE MOST POWERFUL FORCES IN CALIF.

25 PETITIONING AND AFTER WE GATHERED 10,000 SIGNATURES FROM CITIZENS WHO FORWARD AND CITIZENS APPROVED OUR EFFORT UP THE IMPLEMENTATION OF MEASURE B,

[02:15:24]

CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CALIFORNIA HAS WORKED TOO HARD IN A SYSTEM THAT IS MORE ACCESSIBLE, MORE SECURE, AND MORE REFLECTIVE OF THE NEEDS OF VOTERS ACROSS THE STATE.

I AGREE THAT CALIFORNIA HAS WORKED HARD BUILDING AN ELECTION SYSTEM THAT IS MORE ACCESSIBLE, BUT THEY HAVE DONE SO AT THE EXPENSE OF SECURITY, THE SECOND ELEMENT IN HER STATEMENT.

CONSIDER THIS.

OUR RIGHT TO VOTE EXISTS ON A CONTINUUM BETWEEN TWO POLES.

ON THE LEFT SIDE, YOU HAVE TOTAL ACCESSIBILITY WITH NO SECURITY, AND ON THE RIGHT SIDE, YOU HAVE TOTAL SECURITY BUT NO ACCESS.

MEASURE B STRIKES A BALANCE BETWEEN THOSE TWO POLES SO THAT ALL ELIGIBLE CITIZENS ARE ABLE TO VOTE WITHOUT UNDUE HARDSHIP, YET MAINTAIN THE INTEGRITY OF THE VOTE BY NOT ALLOWING OUTSIDE INFLUENCES TO DILUTE AND CANCEL THE VOTES OF THOSE WHO ARE ELIGIBLE.

DAN, STEVE KAHN, THEN DAVID HALLIGAN.

TO ANSWER JIM'S QUESTION ON WHY IT'S INTERESTING ALL THOSE PEOPLE THAT ARE NOT INTERESTED IN ELECTION INTEGRITY ARE ELECTED OFFICIALS.

IT MAKES YOU REALLY WONDER WHY THEY'RE CONCERNED ABOUT US AND INTEGRITY.

WE TALKED ABOUT SATURDAY NIGHT TWO WEEKS AGO ABOUT SHAMEFULLY...

INTERRUPTED AND SILENCED A CITIZEN THAT WAS TRYING TO SHARE ON A SUBJECT THAT YOU WOULD NOT TELL US WHAT IT WAS.

BUT IF WE USE HINDSIGHT AND WE GO BACK AND WE WATCH THE VIDEO, WE SEE THAT SHE'S SPEAKING DIRECTLY ON TARGET.

SHE KNEW EXACTLY WHAT YOU GUYS WERE GOING TO GO IN AND CLOSE COUNCIL AND TALK ABOUT.

AND YOU SHUSHED HER UP.

YOU KNEW WHAT SHE WAS TALKING ABOUT.

YOU KNEW SHE WAS ON TARGET.

AND YOU SILENCED HER.

THAT'S NOT WHAT YOU GUYS ARE HERE TO DO.

YOU'RE HERE TO HEAR THE CITIZENS, AND WHEN THE CITIZEN HAS INFORMATION THAT THE BOARD AND ALL THE COMMUNITY, COUNTY NEED TO KNOW, DON'T SHUT THEM UP.

SHE WAS RIGHT ON.

YOU DON'T WANT ME TO TALK ABOUT R9 BECAUSE IT'S LATER.

I PROBABLY WON'T BE ABLE TO STAY, SO I WON'T TALK ABOUT R9.

I'LL TALK ABOUT THE PEOPLE THAT SPOKE BEFORE ME AND ARTICULATED SO WELL THAT ALEXANDER HABERBUSCH IS THE RIGHT MAN TO REPRESENT US.

LAMAR HAS GOT TO RECUSE HIMSELF.

HE'S GONE ON RECORD THAT HE DOESN'T LIKE THIS.

YOU NEED TO HAVE SOMEBODY IMPARTIAL.

YOU GUYS ARE NOT THE JUDGES.

YOU NEED TO LET THIS GO BEFORE A JUDGE, AND WE NEED TO HAVE REPRESENTATION THAT'S ACCURATE AND IS INFORMED.

YOU GUYS HAVE LOST THE LAWSUITS YOU'VE DONE BEFORE WHEN JILL REPRESENTS YOU OR WHEN BBK REPRESENTS YOU.

YOU'VE GOT TO GET HABER BUSH TO DO THIS.

IT'S THE ONLY RIGHT DECISION TO MAKE.

THE CITIZENS HAVE SPOKEN.

THEY WANT B.

DON'T RESIST IT.

SUPPORT THE PEOPLE.

NEXT UP, SHASTA COUNTY WATCHDOG, FOLLOWED BY STEVE KAHN, DAVID HALLIGAN, BEN MICHELLE.

I SAID BEFORE, IT WAS, AND THIS IS ALL CLINT CURTIS BROKEN.

HERE YOU GO.

I THINK REGARDING CLINT CURTIS AND WHAT YOU HAVE DONE, VIOLATED THE LAW, YOU BROKE THE LAW.

IT'S AGAINST THE LAW FOR YOU TO EVEN TO SUPPORT ANYTHING WHAT THESE PEOPLE ARE SAYING.

BUSH, WHATEVER THE ATTORNEY THEY'RE TRYING TO GET, MR. HACKENBUSH OR WHATEVER.

HE ACTUALLY, I HAVE A CASE PENDING AGAINST HIM THROUGH THE STATE BAR, OKAY? HE'S UNDER INVESTIGATION FOR USING HIS POSITIONS AS DUE IN CONFLICT OF INTEREST.

I TOLD YOU I FILED MULTIPLE COMPLAINTS.

EVERYTHING THAT YOU SEE HERE WENT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, INCLUDING MR. GAVIN NEWSOM AND THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE ELECTION FRAUD UNIT, FAIR AND POLITICAL PRACTICE AND COMMISSION.

CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR, GOVERNMENT OFFICE LEGAL AFFAIRS, CALIFORNIA ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE OF ELECTIONS, CALIFORNIA SECONDARY...

OH, I CAN'T.

[02:20:01]

I SENT EVERYTHING IN HERE REGARDING ALL THE LAWS.

WELL, HERE'S THE THING.

INCLUDING THE FBI.

IF YOU DECIDE TO USE AND ABUSE THE TAXPAYERS' MONEY, I THINK IT FALLS UNDER PC-424.

YOU CAN'T USE...

THE TAXPAYERS' MONEY FOR CRIMINAL ACTIVITY, THEY COMMITTED.

AND ALSO, BEFORE I FORGET, CORKY HAS TO RECUSE HIMSELF BECAUSE I UNDERSTAND HE ACTUALLY SIGNED A PETITION FOR MEASURE B.

SO HE NEEDS TO RECUSE HIMSELF FOR THAT.

BUT I'M TELLING YOU RIGHT NOW, YOU NEED TO NOT SUPPORT THESE PEOPLE TO CONTINUE BREAKING THE FEDERAL LAW.

THEY COMMITTED A FEDERAL CRIME.

STEVE KAHN, FOLLOWED BY DAVID HALLIGAN, MICHELLE, THEN GARY PAYRO.

CONFUSED TOO, IT SEEMS AS THOUGH YOU'VE BEEN...

WHAT ARE YOU SPEAKING TO? ARE YOU...

PUBLIC COMMENT.

WHY WERE THEY SPEAKING TO R9? THEY KEPT IT VAGUE.

OH, OKAY.

WHATEVER.

THIS IS FOR KJELLSTR M, THE MUZZLER.

YOU MAINTAIN AND ARE IMPOSING THE MOST RESTRICTIONS ON FREEDOM OF...

SPEECH OF ANY SUPERVISOR IN THE HISTORY OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, MAYBE THE NATION.

YOU RAN ON TRANSPARENCY AND YET YOU HAVE MUZZLED THE PUBLIC TO THE GREATEST EXTENT THAT THEY HAVE EVER BEEN MUZZLED.

AND IN A FEW WEEKS, YOU WILL MUZZLE US EVEN MORE.

GIVE US BACK THE RIGHT TO SPEAK FOR THREE MINUTES AT BOARD MEETINGS.

SEPARATE COMMENTS ON CONSENT ITEMS FROM PUBLIC COMMENT TIME.

DO NOT IMPLEMENT THE ADDITIONAL RESTRICTIONS IN JULY FOR A PROBLEM THAT WE DON'T KNOW WILL EVEN EXIST.

AND ANYWAY, PREVENT IT.

STOP MUZZLING US.

ALSO, KJELLSTROM, YOU VOTED TO PUT AN 18% RESTRICTION ON NONPROFITS WITHOUT TALKING TO THE DEPARTMENT HEADS, OUR AUDITOR CONTROLLER, OUR COUNTY COUNCIL.

THIS SHOWS TO ME THAT YOU CONTINUE TO VOTE JUST EXACTLY THE WAY THAT CRY WISHES.

WE KEEP YOU IN OFFICE.

ESSENTIALLY, WE ARE KEEPING CRY, GIVING CRY ONE VOTE ON THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, EVEN THOUGH THE PEOPLE HAVE CHOSEN TO ELIMINATE HIM FROM MAKING OUR DECISIONS.

UNFORTUNATELY, THROUGH YOU, WE WILL STILL BE MAKING COUNTY DECISIONS WITH KEVIN CRY BEING IN CHARGE.

I APPEAL TO ALL OF SHASTA COUNTY TO VOTE FOR MIKE GALLAGHER TO PREVENT CRY FROM CONTINUING TO MAKE THE DECISIONS IN SHASTA COUNTY.

THROUGH HARMON AND YOU, THE MUZZLER.

NEXT UP, DAVID HALLIGAN, FOLLOWED BY MICHELLE, GARY PAYROTH, AND CHRISTIAN GARNIER.

OKAY, BOARD, LET'S LOOK AT THE CURRENT ELECTION RIGHT NOW.

MR. CURTIS FINALLY POSTED TO ZERO.

WE BECOME THE 23RD COUNTY OUT OF 58 TO POST TO ZERO.

BUT WAIT TO SEE THE ELECTION BILL.

REMEMBER NOVEMBER 25, A MILLION DOLLARS? MR. CURTIS WILL SAY, I WAS FORCED TO SPEND.

THE OVERTIME, THE DOUBLE TIME TO COMPLETE BY THE DUE DATE DUE TO LAMOPHIS C.

LET'S LOOK AT THE TOTALS.

REGISTERED VOTERS, 116, 380.

BALLOTS CAST, 55, 298.

FOR A 47, 52.

THAT DOESN'T SOUND VERY GOOD, RIGHT? 47, 52? BUT THAT WAS OVER ALMOST SEVEN POINTS BETTER THAN THE STATE AVERAGE AS OF YESTERDAY MORNING, 40.6.

LET'S LOOK AT SOME OF THE RACES HERE.

D5 GOING TO A RUNOFF, MR. GALLAGHER AGAINST MR. KELTSTROM IN NOVEMBER.

COUNTY CLERK CLINT CURTIS, WELL, HE GOT SMOKED, MOKED.

AND THEN WHEN YOU TAKE A LOOK AT SHASTA COUNTY SUPERVISOR DISTRICT 1, KEVIN CRY, KEVIN GOT 38.36% OF THE VOTE, 38%.

KEVIN LOVES THIS WORD, CRUSHED.

THEY GOT CRUSHED.

KEVIN, YOU GOT CRUSHED.

YOU REALLY DID.

WHAT'S INTERESTING IS...

NEITHER ONE OF THESE PEOPLE, MR. CURTIS OR MR. CRY, HAVE REACHED OUT TO THEIR OPPONENT AND CONGRATULATED HIM, WHICH MADE ME WONDER.

I JUST WONDER IF COACH CRY HAS HIS YOUTH BASKETBALL PLAYERS REACH OUT AFTER A CRUSHING LOSS TO CONGRATULATE THE OTHER TEAM AND SHAKE THEIR HANDS.

JUST WONDERING.

NEXT UP, MICHELLE, FOLLOWED BY CHRISTIAN GARDNER, TERRY, THEN JENNY.

I'M NOT HERE TO DISCUSS WHAT HAPPENED HERE WITHIN THE WITHIN THIS COUNTY, I'M HERE AGAIN TO DISCUSS THE ARGUMENT ABOUT ELECTRONIC ELECTIONS.

WELCOME BACK AGAIN.

I'VE HEARD OVER AND OVER HOW THERE'S NO EVIDENCE.

I JUST WOULD LIKE TO READ WHAT TULSI GABBARD HAD

[02:25:02]

TO SAY.

WE HAVE EVIDENCE OF HOW THESE ELECTRONIC VOTING SYSTEMS HAVE BEEN VULNERABLE TO HACKERS FOR A VERY LONG TIME AND VULNERABLE TO EXPLOITATION TO MANIPULATE THE RESULTS OF THE VOTES BEING CAST.

TULSI GABBARD, DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE.

THERE'S A BOOK WRITTEN CALLED THE ELECTION BY RALPH PIZZOLO.

HE GOES INTO HOW THESE MACHINES WERE DEVELOPED IN VENEZUELA, HOW THE MAFIA IS BEHIND IT.

NO ONE, NOT ANY COUNTY, NOT STATE OR GOVERNMENT, HAS CHALLENGED HIM ON IT BECAUSE HE HAS EVIDENCE TO PROVE IT.

YOU HAVE A NOTE THAT THERE'S AT LEAST 14 WAYS TO CHEAT THAT'S INHERENT WITHIN THE MACHINES THAT WE CANNOT CONTROL.

FOUR OF THEM HAVE HAPPENED HERE IN THIS COUNTY.

I HAVE A COPY OF IT HERE.

I BEG YOU ALL TO READ THE BOOK BEFORE YOU MAKE A DECISION ABOUT ANY OF THIS.

THIS AFFECTS US, OUR CHILDREN, OUR GRANDCHILDREN.

NEXT UP, CHRISTIAN GARNIER, FOLLOWED BY TERRY, JENNY, THEN ROBERT.

OR SORRY, CHRISTIAN, IT'S YOUR TURN, I'M SORRY.

TERRY, COME ON UP.

I'M GOING TO FOLLOW THE CHAIR REQUESTS TO TALK ABOUT B WHEN IT'S TIME TO TALK ABOUT B.

THIS BOARD FOR THE LAST FOUR YEARS HAS HEARD THE MOST RIDICULOUS, CRAZY CRAP THAT'S SO FAR OUT OF THE AGENDA OR THE JURISDICTION OF THIS BOARD THAT IT'S PATHETIC.

AND WE HAVE SPENT MILLIONS AND MILLIONS OF DOLLARS.

WE'VE BECOME THE LAUGHING STOCK OF THE NATION, AND IF NOT A LOT OF EUROPE, TALKING ABOUT THE NUT JOB TAKEOVER OF SHASTA COUNTY.

AND IT'S FINALLY, THANK GOD, COMING TO AN END.

WE'VE GOTTEN RID OF THE MR. PILLOW APPOINTMENT.

WE'VE GOTTEN RID OF...

MR. CURTIS, WHO I THINK WAS ALSO REFERRED TO THIS COUNTY BY MR. PELLA.

WELL, WE'LL HAVE TO WAIT AND SEE ON THAT.

BUT I WANT TO THANK THE CITIZENS OF SHASTA COUNTY FOR VOTING, THOSE WHO DID.

YOU KNOW, WITHOUT CASTING A VOTE, WE REALLY HAVE NO SAY ABOUT WHAT HAPPENS.

POLITICALLY IN OUR COUNTY OR CALIFORNIA OR THE NATION.

IT'S GOOD TO SEE THAT APPARENTLY THERE'S A PAGE TURNING WHERE EVEN IN RED SHASTA COUNTY, PEOPLE ARE SAYING ENOUGH IS ENOUGH.

NEXT UP, TERRY, FOLLOWED BY JENNY, ROBERT, THEN RICHARD WE HOLD THESE TRUTHS TO BE SELF-EVIDENT, THAT ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL, ENDOWED BY THEIR CREATOR WITH CERTAIN INALIENABLE RIGHTS.

AMONG THEM, LIFE, LIBERTY, AND THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS.

NOW, THERE'S THREE WORDS THERE THAT ARE IMPORTANT.

ONE IS SELF-EVIDENT.

THAT MEANS IT NEEDS NO PROOF.

THAT MEANS IT IS.

THE SECOND IS AMONG THESE RIGHTS.

THOSE AREN'T THE ONLY THREE RIGHTS WE HAVE.

WE HAVE MANY RIGHTS.

THE THIRD THING IS ENDOWED BY THEIR CREATOR.

WE DON'T HAVE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS.

WE HAVE GOD-GIVEN RIGHTS THAT ARE PROTECTED BY THE CONSTITUTION.

WE ALSO HAVE LAWS.

SOME OF THE LAWS ARE GOOD LAWS.

SOME ARE BAD LAWS.

ONE LAW THAT MR. LARIMER DIDN'T FOLLOW WAS THE TITLE AND SUMMARY.

GOT YOU GUYS INTO A LAWSUIT.

COST US MILLIONS OF DOLLARS.

YOU HAD TO EVEN REIMBURSE AND APOLOGIZE.

WELL, IF YOU MAY NOT EVEN APOLOGIZE TO THOSE PEOPLE.

BUT YOU DID THAT.

TITLE AND SUMMARY HAD TO BE DONE.

BONTA.

WHO IS THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, HAD TO SIGN OFF ON A TITLE AND SUMMARY ON BILL NUMBER 1923, WHICH WAS A POSITION OF PEOPLE WANTING TO BREAK AWAY FROM CALIFORNIA AND CREATE THEIR OWN COUNTRY.

AND IF THAT HAS TO BE DONE, THEN WHY DIDN'T THE TITLE AND SUMMARY GET DONE? AND IT FINALLY DID.

NOW, I WAS TOLD BY ONE OF THE SUPERVISORS WHO'S SITTING UP THERE RIGHT NOW THAT BASICALLY,

[02:30:01]

YOU KNOW, THIS WAS OUR IDEA.

DON'T BLAME JOE.

THIS WAS US.

WE'RE THE ONES WHO DO IT.

WELL, IF YOU'RE THE ONES WHO DO IT, THEN YOU GUYS NEED TO RETHINK WHAT YOU ARE DOING OR MAYBE JUST NOT BE HERE ANYMORE.

BECAUSE RIGHT NOW, WE LOOK AT THINGS.

DO THEY GET WORSE? HOW DO THEY GET WORSE? HOW DO THEY GET WORSE? THEY GET WORSE WHEN THE GOVERNMENT DOESN'T DO WHAT IT'S SUPPOSED TO DO.

THAT'S PROTECT THE RIGHTS OF THE PEOPLE.

NEXT UP, JENNY, FOLLOWED BY ROBERT, RICHARD G., THEN NICK GARDNER.

GOOD MORNING, BOARD AND COMMUNITY.

I WASN'T PLANNING ON SPEAKING TODAY IN PUBLIC COMMENT BECAUSE THERE WASN'T REALLY A REASON TO.

BUT AFTER LISTENING TO THE BEGINNINGS OF THIS MEETING, I REALIZED SOMETHING MUST...

TO BE SAID.

YES, MR. CRY DID LOSE THE MAJORITY VOTE IN HIS DISTRICT, BUT WE STILL HAVE SIX MONTHS OF WORK TO DO.

I HOPE THAT OUR ABSENT SUPERVISOR CAN CONTINUE TO PRESS ON AND DO HIS WORK.

I HOPE THAT HE CAN TAKE HIS TIME TO REFLECT UPON WHY HE MAY HAVE LOST THE COMMUNITY'S TRUST AND MAYBE USE THESE SIX MONTHS TO BUILD IT BACK.

BUT ASIDE FROM THE FACT THAT I KNOW WE'RE SUPPOSED TO SPEAK TO THE BOARD AND ADDRESS THE BOARD, I WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS THE COMMUNITY.

OUR VOICES HEARD LOUD AND CLEAR.

OUR VOTES COUNTED.

AND WE CHANGED THE LANDSCAPE OF THIS BOARD.

BUT I ASK THAT IN THESE SIX MONTHS THAT WE PERFORM CIVILLY.

CIVILITY IS NOT ONLY FOR ONE ANOTHER, IT IS ALSO BEFORE THIS BOARD.

WE HAVE SIX MONTHS TOGETHER.

IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE MISERABLE.

CIVILITY IS THE BEST PATH TO HEALING, AND OUR COMMUNITY IS IN GREAT NEED OF HEALING.

I AGREE THAT OUR BOARD MUST BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR THE VOTES AND ACTIONS THEY TAKE, BUT POKING AT PEOPLE JUST TO MAKE THEIR FACES TURN RED IS KIND OF RIDICULOUS AND UNNECESSARY.

THIS ISN'T PRESCHOOL.

SO PLEASE, BOARD, REMEMBER THIS, THAT THIS IS NOT A PLACE FOR PERSONAL AGENDAS.

THIS IS NOT A SPRINGBOARD FOR GREATER PLACES IN POLITICS.

THIS IS NOT A PLACE, A TALKING POINT FOR FOX NEWS OR FOR NEW YORK TIMES.

THIS IS A PLACE OF BUSINESS.

AND PLEASE, MR. CRY, IF YOU CAN'T DO YOUR BUSINESS HERE AND YOUR JOB, DO NOT TAKE THIS THE WRONG WAY.

PLEASE RESIGN.

AS SOMEBODY WHOSE BODY DOESN'T WORK THEMSELVES, I KNOW EXACTLY WHAT IT MEANS TO CONTINUE PUSHING.

ROBERT, FOLLOWED BY RICHARD G., NICK GARDNER, THEN LINDA.

I'M GOING TO STICK TO MEASURE B WHEN IT COMES TO THAT.

SURE, MY PLEASURE.

GENTLEMEN, ONCE AGAIN I URGE YOU TO CEASE FROM WILLINGLY OPENING THE DOOR TO AI.

YES, IT IS WITH US, BUT IT DOESN'T NEED A TASK FORCE OR ADDITIONAL PROJECTS COMMITTED.

SF-BASED ANTHROPIC SAYS THE MOST POWERFUL AI MODELS ARE SHOWING THAT THEY COULD ESCAPE HUMAN CONTROL.

THE COMPANY IS CALLING FOR A GLOBAL FREEZE ON DEVELOPMENT.

TO GIVE SOCIETY TIME TO CATCH UP AND MAKE SURE THE RIGHT SAFEGUARDS ARE IN PLACE.

THE RESOLUTION BEFORE US OPENS THE DOOR TO THAT MOST DREADED OF CREATURES, THE DATA CENTER.

DATA CENTERS POSE SEVERAL SIGNIFICANT PROBLEMS, INCLUDING HIGH ENERGY CONSUMPTION AND WATER USAGE, WATER WE DON'T HAVE IN SHASTA COUNTY, WHICH STRAIN LOCAL RESOURCES AND LEAD TO INCREASED UTILITY COSTS FOR RESIDENTS.

ADDITIONALLY, DATA CENTERS CONTRIBUTE TO POLLUTION AND HEALTH RISKS.

DUE TO EMISSIONS FROM BACKUP GENERATORS AND LARGE AMOUNTS OF ENERGY REQUIRED, OFTEN SOURCED FROM FOSSIL FUELS.

TWO DATA CENTERS ARE COMING TO TRINITY COUNTY.

I'M FROM SANTA CLARA COUNTY AND HAVE WORKED AROUND DATA CENTERS.

THEY ARE LOUD, WATER-GUZZLING, STERILE, POWER-SUCKING EYESORES WHICH EMPLOY ONLY A SKELETON STAFF AND IS A VERY MINIMAL BENEFIT TO THE COMMUNITY.

MANY BIPARTISAN COALITIONS HAVE BEEN FORMED BECAUSE IT IS NOT SIMPLE LEFT OR RIGHT ISSUE.

LIBERALS AND PEOPLE ON THE LEFT ARE CONCERNED FOR THE ENVIRONMENTAL REASONS AND ITS DISTRUST.

BUT MANY CONSERVATIVES, MYSELF INCLUDED, ARE UPSET ABOUT DATA CENTERS TOO.

I WOULD ASK MY FELLOW CONSTITUENTS TO WORK TOGETHER TO HELP DISARM AND PRESS THE BRAKES LOCALLY ON THE AI BEHEMOTH.

WE MUST EXERCISE OUR RIGHTS AS A COMMUNITY TO STAND AGAINST INVITING AND ENCOURAGING IT INTO OUR LIVES, BECOMING DEPENDENT ON IT AND INCREASING IT.

MUCH LIKE THE FOUNTAIN WIND PROJECT, WE DO HAVE POWER.

THANKS.

NEXT UP, RICHARD G., FOLLOWED BY NICK GARDNER, LINDA, THEN ERNA FREIDEBERG.

I KNOW, CHRIS, YOU'VE ALREADY HEARD CRITICISM ABOUT WHAT HAPPENED THAT

[02:35:01]

SATURDAY MEETING, BUT IT BEARS REPEATING.

THAT WAS SO EGREGIOUS.

THERE'S ALMOST NO WORDS.

YOU CONTINUE TO ACT AND VOTE AGAINST FREEDOM AND LIBERTY OF THE PEOPLE.

I DON'T EVEN KNOW.

IT'S SO HARD TO DESCRIBE WHAT YOU DID.

SHAMEFUL, EXTREMELY SHAMEFUL, BY THE WAY.

AND NO, I'M NOT GOING TO ASK ANYBODY TO VOTE FOR MR. GALLAGHER.

WHAT I'VE SEEN, HE'S AN ESTABLISHMENT CANDIDATE.

I WILL NEVER ASK ANYBODY TO VOTE FOR AN ESTABLISHMENT PERSON, EVER.

SO REGARDING, LET'S SEE, NON-PROFITS, NON-PROFITS.

OKAY, COMPARING ADMINISTRATIVE TO SERVICE FEES, FINE.

YOU'RE MISSING THE POINT.

I'VE ALREADY SENT YOU AN EMAIL.

ANY FUNDS, LOCAL, STATE, OR FEDERAL, THAT PASS THROUGH THIS BODY TO NON-PROFITS.

YOU NEED TO PASS AN ORDINANCE TO SEPARATE THOSE FUNDS INTO A SEPARATE BANK ACCOUNT.

AND THEN YOU MANDATE IN THAT ORDINANCE, MY VOLUME IS, YOU MANDATE IN THAT ORDINANCE THAT THOSE BANK STATEMENTS ARE PUBLIC DOCUMENTS, SUBJECT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE.

HOW'S THAT FOR TRANSPARENCY? THAT'S WHAT NEEDS TO HAPPEN, PERIOD.

LAST ITEM, CITIZEN ELECTION COMMISSION.

WE CANNOT LEAVE IT UP TO THIS BOARD TO PUT IN AMENDMENTS FOR FUTURE ELECTIONS.

THE CITIZEN ELECTION COMMISSION, ELECTED BY THE PEOPLE.

PUT THAT ON THE NOVEMBER BALLOT.

WHAT ARE YOU WAITING FOR? LOCAL CONTROL? DO YOU WANT LOCAL CONTROL OR DO YOU WANT TO CONTROL THE LOCALS? WHICH IS IT? NEXT UP, NICK GARDNER, FOLLOWED BY LINDA, ERNA, FREIDERBERG, THEN MARGARET HANSEN.

I WOULD LIKE TO SOLICIT THE BOARD TO WRITE A LETTER TO HEATHER HADWICK.

I RAN THIS ACROSS MARK MAZZANO.

I WOULD LIKE HER TO INTRODUCE A BILL TO ABOLISH CALIFORNIA FARM WORKERS DAY.

THAT STARTED OUT AS CESAR CHAVEZ DAY, AND IT TURNS OUT THAT HE DID SOME THINGS THAT GOT IT TAKEN AWAY FROM HIM.

SO INSTEAD OF JUST DROPPING THE STATE HOLIDAY, GAVIN NEWSOM MADE ANOTHER STATE HOLIDAY, FARM WORKERS DAY.

NOW THAT'S GOT TO BE COSTING US HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS WHEN YOU'VE GOT CITY, COUNTY, STATE EMPLOYEES TAKING THE DAY OFF PAID ALONG WITH THEIR CALPERS FACTORED IN, HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS, WHEN THE FARM WORKERS ARE OUT THERE WORKING THAT DAY.

THAT DOESN'T SEEM RIGHT TO ME, AND I WOULD LIKE YOU TO CONSIDER WRITING A BILL OR PUTTING THAT ON THE AGENDA TO WRITE A BILL.

AND FOLLOW UP ON THAT.

I THINK THAT'S SOMETHING IMPORTANT.

AND AS FAR AS JEFF GORDER GOES, I'D LIKE TO BUY HIM FOR WHAT HE'S WORTH AND SELL HIM FOR WHAT HE THINKS HE'S WORTH.

NEXT UP, LINDA, FOLLOWED BY ERNA FREIDERBERG, THEN MARGARET HANSEN.

I'M ASKING THIS BOARD TO MAKE THE RIGHT CHOICE.

DO NOT SPEND ONE TAXPAYER DOLLAR DEFENDING MEASURE B.

IT WAS CLEAR FROM THE OUTSET THAT THE MEASURE WAS ILLEGAL AND THAT A COUNTY CAN'T IMPLEMENT A MEASURE THAT VIOLATES STATE LAW.

JUST LIKE WE COULDN'T PUT A MEASURE SUPPORTING MURDER ON OUR COUNTY CHARTER AND EXPECT IT TO BE IMPLEMENTED FOR THE SO-CALLED WILL OF THE PEOPLE.

IT DOESN'T WORK LIKE THAT.

IF IT'S ILLEGAL IN STATE OR FEDERAL LAW, WE CAN'T SUPERSEDE THAT AS A COUNTY.

THAT'S COMMON SENSE.

YOU HAVE OPTIONS.

THE COUNTY DOES NOT HAVE TO DEFEND THIS LAWSUIT.

YOU CAN SIMPLY RESPOND THAT SHASTA COUNTY WILL COMPLY WITH WHATEVER THE COURT ORDERS.

THAT'S THE RESPONSIBLE THING TO DO.

IF THE PROPONENTS, INCLUDING CURTIS, WANT TO FIGHT THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA AND DEFEND THE LAWSUIT, THAT'S THEIR RIGHT, AND I FULLY SUPPORT THEIR RIGHT TO DO THAT, BUT THEY SHOULD DO IT ON THEIR DIME, NOT OURS.

TAXPAYERS HAVE ALREADY PAID FAR TOO MUCH.

FOR YEARS OF WHAT HAS TURNED INTO ELECTION CHAOS, WHETHER IT WAS INTENDED THAT WAY TO START OR NOT, THAT'S HOW IT'S ENDED.

AND I THINK IT'S ENOUGH.

THE PEOPLE HAVE SPOKEN, AND WHAT WE NEED IS THE THINGS THAT ARE REALLY IMPORTANT TO OUR COUNTY, THE REAL NEEDS, SUCH AS POTHOLES AND GOOD PUBLIC SERVICES.

AND THAT'S WHERE OUR MONEY NEEDS TO GO.

MR. KALLSTROM, YOU HAVE ALREADY SAID PUBLICLY.

THAT THIS MEASURE IS LIKELY ILLEGAL.

AND IF YOU STAND BY THAT, AND I HOPE YOU DO, THEN YOU MUST STAND AGAINST SPENDING OUR TAX MONEY TO FIGHT IT.

I ALSO WANT TO ADDRESS MR.

[02:40:02]

CURTIS'S ACTIONS.

MR. CURTIS CHOSE TO ALIGN HIMSELF WITH THE PROPONENTS OF MEASURE B, AND HE HELPED PUSH THIS MEASURE ONTO THE BALLOT, DESPITE THE COUNTY'S PRIOR OPPOSITION.

NEXT UP, ERNA FREIDERBERG.

FOLLOWED BY MARGARET HANSON.

GOOD MORNING, CHAIR, SUPERVISORS, AND COUNTY STAFF.

MY NAME IS ARNA FRIEDBERG, AND I SERVE AS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF NORMAN VALLEY CATHOLIC SOCIAL SERVICE.

FIRST, I WANT TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I UNDERSTAND THE REASON BEHIND THE 18% ORDINANCE THAT'S BEING PROPOSED.

WE ALL WANT TAXPAYER DOLLARS USED RESPONSIBLY.

WE WANT TRANSPARENCY, ACCOUNTABILITY, AND EFFECTIVE SERVICES FOR THE RESIDENTS OF SHASTA COUNTY.

HOWEVER, I RESPECTFULLY URGE THE BOARD NOT TO ADOPT AN ARBITRARY ADMINISTRATION COST CAP OF 18%.

THE PROBLEM WITH THIS PROPOSAL IS THAT IT ASSUMES ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS ARE SOMEHOW SEPARATE FROM SERVING PEOPLE, WHEN IN REALITY THEY ARE WHAT MAKES QUALITY SERVICES POSSIBLE.

ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS INCLUDE FINANCIAL OVERSIGHT, AUDITS, PAYROLL, HUMAN RESOURCES, INSURANCE, TECHNOLOGY SYSTEMS, COMPLIANCE, MONITORING.

SUPERVISION AND CONTRACT REPORTING.

THESE, IN FACT, ARE NOT LUXURIES.

THEY ARE THE SAFEGUARDS THAT PROTECT PUBLIC FUNDS AND ENSURE PROGRAMS OPERATE LEGALLY, ETHICALLY, AND EFFECTIVELY.

OUR ORGANIZATION, ALONG WITH MANY OTHERS IN THIS COMMUNITY, PROVIDE HOUSING, BEHAVIORAL HEALTH SUPPORT SERVICES, FAMILY SUPPORT SERVICES, DISASTER RECOVERY ASSISTANCE, AND OTHER CRITICAL PROGRAMS. THESE PROGRAMS COME WITH EXTENSIVE STATE AND FEDERAL REQUIREMENTS.

WE ARE REQUIRED TO TRACK OUTCOMES, MAINTAIN CLIENT RECORDS, UNDERGO AUDITS, AND COMPLY WITH LABOR LAWS.

I'M GOING TO HAVE TO SKIP DOWN HERE.

THE QUESTION SHOULDN'T BE WHAT IS SPENT ON ADMINISTRATION AS MUCH AS IT SHOULD BE ON OUR OUTCOMES, AND THOSE SHOULD BE ASKED.

THE MEASURES OF ALL OF THAT TRULY MATTER.

THE COUNTY DOES DEPEND ON NON-PROFITS.

AND I WANT TO THANK THE BOARD'S COMMITMENT TO FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY AND RESPECTFULLY ASK THAT YOU REJECT THIS ORDINANCE AND WORK COLLABORATIVELY WITH NONPROFITS.

MARGARET HANSEN, COME ON UP.

AND, CHAIR, THIS WILL BE OUR LAST SPEAKER.

SO OUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS ARE KEY TO EVERY ISSUE PRESENT HERE.

AND I WON'T BACK DOWN OFF OF ANY OF THAT.

THEY SUPERSEDE ANY DECISION.

IF YOU VOTE TO SQUASH THE WILL AND RIGHTS OF THE PEOPLE, YOU VIOLATE THE CONSTITUTION.

WE THE PEOPLE HAVE A RIGHT TO REDRESS OUR GRIEVANCES.

WE HAVE A RIGHT TO SPEAK.

WE HAVE A RIGHT TO CHANGE THINGS WHEN THEY ARE WRONG.

WE THE PEOPLE HAVE SPOKEN.

BUT THERE ARE TWO DATA CENTERS, YOU KNOW, LET'S ROB OUR WATER.

THAT WOULD BE FUN.

GORDER, WITH HIS LAWSUIT THAT WAS DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE, OWES YOU $250,000.

SO I SUGGEST YOU COLLECT IT.

I JUST DON'T LIKE ANY OF THIS.

BACK ROOM DEAL STUFF GOING ON, YOU'RE GOING TO GET THAT WHEN YOU GET THE NEW SUPERVISOR IN BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT THEY LIKE.

SO MY TAKE IS BE CAREFUL WITH AI.

I DON'T DISAGREE WITH IT, BUT I THINK THAT THERE'S A LOT OF STUDY THAT NEEDS TO BE DONE.

THERE'S JUST A LOT TO UNLOCK HERE.

SO MY TAKE IS BE CAREFUL WITH

[CONSENT CALENDAR]

WHAT YOU'RE DOING BECAUSE WE'RE WATCHING.

THAT WAS OUR LAST SPEAKER.

MOVING ON TO CONSENT.

WE HAVE NO ITEMS PULLED FROM CONSENT, CALLERAN.

I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO ACCEPT.

YOU WANT TO MAKE A MOTION? I SAID I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO ACCEPT.

MOTION TO ACCEPT BY SUPERVISOR HARMON.

[R5 Approve retroactive use of retained earnings in Fiscal Year (FY) 2024-25 in the: (1) Fall River Mills Airport Administration Fund, in the amount of $41,691; and (2) Facilities Management Administration Fund, in the amount of $197,725.]

DO I HAVE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND.

SECOND BY SUPERVISOR LONG.

PASSES 4-0.

THIS IS GOING TO BE ONE OF THE CORE...

MOVING ON.

R5.

APPROVE A RETROACTIVE USE OF RETAINED EARNINGS IN FISCAL YEAR IN THE FALL RIVER MILLS AIRPORT ADMINISTRATION FUND.

JOHN, I'LL LET YOU EXPLAIN IT MUCH BETTER THAN I CAN.

GOOD MORNING, CHAIR KALLSTROM, MEMBERS

[02:45:01]

OF THE BOARD.

I'M HERE TODAY TO ASK FOR THE BOARD'S APPROVAL FOR THE USE OF ADDITIONAL RETAINED EARNINGS RETROACTIVE TO FISCAL YEAR 24-25 FOR BOTH THE FALL RIVER MILLS AIRPORT AND FACILITIES MANAGEMENT BUDGET UNITS.

DURING THAT SUBJECT YEAR, BOTH BUDGET UNITS USED RETAINED EARNINGS IN EXCESS OF THE AMOUNT APPROVED IN THEIR BUDGETS.

FOR BOTH, THIS OCCURRED WHEN REVENUES FELL SHORT OF PROJECTIONS.

SPECIFIC TO FALL RIVER MILLS AIRPORT, THIS OCCURRED WHEN AN FAA GRANT THAT WE WERE DUE WAS DELAYED, AND IT WAS NOT EXECUTED DURING FISCAL YEAR 24-25.

IT WAS EXECUTED DURING THE FOLLOWING FISCAL YEAR.

WE HAD INCURRED COSTS FOR THAT GRANT DURING 24-25.

DID NOT RECEIVE REIMBURSEMENT UNTIL THE FOLLOWING FISCAL YEAR.

REGARDING FACILITIES MANAGEMENT, THE REVENUE FELL SHORT WHEN THE DIVISION FAILED TO MEET ITS BILLABLE HOURS GOAL.

SO BILLABLE HOURS ARE THE ONLY SOURCE OF REVENUE FOR FACILITIES MANAGEMENT.

DURING FISCAL YEAR 24-25, THEY HAD AN UNEXPECTED NUMBER OF...

EMPLOYEE VACANCIES AND ALSO SOME EXTENDED LEAVES, MEDICAL LEAVES, THAT RESULTED IN THEM ABLE TO COLLECT LESS BILLABLE HOURS.

SO THAT CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION.

AGAIN, IN BOTH SITUATIONS, BOTH BUDGET UNITS HAD SHORTAGES IN REVENUE THAT REQUIRES THE RETROACTIVE.

APPROVAL OF ADDITIONAL RETAINED EARNINGS FISCAL YEAR 24-25.

THANK YOU, JOHN.

BEFORE I GET TO SUPERVISOR'S DISCUSSION, IS THERE ANY PUBLIC COMMENT? YES, CHAIR.

THANK YOU, JOHN, FOR THE UPDATE.

SO MY QUESTION IS THIS SOUNDS LIKE A TIMING THING BETWEEN THE GRANT RECEIVED IN LIKE SEPTEMBER, RIGHT? AND THE REVENUES AND THE EXPENSES OCCURRED THE FISCAL YEAR 24-25.

SO MY QUESTION IS, AND I TALKED TO ROCHELLE, SO I THINK I'VE GOT THIS ANSWER, BUT I THINK IT'S AN IMPORTANT POINT.

SO HAD THAT GRANT BEEN RECEIVED IN THE PROPER FISCAL YEAR 24-25, IT WOULD HAVE ONLY OFFSET ABOUT 30 OF THE 41, SO THERE STILL WOULD HAVE BEEN A SHORTAGE OF ABOUT 12.

THAT IS CORRECT, YEAH.

THERE'S SOME ADDITIONAL COSTS.

I CAN KIND OF GO OVER THOSE.

THERE WERE ABOUT, LOOKS LIKE ABOUT $6,000 IN WHAT TURNED OUT TO BE UNREVERSIBLE CONSULTANT COSTS.

SO WE HAVE A CONSULTANT THAT HELPS US WITH THE AIRPORT.

WE HAD ENGAGED THEM ON A SCOPE OF WORK WHICH WE THOUGHT THE FAA WOULD REIMBURSE US FOR.

TURNED OUT THEY DID NOT.

THERE WERE ALSO A SOLAR TRUE-UP PAYMENT.

SO THE FACILITY HAS SOLAR PANELS.

AND WITH THAT SOLAR PANEL SYSTEM, YOU JUST PAY THE MONTHLY KIND OF SERVICE CHARGES.

YOU DON'T ACTUALLY PAY FOR THE COMMODITY, FOR ANY ELECTRICITY.

AND THEN AT THE END OF THE YEAR, YOU GET A BILL.

TO SHOW ANY ELECTRICITY THAT YOU NEEDED ABOVE AND BEYOND WHAT YOUR SOLAR PANELS PRODUCED.

SO THERE WAS THE ELECTRICITY TRUE-UP THAT WE HAD NOT ANTICIPATED.

AND THEN THERE WAS A SITUATION, I THINK WHEN I DID MY BUDGET PRESENTATION, I HAD MENTIONED THAT WE ARE MOVING TO EXTRA HELP CUSTODIANS IN THE EAST COUNTY.

SO THIS IS NOT THE FIRST TIME WE'VE USED EXTRA HELP CUSTODIANS IN THE EAST COUNTY IN FISCAL YEAR 24-25.

WE STARTED THE YEAR USING EXTRA HELP CUSTODIANS, AND THEN THE PEOPLE THAT WE WERE USING DECIDED THEY NO LONGER WANTED TO HOLD THOSE POSITIONS.

WE HAD VACANCIES.

WE WERE UNABLE TO FILL THE VACANCIES AS EXTRA HELP, SO WE HAD TO ASSIGN A FULL-TIME CUSTODIAN TO THE EAST COUNTY FACILITIES, INCLUDING THE FALL RIVER MILLS AIRPORT.

SO THAT WOULD MAKE UP...

THOSE FACTORS WOULD MAKE UP THAT BALANCE BETWEEN THE GRANT-FUNDED WORK.

AND SO I GUESS THE QUESTION WOULD BE, GOING FORWARD, SOME OF THOSE SOUND LIKE A TRUE-UP

[02:50:01]

ON THE SOLAR PANELS.

THAT'S A CASH FLOW TIMING ISSUE.

AND I KNOW THE BUDGET REVENUES HAVE COME IN AT THE AIRPORT PRETTY...

SUBSTANTIAL UNDER WHAT MAY HAVE BEEN EXPECTED.

SO IS THIS SOMETHING THAT WE, ARE THESE A SERIES OF ONE-TIME EVENTS, OR IS THIS MORE OF A SYSTEMIC PROBLEM THAT WE HAVE TO ADDRESS GOING FORWARD WITH DECREASED REVENUE? WELL, I THINK BOTH ISSUES APPLY.

I THINK THESE CIRCUMSTANCES THAT I'M TALKING ABOUT TODAY, THEY WERE PRIMARILY ONE TIME, ALTHOUGH, AS I MENTIONED, AS WE TRANSITION BACK TO EXTRA HELP CUSTODIAL, IF THAT CHANGES AT ANY POINT IN TIME, OUR CUSTODIAL COSTS WILL GO UP.

BUT THE REST OF THOSE SEEM TO BE ONE-TIME EVENTS.

BUT THAT DOESN'T TAKE AWAY FROM THE FACT THAT I THINK THE WE NEED TO CONTINUE TO WATCH AND INFORM THE BOARD AND THE COUNTY ON THE COST, THE TRUE COST TO RUN THE AIRPORT.

BECAUSE, AS YOU NOTED, REVENUES HAVE DECREASED UP THERE.

AND IS THAT A CONVERSATION WE'RE GOING TO HAVE GOING FORWARD AS TO WHAT THE NET COST TO THE COUNTY IS? YEAH.

YEAH, SO MY GOAL COMING OUT OF BUDGET TALKS WAS TO APPROACH THE CEO AND TALK WITH HIM ABOUT HOW HE WOULD LIKE TO APPROACH THIS.

AND FOLLOW HIS DIRECTION.

THANK YOU, SUPERVISOR LONG, SUPERVISOR PLUMMER.

THANK YOU, JOHN.

AND I REALIZED THAT YOU WEREN'T IN YOUR CURRENT POSITION AT THE TIME THAT THESE EVENTS TOOK PLACE.

THANK YOU, JOHN.

SO, BUT WITH THAT SAID, WITH THE 41,000 AND CHANGE, FOR EXAMPLE, THE IDEA THERE, AS SUPERVISOR LONG JUST INDICATED, IS THAT YOU KNOW, THE REVENUE WAS PUSHED TO THE FOLLOWING FISCAL YEAR FOR A PORTION OF THAT.

SO WOULDN'T WE EXPECT THAT THEN WHEN THAT REVENUE COMES IN IN THE ENSUING FISCAL YEAR, THAT THEN THAT WOULD BE BASICALLY A BUDGET AMENDMENT IN THAT YEAR, WHICH WOULD HAVE BEEN 25-26, I BELIEVE, THIS CURRENT FISCAL YEAR THAT WE'RE WRAPPING, AND TO THEN ADJUST TO REMOVE THAT BECAUSE...

YOU USE THE EARNINGS IN 24-25, AND THEN NOW YOU GOT THE REVENUE THAT YOU WERE EXPECTING TO GET PREVIOUSLY, SO WE WOULD EXPECT THAT MONEY, IN A SENSE, TO GO BACK TO RETAINED EARNINGS.

THAT IS NOT HAPPENING HERE, CORRECT? WE USED IT, AND THEN WE GOT THE GRANT MONEY, AND WE USED THAT.

SO HELP ME UNDERSTAND KIND OF THAT.

AND I AM NOT AN EXPERT ON THE LOGISTICS OF MOVING THE MONEY AROUND BETWEEN FISCAL YEARS, SO I'D HAVE TO RELY ON THAT.

CFO ROCHELLE KASHKE.

HELLO, ROCHELLE KASHKE, PUBLIC WORKS.

YEAH, THAT'S CORRECT.

I ACTUALLY, IN YOUR GUYS' CONSENT CALENDAR FOR BUDGET AMENDMENTS, I DID ADJUST THE AIRPORT REVENUE FOR THE FFA GRANT TO ACCOUNT FOR THAT AMOUNT.

SO IT IS ACCOUNTED FOR THIS FISCAL YEAR.

OKAY, SO THE END OF THIS FISCAL YEAR, WE'RE ADJUSTING TO INCREASE THAT? YEAH, SO OUR REVENUE IS SHOWING HIGH.

THAN ANTICIPATED FOR OUR EXPENSES THIS YEAR BECAUSE OF THAT REVENUE FROM LAST FISCAL YEAR.

AND I GUESS WHAT I'M THINKING ABOUT IS THAT IF THE USE OF THE RETAINED EARNINGS WAS ESSENTIALLY TO CARRY US OVER UNTIL WE RECEIVED THE GRANT DOLLARS, IS THAT RETAINED EARNINGS THAT WAS EXPENDED IN 24-25, IS THAT BEING PUT BACK INTO RETAINED EARNINGS? YES.

SO AT THE END OF THE FISCAL YEAR, YOU KNOW, WE'LL HAVE OUR NET COUNTY COST AND THAT AMOUNT WILL BE ADJUSTED FOR.

AND THERE, OF COURSE, WE HAVE OUR OTHER REVENUE.

EXPENSES AS WELL.

BUT YES, ESSENTIALLY, THIS IS JUST BUDGET AUTHORITY APPROVAL FOR LAST FISCAL YEAR, NOT ASKING FOR EXTRA FUNDS OR ANYTHING, JUST THE BUDGET AUTHORITY TO USE THOSE RETAINED EARNINGS.

AND THEN, AND I'M NOT SURE IF THESE ARE DIRECTLY CONNECTED, BUT I KNOW IN THE END OF YEAR BUDGET AMENDMENTS WE JUST APPROVED WAS ACTUALLY GIVING THIS BUDGET UNIT ABOUT $28,000 ADDITIONAL FROM THE GENERAL FUND.

SO...

YEAH, THAT'S CORRECT BECAUSE, AS JOHN HAD MENTIONED, THERE WAS SOME CONSULTANT THAT WASN'T REIMBURSED THROUGH THE GRANT.

WE ALSO HAD ADDITIONAL EXPENSES THIS FISCAL YEAR THAT AREN'T COVERED BY THE GRANT AND LOWER REVENUE.

SO YOU'RE ADDING ON TO THAT AS WELL.

SO, YES, THIS YEAR WE DEFINITELY NEEDED THAT CONTRIBUTION.

AND THEN NEXT FISCAL YEAR, WHICH WE WENT OVER.

SO IS IT FAIR TO SAY THAT IN 24-25 WE HAD TO SPEND? $41,000 AND CHANGE OF RETAINED EARNINGS.

SO KIND OF EXTRA DRAW ON, WAS THAT FROM A RESTRICTED FUND BALANCE OR WAS THAT FROM THE GENERAL FUND, THE $41,000? THAT WAS PARTIALLY GENERAL FUND.

[02:55:01]

I BELIEVE WE HAD THAT ONGOING PROJECT, SO WE DID GET A GENERAL FUND LOAN AT THE END OF LAST FISCAL YEAR AS WELL.

OH, SO IT WAS A LOAN, SO IT WAS PAID BACK THEN? YEAH, YEAH.

ACTUALLY, I BELIEVE WHEN WE DO A LOAN EXTENSION AT THE END OF THE FISCAL YEAR, YOU HAVE THE NEXT FISCAL YEAR TO PAY THAT OFF.

SO THAT'S WHAT THAT WAS REQUESTING.

SO THE $41,000 THEN WAS PAID BACK THROUGH THE LOAN? YEAH, WE HAVE THIS FISCAL YEAR TO PAY IT BACK, AND WE'RE PAYING IT BACK PARTIALLY WITH GENERAL FUND CONTRIBUTION, WHICH WE'VE REQUESTED IN TODAY'S CONSENT ITEM.

OKAY, SO WE HAD THE $41,000.

WE'RE PAYING IT BACK PARTIALLY WITH THE $28,000.

AND THEN IN THE NEXT YEAR, WE'RE GIVING $65,000 FOR THE GENERAL FUND CONTRIBUTION.

YEAH, WE'RE NOT EXPECTING TO NEED THAT FULL AMOUNT BECAUSE OF THE REQUEST THAT WE MADE FOR THIS FISCAL YEAR.

AND THAT WAS THE CONVERSATION WE HAD LAST WEEK THAT WE COULD HAVE REMOVED THE $28,000 THAT WE'RE GIVING THIS YEAR OR GIVING THIS FISCAL YEAR TODAY, ESSENTIALLY, OUT OF THAT $65,000.

YES, YES.

THEY'RE NOT COMING BACK IN A SENSE.

CORRECT, YEAH, AND THEY HAVE A CASH BALANCE.

THIS JUST ATE MORE INTO THE CASH BALANCE THAN WE HAD ORIGINALLY ANTICIPATED.

THAT'S WHY WE'RE REQUESTING THE ADDITIONAL BUDGET.

AND I KNOW THERE'S INDICATIONS IN THE DOCUMENTS ATTACHED IN TERMS OF LIKE GOING FORWARD, HOW THIS WILL BE ADDRESSED.

BUT HELP ME UNDERSTAND THE TIMELINE HERE IN TERMS OF, BECAUSE TYPICALLY EITHER YOU WOULD DO AS YOU'RE DOING RIGHT NOW WITH THE END OF YEAR BUDGET AMENDMENT AND SAY, OKAY, WELL, WE EXPECTED THE MONEY TO COME OUT DIFFERENTLY.

SO, OR I THINK THERE'S A FEW MONTHS INTO THE NEW FISCAL YEAR WHERE YOU COULD ADDRESS IT, BUT NOW WE'RE KIND OF PRETTY FAR PAST.

WHAT WILL BE THE DIFFERENCE GOING FORWARD TO ENSURE THAT THAT IS, I GUESS, CAUGHT OR ANTICIPATED MORE QUICKLY? YEAH, AND ACTUALLY WE DID HAVE A FACILITIES BUDGET AMENDMENT, AND THAT CONSENT ITEM AS WELL, DECREASING THE REVENUE BECAUSE WE DO EXPECT LOWER THAN ORIGINALLY BUDGETED.

SO WE'RE TRYING TO CAPTURE THAT FOR THIS FISCAL YEAR AS WELL, AND WE'LL BE LOOKING AT NEXT FISCAL YEAR'S BUDGET AS WELL.

OKAY, THANK YOU.

SUPERVISOR HERMAN.

SO SOME OF THAT IS A ONE-TIME COST.

SOME OF IT WAS, YEAH.

AND THEN THERE'S NO ADDITIONAL FUND.

I'M NOT SURE HOW THIS WORKS.

WE'VE GOT TO BE UNANIMOUS.

YES, WE DO.

WE NEED TO BE UNANIMOUS.

AND I CAN'T SAY ENOUGH HOW IMPORTANT THIS AIRPORT IS TO THE LOCAL COMMUNITY UP THERE, NOT JUST FOR CONVENIENCE BUT FOR SAFETY REASONS.

AND LIKE I SAID THE LAST TIME WE TALKED ABOUT THIS, THIS IS ACTUALLY A COUNTY ASSET.

THE COUNTY OWNS THIS AIRPORT.

IT'S NOT SOMETHING WE'RE SPENDING MONEY ON FOR SOMEBODY ELSE OUT THERE.

THIS IS MONEY, MONIES THAT WE'RE APPROVING TO TAKE CARE OF OUR OWN ASSET, OUR OWN.

AND WE NEED TO, AND IT'S, I JUST WISH THERE WAS A LITTLE MORE TIME TO DO SOME OF THIS.

THERE IS NO ADDITIONAL GENERAL FUND IMPACT AND I'M ASKING THE OTHER SUPERVISORS TO PLEASE VOTE YES ON THIS.

WE NEED A MOTION FIRST.

AND I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THIS.

I'LL SECOND.

MOTION MADE BY SUPERVISOR HARMON, SECOND BY SUPERVISOR LONG.

BEFORE WE TAKE THE VOTE, SUPERVISOR PLUMMER.

OKAY, I'M SORRY.

I WILL VOTE TO APPROVE THIS.

HOWEVER, I DO THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT THE DISCUSSION LAST WEEK WAS NOT ABOUT TAKING ANY MONEY AWAY.

IT WAS ABOUT ALLOWING FOR THE FUND TO BE GIVEN MONEY IN THIS FISCAL YEAR THAT WAS ORIGINALLY PLANNED FOR THE NEXT FISCAL YEAR.

SO IT WAS JUST SHIFTING WHEN THAT WAS GOING TO HAPPEN.

SO RIGHT NOW WE'VE ESSENTIALLY AUTHORIZED THEM $28,000 IN NEXT FISCAL YEAR ABOVE WHAT THEY ASKED AND NEEDED.

SO THAT WAS THE DISTINCTION LAST WEEK.

THOUGH I DO SUPPORT, JOHN, AND YOUR WORK WITH THE CEO TO HAVE ADDITIONAL CONVERSATIONS ABOUT HOW WE ENSURE THAT THIS IS SUSTAINABLE GOING FORWARD.

BECAUSE I THINK WHAT WE ARE SEEING NOW IS A THREE-YEAR TRAJECTORY OF DRAW ON RETAINED EARNINGS AND GENERAL FUND.

AND THAT, TO ME, INDICATES AN UNSUSTAINABLE PICTURE THAT NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED.

AND I'M HOPEFUL THAT THERE ARE SOLUTIONS THAT CAN BE.

[03:00:02]

DETERMINED THROUGH THAT PROCESS.

YOU GUYS GOOD? GET OUT OF QUEUE IF YOU ARE.

[R7 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.]

[R8 Introduce and waive the reading of, “An Ordinance of The Board of Supervisors of the County of Shasta Requiring Non-Profits to Limit Administrative Costs to Receive County Funding or Support.”]

[CLOSED SESSION ANNOUNCEMENT]

ANY OPPOSED? PASSES 4-0.