Jun 23, 2026 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting

YES, JOHN, THANK YOU FOR PUTTING THIS TOGETHER.

THIS IS SUPER HELPFUL. I WANT TO SEE THE BALANCES, SEE HOW IT'S TRENDED OVER THE LAST 10 YEARS AND TO HAVE THAT GOAL IN MIND OF TRYING TO HIT EACH PRD EVERY 10 YEARS.

THAT'S KIND OF A HELPFUL FRAMEWORK BECAUSE I KNOW A NUMBER OF PEOPLE IN MY DISTRICT HAVE, AS WE'VE TALKED ABOUT, HAVE ASKED, OH, WHEN ARE WE GOING TO DO MAINTENANCE? WHEN WAS THE LAST TIME? AND SO HOPEFULLY THIS IS HELPFUL FOR THOSE WHO ARE IN THESE PRDS TO HAVE SOME VISIBILITY INTO THAT. I DID HAVE SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT THE SPECIFIC ONES HERE IN DISTRICT 4. SO IT LOOKS LIKE DUSTY OAKS AND HOLIDAY ACRES.

THOSE ARE THOSE PLANNED FOR DID THEY DO DRAINAGE PROJECTS THIS PAST OR THIS FISCAL YEAR THAT WE'RE ENDING NOW? AND THAT'S WHY WE SEE A SIGNIFICANT DEPLETION OF THEIR FUNDS? YEAH. AND I WOULD HAVE TO I'M NOT FAMILIAR WITH THE WORK WE DID IN EACH ONE OF THOSE PRDS. BUT MY ASSUMPTION IS THAT THEY WERE PART OF THE STORM DAMAGE. ANY OF THE DRAINAGE WORK THAT YOU SEE THAT WAS DONE IN THE LAST COUPLE OF YEARS ON ANY OF THE ZONES WAS RELATED TO STORM DAMAGE. SO I'M PRETTY SURE THAT DUSTY OAKS AND HOLIDAY ACRES BOTH HAD STORM DAMAGE AND REQUIRED SIGNIFICANT REPAIR WORK. NOW, THE ONE THING I'LL NOTE ABOUT THE STORM DAMAGE IS THAT IF THE STORM WAS DECLARED AN EMERGENCY BY THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA OR EVEN NATIONALLY, THOSE PRDS WOULD BE ELIGIBLE FOR REIMBURSEMENT THROUGH CAL OES OR EVEN FEMA. AND THAT IS A THAT IS PART OF OUR ADMINISTRATION IS TO INCLUDE THOSE PROJECTS.

SO WE WOULD PURSUE STATE OR FEDERAL FUNDING, EMERGENCY RELIEF FUNDING, TO REIMBURSE THEM FOR THAT? BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT I WAS THINKING ON THE EMERGENCY REPAIRS OR MAINTENANCE, THAT IF WE DRAIN THEIR FUNDS ON THAT, THEN IT WILL BE HARD TO DO KIND OF THE REGULAR

[00:25:01]

MAINTENANCE AS WELL. YEAH, SO THAT MAKES SENSE. AND THEN IT LOOKS LIKE THERE ARE 3, LAKE DRIVE, LARK COURT, MANZANILLO, ORCHARD, AND MAYBE MOUNTAIN GATE MEADOWS THAT HAVEN'T HAD ANY MAINTENANCE IN THE LAST IN THIS CHART HERE OF 10, 11 YEARS AND AREN'T SCHEDULED. IS THAT BECAUSE THEY'RE IN GOOD SHAPE OR THAT WOULD BE MY PRESUMPTION. AND JUST BECAUSE THEY MAY NOT BE HIGHLIGHTED AS A PROJECT ON A PARTICULAR FISCAL YEAR DOESN'T MEAN WE'RE NOT DOING MAINTENANCE IN THOSE AREAS.

AREAS.

THEY JUST HAVE NOT BEEN PART OF ONE OF THE LARGER-SCALE REHABILITATION PROJECTS. SO, BUT YES, IN GENERAL, I BUT THAT WOULD BE MY PRESUMPTION IS THAT THEY ARE, YOU KNOW, THEY HAVEN'T NEEDED THAT LEVEL OF MAINTENANCE TO SHOW UP.

AND THEN REAL QUICK, IF I COULD, I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY. SO WE BASE THE ASSESSMENT ESTIMATE ON THAT 10-YEAR CYCLE. THERE'S NOT NECESSARILY A GUARANTEE BE THAT EVERY 10 YEARS WE'RE GOING TO DO A PROJECT IN A PRD.

THAT'S STRICTLY BASED ON, YOU KNOW, WHAT WE THINK THE MAINTENANCE NEED WILL BE.

ACTUAL EXPENDITURES AND PROJECTS WILL BE BASED REALLY ON THE CONDITION OF THE ROAD.

SURE, NO, THAT MAKES SENSE.

AND THE, UH, WHEN IT COMES TO THE 3 WHERE THERE ARE PROJECTS, IT LOOKS LIKE THEY'RE WHEN WE SAY THAT, IT LOOKS LIKE SHASTA LAKE RANCHOS IS HAVING A DRAINAGE PROJECT THIS CURRENT YEAR, AND THEN THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE A PAVEMENT MAINTENANCE PROJECT IN THIS UPCOMING FISCAL YEAR AS WELL? THAT IS CORRECT.

OKAY. AND HOW MUCH DOES THAT TYPICALLY COST, OR HOW DO WE THINK ABOUT THE COST OF PAVEMENT MAINTENANCE FOR ONE OF THESE, FOR THE, SAY, THE CONTRACT THAT YOU'RE GOING TO DO THIS SUMMER? AND I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S ON A PER-LANE-MILE OR HOW YOU THINK ABOUT IT, BUT NO, SO, YOU KNOW, IT'LL BE A BID PROJECT, SO WE'LL PUT IT OUT TO BID. IT'S A PUBLIC WORKS PROJECT. EACH ZONE, THE WORK WILL BE SEPARATE, DISCRETE BID ITEM.

SO THE CONTRACTORS WILL BID FOR EACH SCOPE OF WORK WITHIN THE VARIOUS ZONES. NOW WE TRY TO PROVIDE SOME KIND OF CONTINUITY FOR WE TRY AND GROUP SCOPES OF WORK TOGETHER. SO AGAIN, TO GET THAT BENEFIT FOR LARGER VOLUMES. BUT EACH ONE WILL BE BID AND IT WILL BE DISCRETE FROM ALL THE OTHER ZONES.

AND I'M TRYING TO GET A SENSE OF SO SHASTA LAKE RANCHOS HAS $155,000.

WOULD WE EXPECT THAT THAT WOULD GET DOWN TO $20,000, $30,000, OR IS IT HARD TO KNOW WITHOUT LOOKING AT THE SPECIFIC CONDITIONS OF THE ROAD AND WHAT CONTRACT WILL SPECIFY THERE IN THE SCOPE? YEAH, YEAH, I DON'T HAVE THAT INFORMATION WITH ME.

OBVIOUSLY, WHEN WE GET CLOSE WITH THE PROJECT, THAT REHABILITATION PROJECT, WE'LL BE BRINGING IT BACK TO THE BOARD FOR PERMISSION TO ADVERTISE. WE'LL HAVE MORE DETAILS ON EACH THE WORK AND COST ESTIMATE FOR EACH ZONE WHEN WE GET TO THAT POINT.

OKAY, THANK YOU. APPRECIATE THIS.

ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU, JOHN. MY THE ONLY IF SOMEBODY IS IN A PRD AND THEY WANT TO GET SOME MAINTENANCE DONE, THEY JUST CALL PUBLIC WORKS, TELL THEM WHERE THEY'RE AT.

OKAY, THAT'S CORRECT. I THINK THE ONLY ONE I REALLY DEAL WITH IS SLEEPING BULL, AND I SHOULD HAVE INVITED MY FRIEND RICHARD TO BE HERE, AND I FORGOT TO SEND HIM A LINK. SO THANK

[R2 Approve retroactive authorization for the use of additional General Fund in the amount of $235,057 in the Victim Witness Budget (BU 256) in FY 2023-24 and FY 2024-25.]

YOU, JOHN. APPRECIATE YOU.

APPRECIATE YOU.

MOVING ON TO R2, APPROVE A RETROACTIVE AUTHORIZATION FOR THE USE OF ADDITIONAL GENERAL FUND IN THE AMOUNT OF $235,057 IN THE VICTIM WITNESS BUDGET, UH, IN FISCAL YEAR 2023-2024 AND 2024-25.

WELCOME.

GOOD MORNING, CHAIR KALLSTROM, MEMBERS OF THE BOARD. I'M TERRI HAUNER, CHIEF FISCAL OFFICER AT THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE. WITH ME IS ANGIE MILLIS. SHE'S A PROGRAM MANAGER FOR THE CRIME VICTIMS ASSISTANCE CENTER. TODAY WE ARE REQUESTING APPROVAL OF RETROACTIVE AUTHORIZATION FOR THE ADDITIONAL USE OF GENERAL FUND SUPPORT WITHIN BUDGET UNIT 256, VICTIM WITNESS, IN THE AMOUNT OF $235,057 FOR FISCAL YEARS 23-24 AND 24-25. THIS REQUEST STEMS FROM ONGOING DELAYS IN REIMBURSEMENT FROM CALIFORNIA VICTIM COMPENSATION BOARD, OR CAL CALVCB. FOR THE SECOND CONSECUTIVE YEAR, REVENUES ANTICIPATED UNDER OUR AGREEMENT WITH CALVCB WERE NOT RECEIVED WITHIN THE EXPECTED TIMEFRAME.

THESE DELAYS HAVE SIGNIFICANTLY IMPACTED THE VICTIM WITNESS BUDGET, WHICH RELIES ON REIMBURSEMENT FUNDING TO SUPPORT PROGRAM OPERATIONS.

THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY INFORMED THE BOARD AT THE BUDGET HEARING ON THURSDAY, JUNE 11TH, SAYING THAT CALVCB IS 6 TO 9 MONTHS MONTHS LATE IN PAYING FOR THE STAFF TO PROCESS RESTITUTION CLAIMS FOR VICTIMS. THEY ARE VERY BAD AT PAYING THEIR BILL. WE RUN IN ARREARS ON THIS FUNDING SOURCE FREQUENTLY. ON APRIL 30TH, 2026, THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE RECEIVED A MEMORANDUM FROM THE AUDITOR COMPTROLLER NOLDA SHORT REGARDING THE FISCAL YEAR '24-'25 BUDGET ADJUSTMENT FOR BUDGET UNIT 256. THE MEMORANDUM

[00:30:02]

IDENTIFIED CONCERNS RELATED TO USE OF GENERAL FUND SUPPORT THAT EXCEEDED THE BUDGETED AUTHORITY PREVIOUSLY AUTHORIZED BY THE BOARD. APPROVAL OF THIS ITEM BEFORE YOU WILL ADDRESS AND RESOLVE THOSE CONCERNS.

TO PROVIDE SOME BACKGROUND, DURING THE FISCAL YEAR OF '23-'24 YEAR-END BUDGET REVIEW, IT WAS DETERMINED THAT BUDGET UNIT 256 EXCEEDED ITS AUTHORIZED NET NET COUNTY COST BY $274,028. THIS OVERAGE WAS DIRECTLY ATTRIBUTABLE TO DELAYED REIMBURSEMENT PAYMENTS FROM CALVCB. IN AN EFFORT TO ADDRESS THE ISSUE, THE DEPARTMENT SUBMITTED A BUDGET AMENDMENT INTENDED TO REDUCE THE NET COUNTY COST IN FISCAL YEAR 24-25 TO RECOVER THE PRIOR YEAR OVERAGE.

HOWEVER, DURING THE 24-25 YEAR THE YEAR-END REVIEW, THE ANTICIPATING SAVINGS DID NOT MATERIALIZE PLANNED. AS A RESULT, BUDGET UNIT 256 EXCEEDED ITS AUTHORIZED NET COUNTY COSTS BY $235,000 SORRY, $235,057.

WHILE THE DEPARTMENT WAS ABLE TO RECOVER $38,971 OF THE 23-24 OVERAGE, THE RATE THE REMAINING AMOUNT CONTINUED TO BE SUPPORTED BY THE GENERAL FUND BY AWAITING WHILE AWAITING REIMBURSEMENT FROM CALVCB. AS OF MAY 20, UH, 2026, CALVCB OWES THE COUNTY OF SHASTA APPROXIMATELY $698,000 IN OUTSTANDING REIMBURSEMENTS.

THESE ARE ELIGIBLE EXPENDITURES THAT HAVE ALREADY BEEN INCURRED AND SUBMITTED FOR REIMBURSEMENT. THE DELAYS ARE OCCURRING AT THE STATE LEVEL AND ARE NOT RESULT OF COUNTY OPERATIONAL ISSUES OR OVERSPENDING. NEVERTHELESS, BECAUSE THE REVENUES WERE NOT RECEIVED WHEN ANTICIPATED, THE DEPARTMENT RELIED ON GENERAL FUND SUPPORT TO MAINTAIN UNINTERRUPTED VICTIM WITNESS SERVICES. THE REQUEST BEFORE YOU TODAY DOES NOT REPRESENT NEW SPENDING OR REQUESTS FOR ADDITIONAL APPROPRIATIONS.

RATHER, IT IS A REQUEST TO RETROACTIVELY AUTHORIZE THE USE OF GENERAL FUND RESOURCES THAT WERE NECESSARY TO SUSTAIN OPERATIONS WHILE REIMBURSEMENT REVENUES REMAINED OUTSTANDING.

APPROVAL WILL ALIGN BUDGET AUTHORITY WITH ACTUAL EXPENDITURES AND RESOLVE THE ISSUE IDENTIFIED BY THE AUDITOR CONTROLLER. THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE AND THE AUDITOR CONTROLLER'S OFFICE HAVE REVIEWED AND APPROVED THE REQUESTED ACTION.

IN SUMMARY, DUE TO CONTINUED DELAYS WITH CALVCP REIMBURSEMENT BUDGET UNIT 256 REQUIRED TEMPORARY GENERAL FUND SUPPORT TO MAINTAIN VICTIM WITNESS SERVICES, WHICH YOU KNOW ARE VERY VITAL IN THIS AREA. STAFF IS REQUESTING RETROACTIVE AUTHORIZATION OF $235,057 IN GENERAL FUND SUPPORT FOR FISCAL YEARS '22, '23, '24, '24, '25 TO RESOLVE THE OUTSTANDING BUDGET ISSUE AND BRING THE BUDGET INTO COMPLIANCE WITH BOARD AUTHORIZATION.

THAT'S THE ITEM BEFORE YOU TODAY, AND I'M HAPPY TO TAKE ANY QUESTIONS.

OKAY, AND IF WE GET THOSE REIMBURSEMENTS, IF WE GIVE YOU THIS LOAN, WE GET THOSE REIMBURSEMENTS, I'M ASSUMING THAT GOES BACK IN THE GENERAL FUND? CORRECT. THE PHONE CALL HAS BEEN MADE TO CALVCP TO SAY THIS ITEM IS GOING BEFORE THE BOARD TODAY, AND PLEASE PROCESS OUR PAYMENTS TIMELY.

OKAY, ONCE AGAIN, CALIFORNIA IS SLOW ON PAYING THEIR BILLS.

THANK YOU, CHAIR. THANK YOU, TERRY, FOR THAT PRESENTATION.

SO IS IT TRUE TO SAY THAT THIS IS A CASH FLOW ISSUE WHERE WE'RE WAITING FOR REIMBURSEMENT AND LIKE SUPERVISOR KJELLSTROM JUST SAID, IT WILL GO BACK TO THE GENERAL FUND ONCE IT'S RECEIVED? CORRECT.

WE'RE A GENERAL FUND DEPARTMENT, SO PUBLIC SAFETY DEPARTMENT, SO YES, IT WOULD GO BACK TO THE GENERAL FUND. THE GENERAL FUND HAS THE CASH FLOW THAT'S SUSTAINING THE PROGRAM AS WE'RE WAITING THAT REIMBURSEMENT. AND SO, YES.

AND ERIN BERTANE IS SHAKING HER HEAD NO. SO WHICH IS IT? I'M SORRY. I SHOULD HAVE LET YOU ANSWER THAT. I APOLOGIZE.

SORRY, SUPERVISOR LONG.

GOOD MORNING, CHAIR KELSEY, MEMBERS OF THE BOARD.

ERIN BERTANE, DEPUTY COUNTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER. SO IT'S NOT REALLY A CASH FLOW ISSUE IN THAT, AS TERRY JUST INDICATED, THEY'RE IN THE GENERAL FUND. SO IT'S NOT LIKE HHSA WHERE THEY'RE GOING INTO NEGATIVE CASH. SHOULD THEY RECEIVE ADDITIONAL REVENUE, LIKE MORE THAN THEY HAVE BUDGETED, THEN THAT WOULD OFFSET THEIR GENERAL FUND CONTRIBUTION IN FUTURE YEARS.

SO THEY'RE THE AMOUNT THE GENERAL FUND WOULD PAY WOULD BE LESS DEPENDENT ON HOW MUCH THEY RECEIVED. SO IT'S NOT A GUARANTEE THAT WE'RE GOING TO SEE THE MONEY AND THE MONEY IS GOING TO COME BACK TO THE GENERAL FUND. IT'S SUBJECT TO WHEN WE RECEIVE THAT REIMBURSEMENT AND DURING WHICH YEAR WE RECEIVE THE REIMBURSEMENT. SO SHOULD WE HAVE, YOU KNOW, IF NEXT FISCAL YEAR WE INCREASED REVENUE, WE WOULD BRING A BUDGET AMENDMENT FOR VICTIM WITNESS TO RECOGNIZE

[00:35:01]

THAT INCREASED REVENUE, WHICH WOULD DECREASE THE GENERAL FUND HIT, BUT IT'S NOT A GUARANTEE.

OKAY. AND I HAVE WHILE YOU'RE HERE, ERIN, I HAVE QUESTIONS.

ARE WE GOING TO AGGRESSIVELY PURSUE REIMBURSEMENT, ONE, AND WHAT DOES THAT LOOK LIKE VERSUS, YOU KNOW, WE BECOME WHOLE AND THEN ALL OF A SUDDEN WE'RE NOT AGGRESSIVELY AGGRESSIVELY PURSUING THE STATE TO PAY UP WHAT THEY OWE? YEAH, SO WE WILL ALWAYS CONTINUE TO AGGRESSIVELY PURSUE REIMBURSEMENT FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. IT CAN BE DIFFICULT. THE OTHER DIFFICULTY THAT WE SEE, AND TERRY CAN PROBABLY SPEAK MORE TO THIS, IS THAT WE ALSO SEE THE STATE LOOKING AT THINGS THAT THEY'VE HISTORICALLY ALWAYS REIMBURSED AND NOW MAYBE NOT COVERING THOSE ITEMS. AND SO IT'S A, IT'S A CHALLENGE. IT'S NOT UNIQUE, YOU KNOW, VICTIM WITNESS. IT'S KIND OF UNIQUE TO THE STATE AND KIND OF HOW THINGS PIVOT.

GOT IT. OKAY, THANK YOU.

AND TERRI, I HAVE ANOTHER QUESTION FOR YOU. THIS IS FOR SERVICES ALREADY RENDERED, RIGHT? SO THAT'S I THINK THAT'S AN IMPORTANT DISTINCTION. THIS IS WE HAVE TO PAY OUR BILLS.

YES, THESE ARE SERVICES THAT HAVE ALREADY BEEN INVOICED TO CALVCB. THEY'VE ALREADY CONCLUDED SERVICES TO OUR VICTIMS. IT'S A SALARY AND BENEFITS OF PEOPLE PROCESSING RESTITUTION CLAIMS FOR VICTIMS, AND WE'RE WAITING FOR THAT PAYMENT.

OKAY, THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

SUPERVISOR CRAIG.

YEAH, AND FIRST I WANT TO MAKE SURE I SO THAT WAY MISS BERTAINE DOESN'T FEEL THAT I THREW HER UNDER THE BUS. SHE DIDN'T LIKE VEHEMENTLY JUST SHAKE HER HEAD NO BECAUSE PEOPLE ON CAMERA CAN'T SEE THAT, BUT WHEN SHE SQUINTS ONE EYE AND KIND OF TILTS HER HEAD, YOU KNOW, SO IT'S, IT'S REALLY HARD FOR ME TO HEAR LIKE TWO EXACTLY COMPLETELY POLAR OPPOSITE SPINS ON THAT AS A BOARD. AND THAT'S WHAT THE PUBLIC HAS TO UNDERSTAND. LIKE, SOMETHING IS SET UP HERE WHICH IS BY AND LARGE PARTLY TRUE BUT NOT ENTIRELY. AND THAT'S LIKE MISLEADING THE BOARD TO A POINT. I AGREE WITH SUPERVISOR LEONG. IF WE'VE SPENT THE MONEY AND WE OWE BILLS, WE GOT TO PAY OUR BILLS. BUT THE WAY THAT IS SPUN JUST BOTHERS ME.

SO I HAVE A QUESTION. IS THIS FUND THE SAME FUND THAT SEEKS THE VICTIM RESTITUTION, YOU KNOW, THAT WE WORKED ON FOR THAT ONE LADY WHO HAS NEVER HAD ANY HELP. IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO COME UP, I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW IF THIS IS THAT SAME FUND WHOSE SON WAS MURDERED, YOU KNOW.

SO THIS FUND IS A PROGRAM THAT OUR ADVOCATES SO NO, I'LL ADDRESS YOUR INITIAL QUESTION.

UM, THE DIRECT RESTITUTION IS SEPARATE FROM CALVCP RESTITUTION. SO OUR ADVOCATES HELP PEOPLE APPLY FOR THE VICTIM COMPENSATION PROGRAM.

UM, THOSE APPLICATIONS ARE REVIEWED IN OFFICE BY THIS PROGRAM, AND THEN BILLS ARE PAID EITHER TO VICTIMS, PROVIDERS, OR LANDLORDS, VARIOUS DIFFERENT PEOPLE WHO SUBMIT BILLS. BILLS TO THE PROGRAM, MEDICAL PROVIDERS, THINGS LIKE THAT.

AND SO IT'S A DIFFERENT THEY'RE BOTH CALLED RESTITUTION, BUT THEY'RE VERY DIFFERENT POCKETS BECAUSE ONE IS DIRECT VICTIM RESTITUTION THAT'S PAID BY AN OFFENDER TO A VICTIM, AND THE OTHER ONE IS PAID BY THE STATE TO THE VICTIM.

AND THEN THE STATE GOES AFTER THE OFFENDER FOR REIMBURSEMENT INTO THE PROGRAM.

OH, AND THAT'S HELPFUL. I MEAN, I'M GONNA SUPPORT IT BECAUSE WE HAVE TO PAY OUR BILLS,. BUT, YOU KNOW, IT'S I THINK THE WAY IT WAS WORDED WAS INCORRECT.

YOU GOOD, SUPERVISOR PRICE? SUPERVISOR PLUMMER.

YES, THANK YOU, TERRY. YOU MENTIONED, I THINK THE NUMBER WAS $698,000 THAT IS OWED BY THE STATE.

THAT'S AS OF MAY.

AS OF MAY. AND HOW MUCH OF THAT IS FROM '23-'24 VERSUS '24-'25? THEY HAVE PAID ALL THE '23-'24 WE HAVE 2 PAYMENTS THAT WERE OUTSTANDING, MAY 2026, IN THE '24-'25 YEAR.

OKAY, SO IT'S ALL WITHIN, UH, '24-'25. AND THEN, UM, LOOKING AT THE BUDGET TO ACTUAL FIGURES DOCUMENT THAT WAS INCLUDED IN THE STAFF REPORT, IT LOOKS LIKE THE STATE THE OBJECT LEVEL 542700 STATE VICTIM WITNESS PROGRAM. THERE WE HAD A WE RECEIVED $177,000 MORE THAN OUR BUDGET. IS THAT CONNECTED TO THIS AT ALL? OR I'M KIND OF CURIOUS, WE'RE RECEIVING MORE THAN BUDGETED THERE AND THEN NOT RECEIVING ANY OF THE ALMOST ANY OF THE FUNDS ON THE BOARD OF CONTROL GRANT.

ARE THOSE JUST TWO SEPARATE THINGS? AND SO THE STATE'S WE'RE INTERACTING WITH DIFFERENT PARTIES AT THE STATE THERE.

RIGHT. THERE'S A CAL CALOOYA, OFFICE OF EMERGENCY SERVICES THAT WE RECEIVE FUNDING FOR, AS WELL AS CALVCB. AND IN THE 542710 IS THE, THE CALVCB, AND THE 700 IS THE, THE CAL OES PROGRAM THAT WE RECEIVE.

OKAY. AND THEN, UH,

[00:40:02]

WHEN WE THINK ABOUT GOING FORWARD, HOW MUCH OF THE BUDGETED AMOUNTS DO WE THINK, OR IS IT LATE PAYMENTS VERSUS THEY ARE CHANGING WHAT THEY'RE GOING TO REIMBURSE VERSUS NOT REIMBURSE.

SO WE AND TO THE BUDGET PRINCIPLES, WHEN WE ARE GRANT AWARDED, WE BASICALLY PUT THAT DOLLAR AMOUNT ON OUR BUDGET. WE WERE AWARDED THE GRANT AMOUNT, AND SO THE FULL AMOUNT DOES GO ON THERE. A BUDGET AMENDMENT MOST LIKELY SHOULD HAPPEN WHEN WE SEE A GRANT THAT'S NOT PAYING FOR THE FULL AMOUNT.

AND I WOULD THINK YOU WOULD AGREE THAT, UM, CALVCB CONTINUES NOT TO PAY FOR WORKERS' COMP, OUR UNFUNDED ACCRUED LIABILITY, MANY OTHER, OTHER BENEFITS. SO THAT AWARD IS BEING SHORTED EVERY YEAR, AND WE SHOULD BE DOING AN ADJUSTMENT ALONG WITH THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE.

YEAH.

OKAY, SO IT SOUNDS LIKE THERE'S TWO ISSUES. ONE IS THEY'RE LATE IN PAYING IT, AND THEN THE SECOND IS THAT THEY'RE NOT ACTUALLY REIMBURSING FOR ALL THE EXPENSES THAT ARE TECHNICALLY INCLUDED IN THE GRANT APPLICATION? CORRECT. THAT'S CORRECT. I HAD THE ASSISTANT AUDITOR CONTROLLER RICH FATHIER JOIN A CALL WITH ME WITH CALVCB ABOUT THIS VERY ISSUE BECAUSE WE HAVE SALARY AND BENEFITS FOR OUR EMPLOYEES, AND UNDER A JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT OR GRANT, THE THAT FUNDING SOURCE SHOULD BE PAYING FOR ALL THE COSTS OF HAVING AN EMPLOYEE. AND UNFORTUNATELY THEY'RE DECIDING NOT TO.

AND WHAT PORTION OF THE $700,000 IS ARE THEY NOT ARE THEY SAYING WE'RE NOT GOING TO PAY FOR? IT'S USUALLY ABOUT IT'S ABOUT $2,000 TO $3,000 PER INVOICE, SO IT'S ABOUT $36,000 A YEAR THEY SHORT.

OKAY. AND THEN AS WE LOOK TO THIS NEXT FISCAL YEAR, ARE WE HOW HAVE WE ADJUSTED OUR BUDGET EXPECTATIONS FOR THIS, IF AT ALL, TO ACCOUNT FOR EITHER EITHER SLOW PAYMENTS OR CHANGES IN WHAT THEY'RE WILLING TO REIMBURSE? WELL, SINCE WE HAVE THIS THE STAFF ON OUR BOOKS, BASICALLY THE, THE CALVCB COVERS THE COST, SOME OF IT, AND THEN IT'S THE REST OF IT'S A GENERAL FUND, OR WE LOOK FOR ANOTHER GRANT, WHICH YOU SHOOT US GRANTS ALL THE TIME THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT APPLYING FOR.

WE CAN'T SUPPLANT, BUT WE CAN AT LEAST COME ALONGSIDE ANOTHER FUNDING SOURCE TO PAY THE STAFF SO IN THIS COMING FISCAL YEAR, EVEN, EVEN IF OVER THE LAST 2 YEARS WE'VE SEEN THAT THEY'VE BEEN SLOW IN THEIR PAYMENTS, WE'RE ACCOUNTING FOR THAT MONEY AS IF IT'S GOING TO SHOW UP IN THIS COMING FISCAL YEAR? CORRECT. WE'RE GOING THROUGH THE YEAR-END ACCRUAL PROCESS WITH THE AUDITOR CONTROLLER, PUTTING IT ON ACCRUAL LOG. SO THAT'S EITHER WE'RE GOING TO RECEIVE IT BY SEPTEMBER OR DECEMBER, AND IF WE DON'T, THERE'S GOT TO BE SOME PHONE CALLS MADE BECAUSE THIS IS GETTING A LITTLE TOO LATE AND TOO MUCH ON THE GENERAL FUND.

OKAY, THANK YOU.

SUPERVISOR CRAIG, MISS SHORT, AND AFTER SUPERVISOR CRAIG, I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION.

MORNING, CHAIR KELSTROM, MEMBERS OF THE BOARD.

NOLDA SHORT, AUDITOR CONTROLLER.

THANK YOU. QUICK QUESTION.

DO YOU, WITH NOT JUST THIS ITEM BUT OTHER SIMILAR ITEMS, WHETHER IT'S IN CRIMINAL JUSTICE OR PUBLIC SAFETY OR SB $90, IS THERE DO YOU HAVE ANY APPREHENSION THAT THE STATE COULD ALL OF A SUDDEN JUST SAY LIKE, WE'RE JUST NOT GOING TO PAY IT, OR THEY'RE GOING TO KICK IT DOWN THE ROAD? BECAUSE NOT THAT I DON'T THINK IT'S A VIABLE OR IMPORTANT PROGRAM, BUT IF THE STATE'S NOT GOING TO PAY FOR IT, THAT NEEDS TO BE ANALYZED AT SOME POINT AND SAY, LOOK, ARE WE GOING TO KEEP DOING THIS? BECAUSE IF WE KEEP CHASING GRANTS BECAUSE WHAT I DON'T LIKE IS I DON'T LIKE PERSONALLY HAVING CHECKS FOR, YOU KNOW, INVOICE WORK DONE, AND THEN, YOU KNOW, I NOW HAVE TO PAY THAT BILL.

AND IT'S LIKE, WELL, I DON'T REALLY KNOW THAT I WOULD HAVE WANTED TO DO THAT WORK, BUT WE HAVE TO PAY IT. SO WHAT'S YOUR EXPERIENCE WITH THAT? DO YOU THAT'S A BIG QUESTION.

SO I MEAN, I THINK THAT THERE HAVE BEEN A LOT OF CHANGES IN THE LAST LAST, YOU KNOW, DECADE OR SO TO MAKE IT WHERE COUNTIES ARE PROTECTED A LITTLE MORE FROM THE STATE COMING BACK AND TAKING MONEY.

THERE ARE EMERGENCY PROVISIONS EVERYWHERE.

IN THE STATE OF AN EMERGENCY, THE STATE CAN WITHHOLD.

THEY ARE STILL THE COUNTY IS STILL DUE THAT MONEY, WHICH IS KIND OF WHERE WE'RE AT WITH SB 90, THE OLD SB 90 MONEY.

UM, SO THERE IS SOME OF THAT OUT THERE. FOR, FOR THIS MONEY, I MEAN, I WOULD EXPECT THAT THEY'RE GOING TO PAY US. THERE IS A, A CHANCE THAT THEY MAY DISALLOW SOME OF IT, SUCH AS WHAT TERRY SPOKE ABOUT.

AND SO THEY START GETTING NITPICKY AND PULLING BACK LITTLE PIECES OF IT WHERE THEY CAN.

BUT I THINK, YOU KNOW, LARGELY, IF THEY OWE US MONEY, THEY, THEY NEED TO BE PAYING US.

AND I HAVEN'T HEARD THAT, YOU KNOW, IN THE CURRENT CLIMATE, THAT THEY'RE GOING TO BE WITHHOLDING MONEY FROM COUNTIES FOR MONEY THAT'S ALREADY DUE AND SERVICES THAT HAVE ALREADY BEEN RENDERED.

BUT IT'S ALWAYS A CONCERN.

THAT'S PERFECT. AND SUPERVISOR PLUMMER ASKED GOOD QUESTIONS. CHAIR, I'LL MAKE A

[00:45:01]

MOTION THAT WE ACCEPT R2.

OKAY. GOT A MOTION BY SUPERVISOR KRY.

I'LL SECOND IT.

SECOND BY SUPERVISOR PLUMMER.

BEFORE I DO, I JUST HAVE SUPERVISOR PLUMMER.

YEAH, ONE ADDITIONAL QUESTION.

SO THE $36,000-ISH THAT WE'RE SEEING THEY'RE NOT PAYING, IS THAT TRUE OVER THE LAST TWO FISCAL YEARS, '23-'24 AND '24-'25? YES, IT'S ISH.

LIKE YOU SAID, IT'S WITHIN THAT RANGE. YES.

SO IT'S IT'S UNDER CONTRACT.

JUST WANTED TO ADD, WE'RE UNDER CONTRACT WITH THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. IT'S A JOINT POWERS UNTIL THE END OF '27, SO THEY HAVE TO PAY US.

AND SO DO WE THINK WE'RE GOING TO GET THAT $36,000 FROM THEM EVENTUALLY, OR ARE WE KIND OF WRITING THAT OFF AS YEAH, THAT'S, THAT'S WRITING THAT OFF. IT'S A GENERAL FUND EXPENSE, UNFORTUNATELY.

AND SO IN THIS COMING FISCAL YEAR, HAVE WE, UM, HAVE WE BASICALLY ACCOUNTED FOR THE FACT THAT WE WON'T GET THAT AMOUNT? OKAY, THAT'S WHAT I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE. IF WE'RE NOT THINKING WE'RE GOING TO GET THAT FROM THE STATE GOING FORWARD, THEN THAT WE'RE PLANNING AROUND THAT AS WELL.

OKAY, THANK YOU. THAT'S IT.

ALL RIGHT, BEFORE WE TAKE A VOTE, DO WE HAVE ANY PUBLIC COMMENT ON THIS ITEM? WE DO, CHAIR. WE HAVE ONE SPEAKER, SHASTA COUNTY WATCHDOG.

FIGURED I'D CATCH YOU BEFORE YOU GOT ALL THE WAY BACK THERE.

UM, THIS PROGRAM, I THINK, IS A VERY GOOD PROGRAM, AND I DON'T KNOW WHAT KEVIN KREIS IS MAKING A BIG DEAL OUT OF THIS ABOUT PAYING BILLS.

THIS IS AN IMPORTANT PROGRAM FOR VICTIMS. WHEN YOU HAVE VICTIMS WHO ACTUALLY, WHEN THEY LOSE A CHILD OR WHEN THEY LOSE A LOVED ONE, THEY CAN'T WORK AND THEY ALSO, THEY CAN'T FUNCTION. SO THIS PROGRAM COMES IN HANDY. AND THERE'S ALSO WHERE IT HAS, I GUESS, YOU HAVE TO FALL UNDER THE LIST OF QUALIFICATIONS REGARDING THE PROGRAM, YOU KNOW, WHAT THEY COULD PAY, WHAT THEY CAN PAY. AND I ACTUALLY APPLIED FOR THIS PROGRAM A COUPLE YEARS BACK, AND IT, IT DOES HELP WHEN YOU'RE GOING THROUGH A LOT AND LOSING A CHILD OR SOMEBODY IN YOUR LIFE, AND ESPECIALLY WHEN THERE'S SOMEBODY INVOLVED AND THE DEA HAS, UH, TRYING TO PROSECUTE THAT PERSON AND GOING TO COURT AND ALL IT DOES, IT'S VERY HELPFUL, BUT I THINK IT'S NEVER ENOUGH MONEY TO BASICALLY MAKE IT OKAY FOR THOSE PEOPLE WHO ARE GOING THROUGH THE SITUATION BECAUSE NO MONEY IN THE WORLD COULD EVER CHANGE WHAT YOU'RE GOING THROUGH OR BRING THAT PERSON BACK IN YOUR LIFE. BUT WHAT I HAVE A PROBLEM IS THE TIME WHEN I DID TRY TO REACH OUT TO THE DA, SHE IGNORED ME. I, AS A VICTIM, SHE IGNORED ME.

SO I WENT STRAIGHT TO THE STATE AND APPLIED THROUGH THERE BECAUSE I WASN'T GOING TO BE GOING THROUGH WHAT I WENT THROUGH AND THEN TO BE TREATED LIKE THE WAY, UH, STEPHANIE BRIDGET DID, BECAUSE I HAD TO CHASE HER DOWN IN THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS MEETING AND SHE STILL IGNORED ME. SO NO MONEY IN THE WORLD COULD CHANGE, YOU KNOW, YOU COULD GIVE TO SOMEBODY IS GOING TO MAKE IT, YOU KNOW, CHANGE THAT SO KEVIN KRYNE, IF YOU'RE LOOKING AT NUMBERS, IF YOU'RE COMPLAINING ABOUT WRITING A CHECK, I THINK IT'S PRETTY SAD THAT YOU THINKING ABOUT THAT, YOU KNOW, WE MAKING COMPLAINTS ABOUT IT BECAUSE LIKE I SAID, YOU CAN'T CHANGE YOU COULD CHANGE THINGS, BUT YOU CAN'T CHANGE HOW YOU WHEN YOU LOSE SOMEBODY, CAN'T BRING THEM BACK. SO I THINK YOU NEED TO WATCH YOUR WORDING, THE WAY YOU MAKE IT SOUND. IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU'RE NOT FOR THIS PROGRAM AND YOU'RE COMPLAINING ABOUT FUNDS. IT DOES TAKE TIME FOR THE STATE TO REIMBURSE.

UNFORTUNATELY, THAT'S THE WAY IT IS.

BUT EVERYTHING TAKES TIME, JUST LIKE IT TAKES TIME TO GET RID OF KEVIN CRYE.

AND WITH THAT, WE WILL TAKE THE VOTE. MOTION WAS MADE BY SUPERVISOR CRYE AND SECONDED BY SUPERVISOR LONG.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? AYE.

ANY OPPOSED? PASSES 5-0.

SURE, JUST FOR THE RECORD, I DO HAVE SUPERVISOR PLUMMER IS MAKING THAT SECOND. CAN I GET CLARIFICATION? DID YOU MAKE IT THE SECOND? I DID.

MY APOLOGIES, SUPERVISOR PLUMMER MADE THE SECOND. I THOUGHT YOU SAID SUPERVISOR

[R3 Receive an update from the County Executive Officer on County issues and consider action on specific legislation related to Shasta County’s legislative platform and receive Supervisors’ reports on countywide issues.]

LONG. ALL RIGHT, STILL PASSES 5-0. MOVING ON, R3, RECEIVE AN UPDATE FROM THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER ON COUNTY ISSUES AND CONSIDER ACTION ON SPECIFIC LEGISLATION RELATED TO SHASTA COUNTY'S LEGISLATIVE PLATFORM. AND RECEIVE SUPERVISORS' REPORTS ON COUNTYWIDE ISSUES. CEO RICKERT.

GOOD MORNING, CHAIRMAN KELSTROM AND MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS. DAVE RICKERT, COUNTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER, REPORTING. FIRST, AN UPDATE ON COUNTY BUSINESS.

THE MENTAL HEALTH, ALCOHOL, DRUG AND ADVISORY BOARD IS LOOKING FOR NEW MEMBERS TO JOIN ITS TEAM. THE BOARD PROVIDES OVERSIGHT OVER THE LOCAL MENTAL HEALTH SYSTEM AND ALCOHOL AND DRUG PROGRAMS. ACCORDING TO SHASTA COUNTY, THE

[00:50:02]

GROUP INCLUDES COMMUNITY MEMBERS, EDUCATORS, HEALTHCARE PROVIDERS, COMMUNITY PARTNERS, LAW ENFORCEMENT, VETERANS, CONSUMERS, CONSUMERS, FAMILY MEMBERS, AND MENTAL HEALTH AND SUBSTANCE USE DISORDER SERVICES. APPLICANTS MUST LIVE IN SHASTA COUNTY AND BE AVAILABLE ON THE THIRD WEDNESDAY OF EVERY MONTH AT .

INTERESTED PEOPLE MAY EMAIL THE BOARD SECRETARY AT MHADAB@SHASTACOUNTY.GOV FOR AN APPLICATION.

WITH AN UPDATE ON STATE LEGISLATION, I HAVE TWO ELECTION-RELATED BILLS THAT PROMISE TO SPEED UP AND STREAMLINE THE ELECTION PROCESS. FIRST, WE HAVE SB 1420 BY SENATOR RICHARDSON, THE SIGN, SCAN AND GO EARLY VOTING EDUCATION PLAN. THIS BILL PROMOTES EXISTING BUT UNDERUTILIZED OPTION THAT ALLOWS VOTERS TO TURN IN THEIR MAIL-IN BALLOT IN PERSON AT A VOTING SITE WHERE IT IS SCANNED AND PROCESSED IMMEDIATELY RATHER THAN ENTERING THE POST-ELECTION MAIL BACKLOG. PASSAGE WOULD MEANINGFULLY REDUCE THE VOLUME OF LATE ARRIVING BALLOTS THAT CURRENTLY DELAY CALIFORNIA'S COUNT COUNT BY DAYS OR WEEKS.

SECOND, I HAVE AB 2604 BY ASSEMBLYMEMBER BERMAN, TEXT-BASED BALLOT SIGNATURE CURE. THIS BILL STANDARDIZES THE TEXT MESSAGING NOTIFICATION SYSTEM ALREADY WORKING IN SEVERAL CALIFORNIA COUNTIES AND THE STATE OF COLORADO THAT ALLOWS VOTERS TO QUICKLY RESOLVE MISSING OR MISMATCHED BALLOT SIGNATURES BEFORE THEIR BALLOT IS DISCARDED. FASTER RESOLUTION OF SIGNATURE ISSUES REDUCES THE VOLUME OF CONTESTED BALLOTS THAT EXTEND THE POST-ELECTION CANVAS. THESE BILLS WERE BROUGHT TO MY ATTENTION BY SUPERVISOR PLUMMER AND WERE REVIEWED BY YOUR INCOMING CLERK ROV. I WILL BRING THESE FORWARD AT A FUTURE MEETING FOR CONSIDERATION FOR BOARD SUPPORT. THIS CONCLUDES MY REPORT.

THANK YOU, CEO RICKERT. AND SPEAKING OF SUPERVISOR PLUMMER, SUPERVISOR PLUMMER.

THANK YOU. GOOD MORNING, EVERYONE. A FEW UPDATES FOR YOU. ONE OF THE ONE OF THE GRANTS THAT THE COUNTY HAS RECEIVED THROUGH THE PROBATION OFFICE IS AROUND PROP 47. SO PROP 47, AS WE KNOW HISTORICALLY, BASICALLY THE FUNDS WERE USED TO CONNECT THOSE WHO HAVE MISDEMEANORS TO SERVICES. AND AS WE'VE TALKED ABOUT OUR PUBLIC SAFETY SYSTEM, INCREASINGLY WITH CHALLENGES OF STAFFING IN THE DA SYSTEM, A LOT OF THOSE FOLKS WHO ARE ENGAGING IN MISDEMEANORS ARE REALLY JUST KIND OF BEING PROCESSED AND THEN RELEASED BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE CAPACITY TO FILE IT OR WE DON'T HAVE CAPACITY TO HOLD THEM IN THE JAIL. AND SO SOME OF THE WORK THAT'S BEING DONE THROUGH THIS GRANT IS CONNECTING THEM INTO SERVICES, WHETHER IT'S HOUSING OR EMPLOYMENT, WHICH IS WHERE MOST OF THEM HAVE THEIR GOALS OR FOCUSED ON.

BUT ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WAS INTERESTING COMING, WE HAVE A QUARTERLY KIND OF CHECK-IN ON HOW THINGS ARE GOING.. AND ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WAS INTERESTING IS WE WERE LOOKING AT EDUCATION STATUS AND OF THOSE WHO ARE PARTICIPATING IN THE PROGRAM, AND 30% OF THOSE WHO, AGAIN, THEY HAVE A MISDEMEANOR BUT NOT A FELONY, WHO ARE ENGAGED IN THE PROGRAM, 30% NEVER COMPLETED HIGH SCHOOL. AND SO JUST KIND OF THINKING ABOUT THE PREVENTION AND GOING UPSTREAM AND HOW DO WE HELP OUR YOUNG YOUNG PEOPLE GET THROUGH HIGH SCHOOL, ENGAGE IN EITHER A CAREER OR TECHNICAL EDUCATION, OR GO OFF TO COLLEGE, OR START A BUSINESS HERE SO THAT THEY ARE SET UP FOR SUCCESS. BECAUSE WHAT WE'RE SEEING IN THIS PARTICULAR GRANT IS THAT WHEN THOSE FOLKS ARE NOT ABLE TO SUCCESSFULLY COMPLETE HIGH SCHOOL, THERE'S OBVIOUSLY A BIG CORRELATION WITH THAT AND THEN GETTING INTO TROUBLE WITH THE LAW LATER ON, AS WE KNOW.

BUT JUST A REMINDER OF THE IMPORTANCE SENSE OF ADDRESSING THAT UPSTREAM. I HAD, ON A SECOND NOTE HERE, HAD A CONVERSATION WITH A FEW OF THOSE LEADERS IN OUR MEDICAL COMMUNITY AS WE'RE WE'VE OBVIOUSLY BEEN TALKING ABOUT MEDICAL SCHOOL. BUT ONE OF THE KEY PIECES OF THAT AND A PREREQUISITE IN A SENSE IS HAVING THE CLINICAL ROTATIONS IN PLACE SO THAT YOU COULD SATISFY THE REQUIREMENT FOR THIRD AND FOURTH YEAR STUDENTS TO GO THROUGH THAT.

AND THERE'S 6 CORE CLERKSHIPS, THEY CALL THEM, OR ROTATIONS.. AND THE LAST UPDATE, WHICH I GOT LAST WEEK, IS THAT WE HAVE 4 OF THOSE ROUGHLY IN PLACE. AND THE 2 THAT WE'RE LOOKING TO IS OB/GYN AND SURGERY.

THOSE ARE THE 2 THAT WE DON'T CURRENTLY HAVE IN PLACE IN SHASTA COUNTY. AND SO WE'RE LOOKING FOR WAYS TO GET CREATIVE TO TRY TO BRING, YOU KNOW, MORE OF THOSE FOLKS, BRING THOSE RESIDENT ROTATIONS ONLINE.

IN THIS CASE, THE REAL CHALLENGE IS THAT THE EXISTING PHYSICIANS, WHETHER THEY BE SURGEONS OR OB DOCTORS, OFTEN DON'T HAVE THE CAPACITY TO TAKE ON MENTORING THE STUDENTS.

SO, WE'RE TRYING TO GET CREATIVE OF HOW WE CAN BRING THOSE OTHER TWO ONLINE IN THE NEXT YEAR OR TWO 'CAUSE THAT WOULD THEN PREPARE US TO BE SUCCESSFUL WITH A MEDICAL SCHOOL DOWN THE ROAD. I ALSO HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO TALK WITH A GROUP THAT PROVIDES INPATIENT

[00:55:03]

MENTAL HEALTH HOSPITAL SERVICES. IN SOME, IN SOME CASES, HOSPITAL SERVICES.

IN OTHER CASES, LESS RESTRICTIVE SERVICES. AND ONE OF THE THINGS THAT THEY ARE DOING FOR OTHER COUNTIES AND THEY OFFERED TO DO FOR SHASTA COUNTY IS TO REVIEW OUR, WHERE WE PLACE PEOPLE INTO WHAT'S CALLED IMD FACILITIES.

SO, AND THIS CAME UP WHEN WE WERE TALKING ABOUT THE TRUE NORTH PROJECT, IMD FACILITIES ARE BIGGER FACILITIES THAT HAVE MORE 16 BEDS. AND THE CHALLENGE FOR THE COUNTY IN THOSE CASES IS THAT WHEN THEY ARE AN IMD FACILITY, WE CAN'T BILL MEDI-CAL FOR THEM. AND SO WE PAY ALL OF THAT OUT OF OUR REALIGNMENT FUNDS, WHICH PUTS A STRAIN ON OUR COUNTY MENTAL HEALTH BUDGET.

AND SO WHAT THEY OFFERED TO DO, AND I KIND OF SENT THE NOTICE TO OUR BEHAVIORAL HEALTH TEAM, IS REVIEW OUR IMD PLACEMENTS.

SO BASICALLY THE PEOPLE THAT WE PLACE IN THESE FACILITIES WHERE WE'RE PAYING ALL OF THAT OUT OF OUR REALIGNMENT AND SEE IF THERE'S A WAY TO MOVE SOME OF THOSE INTO A LESS RESTRICTIVE SETTING SO THAT WE CAN BILL MEDI-CAL FOR UP TO HALF OF IT AND ALSO BE SOMETHING GOOD FOR THOSE PATIENTS OF HAVE THEM BE IN A LESS RESTRICTIVE SETTING.

SO THAT IS SOMETHING I'M LOOKING FORWARD TO, TO SEE IF WE CAN SAVE SIGNIFICANT FUNDS AS WELL AS MATCH THE LEVEL OF CARE TO WHERE THOSE INDIVIDUALS DIGITALS ARE. ONE LAST UPDATE IS I'M ON THE COMMUNITY ADVISORY BOARD AS A REPRESENTATIVE FOR THIS BOARD, AND THERE WE GOT TO HEAR A PRESENTATION FROM A PROGRAM MANAGER WHO OVERSEES OUR WELFARE TO WORK PROGRAM, WHICH WAS REALLY INTERESTING. I DIDN'T UNDERSTAND HOW THIS WORKED, BUT SO WE HAVE CALWORKS, WHICH IS ESSENTIALLY THE EQUIVALENT OF THE TEMPORARY ASSISTANCE TO NEEDY FAMILIES. SO IT'S CASH ASSISTANCE THAT GOES TO LOW-INCOME FAMILIES WITH CHILDREN. AND THEY FOLKS CAN BE ON THAT FOR 5 YEARS, FOR THEIR WHOLE LIFE. AND THEY ARE ASKED TO PARTICIPATE IN THE WELFARE TO WORK PROGRAM, WHICH IS DIFFERENT SERVICES THAT HELP GET THEM EQUIPPED TO WORK. WHAT'S INTERESTING THERE IS THAT WE DO HAVE A SIGNIFICANT NUMBER, AROUND 700, WHO ARE ON ESSENTIALLY A WAITLIST TO PARTICIPATE IN THAT BECAUSE OF STAFFING SHORTAGES. AND SO THE I'VE OFTEN BEEN CRITICAL, I'LL SAY, OF OUR PUBLIC BENEFIT SYSTEM IN THAT IT SEEMS TO ENCOURAGE PEOPLE TO STAY ON PUBLIC BENEFITS VERSUS GAINING EMPLOYMENT BECAUSE THERE'S A DROP-OFF IN TOTAL INCOME WHEN YOU COME OFF OF THOSE PROGRAMS AND GET EMPLOYMENT IN MANY CASES.

BUT I AM ENCOURAGED BY THIS PROGRAM IN THE SENSE THAT IT INCENTIVIZES, BECAUSE IF YOU DON'T PARTICIPATE IN EMPLOYMENT TRAINING, TRAINING, UH, OR OTHER TYPES OF SERVICES, THEN YOU ARE SUBJECT TO LOSE THAT CASH ASSISTANCE.

SO, UH, SEEING HOW WE CAN ENSURE THAT THAT IS RUNNING EFFECTIVELY TO INCENTIVIZE, UM, THE CASH ASSISTANCE THAT IS BEING GIVEN OUT. THANK YOU.

SUPERVISOR CRAIG.

THANK YOU, CHAIR.

UH, I'LL MAKE THIS PRETTY BRIEF. HAD, UH, THE SHASTA REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION AGENCY AGENDA REVIEW REVIEW. WE HAVE A MEETING TOMORROW. IF YOU WANT TO SPEND 2 HOURS THAT YOU'LL NEVER GET BACK, YOU'RE WELCOME TO COME TO THAT TOMORROW.

BUT IT'S ALL ABOUT OUR ROADS.

SO THAT AGENDA REVIEW STILL WORKING ON THE PRESENTATION, OR I'M GOING TO ASK COUNTY CEO RICKERT ABOUT THE CHILD ADOPTION FEES AND WHAT THE MONEY THE COUNTY COLLECTS. SO JUST TO MAKE SURE THIS GETS ON THE AGENDA AND THIS THIS DOESN'T JUST CONTINUE TO GET PUSHED DOWN, BECAUSE I REALLY WANT TO SEE, UH, THIS BOARD TO BE ABLE TO SEE WHAT COULD BE DONE TO EASE THE BURDEN ON FAMILY MEMBERS TAKING IN OTHER FAMILY MEMBERS, AND WHAT COST WE COULD ELIMINATE AT THE COUNTY TO MAKE THAT AS LESS EXPENSIVE AS POSSIBLE SO THOSE CHILDREN DON'T GO INTO THE TRADITIONAL FOSTER SYSTEM AND THEY'RE NOT WITH BLOOD RELATIVES. SO I MAKE A MOTION THAT THAT PRESENTATION COMES NO LATER THAN THE END OF JULY.

I'LL SECOND THE MOTION.

ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU. I JUST THINK IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT THAT WE DO THAT. AND I WANT TO PIGGYBACK A LITTLE BIT ON THAT MEDICAL SCHOOL COMPONENT.

I'VE STILL CONTINUED TO WORK. I'M GOING TO REALLY, I THINK, PICK THIS UP HEAVILY AS A PRIVATE CITIZEN IN JANUARY BECAUSE I APPRECIATE SUPERVISOR PLUMMER'S RESPONSE.

BUT WHEN HE USES THE WORD CREATIVE, I MEAN, I'VE BEEN READING A BOOK FOR THE BETTER PART OF, LET'S SAY, THE LAST 30 YEARS. I WANT TO READ AN EXCERPT FROM IT. IT SAYS, WHAT HAS BEEN WILL BE AGAIN, WHAT HAS BEEN DONE WILL BE DONE AGAIN. THERE IS NOTHING NEW UNDER THE SUN. IS THERE ANYONE WHICH CAN SAY, LOOK, THIS IS SOMETHING NEW? I MEAN, THERE IS A MODEL FOR WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. I'M NOT SAYING IT'S THE ONLY MODEL, BUT WHAT'S COMICAL IS YOU HAVE SOME OF THE BEST BUSINESS MINDS IN THIS COUNTY WHO HAVE SPENT COPIOUS AMOUNTS OF MONEY BUILDING PROJECTS, BUILDING INFRASTRUCTURE,

[01:00:01]

WHO HAVE A PLAN GOING FORWARD.

OUR STRATEGIC PLAN THE NUMBER 2 THING WE HEARD FROM THE COUNTY WAS EXACTLY ABOUT MEDICAL SERVICES, WHETHER IT'S A MEDICAL SCHOOL, WHETHER IT'S DO, WHETHER IT'S OB/GYN, WHATEVER THE PRACTICE IS. AND WE REALLY AREN'T HAVEN'T ALLOCATED ANY MONEY TOWARDS IT.

SO THEY'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT THIS SINCE I WAS IN JUNIOR HIGH, ABOUT INCREASING, YOU KNOW, HAVING CHICO STATE COME UP OR UC DAVIS COME UP. AND IT'S JUST BEEN THIS ONGOING THING. AND I THINK WE'RE REALLY MISSING THE BOAT IN THAT. AND I WANT TO BE FAIR TO UC DAVIS BECAUSE I'VE TALKED ABOUT IT PRIVATELY AND I'VE TALKED ABOUT IT UP HERE ABOUT THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE'S INVESTIGATION THAT CAME OUT.

AND UC UC DAVIS IS ADAMANTLY SAYING THEY DON'T BELIEVE IN THE RACIAL DISCRIMINATION FROM THEIR PRACTICES OF ADMITTANCE. SO I WANT TO MAKE SURE BOTH SIDES ARE TOLD.

SO I WOULD RECOMMEND PEOPLE REALLY DIG INTO THAT AND UNDERSTAND BOTH SIDES OF THAT, BECAUSE I'M NOT PITTING ONE VERSUS THE OTHER. I JUST WANT TO SEE IT BETTER.

LIKE, THAT'S WHAT IT COMES DOWN TO. LIKE, MY MEDICAL CARE IS BASICALLY THE BEST IN THE WORLD RIGHT NOW. NOT EVERYBODY HAS THAT.. AND I WANT TO MAKE SURE EVERYBODY HAS THAT. SO I DON'T WANT THIS BOARD OR ANY OTHER BOARD TO SIT UP HERE AND TALK ABOUT PLATITUDES AND BEING CREATIVE AND THIS AND THAT, BECAUSE PEOPLE THAT HAVE PUT THEIR OWN MONEY ON THE LINE TO BUILD INFRASTRUCTURE AND KNOW HOW TO RUN A SUCCESSFUL, PROFITABLE COMPANY AND WHAT IT TAKES TO ATTRACT THOSE EMPLOYEES HERE, I THINK THOSE SHOULD BE SOME OF THE BIGGEST VOICES WE SHOULD LISTEN TO, NOT THE BUREAUCRATS. THANK YOU, CHAIR.

ALL RIGHT, WE HAVE A MOTION ON THE TABLE, AND A MOTION MAY BE BY SUPERVISOR CHRIST, SECOND BY ME. AND THAT WAS TO BRING BACK A PRESENTATION, CORRECT? YES, SIR.

OKAY, SO ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? AYE.

ANY OPPOSED? PASSES 5-0.

SUPERVISOR HARMON.

GOOD MORNING.

ON THE 18TH, I HAD THE PRIVILEGE OF, UH, MEETING, UH, ONE OF OUR NEW INSPECTORS WITH THE COUNTY, RYAN STOCKTON, TAKING TARA PETTY'S, UH, PLACE, UH, FOR MINE INSPECTIONS.

HAPPENS TO BE THE BUSINESS I'M IN. AND I WANT TO SAY THANK YOU TO THEM BOTH BECAUSE TARA'S HANDLED THAT FOR I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY YEARS, LONG TIME.

AND THEY'VE ALWAYS BEEN A PLEASURE TO WORK WITH. SO SAYING THAT, I JUST WANT TO REACH OUT TO THE REST OF I DON'T CARE WHO IT IS REALLY, BUT THE COUNTY, CITY, INSPECTORS, DON'T MISUNDERSTAND, NOT ASKING ANYBODY TO DO ANYTHING THAT DOESN'T MEET REQUIREMENTS OR WHATEVER, BUT IF YOU CAN HELP OUT, IF YOU CAN HELP BUSINESS PEOPLE THAT ARE TRYING TO COMPLY, TRYING TO MEET STANDARDS, WHATEVER THEY ARE, IF YOU CAN HELP OUT AND MAKE THAT PROCESS SMOOTHER, EASIER, QUICKER, THESE BUSINESS PEOPLE ARE IT'S A DOWN IT'S A DOWN MARKET AND THESE BUSINESS OWNERS ARE STRUGGLING.

SO I'M ASKING YOU TO BE CONSCIENTIOUS OF THAT AND BE HELPFUL. I THINK IT'S A SMALL REQUEST.

WELL, MAYBE NOT.

MAYBE IT'S A BIG REQUEST, BUT I THINK IT MERITS BEING SAID.

AND THEN ON THE 19TH, MET WITH FRIENDS OF REDDING RODEO. THEY'RE WORKING ON, I GUESS IT WOULD BE A RECOGNITION FOR PAST PEOPLE THAT HAVE WORKED WITH THE REDDING RODEO. GREAT GROUP.

AND THEN ON THE 19TH, SAME DAY, HELPED OUT AT THE FAIRGROUNDS WITH THE WATER TRUCK. I WAS WORKING ON AIR QUALITY DUST.

ANYWAY, AT THE FAIRGROUNDS THERE.

BUT, AND THEN ON THE 20TH, I HAD THE PRIVILEGE OF HELPING SPONSOR A FAMILY REUNION, AND I HAD THE PRIVILEGE OF HELPING WITH LITTLE KIDS RIDING HORSES, AND SOME OF THEM THEIR FIRST TIME.

AND IF YOU, IF YOU EVER GET A CHANCE TO EXPERIENCE THAT JUST IT WAS WAY MORE FUN FOR ME THAN IT WAS FOR THE KIDS, I CAN TELL YOU THAT.

BUT ANYWAY, THAT'S ALL I GOT.

THANK YOU, SUPERVISOR HERMAN.

THANK YOU, CHAIR. IN JANUARY OF '26, SB 827 WAS ENACTED, PUT INTO LAW, AND IT'S BASICALLY THAT ELECTED SO THIS BOARD REQUIRED I MAY BE THE FIRST TO HAVE ATTENDED THIS, BUT IT'S REQUIRED FISCAL AND FINANCIAL TRAINING. AND IT WAS, IT WAS ACTUALLY A REALLY GOOD COURSE. AND ONE OF THE THINGS THAT REALLY JUMPED OUT AT ME IS THAT WE ARE FIDUCIARIES FOR THE PUBLIC'S MONEY, THE COUNTY'S MONEY, THE TAXPAYERS' MONEY. AND WE

[01:05:01]

HAVE TO BE CAREFUL WITH THE DECISIONS WE MAKE AND HOW WE IMPLEMENT PROGRAMS WHEN WE LOOK TO SPEND MONEY MONEY. SO I THOUGHT THAT WAS ONE THING THAT REALLY JUMPED OUT AT ME. IT WAS A GOOD COURSE, ACTUALLY, AND IT HAD AN EXPANDED ETHICS PORTION TO IT AND DOING THE RIGHT THING. AND I THINK IT WAS A VERY WORTHWHILE COURSE. AND FROM WHAT I UNDERSTAND, THE TIME LIMITS TO COMPLETE THIS FOR FELLOW BOARD MEMBERS ARE PRETTY GENEROUS. SO IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT HAS TO BE DONE RIGHT AWAY. SO I THINK, I THINK MAYBE EVEN 2 YEARS. SO I'M WORKING ON AN ISSUE OF SIGNIFICANCE OUT IN FRENCH GULCH, AND IT HAS TO DO WITH E. COLI THAT HAS SHOWN UP IN THE WATERWAY, CLEAR CREEK, AND MULTIPLE REPORTS OVER THE LAST COUPLE YEARS AND TRYING TO FIGURE OUT THAT SITUATION. TO GET TO THE BOTTOM OF WHAT'S GOING ON. SO I'VE BEEN WORKING WITH ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH AND CODE ENFORCEMENT, TRYING TO COLLABORATE THOSE DISCUSSIONS AND JUST TRY TO GET TO THE BOTTOM OF WHAT'S CAUSING THIS. IT'S POTENTIALLY SOMETHING LIKE BRANDY CREEK AT WHISKEYTOWN WHERE THEY CLOSE THE BEACHES, YOU KNOW, IT SEEMS LIKE EVERY YEAR OR EVERY OTHER YEAR BECAUSE OF THESE BLOOMS. HOMES. AND SO THIS IS A IT'S A SIGNIFICANT ISSUE, AND THERE ARE CONFIRMED FINDINGS THROUGH THE PUBLIC HEALTH LABORATORY OF E. COLI IN THE CLEAR CREEK. SO I JUST WANTED TO LET EVERYBODY KNOW, IF YOU'RE THINKING ABOUT SWIMMING IN CLEAR CREEK, YOU MAY WANT TO RECONSIDER.

BUT I WE'RE GOING TO FIGURE THAT OUT, AND, AND I'LL, I'LL REPORT BACK TO YOU. AND THEN THE ONLY OTHER THING I WAS GOING TO SAY WAS WE HAD A MOTION TO PUT OFF THE DISCUSSION OF A CENSURE FOR THE ROV UNTIL AFTER THE ELECTION, AND, UM, THAT WAS BASED ON SUBSTANTIATED FINDINGS IN TWO INDEPENDENT REPORTS.

AND I THINK THAT THE TIME HAS COME BACK AND TO COMPLETE THAT DISCUSSION AS WE PROMISED OUR PUBLIC.. AND SO I WILL MAKE A MOTION THAT WE AGENDIZE FOR THE NEXT BOARD MEETING THAT WE CONTINUE THE DISCUSSION OF A POTENTIAL CENSURE BASED ON THE INDEPENDENT FINDINGS FROM TWO INVESTIGATIONS AND BRING THAT BACK AS AN AGENDA ITEM TO FIGURE OUT WHERE WE WANT TO VOTE ON THAT MATTER.

WOULD YOU BE WILLING TO WAIT, SUPERVISOR SUPERVISOR LONG, UNTIL AFTER THE VOTE HAS BEEN CERTIFIED, UNTIL THE ELECTION HAS BEEN CERTIFIED, WHICH IS JULY 2ND? UH, YES.

ALL RIGHT, I HAVE A MOTION ON THE TABLE. I DO NOT HAVE A SECOND. I HAVE A SECOND BY SUPERVISOR PLUMMER. ALL RIGHT, UM, AND AGAIN, I WANT, I, I WANT THE ELECTION OVER, CERTIFIED, BEFORE WE REALLY EVEN HAVE THAT DISCUSSION.

PERSONALLY. SO I'M GOING TO VOTE NO JUST BECAUSE I WANT TO POSTPONE ANYTHING UNTIL AFTER EVERYTHING'S CERTIFIED AND DONE. SO WELL, CAN I ASK YOU ABOUT THAT? SO BY VOTING NO, IF YOUR REQUEST WAS THAT WE PUSH IT UNTIL AFTER SUPERVISOR LONG THIS DISCUSSION WOULD HAVE TO HAPPEN WHEN IT'S ON THE AGENDA.

OKAY. YEAH. SO THIS IS JUST TO BRING IT BACK ON THE AGENDA? YEAH. JUST TO BRING IT BACK ON THE AGENDA SO WE CAN DECIDE WHAT TO DO WITH IT. AND I AM PERFECTLY WILLING AND HAPPY TO WAIT UNTIL AFTER THE ELECTION IS CERTIFIED IN JULY.

OKAY, SO IF IT'S AFTER THE ELECTION AND IT'S CERTIFIED, AND THEN I'M OPEN FOR A DISCUSSION. SO CAN WE GET A ROLL CALL VOTE STARTING WITH SUPERVISOR THIS IS FOR THIS WILL BE DISCUSSION WHEN IT GETS ON THE AGENDA AFTER JULY 2ND.

WHEN YOU'RE PLACING WHEN YOU'RE MAKING A MOTION TO PLACE SOMETHING ON THE AGENDA, YOU CAN'T HAVE ANY OF THE DISCUSSION ABOUT ABOUT THE ITEM, JUST PLACING THE ITEM. SO, UM, YOU KNOW, AS FAR AS I'VE NEVER BEEN FOR CENSURE OF ANY OF IT.

LIKE, WELL, AND, AND YOU'LL BE ABLE TO HAVE THAT CONVERSATION WHEN IT ALL RIGHT, ROLL CALL VOTE, CHAIR.

UH, ROLL CALL VOTE, STARTING WITH SUPERVISOR LONG.

SUPERVISOR LONG? YES.

SUPERVISOR HARMON? CAN YOU CLARIFY THAT ONE MORE TIME? I WANT TO MAKE SURE WHAT I'M SO THIS IS NOT A VOTE WHETHER WE ARE GOING TO CENSURE OR NOT. THIS IS A VOTE TO SEE IF WE CAN PUT IT ON THE AGENDA TO DISCUSS IT THEN AFTER THE JULY 2ND AND CERTIFIED JULY 2ND. YEAH, I'M OKAY WITH THAT. YEAH, YEAH, YES.

OKAY, SUPERVISOR KALLSTROM? UM, YEAH, I'LL, I'LL BE WILLING TO DISCUSS IT.

SUPERVISOR KRAI? NO, IT'S A WASTE OF TIME.

SUPERVISOR PLUMMER? YES.

OKAY, PASSES 4-1.

THAT CONCLUDES MY REPORT.

THANK YOU, SUPERVISOR LONG.

ALL RIGHT, ON THE 17TH, I WAS OUT AT CLEAR CREEK WATER DISTRICT MEETING IN HAPPY

[01:10:01]

VALLEY. IT'S REALLY GREAT TO SEE THAT GROUP OUT THERE. 5 YEARS AGO, IT WAS QUITE A MESS, AND THEY'VE COMPLETELY TAKEN OVER THE BOARD, AND THEY'VE GOT A NEW DIRECTOR NOW, AND THEY'RE REALLY DOING SOME GREAT WORK. AND IT'S REALLY GREAT TO SEE ALL THAT.

LIKE I SAY, 5, 6 YEARS AGO, IT WAS QUITE A MESS OUT THERE. I MEAN, THEN ON THE 18TH, I MET WITH CEO RICKERT AND THE INTERIM DIRECTOR JOHN HEATH FROM PUBLIC WORKS THAT YOU HEARD OF FROM EARLIER TODAY, AND THEN RESOURCE MANAGER DIRECTOR SEAN EWING. ON THE 19TH, I WAS AT THE SHASTA DISTRICT FAIRGROUNDS. YOU'RE AT A RODEO MEETING, I WAS AT A RODEO AT THE SHASTA DISTRICT FAIRGROUNDS. SO YEAH, YOU SHOULD HAVE BEEN TO THE RODEO. AND THEN ON THE 20TH, SATURDAY, I WENT OUT TO SWEET SHOOTS CAFE IN MANTON. A LOT OF PEOPLE OUT IN MANTON HAVE BEEN KIND OF COMPLAINING COMPLAINING THAT THEY NEED TO EXPAND THEIR HOURS. SO NOW THEY DO A BREAKFAST EVERY SATURDAY AT 8 O'CLOCK. AND I WAS KIND OF NOT HAPPY WELL, DISAPPOINTED, I SHOULD SAY THAT, YOU KNOW, I WAS ONE OF THE ONLY ONES IN THERE. SO I REACHED OUT TO A COUPLE OF MY FRIENDS IN MANTON. WE'RE LIKE, HEY, IF YOU WANT TO EXPAND YOUR HOURS, YOU GOT TO SUPPORT THEM. SO, BUT WHILE I WAS IN MANTON, THERE WAS A CORNHOLE TOURNAMENT GOING ON. SO I WENT OVER AND VISITED WITH MY FRIENDS AT THE MANTON GRANGE BEFORE I WENT ON TO LAKE AND I SHOULD HAVE NOTIFIED THE NEWS MEDIA. LAKE MCCUMBER HAD THEIR SECOND ANNUAL PICNIC WITH THE SAVE LAKE MCCUMBER GROUP. SO, MIKE, WE DID A STORY ON THAT A YEAR OR SO AGO. I THINK IT'S TIME TO DO ANOTHER STORY. SO I WANT TO CONTINUE TO BRING ATTENTION THAT LAKE MCCUMBER AND NORTH BATTLE CREEK RESERVOIR ARE IN DANGER OF, YOU KNOW, POSSIBLY BEING DRAINED. PG&E IS PULLING OUT ALL OF THEIR HYDROELECTRIC PROJECTS ALONG THE BATTLE CREEK CANYON. ALL THE WAY DOWN INTO MANTON AND INTO TEHAMA COUNTY. THEY'RE DISMANTLING THEM ALL SO THAT THEY GET, YOU KNOW, FISH PASSAGE AND FISH SPAWNING.

THEY'RE PUTTING IN WEIRS AND FISH LADDERS. AND RIGHT NOW, THERE HAS BEEN NO DISCUSSION BY PG&E OF WHETHER THEY'RE GOING TO REMOVE THE DAMS OR DRAIN THE LAKES. BUT FORTUNATELY, THERE'S A GREAT GROUP OF PEOPLE IN LAKE MACUMBER AREA, BECAUSE THERE'S SEVERAL HUNDRED PEOPLE LIVE UP THERE, THAT HAVE REALLY GOTTEN TOGETHER NOW. AND THEY HAVE A SAVE LAKE MACUMBER GROUP. AND THIS IS THE SECOND ANNUAL PICNIC THEY HAD. SO THE GOOD NEWS ABOUT THE TWO LAKES IS THEY'RE BOTH ABOVE FISH PASSAGE. SO THEY ARE NOT BLOCKING ANY SPAWNING OF ANY SALMON OR TROUT OR ANYTHING ELSE. SO I WAS JUST I WAS JUST GONNA SORRY, CAN I INTERRUPT YOU JUST FOR A SECOND? IT LOOKS LIKE YOU ARE.

SO IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE.

IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE, DOES IT? YEAH, THE FISH, THE PASSAGE, THEY WANT TO REMOVE THEM FOR FISH PASSAGE. THE FISH HAVE NEVER GONE THAT FAR, RIGHT? AND THAT'S, THAT'S PROBABLY THE SAVING GRACE OF THOSE LAKES. I'VE BEEN INVOLVED I SAW SOME PROJECTS WHERE THEY'RE REMOVING BARRIERS THAT ARE NATURAL BARRIERS.

SHOULD HAVE HAD YOU AT THE PICNIC TOO.

YEAH. SO YEAH, IT'S AGAIN, THEY DON'T NEITHER ONE OF THEM BLOCKS FISH PASSAGE. I MEAN, THEY'RE USED FOR FIRE PROTECTION, RECREATION. YOU KNOW, THERE'S HABITAT. THEY'VE CREATED AN ECOSYSTEM. THEY'VE BEEN THERE ALMOST, YOU KNOW, 100 YEARS OR 80 YEARS. SO THE WATER STARTS IN NORTH BATTLE CREEK RESERVOIR. THERE IS NO HYDROELECTRIC ON THAT DAM.

IT'S JUST A DAM FOR WATER STORAGE. MOVES DOWN THE CANYON TO DITCHES, TAKE IT OVER TO GRAYSON NOOR LAKE FROM THERE, AND THEN THE REST OF THE WATER GOES DOWN INTO LAKE MACUMBER, WHICH AGAIN IS JUST HELD FOR RECREATION, FIRE PREVENTION. THERE'S A LOT OF REASONS TO SAVE THOSE LAKES. SO I WILL BE CONTINUING TO TRY TO DO THAT EVERY CHANCE I GET.

AND THEN ON FATHER'S DAY, I WENT UP TO SHINGLETOWN. THE VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT HAD THEIR BREAKFAST, THEIR MONTHLY BREAKFAST ON FATHER'S DAY RATHER THAN THE SECOND SATURDAY, WHICH WAS NICE BECAUSE I HADN'T ALREADY EATEN A BREAKFAST WHEN I I GOT THERE AND I SAW CHIEF OLIVER COLLINS FROM ANDERSON POLICE DEPARTMENT. HIS DAD RICHARD IS A AND RICHARD'S WIFE RUBY ARE BIG VOLUNTEERS UP THERE. THEY RUN THE BINGO GAME AND EVERYTHING ELSE. SO IT WAS REALLY NICE TO SEE EVERYBODY UP THERE. AND THAT CONCLUDES MY REPORT. ALL

[PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD - OPEN TIME]

RIGHT, SO MOVING ON, BEFORE WE GET TO PUBLIC COMMENT, I WANT TO REMIND THE PUBLIC THAT IF YOU IF YOU'RE HERE TO TALK ABOUT MEASURE B, IT HAS NOW BEEN ADDED TO THE AGENDA. IT IS IN CLOSED SESSION, SO IF YOU'RE HERE TO TALK ABOUT MEASURE B IN PUBLIC COMMENT, PLEASE CHANGE YOUR SPEAKER REQUEST FORM OVER TO THE CLOSED SESSION ITEM SO YOU CAN SPEAK ABOUT IT THERE. AND WITH THAT, HOW MANY SPEAKERS DO WE HAVE? CHAIR, WE HAVE 19 SPEAKERS.

OKAY. LET'S GO AHEAD AND HEAR FROM THE PUBLIC.

FIRST UP, DON DUCKET, FOLLOWED BY BRENDA, JEFF GORDER, THEN MO. IF I CALLED YOUR NAME, PLEASE GET IN QUEUE.

HELLO.

WELL, WONDERS NEVER CEASE. I ACTUALLY AGREE WITH KEVIN CRYE THAT PLACING A CENSURE ITEM FOR CLINT CURTIS ON THE AGENDA IS A WASTE OF TIME. I'M GOING TO BE TALKING LATER ABOUT OUR AGENDAS, AND IF WE LOOK AT TODAY'S AGENDA, 4 OF YOUR REGULAR DISCUSSION ITEMS DON'T RESULT IN A TANGIBLE EFFECT ON QUALITY OF LIFE IN SHASTA COUNTY. I WOULD LIKE THIS BOARD TO FOCUS ITS ATTENTION AND EFFORTS ON ITEMS THAT RESULT IN A TANGIBLE EFFECT ON QUALITY OF LIFE. NO MORE POLITICAL POSTURING, NO MORE EDUCATING VOTERS.

LET'S JUST GET DOWN TO THE BUSINESS OF THE COUNTY.

BRENDA, FOLLOWED BY JEFF GORDER, MO, THEN SUZANNE.

[01:15:05]

IT'S BEEN A WHILE SINCE I'VE BEEN HERE, UM, FOR A LOT OF DIFFERENT REASONS. TODAY REMINDS ME WHY I DON'T COME HERE. BUT ANYWAYS, KEVIN, I WANT TO SAY THANK YOU FOR BRINGING ADOPTION STUFF TO THE FOREFRONT. I'M A GRANDMOTHER NOW RAISING CHILDREN FOR A SECOND TIME, AND, AND IT'S VERY HARD. UM, WHEN MY DAUGHTER PASSED AWAY, UM, WE WERE NOT GOING TO LET THESE CHILDREN GO TO THE SYSTEM BECAUSE THE SYSTEM IS VERY BROKEN. WE AS ADULTS HAVE FAILED OUR CHILDREN IN MANY WAYS, EVERYTHING FROM VACCINES TO CONVINCING KIDS THEY'RE NOT GOOD ENOUGH JUST AS THEY ARE, ALLOWING THEM TO MUTILATE THEMSELVES, AND WE CAN GO ON AND ON AND ON.

BUT AS FAR AS ADOPTIONS GO, THAT IS A BROKEN SYSTEM AS WELL. CPS, APS, OPTIONS, FAMILY COURT. THIS SYSTEM IS NOT MADE FOR WHAT IS IN THE BEST INTEREST OF KIDS, AND THEN IT COSTS THE PEOPLE THAT WANT TO STEP UP THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS. IN RETROSPECT, WE COULD HAVE SPENT AS MUCH AS $60,000 TO ADOPT MY OWN BLOOD GRANDCHILDREN. IT IS A MONEY GRAB, AND THERE IS NO SYSTEM PUT IN PLACE TO HELP PEOPLE GET THROUGH THIS PROCESS, UNDERSTAND WHAT THEY'RE PAYING FOR, UNDERSTAND WHAT THEY'RE DOING.

WE'VE HAD TO PAY COUNTLESS PRIVATE INVESTIGATORS, ALL IN A MATTER OF 3 YEARS. THE SAME MONEY, SAME BACKGROUND CHECKS, OVER AND OVER AND OVER, WHICH TAKES FOOD OUT OF MY CHILDREN'S MOUTH, WHICH TAKES CLOTHING OFF MY CHILDREN'S BACKS. IT NEEDS TO BE FIXED. THIS IS A MONEY GRAB. IT SHOULDN'T COST A FAMILY MEMBER $60,000 TO ADOPT THEIR OWN GRANDCHILDREN. NOW, I KNOW THERE NEEDS TO BE BACKGROUND CHECKS FOR A REASON. BUT WHEN YOU'RE ADOPTING MULTIPLE CHILDREN, THAT SHOULDN'T BE MULTIPLE FEES STACKED ON TOP OF EACH OTHER.

IT SHOULD BE FUNDED. WE COULDN'T EVEN GET IT FUNDED BECAUSE WE DIDN'T LET THESE KIDS GO TO THE FOSTER CARE SYSTEM, WHICH I WOULD NEVER DO.

WORKING ON AN AMBULANCE, I'VE SEEN LOTS OF TRAGEDIES IN, IN THOSE HOMES. THERE'S GOOD HOMES, BUT THERE'S A LOT OF BAD HOMES, AND THAT NEEDS TO BE LOOKED AT. SO THANK YOU, KEVIN, FOR DOING THAT.

NEXT UP, JEFF MR. SHORTER, FOLLOWED BY MO, SUZANNE, THEN GREG BONNET.

MORNING, EVERYONE. SO ONE YEAR AGO, APPROXIMATELY, DR.

MU DECLARED A PUBLIC HEALTH CRISIS BECAUSE OF LACK OF PHYSICIANS. AND MY ASK OF THE BOARD IS TO HAVE DR. MU COME BACK, MAKE A PRESENTATION AS TO WHAT PUBLIC HEALTH HAS BEEN DOING DURING THIS YEAR TO ALLEVIATE THE CRISIS. I WOULD ASSUME THAT BECAUSE THIS WAS DECLARED TO BE A CRISIS, THAT THE VAST MAJORITY OF PUBLIC HEALTH'S RESOURCES AND TIME HAVE BEEN DEVOTED TO TRY AND ALLEVIATE THAT CRISIS. SO I'D LIKE TO HEAR WHAT EFFORTS PUBLIC HEALTH HAS MADE TO RECRUIT AND RETAIN PHYSICIANS.

UH, THE SECOND IS, IS AN ASK TO GET BEHIND UC DAVIS. UH, NOW I'M GLAD THAT SUPERVISOR CRYE HAS WALKED BACK HIS, UH, COMMENT ABOUT THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, UH, AND HOW THEY'RE INVESTIGATING DAVIS OVER THE DISCRIMINATION.

WITHOUT EVEN ACCEPTING THAT THAT MIGHT BE INACCURATE.

DAVIS HAS ADAMANTLY DENIED THAT. WE KNOW THAT OUR DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE THESE DAYS HAS LOST A PRESUMPTION OF REGULARITY IN THE COURTS.

THE COURTS DO NOT GIVE ANY CREDIBILITY OR CREDENCE TO THE U.S. ATTORNEYS THAT APPEAR BEFORE THEM. AND TO EVEN THINK THAT JUST BECAUSE THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE HAS DECLARED THAT THERE'S DISCRIMINATION AT UC DAVIS, THAT THAT MEANS THAT IT'S OCCURRING IS ABSURD. AND, AND CRYE HAS DONE THIS AT EVERY TURN TO TRY AND MINIMIZE UC DAVIS.

NO MATTER WHAT HE SAYS, IT'S ALL HE DECRIES IT AS ONLY BEING A BAND-AID. HE ATTACKED THE ONE GUY AS NOT HAVING THE INTERESTS OF THE COUNTY IN MIND. I FIND IT ODD THAT, YOU KNOW, CRYE SAID HE HAD TO HEAR IT, HE HAD TO TASTE IT, HE HAD TO FEEL IT IN ORDER TO BELIEVE IT. THAT'S WHAT HE WAS TALKING ABOUT WITH THE REPORT ABOUT CLINT CURTIS. HE WASN'T GOING TO BELIEVE IT, AND YET DOJ COMES UP WITH A REPORT ABOUT DAVIS AND HE ACCEPTS IT AS THE GOD'S HONEST TRUTH. LET'S DO WHAT WE CAN TO GET BEHIND UC DAVIS AND NOT ALIENATE THEM. THANK YOU.

NEXT UP, MO, FOLLOWED BY SUZANNE, GREG BONNET, THEN STEVE KAHN. IF I CALLED YOUR NAME, PLEASE GET IN QUEUE.

MY NAME IS MONIQUE WILLENE.

HELLO, FELLOW CONSTITUENTS.

I'VE BEEN COMING IN SINCE SEPTEMBER 19, 2017.

THE OTHER DAY NOT THE OTHER DAY, A COUPLE WEEKS AGO I FOUND THIS MAGAZINE, AND IT'S BEEN PUT OUT BY MR. WANDRO FROM THE MISSION. IT'S A BEAUTIFUL MAGAZINE. IT'S AN INAUGURAL ISSUE. IF YOU HAVEN'T READ IT, I RECOMMEND IT.

THERE'S INCREDIBLE STORIES OF HOPE IN HERE. IT REMINDS ME OF JOHN KENNEDY JR.'S MAGAZINE GEORGE WITH CINDY CRAWFORD ON THE FRONT, BUT I THINK THIS ONE IS MUCH MORE MUCH BETTER.

SO THAT BEING SAID, SINCE SEPTEMBER 19, 2017, I'VE BEEN COMING IN HERE ASKING FOR HELP FOR PEOPLE LIKE MY MOTHER OR BRENDA'S DAUGHTER. IT WAS

[01:20:02]

COMING FROM A PLACE OF LOVE.

THAT WAS MY MAIN MOTIVE. I NEVER WANTED TO BELONG TO AN MPA OR AN MPO BECAUSE I KNEW THEY WERE MONEY GRABS.

PLEASE HELP BRENDA WITH HER ISSUE BECAUSE THAT'S RIDICULOUS.

SO CASE IN POINT, WHEN I READ THIS MAGAZINE, A ROADMAP TO HEALING, IT IT TALKS ABOUT A JOURNEY OF CONNECTION TO SERVICES. THE GOOD NEWS RESCUE MISSION HAS MADE A DELIBERATE, DISCIPLINED INVESTMENT IN BUILDING SOMETHING OUR COMMUNITY HAS NEVER FULLY HAD BEFORE. 10 YEARS I'VE BEEN ASKING FOR THIS. 10 YEARS COMING UP HERE ASKING FOR YOU TO HELP PEOPLE LIKE BRENDA'S DAUGHTER.

I HIT A WALL.

THAT PISSED ME OFF. THAT BEING SAID, A TRUE CONTINUUM OF CARE DESIGNED TO REACH THE PEOPLE MOST OFTEN LEFT BEHIND, THOSE LIVING IN ENCAMPMENTS, DISCONNECTED FROM SYSTEMS, PRISONS AND TRAPPED IN CYCLES OF ADDICTION AND INSTABILITY.

MENTAL HEALTH DOUBLED WITH DRUG ADDICTION, UNDERSERVED, UNDER-RESOURCED, UNDER-SHELTERED.

IT FOR 10 YEARS I'VE BEEN SAYING THIS. IT'S A MATTER OF OUTREACH, A DAY CENTER, WHICH WE DON'T HAVE, WHICH WE NEED, TREATMENT WITH A PROGRAM, TRANSITION TO HOME. THIS IS A SUSTAINABLE THING. FOR 10 YEARS AND SOMEBODY PUT IT IN THIS FORM, WHAT I'VE BEEN SAYING ALL THIS TIME. KEVIN, I AM TRULY GOING TO MISS YOU.

I'M SORRY.

I APPRECIATE THAT FOR 2 YEARS EVERY SATURDAY YOU COMMITTED TO BE IN THE PARK WITH ME TO HELP INDIVIDUALS TRULY REACH THOSE RESOURCES.

AND I'M AFRAID I WON'T EVER WANT TO COME IN HERE AND ASK FOR HELP AGAIN. SO PLEASE UNDERSTAND.

AND JUST SO YOU KNOW, THE RESOURCE CENTER IS GOING TO BE DONE THIS NEXT YEAR THAT WE APPROVED LIKE 3 YEARS AGO.

WAS NOT IN VAIN. THANK YOU.

NEXT UP, SUZANNE, FOLLOWED BY GREG BONNET, STEVE KAHN, THEN SHASTA COUNTY WATCHDOG.

GOOD MORNING, GENTLEMEN OF THE BOARD. IF YOU HAVE NOT RECEIVED A LETTER YET, I KNOW THAT IT'S ON ITS WAY.

IT HAS GONE TO MOST EVERY COUNTY IN THE STATE. IT'S A LETTER FROM ROBERT PRESTON, THE IMAGINE GOVERNOR PRO TEMPORE OF THE IMAGINARY NEW STATE OF CALIFORNIA. IT HAS BEEN SENT TO THE BOS, TO THE SHERIFF, AND TO THE ROV OF EVERY COUNTY. UM, WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO REQUEST TODAY THIS LETTER CONTAINS VAGUE, SPURIOUS ALLEGATIONS OF VOTER FRAUD NOT IDENTIFIED IN ANY SPECIFIC WAY. UM, I WOULD LIKE TO ASK THIS, SINCE THIS LETTER ASKS FOR TIME TO COME AND GIVE A PRESENTATION ABOUT ALLEGED VOTER FRAUD WITHOUT ANY PARTICULARS. I WOULD LIKE TO ASK THAT IF THIS BOARD DOES ENTERTAIN THAT, THAT EQUAL TIME BE GIVEN TO THE PRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE WHO WERE IN THIS COMMUNITY ON JUNE 2ND AND WHO DID OBSERVATION AT NEARLY ALL OF THE POLLING PLACES AND THE MAIN OFFICE OFFICE DOWNTOWN. UM, BE AWARE THAT, UM, THIS, UH, THE REQUESTS IN THERE TO THE SHERIFF MAY BE IN VIOLATION OF SB 73. UM, AND MR. RICKERT, WE'RE GOING TO BE PROACTIVE, AND MAYBE WE'LL AVOID SOME PRAS WITH THIS IF YOU ALL WILL, WILL WORK WITH US HERE. UM, I ASK THAT ANY RESPONSES BE MADE PUBLIC, THAT WE KNOW WHO'S WHO DELIVERED THE LETTERS. UM, IT WOULD BE NICE TO HAVE THE ROV ADVISE PROACTIVELY WHETHER OR NOT THEY INTEND TO CERTIFY THIS ELECTION OR NOT, AND FOR THIS BOARD TO BE PROACTIVE IN THAT. AND THEN FINALLY, GENTLEMEN, OWN ALL OF THIS IN THE AGGREGATE. OWN THE FAILURE OF HIRING SOMEONE SO UNQUALIFIED TO BE ROV. NO EXCUSES. THIS WAS A FAILURE OF THIS BOARD'S LEADERSHIP LEADERSHIP AND PUBLIC TRUST.

CENSURE AND CALL FOR GREG BONET, FOLLOWED BY STEVE KAHN, SHASTA COUNTY WATCHDOG, THEN RONALD PLUM. IF I CALLED YOUR NAME, PLEASE GET IN QUEUE. IS GREG HERE? NOT SEEING GREG. STEVE, COME ON UP, FOLLOWED BY SHASTA COUNTY WATCHDOG, RONALD PLUM, THEN KIM MOORE.

I WANT TO AGAIN REMIND UH-OH. I WANT TO AGAIN REMIND THE BOARD THAT ANY COMMUNICATIONS THAT ARE COUNTY-RELATED THAT YOU'RE DOING DURING A BOARD MEETING ARE TO BE PUBLIC, AND THAT INCLUDES YOU PASSING NOTES, CRY, TO OUR CHAIRMAN, OR SHOWING YOUR PHONE TO THE CEO OR COUNTY COUNCIL.

UM, IN FACT, IN FACT, IF THEY'RE SINCE THEY'VE GONE ALONG WITH IT AND THEY HAVEN'T EVEN CHIMED IN ON CORRECTING IT, IT SEEMS THAT BOTH COUNTY COUNCIL AND THE CEO HAVE BEEN NEGLIGENT IN THEIR ABILITY, IN THEIR TASKS, IN WHAT THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO DO WITH REGARDS TO THIS MEETING.

NOW, THAT'S A BAD THING, I GUESS, BUT IN MY MIND, IT'S KIND OF A GOOD THING BECAUSE I THINK IT WILL JUSTIFY TERMINATION WITHOUT THEIR GOLDEN PARACHUTE.

SO GO AHEAD, LET HIM DO IT. DO

[01:25:03]

IT AND LET'S SEE WHAT HAPPENS.

UM, TRY AGAIN NEEDLESSLY TRYING TO HAVE MEASURE B BROUGHT UP AGAIN. THAT'S A WASTE OF TERRIBLE WASTE OF MONEY.

HE'S JUST SIMPLY TRYING TO GAIN NATIONAL ATTENTION FOR HIMSELF AND HIS BUSINESS, AS HE'S DONE BEFORE WITH THE PILLOW GUY. PLEASE CATCH ON TO THIS GUY. HE'S PLAYING YOU. COMMUNICATIONS ABOUT THE BOARD MATTERS ARE PUBLIC, YOU KNOW, NOTES, ALL OF THAT NEED TO BE PUBLISHED, MADE AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC. I WANT TO AGAIN BRING UP THE COMBINATION OF THE CONSENT CALENDAR WITH PUBLIC COMMENT TIME IS NOT ALLOWING APPROPRIATE AMOUNT OF TIME TO COMMENT ON THOSE ITEMS AND IS A VIOLATION OF THE BROWN ACT. AND I WANT TO SEE THAT CORRECTED. BUT WITH THE CHANGES THAT ARE BEING SUGGESTED TODAY, DAY, IT MAY BE A MOOT POINT. WE'LL SEE. I THINK WE'LL SEE SOME COURT ISSUES.

SHASTA COUNTY WATCHDOG, FOLLOWED BY RONALD PLUM, KIM MOORE, THEN MICHELLE. IF I CALLED YOUR NAME, PLEASE GET IN QUEUE.

IT'S ACTUALLY VIOLATION OF FREEDOM OF SPEECH, AND IT'S LIKE PART OF A CONSTITUTION.

SO IF YOU GUYS WANT TO CONTINUE CHIPPING OUR RIGHTS AWAY. THIS HERE I JUST FILED. THIS IS LIKE THE THIRD ONE YOU'LL BE GOING TO BE HEARING FROM THE STATE UNDER CIVIL RIGHTS. YOU HAVE VIOLATED MULTIPLE CIVIL RIGHTS AGAINST THE PEOPLE COMING TO THESE MEETINGS, INCLUDING MYSELF. SO I'M JUST GOING TO LET YOU KNOW THAT THERE'S SOME STUFF COMING, AND I'M SURE THAT THE CEO, UM, AND MR. LARIMER ACTUALLY IS PROBABLY PROBABLY KNOWS BY NOW, BUT YOU WILL BE GETTING SOME COMPLAINTS FROM THE STATE THAT I FILE, AND THEY WILL BE TAKING ACTION BECAUSE THERE ALREADY IS A CASE PENDING AGAINST THE COUNTY.

SEPTEMBER 24TH, SEPTEMBER 24TH, UM, RICHARD ACTUALLY RECEIVES AN EMAIL FROM I WON'T SAY THE STAFF MEMBER'S IN SEPTEMBER 24TH, 2025, HE WAS NOTIFIED THAT HE DID NOT GET ENOUGH SIGNATURES. THE SIGNATURES WERE NOT VALID. SO THEY STILL PUSHED THIS TO, TO GO AHEAD AND PUT IT ON, ON THE, FOR THE VOTERS TO VOTE, KNOWING THEY DIDN'T GET ENOUGH SIGNATURES. OKAY, SO THEY ACTUALLY COMMITTED FRAUD BECAUSE WHEN YOU MOVE FORWARD SOMETHING THAT YOU DON'T HAVE ENOUGH SIGNATURES YOU, YOU ACTUALLY DECEIVED THE PEOPLE KNOWING THAT YOU GATHER SIGNATURES AND DIDN'T GET ENOUGH SIGNATURES, AND YOU CONTINUE TO PUSH FORWARD AND THINKING THAT IT'S GONNA GO AHEAD, YOU KNOW, IT'S GONNA GO RIGHT THROUGH, AND IT DID.

BUT YOU KNOW WHAT, SINCE YOU APPOINTED CLINT CURTIS, SINCE THE DAY YOU APPOINTED HIM, THIS IS LIKE THE 5TH BOOK, A BINDER THAT I'VE BEEN FILING ON CLINT CURTIS. SO YOU WILL BE CENSORING HIM, BECAUSE IF YOU DON'T, YOU BECOME LIABLE, AND YOU WILL BE LIABLE, AND YOU'RE GOING TO BE VIOLATING OUR RIGHTS FOR NOT TAKING ACTION. SO I'M TELLING YOU RIGHT NOW PLUM FOLLOWED BY KIM MOORE, MICHELLE, THEN BEV. IF I CALLED YOUR NAME, PLEASE GET IN QUEUE.

YOU GUYS ALL ALLOWED THIS CRAP TO HAPPEN.

RONALD PLUMB HERE.

UM, WANTED TO JUST SHARE A LITTLE BIT ABOUT, UM, PSYCHOLOGY, A LITTLE BIT IN THE FACT THAT IT'S HARDER TO CONVINCE SOMEONE THEY'VE BEEN DECEIVED THAN TO DECEIVE THEM. AND WE AS A PEOPLE HAVE BEEN DECEIVED IN MANY, MANY WAYS. WE FIND THAT AS WE LOOK AT HISTORY, IT'S BEING REWRITTEN ALL THE AND THE BOTTOM LINE IS, IS THAT YOU GO BACK TO THE CONSTITUTION AND YOU LOOK AT THE BLOOD, SWEAT, AND TEARS THAT WENT INTO WRITING THAT AND STANDING FOR OUR FREEDOM. YOU GUYS ARE BASICALLY ON THE TITANIC MOVING THE CHAIRS AROUND. YOU'VE GOT TO DEAL WITH THE REAL ISSUES.

AND ONE OF THE MAIN ISSUES IS, IS OUR ELECTIONS. OUR ELECTIONS HAVE BEEN STOLEN FROM US.

WHETHER YOU WANT, WHETHER YOU WANT TO BELIEVE IT OR NOT, IT'S THE TRUTH. AND IF YOU'VE STUDIED IT, AND IF YOU REALLY HAVE AN OPEN MIND, YOU CAN REALLY SEE IT.

AND THE BOTTOM LINE WITH THAT LETTER THAT WAS BROUGHT OUT, THE, THE BOTTOM LINE IS, IS THAT AS PEOPLE THAT ENTER OUR STATE, OUR COUNTRY ILLEGALLY,, AND ESPECIALLY IN CALIFORNIA, GO TO THE DMV, THEY GET A LICENSE AND THEY GET REGISTERED TO VOTE. AND IF THEY VOTE, IT'S AN ILLEGAL VOTE.

JUST THAT STRAIGHT. SO THAT'S

[01:30:02]

WHAT YOU GOT TO REALLY LOOK AT. YOU GOT TO LOOK AT THE DEEPER MEANINGS BEHIND WHAT WE'RE DOING.

SOMEBODY'S GOT TO GO DOWN IN THE BOTTOM OF THE BOAT AND LOOK AT THE CONDITION OF THE HULL BECAUSE IT'S SINKING AND YOU GUYS ARE FLOATING AROUND ON IT TRYING TO TO EITHER KEEP THE MUSIC GOING OR KEEP PEOPLE COMFORTABLE WHILE THE BOAT GOES DOWN. YOU KNOW THE STORY. THE STORY IS OBVIOUS. DIG DEEPER.

NEXT UP, KIM MOORE, FOLLOWED BY MICHELLE, BEV, THEN ANTONIA. IF I CALLED YOUR NAME, PLEASE GET IN QUEUE.

VIA ROBERT PAUL PRESTON, GOVERNOR PRO TEMPORE, NEW CALIFORNIA STATE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, COUNTY REGISTRAR OF VOTERS, COUNTY SHERIFF. THIS LETTER IS DATED JUNE 20TH, 2026, REGARDING THE NOTICE AND REQUEST TO BE HEARD PETITION FOR REDRESS OR GRIEVANCES.

DEAR SUPERVISORS, REGISTRAR, AND SHERIFF, THE PURPOSE OF THIS NOTICE IS TO ASK FOR OPPORTUNITY TO ADDRESS THE ENTIRE BOARD OR TO PRESENT A CLAIM CONTESTING THE NOTIFICATION OF ANY ELECTION RESULTS AT THE NEXT REGULARLY SCHEDULED MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS. I AM ALSO REQUESTING THE BOARD DIRECT THE REGISTRAR OF VOTERS TO RESPOND TO THE REQUEST FOR INFORMATION BELOW. I INVITE YOUR ATTENTION TO THE CALIFORNIA ELECTION CODE SECTION 16100, WHICH STATES IN PART, ANY ELECTOR OF A COUNTY, A CITY, OR OF ANY POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF EITHER MAY CONTEST ANY ELECTION HELD THEREIN FOR ANY OF THE FOLLOWING CAUSES: D, THAT LEGAL VOTES WERE ILLEGAL VOTES WERE CAST. THE FACTUAL BASIS OF MY REQUEST IS THAT IT IS COMMON KNOWLEDGE THAT THERE HAS BEEN A FLOOD OF ILLEGAL ALIENS INTO THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ITS COUNTIES, CITIES, AND SCHOOL DISTRICTS. THOSE NON-CITIZENS HAVE APPARENTLY BEEN ALLOWED TO REGISTER WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES SCHOOLS.

WITH THAT REGISTRATION, THESE NON-CITIZENS HAVE BEEN PROVIDED WITH VOTER REGISTRATION AND ELECTION BALLOTS. IT IS ALSO COMMON KNOWLEDGE THAT THE INVESTIGATIVE REPORTERS HAVE DISCOVERED THAT SOME ILLEGAL ALIEN CITIZENS HAVE IN FACT VOTED. PROVIDING THESE NON-CITIZENS VOTER REGISTRATION AND ELECTION BALLOTS GIVE YOU, THE MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, AND YOU, THE REGISTRAR OF VOTERS, THE LEGAL BASIS TO SET ASIDE THE ELECTION AND DENY ITS CERTIFICATION DUE TO THE NUMBER OF ILLEGAL VOTES AS SET FORTH.

NEXT UP, MICHELLE, FOLLOWED BY BEV, ANTONIA, THEN ROBERT.

IF I CALLED YOUR NAME, PLEASE GET IN QUEUE. IS MICHELLE HERE? OKAY, MICHELLE PASSES. BEV, COME ON UP.

OKAY, CHANGING MEASURE B MESSED US UP ON OUR ORDER, SO I'M GOING TO SPEAK AND THEN ANTONIA WILL FINISH READING THE LETTER.

OKAY, UM, THERE'S BEEN A REQUEST TO PUT THIS LETTER ON THE DISCUSSION FOR THE AGENDA NEXT WEEK. UM, HOPEFULLY YOU GUYS WILL NOT LISTEN TO COUNTY COUNCIL AND YOU WILL PUT IT ON THERE. YOU WILL BE COMMITTING A FELONY IF YOU DO NOT. OKAY, WE ARE ALSO HAVING A TOWN HALL JULY 1ST WHERE PEOPLE CAN SPEAK WHAT THEY HAVE WITNESSED. WITH THE ELECTIONS AND NOT BE INTERRUPTED AND GET THEIR WORD OUT.

OKAY, UM, I'M DEDICATING THIS LETTER TO BENNY, WHO'S FOUGHT THIS FRAUD FOR YEARS.

OKAY, AND HE COMES OUT AND ANNOUNCES SOMETHING THAT IS SO BIG ON FRAUD, AND THEN HE MYSTERIOUSLY IS DEAD IN JUST A COUPLE OF DAYS. THINK ABOUT THAT.

NEXT UP, ANTONIA, FOLLOWED BY ROBERT, LESLIE SAWYER, THEN LAURA HOBBS.

IN CALIFORNIA ELECTION CODE 16100, SPECIFICALLY, UH, ESPECIALLY, UH, SUBJECTION D, THESE INCONTROVERTIBLE FACTS GIVE YOU, SHERIFF, NOT ONLY THE RIGHT BUT THE OBLIGATION TO INVESTIGATE VOTER FRAUD. IF THE BOARD AND THE REGISTER CERTIFY THE ELECTION, THEY WILL BE COMMITTING A FELONY.

TO THE BOARD OF AND THE REGISTER, WOULD YOU PLEASE PROVIDE ME AND THE PERSON WHO SERVED THIS LETTER ON YOU THE PROCESS AND IDENTIFY ALL OFFICERS, EMPLOYEES, AND VOLUNTEERS ENGAGED IN THE COLLECTION AND COUNTING OF THE BALLOTS, INCLUDING THE DISQUALIFICATION OF BALLOTS AND VOTER VERIFICATIONS. AS A VOTER IN THIS STATE, AS IS THE SERVER OF THIS LETTER NAMED BELOW, WE OBJECT TO OUR VOTES BEING DILUTED BY THE VOTES OF THOSE WHO ILLEGALLY ELIGIBLE

[01:35:02]

TO VOTE. WE ALSO SUBJECT TO WE ALSO OBJECT TO ANY COMPOUNDING OF A FELONY BY CERTIFYING THE ELECTION RESULTS. THANK YOU FOR PROPERLY RESPONDING TO THIS LETTER AND GIVING ME AN AUDIENCE TO WITH YOU TO CONSTITUTIONALLY REDRESS THIS GRIEVANCE PURSUANT THE BILL OF RIGHTS ARTICLE 1.

NEXT UP, ROBERT, FOLLOWED BY LESLIE SAWYER, LAURA HOBBS, THEN NICK GARDNER. IF I CALLED YOUR NAME, PLEASE GET IN QUEUE.

MORNING, BOARD. I FEEL REALLY SORRY THAT SUPERVISOR PLUMMER FEELS A NEED TO HEDGE HIS BETS BETWEEN WHAT THE PRIORITIES OF THE PEOPLE HE SERVES ARE AND THE PERSONAL LEGACY AGENDA OF A FAILED CANDIDATE OR HIS OWN ASPIRATIONS. HOW CAN WE COUNT ON YOU WHEN YOU COMPROMISE ON NON-EXISTING ISSUES? YOU MATTER. THE ONE WHO TYPICALLY BELABOR THE PROCESS ALONG WITH CRY INSTEAD OF VOTING ON PRINCIPLE AND USING THE VERY SIMPLE PRACTICAL REASONING OF PRIORITIZATION BEFORE PERSONAL AGENDAS. THE SIDEBAR CONVERSATIONS THAT RICKARD AND LARIMER ENGAGE IN ARE DISTRACTING. PLEASE STOP. WE CAN HEAR YOU, CHAIR.

IT'S JUST VERY DISRESPECTFUL.

CHAIR KJELLSTROM, WILL YOU BE MAKING ALL THE WHISPERS AND MUTTERINGS BETWEEN YOU AND CRY AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC? AS FAR AS I KNOW, PUBLIC SESSION SESSION IS NOT CLOSED SESSION AND MUST BE OUT IN THE OPEN.

OTHERWISE, IT'S A VIOLATION OF THE BROWN ACT. IT IS A CONSTANT ISSUE, SEEMS SECRETIVE AND SHADY AND VERY DISTRACTING.

NEXT UP, LESLIE SAWYER, FOLLOWED BY LAURA HOBBS, NICK GARDNER, THEN JENNY.

OKAY, SO THIS SIDE OF THE ROOM IS ALLOWED TO WHISPER AND TALK AND COMMUNICATE WITH EACH OTHER, AND INCLUDING THE, LIKE, HEARTLESS HAGS WHO ARE MAKING COMMENTS WHEN WHEN SOMEBODY'S UPSET ABOUT THE DEATH OF A FRIEND. BUT YOU GUYS, NO HUMAN INTERACTION. YOU'RE NOT ALLOWED TO TALK, NOT ALLOWED TO WHISPER. GOT IT.

NOTED. CEO RICKER, I APPRECIATE YOU DIVING INTO LEGISLATIVE MATTERS AND LOOKING AT ISSUES. I HAVE SOME MORE I'D LIKE YOU TO TRACK. AB 2700 BY JAMES GALLAGHER. THAT ONE GETS COMPENSATION FOR FIRE VICTIMS. WE HAVE PEOPLE IN THIS COMMUNITY THAT WERE AFFECTED. BUTTE COUNTY MOSTLY AFFECTED. HOWEVER, WE DO HAVE PEOPLE HERE. GETTING BEHIND THAT WOULD BE GREAT. I KNOW AS SOMEBODY WHO'S WORKING WITH THE STATE ON LEGISLATION, AND THAT'S BEEN MY MAIN FOCUS OVER THE LAST YEAR, IT'S REALLY FUN TO ACTUALLY BE ABLE TO SUPPORT GOOD LEGISLATION.

SO THAT ONE'S A GOOD ONE. UM, ALSO ON ONE TO SUPPORT AND LOOK AT, AND I'D REALLY, REALLY LIKE YOU TO LOOK AT THIS AB 1662, THAT ONE CLOSES THE LOOPHOLE FOR MISDEMEANORS WHERE PEOPLE ARE GETTING AWAY WITH DUIS, LIKE SOMEBODY IN THIS ROOM WHO MIGHT HAVE 7 INCIDENCES ON 6 DIFFERENT DATES, PROBABLY SHOULD BE IN JAIL. DUIS KILL PEOPLE, AND WE NEED TO CLOSE THOSE LOOPHOLES. SO, UM, THAT ONE AS WELL. ONE TO FIGHT AND LOOK AT IS AB 217, OR OR 2117. THAT IS THE ONE THAT SEEKS TO DISMANTLE THE POWER OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, WHO WE AS A COMMUNITY OVERWHELMINGLY VOTED TO SUPPORT. AND IF WE'RE VOTING TO SUPPORT A POSITION AND THEN THE LEGISLATURE GOES IN AND STRIPS THEIR POWER, THAT KIND OF TAKES AWAY THE WHOLE LOCAL CONTROL. SO IF YOU COULD LOOK AT THOSE, I'D APPRECIATE IT. I APPRECIATE ALL OF YOU. AND HEY, THEY HANG ON EVERY WORD YOU SAY, SO KEEP IT NEXT UP, LAURA HOBBS, FOLLOWED BY NICK GARDNER, THEN JENNY.

IF I CALLED YOUR NAME, PLEASE GET IN QUEUE.

UM, AS FAR AS THE CLINT CURTIS CENSURE GOES, I DON'T BELIEVE THAT'S RELEVANT. IN FACT, WHAT I'VE LEARNED AS A FIRSTHAND WITNESS TO MANY OF THESE SUPPOSED EVENTS THESE FALSE ALLEGATIONS IS THAT MUCH OF IT HAS BEEN FABRICATED. AND UNFORTUNATELY, YOU GUYS WERE PLAYED IN THIS SITUATION. YOU TOOK A REPORT FROM SOMEBODY WHO IS NOT ALTOGETHER HONEST, I'M FINDING, UNFORTUNATELY, BECAUSE I WAS INTERVIEWED BY HER. I'M SPEAKING ABOUT MONICA FUGATE. SHE DID NOT REPRESENT WHAT WE, WHAT WE SPOKE ABOUT. I WAS THERE.

DURING THE ALLEGED WHOLE HAIR PULLING EVENT.

THAT DIDN'T HAPPEN. THERE WAS NO THREAT OF PHYSICAL VIOLENCE.

SO THIS, THIS BOARD AND THIS WHOLE COMMUNITY HAS BEEN MISLED. AND IT GOES DEEPER THAN THAT, UNFORTUNATELY, IS I'VE SUBMITTED MANY, UM, WHISTLEBLOWER ACCOUNTS OF THINGS THAT GO ON IN THE ELECTIONS OFFICE WHERE THE PERPETRATORS ARE NOT CLINT CURTIS. IT IS A TOXIC WORK

[01:40:02]

ENVIRONMENT. BUT NOT BECAUSE OF CLINT CURTIS.

AND MONICA FUGATE AND HER STAFF WANT TO HEAR NOTHING OF IT.

IF CLINT CURTIS IS NOT THE CAUSE, THEY COULD CARE LESS.

SO THERE'S A REAL BIG PROBLEM.

I'D LIKE TO SAY YOU NEED TO BRING BACK THE ELECTIONS COMMISSION.

I'VE HEARD PEOPLE ON THE OTHER SIDE NOW SAYING THEY, THEY WOULD LIKE TO HAVE A FORUM TO SPEAK ABOUT ELECTION-RELATED ISSUES AS WELL.

AND THEN AND LASTLY AND MOST IMPORTANTLY, YOU NEED TO FUND THE LAWSUIT TO DEFEND THE CITIZENS OF SHASTA COUNTY AGAINST THE OVERREACH OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA.

AND THIS IS SOMETHING THAT THE FOUNDING FATHERS, YOU KNOW, IF THEY SAW YOU GUYS HERE, YOU WANT TO MAKE THEM PROUD, OKAY? WHAT'S HAPPENING RIGHT NOW IS NOT MAKING THEM PROUD. SO DO YOUR BEST.

NEXT UP, NICK GARDNER, FOLLOWED BY JENNY.

BYE-BYE.

WELL, I WANT TO MIMIC WHAT LAURA JUST SAID ABOUT MONICA FUGATE. SHE DIDN'T REPRESENT BOTH SIDES. IT WASN'T AN UNBIASED REPORT LIKE IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN. AND I BELIEVE THERE SHOULD BE SOME DISCIPLINARY ACTION, WHETHER IT WAS HER OR SOMEBODY ABOVE HER. SHOULD BE INVESTIGATED. I WANT TO THANK KEVIN KRYE FOR MAKING SURE WE GET BANG FOR OUR BUCK. AND WHEN WE'RE NOT GETTING THAT BANG FOR OUR BUCK, WE CAN DIRECT THOSE RESOURCES SOMEPLACE ELSE.

AND LOOKING OUT FOR THE DOLLAR FOR THE TAXPAYERS BECAUSE WE'RE TAXED TO DEATH AND EVERY LITTLE BIT HELPS US. SO THANK YOU, KEVIN. YOU KNOW, MATT PLUMMER BROUGHT UP THE WELFARE TO WORK PROGRAM. THERE'S PEOPLE LINED UP FOR IT. I PAID ATTENTION TO THAT THE FIRST COUPLE YEARS IT CAME IN, AND IT LOOKED LIKE THEY JUST TOOK THEM OFF WELFARE AND GAVE THEM A GOVERNMENT JOB. SO THEY PROBABLY RAN OUT OF GOVERNMENT JOBS. THAT'S WHY THERE'S A WAITING LIST. UH, STEVE KAHN MENTIONED, UH, HE'D LIKE TO SEE SOME, UH, TEXTS AND, UH, CORRESPONDENCE. UH, I HOPE HE INCLUDES DON DUCKETT AND SUZANNE WHEN THEY WERE TEXTING MARY RICKARD UP HERE BECAUSE SHE COULDN'T COME UP WITH QUESTIONS ON HER OWN. I'D SURE LIKE TO SEE THOSE. AND I GUESS I'LL JUST FINISH RIGHT THERE. I WANT TO LEAVE THIS FOR YOU TO THINK ABOUT. AN OUNCE OF PREVENTION IS WORTH A POUND OF CURE. WHEN IT COMES TO R6, THINK ABOUT THAT.

AND JENNY, COME ON UP.

ONCE AGAIN, I COME BEFORE THE BOARD, THE PUBLIC, AND ALL OF OUR COMMUNITY, AND I ASK ONCE MORE FOR CIVILITY. WE HAVE 6 MONTHS LEFT OF THIS EXACT BOARD. 6 MONTHS CAN BE PRODUCTIVE, OR IT CAN BE LIKE THROWING A LITTLE MATCH ON DRY TINDER. IT REALLY IS UP TO THIS BOARD WHAT THEY WANT TO BRING FORWARD, AND IT'S REALLY UP TO THE PUBLIC HOW THEY WISH TO RESPOND TO THAT. WE CAN EITHER GET TO THE BUS OR GET THE BUSINESS DONE OF THIS BOARD, OR WE CAN CREATE CHAOS ON BOTH SIDES. WE CAN WORK TOGETHER TO BUILD OUR COUNTY UP, OR WE CAN BURN IT ALL DOWN ON THE WAY OUT. I DO BELIEVE THAT'S WHAT YOU SAID TO TIM GARMAN WHEN HE WAS LEAVING. I'M HOPING THIS BOARD AND THIS COMMUNITY WORK TOGETHER TO BUILD THE COUNTY UP AND NOT TEAR IN AN EFFORT TO BE RIGHT OR TO POLITICALLY POSTURE FOR GAIN. IT'S TIME WE STARTED WORKING TOGETHER TO HEAL. OUR COMMUNITY IS HEAVILY DIVIDED. I KNOW PEOPLE FEEL HURT. I KNOW THEY FEEL DISENFRANCHISED. I KNOW THEY FEEL OFFENDED BY ONE ANOTHER. DON'T THINK I DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT PAIN FEELS LIKE OR THAT I HAVEN'T FELT IT MYSELF. BUT WE HAVE TO LEARN TO PUT ASIDE OUR PERSONAL GRIEVANCES. WE HAVE TO LEARN TO PUT ASIDE AND WE HAVE TO START LEARNING TO WORK TOGETHER OR THE COMMUNITY WILL NEVER HEAL. I DON'T WANT TO BE SOMEONE THAT CONSTANTLY SCRATCHES AT OLD WOUNDS, AND I REALLY HOPE THE BOARD PLEDGES TO DO THE SAME. NO MORE OPENING OLD WOUNDS TO FURTHER PERSONAL AGENDAS.

OH YES, AND P.S., THANK YOU, ANTONIA AND BEV, FOR PROVING CLINT CURTIS' PROCESS DIDN'T WORK FOR BUILDING TRUST

[CONSENT CALENDAR]

IN ELECTIONS.

CHAIR, THAT WAS OUR LAST SPEAKER.

ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU, MS. BLANKENSHIP. MS. BLANKENSHIP, HAVE WE HAD ANYTHING PULLED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR? WE HAVE NOT. CHAIR.

OKAY, I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION.

I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA.

SECOND.

MOTION MADE BY SUPERVISOR

[R4 Adopt a resolution which outlines and affirms the Board of Supervisors’ commitment to the responsible and strategic use of artificial intelligence (“AI”) to enhance public services, support an understaffed workforce, and promote long-term fiscal sustainability while maintaining strong ethical safeguards, privacy protocols, and human oversight.]

PLUMMER, SECONDED BY SUPERVISOR LONG. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? AYE. ANY OPPOSED? PASSES 5-0. MOVING ON TO R4, ADOPT A RESOLUTION WHICH OUTLINES AND AFFIRMS THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS' COMMITMENT TO THE RESPONSIBLE AND STRATEGIC USE OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE TO ENHANCE PUBLIC SERVICES, SUPPORT AN UNDERSTAFFED WORKFORCE, AND PROMOTE LONG-TERM FISCAL SUSTAINABILITY WHILE MAINTAINING STRONG ETHICAL SAFEGUARDS, PRIVACY PROTOCOLS, AND HUMAN OVERSIGHT?

[01:45:01]

YES, SO THIS IS SOMETHING THAT HAS COME UP A FEW TIMES ON THE AGENDA, AND NOW WE HAVE OUR DIRECTOR AND JASON FROM IT HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

BUT JUST TO GIVE A LITTLE BIT OF CONTEXT HERE, AS THESE NEW TECHNOLOGIES ARE COMING INTO PLAY, IT'S IMPORTANT THAT WE AS A COUNTY PUT GUIDELINES IN PLACE AROUND HOW WE WANT TO USE THAT AND THAT THAT'S TRANSPARENT TO THE PUBLIC. AND SO THAT'S WHAT THIS RESOLUTION IS INTENDED TO DO. SO THERE'S 5 KIND OF KEY POINTS: COMMITMENT TO SERVICE EXCELLENCE, WHICH IS REALLY THE IDEA THAT THE INTENTION HERE IS, IS TO USE THESE TOOLS TO PROVIDE GOOD SERVICES TO THE PUBLIC; SUPPORT FOR THE WORKFORCE OBVIOUSLY THERE'S A LOT OF TALK AROUND AI REPLACING JOBS.

THAT, IN MOST OF THE DATA THAT WE YOU CAN LOOK AT NATIONALLY, HASN'T REALLY COME TO PASS.

AND IF YOU LOOK AT THE HISTORY OF NEW TECHNOLOGIES, IN FACT, MOST OF THEM LEAD TO MORE JOBS AND NEWER JOBS.

AND SO THE IDEA HERE IS THAT THIS IS, AS WE TALKED ABOUT IN THE BUDGET HEARINGS, THAT WE HAVE A NUMBER OF DEPARTMENTS THAT HAVE SIGNIFICANT VACANCIES OR VERY NEW EMPLOYEES AND SO OR CRUSHING WORKLOADS. AND SO THIS IS INTENDED TO SUPPORT THOSE EXISTING EMPLOYEES AND HELP THEM COMPLETE THE WORK THAT'S ALREADY ON THEIR PLATE. THE NEXT ONE IS AROUND FISCAL SUSTAINABILITY.

WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THE NUMBER OF CHALLENGES OR UPCOMING CHALLENGES RELATED TO FINANCES. AND SO, THIS MAY OR MAY NOT, AND SO IT'S SOMETHING TO EXPLORE, BE A WAY TO ENSURE LONG-TERM FINANCIAL SUSTAINABILITY. AND THEN SAFEGUARDING ETHICS. SO, THERE, AS THIS IS A NEW TECHNOLOGY AND THERE'S NEW WAYS OF INTERACTING WITH THESE TOOLS, WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE USING IT IN A WAY THAT IT BOTH PROTECTS THE PUBLIC, PROTECTS THE COUNTY, AND IS TRANSPARENT IN TERMS OF HOW WE'RE USING THOSE. AND SO THIS IS ONE STEP IN THAT DIRECTION. AND THEN THE FINAL ONE HERE IS HUMAN-CENTERED GOVERNANCE. THE IDEA HERE AND THIS IS ACTUALLY REFLECTED IN, I BELIEVE, THE WELFARE AND INSTITUTIONS CODE SO WHEN IT COMES TO SOCIAL SERVICES, THE HUMAN STAFF MEMBER IS REQUIRED TO MAKE THE DECISION. THE IDEA HERE IS NOT NOT THAT THE TECHNOLOGY WOULD REPLACE THAT.

IT WOULD JUST HELP OUR PEOPLE MAKE GOOD DECISIONS. SO NOT REPLACING THEM AND TAKING THAT DECISION-MAKING AWAY FROM THEM. SO THOSE ARE THE IMPORTANT PRINCIPLES. I SEE THIS AS A FIRST STEP TOWARDS THAT DIRECTION AND SOMETHING I'VE BEEN WORKING WITH DIRECTOR SCHREIBER AND THE CAO'S OFFICE OVER THE LAST FEW MONTHS.

ANOTHER STEP THAT WE ARE CURRENTLY WORKING ON BUT IS NOT READY YET IS MORE OF A DETAILED POLICY AROUND ACCEPTABLE USES, PROHIBITED USES, DELINEATING BETWEEN HIGH-RISK AND LOW-RISK CASES OF AI AND WHO GETS TO REVIEW THAT. AND SO, THE IDEA HERE IS THAT THESE TECHNOLOGIES ARE HERE. THEY'RE GOING TO CONTINUE TO EVOLVE.

LET'S MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE PUTTING IN PLACE POLICIES THAT HELP US USE THEM RESPONSIBLY AND PROTECT US AND THE PUBLIC FROM ANY POTENTIAL LIABILITY.

SO I WOULD TURN IT OVER TO DIRECTOR SCHREIBER TO PROVIDE ANY ADDITIONAL CONTEXT THAT YOU MIGHT HAVE FROM OUR CONVERSATIONS AND KIND OF HOW YOU SEE THIS FITTING INTO THE OVERALL IT APPROACH TO AI.

CHAIR, MEMBERS OF THE BOARD, TOM SCHREIBER, CHIEF INFORMATION OFFICER.

TO FOLLOW SUPERVISOR PLUMMER, THE RESOLUTION TO ME, LIKE WE TALKED ABOUT HERE, IS REALLY INFORMATION MORE FOR THE PUBLIC ON HOW WE PLAN ON THE COUNTY, USE THIS PARTICULAR TOOL.

THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF DIFFERENT SOFTWARE TOOLS OVER THE YEARS. THIS ONE IS A PRETTY POWERFUL TOOL AND CAN DO A LOT OF THINGS.

FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, FROM AN IT, WE WERE LOOKING AT THIS TOOL LIKE WE LOOK AT ANY OTHER SOFTWARE TOOL.

IS, WHAT IS THE PROBLEM WE'RE TRYING TO SOLVE? IS THIS ONE OF THE TOOLS THAT COULD DO THAT FOR A DEPARTMENT? BUT IT'S GOING TO TAKE DEPARTMENT INVOLVEMENT AS WELL TO BE ABLE TO LOOK AT WHAT THEIR BUSINESS IS AND WHERE THEY MIGHT BE ABLE TO APPLY THESE KIND OF TOOLS.

FROM A SECURITY PERSPECTIVE, I'M ALWAYS CONCERNED ABOUT SECURITY. I'D RATHER HAVE THINGS LOCKED DOWN PRETTY GOOD AND THEN WORK THINGS TO MAKE THEM USABLE MORE OR LESS THAN JUST OPEN THINGS UP. SO WE WOULD ACTUALLY MAKE SURE FROM AN AI PERSPECTIVE, IF YOU'RE USING A TOOL LIKE THIS, THAT IT IS LOCKED DOWN, HAVE A FULL UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT DATA IT ACTUALLY NEEDS TO OPERATE, AND THEN WORK AROUND THOSE PARAMETERS TO MAKE SURE IT STAYS SECURE.

AND I'M WELL, I'LL ANSWER ANY OTHER QUESTIONS.

THANK YOU, CHAIR. THANK YOU, TOM AND JASON, FOR BEING HERE AND FOR THAT PRESENTATION. AND WE'VE HAD CONVERSATIONS PRIOR, SO YOU'VE ASSURED ME OF WHAT THIS IS AND WHAT IT WON'T BE.

AND SOME OF THE THINGS IS THIS, THIS PARTICULAR MEASURE TODAY IS A RESOLUTION ONLY. THIS IS NOT THE ACTUAL POLICY ON HOW THIS WILL BE IMPLEMENTED. CAN YOU, CAN YOU SPEAK TO THAT? THAT'S CORRECT. THIS IS A RESOLUTION. THE POLICY ITSELF IS FORTHCOMING, AND WE'RE WORKING ON THE POLICY,

[01:50:01]

AND IT HAS PARAMETERS IN THERE AS FAR AS GOVERNANCE.

HOW WOULD YOU USE THESE TOOLS? HOW WOULD IT STAY SECURE? WHAT ARE THE RESPONSIBILITIES FROM A DEPARTMENT PERSPECTIVE? THAT WOULD ALL BE IN THE POLICY, AND THE POLICY, LIKE I SAY, IS COMING.

OKAY, I APPRECIATE THAT.

AND AS WE'VE HAD CONVERSATIONS, WHAT IS OF GREATEST CONCERN TO ME IS OPENAI AND NOT PROGRAMS THAT WILL BE IMPLEMENTED AND TO INCREASE EFFICIENCY, BUT THEN THEY MAY OPEN US UP TO FOREIGN HACKERS AND THINGS LIKE THAT. AND SO, SO MAYBE YOU CAN TALK A LITTLE BIT TO THAT AND HOW, HOW YOU'RE GOING TO BUILD IN SAFE SAFEGUARDS TO KEEP THIS CONTAINED AND MAYBE PROGRAMS THAT WILL ADDRESS INDIVIDUAL NEEDS, BUT THEY WILL BE VETTED THOROUGHLY AND HOW THAT WHOLE PROCESS IS GOING TO WORK.

BECAUSE THAT'S, THAT'S OF GREAT CONCERN TO ME WITH IT, WITH AI, BECAUSE WITH AI, YOU KNOW, YOU CAN HAVE GREAT RESULTS OR YOU CAN HAVE HORRENDOUS RESULTS. AND IT, FROM WHAT YOU TOLD ME, THIS IS NOT AN OVERARCHING IMPLEMENTATION OF AI ACROSS THE ENTIRE COUNTY. THIS IS GOING TO BE MORE LIKE GEARED TOWARD SOLUTIONS AND PROBLEMS AND THINGS THAT DEPARTMENT HEADS THAT'S CORRECT. THE WAY WE LOOK AT THIS IS IT'S A SOFTWARE TOOL, RIGHT? SO WHAT IS THE PROBLEM YOU'RE TRYING TO SOLVE? IS THIS A TOOL TO HELP YOU SOLVE THAT PROBLEM? AND THE BIG CONCERN IN THAT, AND JASON WOULD TALK TO AS WELL, IS WHAT DATA DOES IT NEED TO BE BENEFICIAL? OFFICIAL, RIGHT? SO AI IS ALREADY EMBEDDED IN A LOT OF DIFFERENT TOOLS. IT'S ALREADY IN YOUR BROWSERS. IT'S ALREADY IN SOME SOFTWARE THAT WE ALREADY HAVE INTERNALLY, BUT IT'S CONTAINED BY THAT PARTICULAR SOFTWARE MANUFACTURER AND IT WORKS WITH THEIR SOFTWARE. UM, I DON'T SEE US OPENING AI ACROSS THE COUNTY AS A WHOLE TO JUST OPEN IT UP WITHOUT HAVING AN UNDERSTANDING OF HOW IT'S GOING TO BE USED AND WHAT DATA IT NEEDS. IT DEFINITELY NEEDS TO BE CONTAINERIZED ESPECIALLY IF YOU'RE TALKING HHSA OR THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE OR THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE.

AND CJIS DATA, HIPAA DATA, THAT ALL HAS TO BE CONTAINERIZED. THAT CAN'T BE, YOU KNOW, DATA LOSS PREVENTION. WE CAN'T HAVE THAT GOING OUT, RIGHT? SO, IT MAY REQUIRE THAT YOU ACTUALLY HAVE TO BUILD AN AI SYSTEM TO KEEP IT CONTAINERIZED DEPENDING ON HOW THEY WANT TO USE IT.

THAT'S A DISCUSSION THAT NEEDS TO TAKE PLACE. THAT'S THE VETTING WE NEED TO DO. TO MAKE SURE THAT WE KEEP THESE THINGS SECURE AND THAT WE DON'T PUT EXTRA RISK ON THE COUNTY FOR USING SOME OF THESE TOOLS.

AND THAT WOULD THAT WILL BE BUILT INTO YOUR POLICY.

THAT'S CORRECT.

THAT WILL BE FORTHCOMING.

AND SO BECAUSE I SEE ISSUES WHERE, LET'S SAY, AI IS USED ON SOMEONE'S LAPTOP, HHSA OR WHEREVER, WHATEVER DEPARTMENT, THERE COULD BE A LOT OF SENSITIVE INFORMATION THAT WOULD, WOULD HAVE UNFETTERED ACCESS AT THAT POINT THAT COULD BE COLLECTED. BUT IF THIS AI IS ALWAYS CONTAINED WITHIN THE COUNTY, IT AND THE FIREWALLS ARE BUILT SUFFICIENTLY, I'LL FEEL A LOT MORE COMFORTABLE WITH IT BECAUSE THERE THE POSSIBILITY OF SENSITIVE DATA ACCESS WHEN YOU'RE USING AN AI PROGRAM, UM, HOW ARE YOU GOING TO ADDRESS THAT AND WHETHER THAT SOFTWARE COULD COLLECT SENSITIVE DATA THAT'S INAPPROPRIATE, AND HOW ARE YOU GOING TO BLOCK THAT FROM EVER LEAVING THE COUNTY? THAT WILL COME DOWN TO THE INDIVIDUAL USE CASE AND WITH A DEPARTMENT AND WHAT THEY'RE TRYING TO DO.

IN MOST CASES, I WOULD SEE SOMETHING YOU JUST MENTIONED, THE WAY YOU TALKED ABOUT THAT, IS THAT'S GOING TO BE A SPECIFIC PLATFORM FOR THAT USE CASE. THAT'S GOING TO BE A CONTRACT WITH A VENDOR THAT PROVIDES THESE SERVICES, THAT BUILDS THAT SECURITY INTO THERE. THERE'S GOING TO BE PARAMETERS AND TERMS WITHIN THE AGREEMENT TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT STUFF IS SECURE AND STAYS SAFE.

IT THE COUNTY DOESN'T HAVE THE MONEY TO BUILD OUR OWN AI ENGINE. WE HAVE TO USE THE AI ENGINES THAT ARE OUT THERE, RIGHT? BUT THERE'S WAYS OF DOING IT TO STILL KEEP THE DATA SECURE AND CONTAINERIZED. AND JASON CAN TALK A LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT THAT. HE KNOWS MORE SPECIFICS ON THAT. BUT THAT THOSE PARAMETERS WOULD BE WITHIN THE AGREEMENTS WITH THAT PARTICULAR VENDOR, WHETHER IT BE, YOU KNOW, OPENAI, WHETHER IT BE GENESYS, WHETHER IT BE CLOUD, IT DEPENDS ON WHICH ONE IS THE RIGHT ONE FOR THE SOLUTION THAT THE DEPARTMENT'S LOOKING AT AND HOW THEY WANT TO DO THEIR BUSINESS.

OKAY, THANK YOU.

ALL RIGHT, SUPERVISOR CRYE.

ALL RIGHT, UH, OOPS. UH, THANK YOU, UH, DIRECTOR SCHREIBER.

WHEN IT COMES TO ALL THE DIFFERENT PLATFORMS, AND YOU'VE BEEN IN THIS ROLE HOW MANY YEARS? IN IT GENERALLY? NO, NO, AS THE DEPARTMENT HEAD.

13 YEARS AS DEPARTMENT HEAD, 23 IN THE DEPARTMENT.

23.

SO LIKE, YOU KNOW, AND I BY AND LARGE SUPPORT THIS.

SOME OF THE QUESTIONS I'VE HAD WITH YOU THOUGH IS, AS WE GO DOWN THIS, I MEAN, ARE WE GOING TO START COMING TO YOU WITH LIKE ASKING YOU TO USE EASYWORK, YOU KNOW, EXTREME 6.0? ARE WE GOING

[01:55:02]

TO START ASKING YOU TO CHECK INTO NOVA? ARE WE GOING TO START ASKING YOU TO LOOK INTO CURSOR AND ELON MUSK, YOU KNOW, PAYING $60 BILLION FOR THAT. LIKE, HOW MUCH ARE WE GOING TO GO DOWN THAT ROAD IN THIS? AND THAT'S WHAT I'M CURIOUS ABOUT, THE POLICY.

YOU'VE LED THIS DEPARTMENT FROM A NATIONALLY RECOGNIZED LEVEL.

I CAN'T I MEAN, YOU'RE NOT ELECTED, SO I'M NOT GOING TO SAY YOU'RE MY FAVORITE BECAUSE THAT WOULD BE NO DE SHORT.

BUT I THINK YOU ARE ONE OF THE MOST INTELLIGENT AND RESPONSIVE PEOPLE WE HAVE IN THE AMOUNT OF IMPORTANCE OF WHAT YOU OVERSEE.

LIKE WE HAD THE BLUE SCREEN OF DEATH ACROSS THE COUNTY.

WHEN WAS THAT, CEO RICKERT? CROWDSTRIKE.

I'LL DEFER TO TOM ON THAT ONE.

THAT WAS 23, 24 AREA. IT'S THE CROWDSTRIKE ISSUE WITH MICROSOFT.

YEAH, BUT I REMEMBER I SEEN YOU DOWNTOWN AT LIKE, YOU KNOW, IN THE MORNING. YOU'D ALREADY BEEN UP AND I WAS LEAVING THE GYM AND IT'S JUST YOU'RE CRUSHING IT. SO HERE'S MY QUESTION ABOUT THIS. AS YOU THIS IS MORE TOWARDS WORKING TOWARDS THE POLICY AND HOW MUCH THAT'S BEING CRAFTED. I HAVE A HARD TIME WITH SOME OF THE LANGUAGE OF, YOU KNOW, THE COUNTY SHALL, BECAUSE THAT FEELS MORE LIKE A DIRECTIVE. THIS IS A RESOLUTION AND I GET IT. AND IF THE WHOLE PURPOSE OF THIS IS TO START WORKING TOWARDS POLICY, I WANT TO MAKE SURE IT'S VERY PUBLIC.

THAT I HOPE YOU'RE THE ONE THROUGH THE EFFORTS OF OUR CEO, BECAUSE THAT'S THE CHAIN OF COMMAND WHO'S DRIVING THAT POLICY, AND THAT YOU'RE GOING TO BE STEADFAST IN MAKING SURE WHAT WE DO AT THE COUNTY AND AGAIN, I AGREE WITH SUPERVISOR PLUMMER, WHOEVER WROTE THIS, OR IF IT'S STUART BUTEL THAT HELPED BUT THE FISCAL SUSTAINABILITY PART, BECAUSE AI IS PHENOMENAL, BUT THE BEST COMPANIES THAT UTILIZE IT WELL HAVE EXTREMELY HIGH-PAID PEOPLE THAT ARE DOING THAT. AND IF WE'RE GOING TO TRY AND PUSH THIS ON HHSA OR SUPPORT SERVICES OR ANY OTHER DEPARTMENT AND IT BECOMES A SHALL OR A WILL OR, YOU KNOW, A MUST AND THE WORD MUST DOES SHOW UP IN SAFEGUARDS AND ETHICS, WHICH I AGREE WITH THAT.

BUT I WANT TO I REALLY WANT TO JUST MAKE SURE THIS ISN'T GETTING PUSHED OUT WHERE IT'S NOT GOING TO BE DONE IN A SUSTAINABLE OR AFFORDABLE WAY AS FAR AS THE RESOLUTION, I DON'T BELIEVE THAT'S THE CASE.

I THINK FROM THE POLICY PERSPECTIVE, RIGHT, I'M WORKING WITH THE CIO'S OFFICE ON THE POLICY. AND ALL DISCLOSURE IS I DON'T WRITE THE POLICY MYSELF. I STOLE THE POLICY FROM PLACER COUNTY.

THEY HAVE A FULL-BLOWN AI POLICY THAT WE'RE VETTING AND USING AS OUR TEMPLATE, RIGHT? AND IT'S WRITTEN BY THEIR CIO'S OFFICE AND THEIR IT DEPARTMENT.

AND I KNOW THAT IT CIO PRETTY WELL. SO HE'S GOT A LOT OF CHECKS AND RESPONSES. SO I TRUST WHAT HE'S DOING THERE.

AND SO WE'RE VETTING THAT AND GOING THROUGH THAT AND MODIFYING THAT TO FIT OUR ENVIRONMENT.

YEAH, NO, I THINK I, I APPRECIATE THAT. YEAH, AND THANK YOU, SUPERVISOR PLUMMER, FOR BRINGING IT, BRINGING IT FORWARD.

SUPERVISOR HARMON, NOT MY DEPARTMENT, BUT I JUST, I, I THINK I HEARD YOU SAY AT SOME POINT WE'RE GONNA BE SOMEWHAT DEPENDENT DEPENDENT ON AI TO MONITOR AI, TO OVERSEE AI. I READ THAT I READ THAT IN THE LAST THING ON HERE SAYS HUMAN OVERSIGHT.

THAT'S IMPORTANT.

BUT IT IS KIND OF IT IS SCARY BECAUSE YOU DON'T WANT TO BE THE FIRST ONE TO PUSH YOUR SOLDIERS OUT THERE IN THE FRONT LINE AND LET THEM GET SHOT, RIGHT? OKAY, SO AI AS A SOFTWARE TOOL IS LIKE ANY OTHER SOFTWARE IT'S RELIANT ON THE DATA BEHIND THE SCENES. IF YOUR DATA BEHIND THE SCENES IS NO GOOD, YOUR AI RESPONSES AND YOUR INFORMATION IS GOING TO BE NO GOOD. IT'S ALWAYS GOING TO TAKE THE HUMAN TO VET THAT INFORMATION. I'M NOT A PROPONENT OF DOING ANYTHING ON THE FRINGE OR THE BLEEDING EDGE WHEN IT COMES TO TECHNOLOGY.

YOU CAN JUST TALK TO ANYBODY IN THE DEPARTMENT. I'M NOT. SO I'M RIGHT HERE WITH THAT AS WELL. I'M NOT WILLING TO JUST JUMP OUT INTO AI WITHOUT HAVING A FULL FULL UNDERSTANDING OF ITS FUNCTION, HOW WE CAN SECURE IT, AND WHAT CAN BE DONE, BUT IT'S ALWAYS GONNA TAKE THAT HUMAN INTERACTION, RIGHT? YOU CAN USE AI TO CREATE A LETTER OR TO BE ABLE TO SUMMARIZE YOUR EMAIL, THAT'S ALL GREAT, BUT IF YOU'RE GONNA PROVIDE THAT DATA SOMEWHERE ELSE, YOU BETTER MAKE SURE IT'S ACCURATE.

I CAN TELL BY HIS REACTION THAT, AND I AGREE WITH YOU AND HIM, THANK YOU.

THAT'S HIS COLONEL, MAN, THAT'S HIS WINGMAN.

SO THE ONLY QUESTION, I ASKED YOU EARLIER IN THE AUDIENCE, SO I MAY AS WELL ASK YOU IN PUBLIC NOW, BUT I MEAN, I, SO I'VE RECEIVED A FEW EMAILS THAT WERE LIKE NEGATIVE. WE DON'T WANT ANY AI, YOU KNOW. AND, BUT THEN THERE'S ALSO A LOT OF CHATTER OUT THERE ABOUT DATA CENTERS. AND I KNOW THERE'S SOME EMAILS THAT WENT THROUGH LIKE, OH, WE'RE GOING TO DO AN AI DATA CENTER. IT'S GOING TO DRAIN ALL THE WATER IN CHASSOLAY AND USE ALL THE POWER. AND SO I WANTED TO CONFIRM, I MEAN, THERE'S, WE DON'T, THIS IS NOT ANYTHING TO DO WITH AN AI DATA CENTER OR WE'RE NOT USING A WHOLE TON OF WATER DOWN IN OUR BASEMENT. COVERING THE AI.

OKAY, SO NO, COUNTY IS NOT BUILDING THEIR OWN AI DATA CENTER, RIGHT? OKAY, I JUST WANT TO GET THAT OUT THERE BECAUSE THERE IS SOME CHATTER OUT THERE AND SOME

[02:00:01]

PEOPLE THAT ARE WORRIED ABOUT THAT.

THANK YOU, CHAIR. UM, FOLLOW-UP QUESTION, TOM. YOU MENTIONED PLACER COUNTY AS ADOPTING THEIR MODEL TO KIND OF WORK WITH YEAH, LOOKING AT THEIR POLICY, ADAPTING IT TO OUR ENVIRONMENT.

AND, AND WHAT WILL THIS INVOLVE WHEN YOU WHEN YOU DEVELOP OUR POLICY? ARE YOU GOING TO THAT LOOK, THAT DEEP DIVE? PLACER COUNTY MAY HAVE A WHOLE LITANY OF HORROR WAR STORIES, AND WE WOULDN'T WANT TO DO THAT. AND YET THEY MAY HAVE SOME SUCCESSES AS WELL.

SO I SO JUST FROM AN FROM THE OTHER COUNTY PERSPECTIVE, RIGHT? SO SO, WE'RE MEMBERS OF THE CSDA ORGANIZATION, WHICH IS BASICALLY ALL THE IT DEPARTMENTS FOR ALL 58 COUNTIES, RIGHT? AND AI HAS BEEN A TOPIC WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT FOR THE LAST 5 YEARS.

IT'S BEEN SOMETHING THAT WE'VE CONSTANTLY, AS A COMMUNITY, TALKED ABOUT. SO, WHEN PLACER COUNTY, OR SANTA CRUZ COUNTY, OR NAPA COUNTY PUT OUT POLICIES AROUND A SPECIFIC THING, LIKE TECHNOLOGY, WE ALL LOOK AT EACH OTHER AND WORK WITH EACH OTHER TO MAKE SURE WHETHER OR NOT IT WORKS FOR ALL OF US. SO A LOT OF OUR SECURITY POLICIES THAT WE HAVE WERE BUILT THROUGH THE CISA ORGANIZATION, AND THAT'S WHAT WE'VE ADOPTED.

WE HAVE SOME UPDATES COMING FOR SECURITY POLICIES AS WELL.

THAT'S ALL GONE THROUGH MULTIPLE RENDITIONS THROUGH THE CISA ORGANIZATION, SO IT WORKS FOR COUNTIES OF OUR SIZE. THAT'S WHY WE ADAPT THOSE POLICIES TO MEET OUR ENVIRONMENT. SO THERE'S, THERE'S SOME THINGS THAT PLACER DOES, AND THEY HAVE MONEY TO DO THAT WE DON'T, AND THOSE ARE THE THINGS THAT WE'LL REMOVE FROM THAT POLICY. WE'RE NOT GOING TO SAY WE'RE GOING TO DO SOMETHING WE CAN'T.

RIGHT.

RIGHT. SO, BUT WE ALSO WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE SAYING THAT THERE'S GOT TO BE SOME GOVERNANCE HERE.

RIGHT. WE CAN'T JUST LET PEOPLE RUN AMOK WITH AI TOOLS.

SO, SO GOING FORWARD, THEN WHEN YOU DEVELOP THIS POLICY, YOU WILL HAVE ONGOING CONVERSATIONS WITH BASICALLY THE FORUM THAT CONNECTS TO ALL 58 COUNTIES.

ABSOLUTELY.

AND TRYING TO TWEAK THIS AND GET IT TO SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE CONTROLLABLE, SECURE, WORKABLE FOR OUR COUNTY.

BUT THAT'S THE GOAL.

THANK YOU, SUPERVISOR LONG.

OKAY, THANKS.

UH, MS. BLANKENSHIP, DO WE HAVE ANY PUBLIC COMMENT ON THIS ITEM? WE DO, CHAIR. WE HAVE 3 SPEAKERS: STEVE KAHN, CHESTER COUNTY WATCHDOG, AND ROBERT.

IF I CALLED YOUR NAME, PLEASE GET IN QUEUE.

WATER. THE IMPORTANCE AND EFFECTIVE UTILIZATION AND PROPER IMPLEMENTATION OF AI HERE IN SHASTA COUNTY CANNOT BE UNDERSTATED. FOR SHASTA COUNTY, IT CAN BE A HUGE BENEFIT BY INCREASING OUR PRODUCTIVITY.

FORTUNATELY, WE DO HAVE SOME VERY SKILLED PEOPLE HERE, UH, WHICH WILL HELP THAT HAPPEN.

AND I THINK ONE OF THE REASONS WHY PLACER COUNTY WAS USED IS THAT THEY ARE A WEALTHY COUNTY AND TECHNOLOGICALLY ADVANCED. I ACTUALLY HAD A, A BROTHER-IN-LAW THAT WORKED IN COMPUTERS FOR PLACER, SO I CAN SEE WHERE THEY PROBABLY HAVE SPENT MORE MONEY DEVELOPING AND WORKING ON THIS SITUATION THAN A LOT OF COUNTIES COULD AFFORD TO DO. UM, I THINK WE HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY HERE, FIRST OF ALL, TO MAKE THE COUNTY MORE EFFICIENT AND, AND DO SOME OF THE WORK THAT WE'RE HAVING A HARD TIME GETTING DONE BECAUSE OF A SHORTAGE OF PEOPLE. UM, I THINK WE CAN DO IT MORE EFFECTIVELY. AND ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I MAY HAVE BEEN SKIPPED OVER HERE IS THAT THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT TAKING LITTLE TOOLS, AI TOOLS, TO PERFORM SPECIFIC TASKS.

THAT TAKES AWAY THE BIG FEAR OF THIS THING TAKING OVER THE COUNTY AND DOING ALL THAT. I THINK THAT, YOU KNOW, WE'RE JUST LOOKING AT USING TOOLS, DIFFERENT TOOLS, AND KEEPING THEM VERY LIMITED IN THEIR ABILITY TO IMPACT ANYTHING OTHER THAN THAT. I ALSO THINK WE HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY HERE TO EDUCATE OUR CURRENT WORKFORCE IN TRANSITION TO MORE AI LIKE JOBS AND ALSO THE YOUNG. I'D LIKE TO SEE OUR YOUNG GET INVOLVED IN ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND THE ABILITY TO USE IT. I THINK WE COULD STAND OUT IN THAT. I THINK WE HAVE A LOT OF ROOM TO GROW IN THAT WE HAVE, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE PEOPLE HERE THAT ARE REALLY LOOKING TO GET INTO NEW AREAS. AND I THINK WE COULD TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THAT.

ALSO, KJELLSTROM BRINGING UP THE POINT THAT THESE PEOPLE ARE AFRAID OF THE LAKE GOING DOWN AND THE DATA CENTERS AND ALL THAT GOOD STUFF. THERE'S A HUGE AMOUNT OF MISINFORMATION OUT THERE. THIS IS SIMPLY ANOTHER TOOL. AND BUT USING THAT TOOL APPROPRIATELY IS VERY IMPORTANT. AND I THINK WE HAVE THE SKILLED PEOPLE TO DO THAT. ANOTHER ANYWAY, I WORRY ABOUT PEOPLE IN

[02:05:05]

CHINA.

80-PLUS PERCENT OF THE PEOPLE BELIEVE IN AI AND MOVING FORWARD IN AI. IN THE UNITED STATES, IT'S 30-SOMETHING PERCENT. WE NEED TO GET BEHIND THIS AS A COUNTY AND REALLY TAKE ADVANTAGE OF IT. UH, THERE, THERE'S NO HUGE BOOGEYMAN THERE. IT JUST NEEDS TO BE IMPLEMENTED PROPERLY.

AND I'D LOVE TO SEE SHASTA COUNTY REALLY MOVE IN THAT DIRECTION, ESPECIALLY EDUCATING OUR YOUNG AND SECURING THEM GOOD OPPORTUNITIES DOWN THE ROAD.

NEXT UP, CHESAPEAKE WATCHDOG, FOLLOWED BY ROBERT.

IF I CALLED YOUR NAME, THANK YOU.

I THINK THIS PROGRAM IS PRETTY, PRETTY GOOD. I THINK IT'S, UM, VERY INTERESTING THAT PEOPLE ARE PUSHING THIS, AND I DO LIKE IT, BUT I DO SEE A PROBLEM. WHEN WE READ WHEN, LIKE, MR. PLUMMER, LIKE, YOU'RE PUSHING THIS FOR PEOPLE TO BE ENGAGING IN AI, I FIND IT VERY DISTURBING BECAUSE YOU, AS A PERSON WHO BELIEVES, OR YOU'RE FROM BETHEL AND YOU BELIEVE IN GOD, I THINK, MAYBE I'M WRONG, BUT WHEN YOU PUSH THIS, YOU'RE PUSHING THE BEAST. YOU KNOW THE BEAST, RIGHT? YOU KNOW WHAT BEAST I'M TALKING ABOUT? REVELATION. IT TALKS ABOUT THE REVELATION THAT WHERE YOU ARE NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO BUY. I THINK IT'S REVELATION WHERE YOU'RE NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO BUY AND SELL. THIS IS PART OF THE BEAST, AI. YOU KNOW THAT. AND FOR YOU AS A PERSON WHO BELIEVES OR GOES TO CHURCH, LIKE I SAID, ANYBODY WHO BELIEVES IN GOD DOESN'T PUSH THE BEAST, AND YOU'RE PUSHING THE BEAST.

AND WHEN THE BEAST TAKES OVER, PRETTY SOON WE RELY ON THE BEAST, MEANS IT TAKES OVER REGARDING PEOPLE'S JOBS AND IT TAKES OVER PEOPLE'S POSITIONS, AND PRETTY SOON THEY RELY ON IT, THEY CAN'T DO WITHOUT.

THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT IT SAYS HERE, OKAY? YOU WEREN'T ABLE TO BUY AND SELL, YOU RELY ON IT. SO LIKE I SAID, UM, I, I'M I LIKE THE PROGRAM, BUT WHEN YOU, WHEN YOU START PUSHING IT AND START PAYING FOR SOMETHING, YOU'RE PUSHING THE BEAST.

THAT'S WHERE I HAVE A PROBLEM, BECAUSE I WILL NOT I'M NOT THE TYPE OF PERSON WHO'S GOING TO STAND HERE AND SAY, OH YEAH, GO AHEAD, DO SOME THIS IS GREAT, LET'S GET OUR KIDS, LET'S GET THEM ALL TO BE EDUCATED IN AI. YOU'RE PUSHING THE BEAST. YOU'RE TEACHING THEM IT'S OKAY WHEN YOU KNOW IF YOU KNOW THE WORD IT SAYS IT HERE. YOU WOULDN'T BE PUSHING IT. KEVIN CRYE IS HAVING A HARD TIME BECAUSE HE CAN'T STAND ME HEARING TALKING ABOUT GOD, AND HE CLAIMS TO BE A GODLY PERSON.

BUT YOU KNOW WHAT, THAT'S OKAY. HE'S GOT WHAT HE GOT COMING TO HIM. BUT I, I DON'T BELIEVE IN PAYING FOR THINGS LIKE THIS. YOU'RE CREATING A PROBLEM. YOU WILL BE CREATING, UH, WHERE IT TAKES OVER. PRETTY SOON WE'RE GOING TO BE PAYING HIGHER, HIGHER, AND WE'RE GOING TO KEEP ON PAYING MORE MONEY, MORE MONEY TO MAINTAIN IT, BECAUSE AI WILL BE THE BEAST.

IT'S GOING TO TAKE OVER. SO TO MAINTAIN, IT'S GOING TO COST MONEY, AND IT'S GOING TO TAKE OVER PEOPLE'S JOBS.

IT'S GOING TO DESTROY PEOPLE.

I'M TELLING YOU RIGHT NOW, AND YOU KNOW THAT. I READ IT. I READ THE BIBLE, AND I BELIEVE IN GOD.

BUT I'M TELLING YOU RIGHT NOW, I, I, I CAN'T BELIEVE THAT'S COMING FROM YOU, MR. PLUMMER.

NEXT UP, ROBERT.

JUST A NOTE OF CAUTION HERE, UM, MOST OF THE CODE IS WRITTEN IN CHINA AND IT'S BEEN SHOWN TO, UH, TO HAVE A SIGNIFICANT THREAT ON AMERICANS. SO, YOU KNOW, THE FACT THAT I'M BEING TOLD THAT THERE'S NOTHING TO WORRY ABOUT, YOU KNOW, DATA CENTERS WON'T BE COMING DATA CENTERS WILL COME. AND THERE'S NOTHING THAT, YOU KNOW, ANYONE HERE CAN SAY THAT SAID THAT.

ALL I'M TRYING TO DO IS TRYING TO ARREST THE PROCESS AND SLOW IT DOWN BECAUSE ALL OF THE, THE MAJOR PLAYERS SAY WE HAVE TO SLOW DOWN. ANTHROPIC SAYS THAT WE HAVE TO SLOW DOWN BECAUSE THERE'S GOING TO COME A TIME SHORTLY WHEN HUMAN INTERVENTION WILL NOT BE NECESSARY. AND IN FACT, AI WILL TAKE OVER WHAT WE TYPICALLY HAVE DONE WITHOUT OUR KNOWLEDGE OR CONSENT. SO, YOU KNOW, IT'S GREAT, YOU KNOW, TO USE AI INCIDENTALLY AND WITH THINGS WE NEED TO IS, BUT I'M TELLING YOU, IT'S A JOB DESTROYER. IT'S

[02:10:01]

INVASIVE AND INTRUSIVE, AND IT'S ALSO, YOU KNOW, THAT WITH THE DATA CENTERS COME ALL THE PROBLEMS THAT ENTAILS. SO I'M JUST IT'S JUST A NOTE OF CAUTION. YOU GUYS ARE GOING TO DO WHAT YOU'RE GOING TO DO, BUT PLEASE, YOU KNOW, THINK ABOUT SLOWING THE PROGRESSION DOWN AND FOCUSING ON THINGS THAT WE NEED TO FOCUS ON HERE, LIKE PUBLIC SAFETY. THANKS.

THAT WAS OUR LAST SPEAKER, CHAIR.

OKAY, I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION.

I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO ADOPT THIS RESOLUTION.

I WOULD SURE, I WOULD SECOND IT.

THERE'S ONE THING I WOULD ASK IF WE WOULD TURN YOUR MICROPHONE ON.

I TURNED IT ON FOR HIM.

TURN IT OFF. I HAD IT ON.

I WOULD I WILL SECOND.

YOU JUST TURNED IT OFF. I DIDN'T TOUCH IT.

SOMEONE'S TOUCHING MY MIC.

THE YOU TOUCHED MY DRUM SET.

ANYWAY, THE ON NUMBER 2, IT SAYS THE COUNTY WILL PRIORITIZE AI APPLICATION. I KNOW I KNOW IT'S A RESOLUTION, BUT AS IT GOES TO POLICY, CAN WE REWORD THAT TO SAY SOMETHING, UH, THE COUNTY WILL LOOK TO PRIORITIZE? BECAUSE I DON'T WANT TO BOX ANY DEPARTMENT OR ANY THOUGHT OF, UH, SUPPORT SERVICES ABOUT PRIORITIZING THAT IF THEY DON'T HAVE THE MANPOWER TO DO THAT.

BECAUSE IF WE'RE TELLING THEM WE WANT YOU TO PRIORITIZE THIS, BUT THEY DON'T HAVE THE, UH, TRAINED INDIVIDUAL TO DO THAT, THAT'S ACTUALLY GOING TO TAKE A LOT MORE TIME. AND I DON'T WANT ANY DEPARTMENT WANT SPENDING MONEY ON GETTING SOMEBODY EQUIPPED TO PRIORITIZE AI APPLICATIONS.

AND I AGREE WITH THAT SENTIMENT, BUT IT'LL HAVE TO BE BROUGHT BACK THEN, I BELIEVE, WOULD IT NOT, IF WE REWORD IT NOW? WELL, IT DOESN'T THERE'S NO TIMETABLE ON IT. IT COULD JUST BE A CONSENT CALENDAR.

I'M FINE WITH THAT.

YOU CAN MAKE THE RECOMMENDED CHANGES AND ADOPT IT AS YOU HAVE STATED HERE TODAY.

OKAY. YEAH, BECAUSE I DON'T LIKE I THINK, JUST TO CLARIFY, I THINK, AND I CAN SEE HOW THAT WOULD BE, A LITTLE AMBIGUOUS, BUT THE IDEA THERE WAS NOT THAT THEY WILL PRIORITIZE AI APPLICATIONS OVER OTHER THINGS, BUT THAT OF THE AI APPLICATIONS, THEY'LL PRIORITIZE THE ONES THAT ASSIST UNDERSTAFFED DEPARTMENTS.

I'M JUST READING EXACTLY WHAT IT SAYS. IT'S JUST YEAH.

AND I DON'T LIKE TO MICROMANAGE AND DIRECT STAFF, AND I DON'T LIKE THE YEAH.

YES, SIR.

WHERE EXACTLY ARE YOU REFERRING NUMBER 2.

NUMBER 2.

ORIGINALLY, I CAME IN WITH A LOT OF CHANGES, BUT I WANT TO BE SUPPORTIVE OF YOUR WORK. AND I DON'T DISAGREE, ESPECIALLY HAVING DIRECTOR CHIEF SCHREIBER HERE.

AND THEN, YOU KNOW, HAVING A COUPLE DIFFERENT CONVERSATIONS WITH HIM. THAT'S JUST THE ONE THING I THOUGHT, YOU KNOW, IF WE COULD JUST CHANGE THAT, BECAUSE I THINK THAT'S I THINK THERE'S THAT'S AN IMPORTANT DISTINCTION. AND IT ALSO, I THINK, WILL HELP DRIVE POLICY ABOUT WHAT THE BOARD'S ROLE IS IN THIS.

IS THAT A NEW MOTION, OR WOULD YOU NO, IT'S WOULD YOU CONSIDER WORDING THEN, UM, WE'LL CONSIDER INSTEAD OF PRIORITIZE? WOULD THAT WORK? YEAH, YEAH.

AND I WAS I WAS GOING TO LEAVE IT TO SUPERVISOR PLUMMER IF HE WANTED TO I MEAN, IF HE AGREED TO THAT. I MEAN, I COULD HEAR, LIKE, WHAT HE SAYS. IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE, YOU KNOW, WE'LL CONSIDER PRIORITIZING OR WILL, YOU KNOW, CONSIDER AS CONDITIONAL.

IT IS.

I DON'T WANT TO TAKE IT AWAY FROM THEM. I'M JUST SAYING I DON'T LIKE THAT LANGUAGE.

SO.

YEAH, I'M HAPPY TO CHANGE IT TO CONSIDER. AND AGAIN, THE INTENT OF THAT WAS NOT TO SAY THAT COUNTY DEPARTMENTS WILL PRIORITIZE AI APPLICATIONS. IT WAS TO SAY, BECAUSE THE, WITH THE TITLE THERE, THE SUPPORT FOR THE WORKFORCE, THAT OF ALL AI APPLICATIONS THAT ARE POSSIBLE, THEY'LL PRIORITIZE THE ONES THAT ASSIST UNDERSTAFFED DEPARTMENTS DEPARTMENT. SO THAT WAS KIND OF THE COMPLETE CLAUSE THERE.

BUT I'M HAPPY TO AND TECHNICALLY EVERY DEPARTMENT, THE 28 OR WHATEVER WE HAVE, PROBABLY ARE UNDERSTAFFED IN TERMS OF ONE PERSON. SO I DON'T WANT ANY AMBIGUITY THERE WHERE NOBODY FEELS THAT THEY HAVE TO GO OUT AND HAVE SOMEBODY DO THAT BECAUSE YEAH, IT'S PERFECT.

YEAH, I'LL AMEND MY MOTION TO APPROVE IT WITH THE CHANGE ON POINT 2 THERE. THAT'S KIND OF A CHANGE. THE COUNTY WILL CONSIDER AI APPLICATIONS AT JUST UNDERSTAND.

I SECOND IT.

ALL RIGHT. SO I AGREE WITH THAT ALSO. SO EVERYBODY UNDERSTAND THE MOTION? ALL RIGHT. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR?

[R5 Take the following actions: (1) Receive an update from the Clerk of the Board regarding implementation of Senate Bill 707 and associated system and staffing limitations; (2) direct staff to return with amendments to public comment rules outlined in Administrative Policy 1-101, Operation and Conduct of Business Before the Board of Supervisors, to: (a) remove the limitation for each speaker to speak to a maximum of four items; (b) increase the maximum public comment time for Public Comment Period – Open Time to 30 minutes; and (c) delegate authority to the Chair to adjust the time for all speakers on an item and the total time allotted for public comment for an item; and (3) suspend Rule 7.6.3 which requires that speakers be taken on a first come first serve basis until such a time as staff notify that this can be accomplished under the system associated with Senate Bill 707 (Sponsored by Supervisors Kelstrom).]

AYE.

ANY OPPOSED? PASSES 5-0.

MOTION WAS MADE BY SUPERVISOR PLUMMER, SECONDED BY SUPERVISOR KRY. ALL RIGHT.

MOVING ON TO R5. I'M NOT GOING TO TAKE THE FOLLOWING ACTIONS.

THIS IS QUITE A LONG ONE. SO THIS IS ABOUT SENATE BILL 707 AND THE CHANGES WE HAVE TO DO WITH OUR PUBLIC COMMENT TIME.

SO YES, I'LL TAKE THAT ONE.

YES, YOU'LL TAKE THAT ONE.

THANK YOU, MISS BLANKENSHIP.

GOOD AFTERNOON, CHAIR, MEMBERS OF THE BOARD.

STEPHANIE BLANKENSHIP, CHIEF DEPUTY CLERK OF THE BOARD. I'M BEFORE YOU TODAY TO REQUEST AMENDMENTS TO PUBLIC COMMENT RULES AS OUTLINED IN ADMINISTRATIVE POLICY 1-101.

[02:15:01]

IN FEBRUARY, THIS BOARD APPROVED AN AGREEMENT WITH PUBLIC INPUT TO ASSIST THE COUNTY IN IMPLEMENTING VIRTUAL PUBLIC COMMENT REQUIREMENTS RESULTING FROM RECENT LEGISLATIVE CHANGES.

AT THAT SAME MEETING, THE BOARD ADOPTED AMENDMENTS TO ADMINISTRATIVE POLICY 1-101 TO, AMONG OTHER THINGS, ESTABLISH PROCEDURES GOVERNING PUBLIC COMMENT, INCLUDING A 4-ITEM LIMIT PER SPEAKER, A 20-MINUTE OVERALL PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD FOR EACH REGULAR CALENDAR ITEM, AS WELL AS FOR PUBLIC COMMENT OPEN TIME.

SINCE FEBRUARY, STAFF HAVE WORKED EXTENSIVELY WITH THE VENDOR TO DEVELOP, TEST, AND IMPLEMENT THE NEW PUBLIC COMMENT PLATFORM.

THROUGH THAT PROCESS, PROCESS, STAFF IDENTIFIED SEVERAL TECHNICAL AND OPERATIONAL CHALLENGES THAT MAKE PORTIONS OF THE CURRENT POLICY DIFFICULT TO ADMINISTER EFFECTIVELY.

FIRST, I'M REQUESTING THE REMOVAL OF THE 4-ITEM LIMIT PER SPEAKER. WHILE THIS RULE WAS INTENDED TO BALANCE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AND MEETING EFFICIENCY, AT THIS TIME THE PLATFORM DOES NOT PROVIDE A RELIABLE METHOD FOR TRACKING OR ENFORCING THE ITEM LIMIT ACROSS MULTIPLE REGISTRATIONS.

WITHOUT THE SYSTEM'S ABILITY TO LIMIT THE THIS, STAFF WOULD BE UNABLE TO ENFORCE SUCH TRACKING THROUGHOUT THE MEETING AS STAFF MAY NOT PERSONALLY KNOW OR RECOGNIZE ALL PARTICIPANTS. ASIDE FROM THE FACT THAT MANUAL TRACKING INCREASES THE LIKELIHOOD OF ERRORS, INCONSISTENT ENFORCEMENT, AND LARGE DELAYS DURING BOARD MEETINGS, STAFF WOULD BE UNABLE TO MONITOR REGISTRATIONS AND SPEAKING HISTORY IN REAL TIME WHILE SIMULTANEOUSLY MANAGING MEETING OPERATIONS. THE VENDOR HAS ACKNOWLEDGED THESE CHALLENGES AND IS ACTIVELY EVALUATING FUTURE SYSTEM ENHANCEMENTS THAT WOULD ALLOW ITEM LIMITS TO BE TRACKED AND ENFORCED ELECTRONICALLY SHOULD THE BOARD DESIRE IN THE FUTURE TO CONSIDER SUCH A FEATURE.

IN COORDINATION WITH BOTH CHAIR KJELLSTR M AND BASED ON PUBLIC FEEDBACK, I'M ALSO REQUESTING THE BOARD CONSIDER INCREASING THE OVERALL PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD FOR PUBLIC COMMENT OPEN TIME FROM 20 MINUTES TO 30 MINUTES.

ALL OTHER REGULAR CALENDAR ITEMS WOULD STILL BE LIMITED TO 20 MINUTES. ADDITIONALLY, IT WOULD BE PREFERRED TO ALSO ALLOW THE LAST SPEAKER THEIR FULL 2 MINUTES.

SO LONG AS THEIR TIME STARTS BEFORE THE RUNNING CLOCK IS UP.

BASED ON TESTING AND ANTICIPATED PARTICIPATION LEVELS, THESE CHANGES WOULD BETTER ACCOMMODATE SPEAKERS WHILE STILL MAINTAINING EFFICIENT MEETING OPERATIONS.

FINALLY, I'M RECOMMENDING SUSPENDING THE CURRENT FIRST-COME, FIRST-SERVED RULE AND INSTEAD IMPLEMENTING A STRUCTURED ALLOCATION OF PUBLIC COMMENT TIME BETWEEN IN-PERSON AND TELEPHONIC PARTICIPANTS.

UNDER THE PROPOSED PROCESS, THE FIRST HALF OF PUBLIC COMMENT WOULD BE RESERVED FOR IN-PERSON SPEAKERS, AND THE SECOND HALF WOULD BE FOR TELEPHONIC PARTICIPANTS, WITH ANY UNUSED TIME IN EITHER CATEGORY BEING MADE AVAILABLE TO THE OTHER. WITHOUT THE SYSTEM HAVING THE ABILITY TO COMBINE IN-PERSON AND TELEPHONIC SPEAKERS INTO A SINGLE MASTER LIST TO BE FILTERED BY FIRST-COME, FIRST-SERVED, THIS APPROACH IS NOT PRACTICAL. I'VE SUBMITTED THIS AS A FEATURE REQUEST TO THE VENDOR, AND BASED ON THEIR FEEDBACK, I AM OPTIMISTIC THAT IT WILL BE IT WILL BE AVAILABLE AVAILABLE IN THE NEAR FUTURE. AS SUCH, I RECOMMEND ORGANIZING SPEAKERS BY PARTICIPATION METHOD, RECOGNIZING IN-PERSON SPEAKERS FIRST IN ORDER THAT THEY ARE RECEIVED, FOLLOWED BY TELEPHONIC SPEAKERS DURING THE SECOND HALF OF PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD, ALSO IN THE ORDER THAT THEY ARE RECEIVED. THAT SAID, EVEN IF AND WHEN THE FEATURE IS MADE AVAILABLE AND IMPLEMENTED, MY EXPERIENCE TESTING THE SYSTEM AND OBSERVING ITS FUNCTIONALITY SUGGESTS SUGGEST THAT THE AMEND THE AMENDMENTS PROPOSED TODAY MAY WARRANT CONSIDERATION AS A PERMANENT RULE CHANGE RATHER THAN A TEMPORARY ONE.

ALTERNATING BETWEEN IN-PERSON AND TELEPHONIC SPEAKERS REQUIRES ADDITIONAL TIME AND ADMINISTRATIVE COORDINATION, WHEREAS GROUPING SPEAKERS BY PARTICIPATION METHOD WOULD CREATE A MORE EFFICIENT AND STREAMLINED PUBLIC COMMENT PROCESS. STAFF DID NOTE BACK IN FEBRUARY THAT RULES REGARDING PUBLIC COMMENT WOULD START STRICT AND BECOME LESS STRINGENT OVER TIME. THESE RECOMMENDED REVISIONS ARE INTENDED TO SUPPORT THIS AS WELL AS THE SUCCESSFUL IMPLEMENTATION OF THE NEW PUBLIC COMMENT PLATFORM WHILE ENSURING EQUITABLE PUBLIC ACCESS AND PROVIDING STAFF WITH PRACTICAL AND ADMINISTRATIVELY FEASIBLE PROCEDURES.

WITH THAT, THAT CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION. I'M AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS.

THANK YOU, MS. BLANKENSHIP.

AND, AND I WANT TO ESPECIALLY THANK YOU AND YOUR ENTIRE CREW.

I KNOW YOU GUYS HAVE BEEN WORKING DILIGENTLY TO TRY TO GET THROUGH THE BUGS IN THIS THING AND SEE IF IT IF YOU CAN MAKE IT WORK. SO, I MEAN, THANK YOU TO YOU AND LISA AND KRISTEN AND STUART AND MIRANDA. I MEAN, ALL OF YOU, BRYCE. I KNOW YOU'VE BEEN CALLING IN AND TESTING AND TRYING TO GET THIS THING WORKED OUT.

SO DID THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA PAY FOR THIS SYSTEM AND THE KIOSK THAT WE WERE FORCED TO PURCHASE? THEY DID NOT.

THEY DID NOT.

TYPICALLY, THE STATE DOESN'T COVER US FOR ANYTHING THAT HAS TO DO WITH THE BROWN ACT.

THAT WAS MY POINT. IT'S ANOTHER UNFUNDED MANDATE BY THEM THAT WE'RE NOT GOING ALONG. SO YOU KNOW, THE FIRST TIME WE BROUGHT THIS TO YOU, I KNOW BOTH SIDES WERE NOT HAPPY WITH IT. BUT IT'S, AGAIN, IT'S SOMETHING THE STATE HAS PASSED A LAW THAT KIND OF TIES OUR HANDS. SO WE TOLD YOU THAT WE'RE GOING TO START OUT PRETTY TIGHT. AND THEN IF WE DON'T HAVE, YOU KNOW, 100 PHONE CALLS FROM CHECHNYA OR WHEREVER IN THE WORLD, THEN WE COULD PROBABLY EXPAND IT OUT AND WE WOULD, YOU KNOW, ADD MORE TIME TO IT. SO WE HAVEN'T EVEN IMPLEMENTED IT YET AND WE'RE ALREADY ADDING ADDING MORE TIME TO IT. SO WE'VE MADE SOME CHANGES IN THIS THING TO LOOSEN IT UP, TO TRY TO GIVE WE WANT PUBLIC COMMENT,

[02:20:02]

WE WANT YOUR GUYS' TIME TO SPEAK. BUT AGAIN, THIS SYSTEM IS REALLY PUTTING SOME PROBLEMS ON US. SO AGAIN, THANK YOU TO YOU AND YOUR WHOLE STAFF, MS. BLANKENSHIP. SUPERVISOR LONG.

THANK YOU, CHAIR, AND THANK YOU, STEPHANIE, FOR THAT. SO I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THIS, AND I ALREADY SPOKE ABOUT THIS I'VE DONE ALL THE RESEARCH ON IT. BUT WHAT I STILL DON'T UNDERSTAND IS THE 8 O'CLOCK SIGN-UP THAT WE HAD TALKED ABOUT WILL THAT BE THE SAME FOR ALL SPEAKERS, OR WILL PEOPLE COME INTO BOARD CHAMBERS, START AT 9 O'CLOCK, AND THEN THEY WILL ESTABLISH THE ORDER BY SUBMITTING CARDS TO ESTABLISH THE ORDER OF THE SPEAKERS FOR THAT 15-MINUTE PERIOD? SO THE CARDS WILL BE ELIMINATED, SO THERE WILL BE NO MORE CARDS.

REGISTRATION WILL BE DONE FULLY ONLINE. WE'LL HAVE KIOSKS OUT IN THE FOYER. YOU CAN SEE THE STANDS ARE ALREADY MOUNTED TO THE WALL. PEOPLE WILL ALSO HAVE QR CODES. PEOPLE CAN REGISTER ONLINE THROUGH THEIR PHONE, ON THEIR COMPUTER AT HOME.

REGISTRATION WILL OPEN AT 8 AM ON THE DAY OF THE MEETING.

OKAY, AND THEN SOMEHOW THEY'LL INDICATE ON THAT THAT, HEY, I'M GOING TO BE IN PERSON, OR I'M THEY'RE GOING TO INDICATE THAT I'M REMOTE? CORRECT. SO THERE'S GOING TO BE FIELDS THAT PEOPLE NEED TO FILL OUT IN ORDER TO REGISTER TO SPEAK, ONE BEING THEIR NAME, WHICH THEY CAN REMAIN UNANIMOUS AND PROVIDE WHATEVER NAME THEY CHOOSE, AS WELL AS A PHONE NUMBER, UM, AND WHETHER THEY RESIDE WITHIN SHASTA COUNTY OR NOT, AS WELL AS HOW THEY'RE GOING TO PARTICIPATE. WHETHER THEY PARTICIPATE IN PERSON OR ON PHONE, THEY'LL STILL BE REQUIRED TO PROVIDE A PHONE NUMBER.

MAIN REASON FOR THAT IS TO MAKE SURE THAT THERE AREN'T ANY DUPLICATE ENTRIES BY AN INDIVIDUAL. SO THAT'S HOW THAT WILL WORK.

OKAY, AND THERE'S NO WAY TO CONFIRM THEIR IDENTITIES AND WHETHER THEY'RE IN COUNTY, ABOUT OUT OF COUNTY, OTHER THAN THEIR STATED PURPOSE? YES, SO THE REGISTRATION FORM WILL ASK, ARE YOU A RESIDENT IN SHASTA COUNTY? AND IT'S A YES OR NO ANSWER. SO BASED ON THEIR ANSWER, WE'LL BE ABLE TO RUN REPORTS IF WE HAVE AN ITEM THAT COMES BEFORE THE BOARD WHERE THERE'S AN INTEREST FOR THE BOARD TO ASK THE STAFF HOW MANY PEOPLE SPOKE TODAY THAT LIVE OUTSIDE OF SHASTA COUNTY. WE COULD CERTAINLY PROVIDE THAT REPORT.

AND YOU PROBABLY SEE WHERE I'M GOING WITH THIS. IS THERE ANY WAY UNDER THE LEGISLATION TO PRIORITIZE OUR CITIZENS IN THIS COUNTY HAVING THE FIRST RIGHTS TO VOTE? BECAUSE I'M WORRIED THAT WE'RE GOING TO GET HIJACKED FROM EUROPE.

NO, AND THAT'S WHY WE FOUGHT IT ALL THE WAY ALONG THE LINE.

SO, YES, YOUR QUESTION IS, IT'S NO. BUT WHAT I CAN TELL YOU IS THERE HAVE BEEN MANY COUNTIES ACROSS CALIFORNIA THAT STILL ARE HYBRID AND THEY STILL TAKE VIRTUAL PUBLIC COMMENT.

THEY STILL ALLOW CALL-INS.

THEY NEVER WENT AWAY FROM THAT AFTER COVID. AND WHAT I CAN SAY IS THEY DON'T EXPERIENCE THAT SAME ISSUE. SO MY HOPE IS THAT WE DON'T EXPERIENCE THAT.

HOWEVER, WE WON'T BE ABLE TO PRIORITIZE THOSE WHO LIVE IN SHASTA COUNTY AND THOSE WHO DON'T.

OKAY. AND IS THERE A WAY IN, IN THE SPIRIT OF FAIRNESS TO SOMEHOW SCRAMBLE. SO I CAN SEE 8 O'CLOCK, EVERYBODY'S GOING TO BE JUMPING ON THE INTERNET TO TRY TO GET THEIR SIGNATURE IN. AND YOU COULD GET ONE GROUP THAT HAS THE VOICE AND LOCKS OUT ANYBODY ELSE AFTER 15 MINUTES, OR THEY, YOU KNOW, SPEAKING TO HANDLE THAT THE SAME WAY WE HANDLE IT NOW, WHICH IS FIRST COME, FIRST SERVE.

SO EVEN WHEN WE SPLIT IT INTO JUST IN-PERSON AND THEN WE TAKE CALLERS NEXT, THE IN-PERSON WILL BE FILTERED BY FIRST COME, FIRST SERVE.

AND I WILL HAVE A DATE AND A TIMESTAMP ON WHEN THEY REGISTERED. SO IT WILL BE FIRST COME, FIRST SERVE. THEN WE'LL SWITCH TO THE PHONE AND IT'LL BE FIRST COME, FIRST SERVE ON THE PHONE AS WELL.

OH, SO IT'LL BE FIRST COME, FIRST SERVE ON BOTH SYSTEMS? YES, IT JUST WON'T BE A COMBINED MASTER LIST. SO WE WON'T BE GOING IN-PERSON CALLER, IN-PERSON CALLER, IN-PERSON CALLER.

AND THROW, THROW A WEIRD QUESTION AT YOU, BUT SOME COUNTIES HAVE BEEN DOING AB 707 TYPE ACTIVITY FOR QUITE SOME TIME, LIKE LOS ANGELES, SAN DIEGO, SOME OF THOSE KINDS OF THINGS? I WOULDN'T NECESSARILY SAY BECAUSE OF SB 707. THEY JUST NEVER WENT AWAY FROM HYBRID MEETINGS SINCE COVID OKAY.

AND HAVE THEY HAVE THEY HAD DO THEY HAVE EXPERIENCE WITH ALL THE ISSUES THAT WE'RE ABOUT TO FACE? AND HAVE THEY COME UP WITH RECOMMENDATIONS THAT, HEY, UM, RANDOMIZE THE, THE ORDERS TO CREATE A TRUE FAIRNESS FOR EVERYBODY TO HAVE AN EQUAL ACCESS.

SO I DIDN'T LOOK SPECIFICALLY INTO THAT. ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I DID WAS, UM, IN PREPARATION FOR THIS ITEM, I DID TAKE A LOOK AT WHAT OTHER COUNTIES ARE DOING WHEN IT COMES TO THEIR PUBLIC COMMENT RULES.

NOT NECESSARILY HOW THEY'RE GOING TO HANDLE, YOU KNOW, UM, SB 707 EXACTLY, BUT I JUST LOOKED AT THEIR CURRENT PUBLIC COMMENT RULES.

NOW, A LOT OF THOSE COUNTIES ARE BRINGING TO THEIR BOARD TO MAKE CHANGES TO THOSE PUBLIC COMMENT RULES TO BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH SB 707 ONCE IT GOES LIVE OR EFFECTIVE JULY 1ST. SO SOME OF THOSE THINGS, FOR INSTANCE, LIKE ORANGE COUNTY IS GOING

[02:25:02]

TO THEIR BOARD TODAY TO REMOVE OR TO REDUCE THE NUMBER OF MINUTES

THAT EACH INDIVIDUAL >>AN SPEAK. SO CURRENTLY THEIR RULE IS THAT EVERYBODY GETS 3 MINUTES. THEY'RE GOING TO THEIR BOARD TODAY TO REQUEST THAT THE BOARD DECREASE THAT TO EITHER 2 MINUTES OR 1 MINUTE.

OKAY. AND THIS, THIS PROCESS OF COMPLIANCE WITH AB 707, THAT DOESN'T AFFECT ANY OF OUR OTHER RULES THAT WE HAD AS TO PUBLIC SPEAKING. AND I'LL ASK COUNSEL IN A MINUTE ABOUT SOME OF THOSE QUESTIONS, BUT IT'S REALLY NOT CHANGING ANYTHING OTHER THAN THE TIME LIMITS AND THE WAY THAT PEOPLE SIGN UP SB 707 IS ONLY REQUIRING, AMONG OTHER THINGS, BUT WHEN IT COMES TO PUBLIC COMMENT, IS ONLY REQUIRING US TO ALLOW VIRTUAL PUBLIC COMMENT.

SO THE PUBLIC COMMENT RULES THAT WE PUT IN PLACE ARE WITHIN OUR DISCRETION. SO WHAT WE HAVE DONE IS WE'VE TRIED TO PRESENT SOMETHING TO THE BOARD, UM, BOTH BACK IN FEBRUARY AND RIGHT NOW TO MAKE SURE THAT AT THE END OF THE DAY, WE'RE ABLE TO ALSO GET COUNTY BUSINESS DONE AND WE'RE NOT SPENDING 12 HOURS TAKING PUBLIC COMMENT.

OKAY, I APPRECIATE THAT.

AND I THINK MY NEXT QUESTION I WILL SELF-CENSURE THIS BECAUSE I THINK IT'S PROBABLY NOT ON TOPIC OF AB 707, WHICH IS SPEAKING TO THE ABILITY OF PUBLIC SPEAKING TO CONSENT ITEMS AND SOME OF THOSE OTHER THINGS, WHICH WE HAVE A LONG-STANDING POLICY WHICH THEY DON'T. AND THAT'S SO SO THAT IS ALL ADMIN POLICY 1-101. SO ALL OF THOSE RULES ARE TIED IN.

THOSE AREN'T ANYTHING THAT I REALLY TIED INTO THIS WORK TO AMEND. OKAY, GOOD.

THAT'S FOR A LATER DISCUSSION. OKAY, THANK YOU. THANKS, STEPHANIE.

YES, STEPHANIE, ONE CLARIFICATION. SO IN TERMS OF SEPARATING IN-PERSON VERSUS TELEPHONE OR VIRTUAL PARTICIPATION, DOES THAT MEAN SO PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD, YOU HAVE 30 MINUTES TOTAL, YOU'RE GOING TO SAY, OKAY, WE HAVE 15 MINUTES FOR IN-PERSON, 15 MINUTES FOR VIRTUAL PARTICIPATION? CORRECT. AND IF THERE'S ADDITIONAL TIME, LET'S SAY THAT THE IN-PERSON SPEAKERS, LET'S SAY WE HAVE 30 SPEAKERS IN PERSON AND WE ONLY HAVE 2 CALLERS. THE 2 CALLERS, IF THEY'RE SET AT 2 MINUTES EACH, THAT WOULD ONLY TAKE 4 MINUTES. SO THE REMAINING TIME WOULD THEN BE LENT BACK TO THE IN-PERSON SPEAKERS AND VICE VERSA.

OKAY. SO THAT AND THAT WAS MY QUESTION. SO IN A SENSE, WE ARE PRIORITIZING THE IN-PERSON IN THAT WAY, IN THAT THEY'LL GET THE FIRST 15 MINUTES OF PUBLIC COMMENT.

AND THEN IF THERE'S EXTRA TIME LEFT OVER FROM THE VIRTUAL PARTICIPATION, THEN WE'LL GO BACK TO THE IN-PERSON.

EACH BOTH IN-PERSON AND VIRTUAL PARTICIPATION WILL HAVE THE EQUAL AMOUNT OF TIME.

TO SPEAK. UM, AGAIN, IF THERE'S NOT ENOUGH PEOPLE IN PERSON AND WE HAVE MORE PEOPLE ON THE, THE PHONE LINE, THE PHONE LINE MIGHT GET MORE TIME.

BUT REGARDLESS, EACH WILL BE SET AT 15 MINUTES.

AND AGAIN, IT COULD GO OVER THE 15 MINUTES.

FOR INSTANCE, FOR IF WE TAKE IN-PERSON SPEAKERS AND THE LAST PERSON STARTS AT 14 MINUTES AND 20 SECONDS, THEY WON'T HAVE TO STOP RIGHT AT 15 MINUTES.

UM, THEY WILL GET THEIR WHOLE 2 MINUTES. DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? YEAH. OKAY. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU, SUPERVISOR PREMLER. SUPERVISOR LONG.

LAST, LAST QUESTION, STEPHANIE. SO WE TALKED ABOUT THE 30 MINUTES FOR OPEN PUBLIC COMMENT, AND THAT'S GOING TO BE SPLIT BETWEEN THE 2 GROUPS, THE ZOOM, THE AND IS THAT GOING TO BE SO ALL THE REGULAR ITEMS YOU SAID WOULD NOT CHANGE THE 20-MINUTE TIME, ARE THOSE ALL GOING TO BE SPLIT 10 MINUTES EACH? YES.

OKAY, SO IT'S GOING TO BE THE SAME PROCESS, BUT IT WILL JUST BE DIFFERENT AMOUNTS OF TIME.

YEAH, AND AGAIN, I'M JUST ASKING FOR THE FIRST-COME, FIRST-SERVED RULE TO BE SUSPENDED FOR NOW IN THE SENSE THAT WE THE PLATFORM THAT I USE, IT IS BROKEN INTO TWO SEPARATE LISTS. SO I HAVE TO IF WE GO ON FIRST-COME, FIRST-SERVED BASIS, NOT ONLY AM I HAVING TO SWITCH BETWEEN THOSE LISTS IN REAL TIME IN BETWEEN SPEAKERS, BUT THEN I HAVE TO BE LOOKING AT THE DATE STAMP. AND THEN FOR THE CALLERS, I HAVE TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY'RE CONNECTED, BECAUSE IF THEY'RE NOT CONNECTED, THEN I'M NOT GOING TO CALL THEIR NAME. I'M GOING TO CALL THE NEXT PERSON WHO'S CONNECTED. AND SO IF I HAVE TO DO THAT IN BETWEEN EVERY

SINGLE >>ND GO BACK AND FORTH, IT'S GOING TO EAT UP A LOT OF THAT 20 MINUTES OR 30 MINUTES OVERALL TIME, WHICH I DON'T THINK IS FAIR TO THE PUBLIC.

AND SUPERVISOR LONG, THIS ALL CAME OUT IN EXTENSIVE TESTING THAT THEY'VE BEEN DOING. SO THEY WERE HAVING PEOPLE OUT THERE, YOU KNOW, SIGNING UP WITHIN THE KIOSK AND PEOPLE CALLING IN, AND THEN SHE'S HAVING TO SWITCH BACK AND FORTH FROM PUBLIC COMMENT TO SPEAKER TO CALL THEM BACK TO GET THEM ON THE PHONE. YEAH, YEAH, IT WAS A NIGHTMARE.

SO I TOTALLY APPRECIATE THAT.

AND SO, SO TO SAY THAT THE FIRST RULE, OR THE FIRST, FIRST-COME, FIRST-SERVED HAS BEEN SUSPENDED, IT'S, IT'S JUST ACTUALLY YOU'RE NOT GOING

[02:30:01]

TO GO BACK AND FORTH BETWEEN SYSTEMS, BUT THE FIRST FIRST-COME, FIRST-SERVE WILL STILL BE THE PRIORITY FOR SIGN-UP WHEN THEY GO LIVE AT 8 O'CLOCK? I DON'T THINK I UNDERSTAND YOUR QUESTION.

SO, SUPERVISOR LONG, IF I MAY.

SO FIRST-COME, FIRST-SERVE IS STILL IN PLAY.

SO THIS BUT WE'RE GOING TO BREAK THEM OUT. SO THE PEOPLE THAT SHOW UP HERE TO TALK, IT'S FIRST-COME, FIRST-SERVE WITH THEM, AND WE'RE GOING TO GIVE THEM WHATEVER IT IS, 15 MINUTES, 20 MINUTES, AND THEN, AND THEN IT GOES FIRST-COME, FIRST-SERVE TO THE CALLERS. SO WE'RE GOING TO STOP WITH THE LIVE COMMENT. WE'RE GOING TO GO TO THE CALLERS.

AND LIKE SHE JUST SAID, IF THERE'S ONLY 2 CALLERS, WE'LL GO BACK TO THE IN-PERSON SPEAKERS AND GIVE THEM AS MANY MORE AS THEY CAN IN THAT TIME LIMIT. AND AGAIN, IF, IF WE DON'T HAVE A BIG PROBLEM WITH CALLERS CALLING IN, WE DON'T HAVE, YOU KNOW, AI OUT OF RUSSIA CALLING INTO THE CHESAPEAKE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, IF WE DON'T RUN INTO A WHOLE LOT OF PROBLEMS DOWN THE ROAD, THEN WE WILL PROBABLY EXPAND THIS AND MAKE IT DIFFERENT. BUT FOR RIGHT NOW, WE STARTED OUT REALLY TIGHT BECAUSE WE DON'T KNOW WHAT TO EXPECT. AND IN THE TESTING IT WAS A NIGHTMARE IN THE TESTING. SO IT IS STILL FIRST COME, FIRST SERVE.

THEY'RE JUST SEPARATED, BREAKING THE TWO GROUPS.

YEAH, ONE THING THAT I'LL SAY IS, YOU KNOW, RIGHT NOW I'M JUST ASKING FOR A SUSPENSION OF THAT RULE, BUT WE MAY END UP REALLY LIKING THAT THAT WAY ONCE THE VENDOR IS ABLE TO GET US A MASTER LIST OF EVERYBODY COMBINED TO WHERE I CAN FILTER IT BY FIRST COME, FIRST SERVE, JUST BY THE DATE STAMP OF WHEN THEY REGISTERED. AND THEN, YOU KNOW, IT MIGHT BE TWO PEOPLE IN PERSON AND THEN A CALLER, AND THEN, YOU KNOW, 3 PEOPLE IN PERSON AND THEN 3 CALLERS.

IT WILL JUST VARY DEPENDING ON WHEN THEY REGISTERED. AND IF WE SWITCH BACK TO THAT AND BASICALLY NOT SUSPEND THIS RULE ANYMORE AND WE DON'T LIKE IT, THEN I COULD GET DIRECTION FROM THIS BOARD TO REMOVE IT, OR WE CAN CONSIDER REMOVING IT TODAY. THAT'S TOTALLY YOUR CALL.

NO WORRIES.

IT'S OPERATED BY AI.

ALL RIGHT. CEO RICKERT.

THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN CALLISTER.

I JUST WANT TO REITERATE, STAFF PUT A CONSIDERABLE AMOUNT OF TIME AND EFFORT AND ENERGY INTO THIS TO BE NOT ONLY IMPLEMENT THIS INITIATIVE BY THE STATE, BUT ALSO BE CONSIDERATE OF OUR PUBLIC TO PROVIDE OPPORTUNITIES FOR PUBLIC COMMENT.

THANK YOU, CEO RICKERT. ALL RIGHT, SO ANY OTHER BOARD DO WE HAVE ANY PUBLIC COMMENT ON THIS ITEM? I'M SURE WE DO.

WE DO.

LET'S TAKE THEM IN THE ORDER THAT THEY WERE RECEIVED, FIRST COME FIRST SERVED, ALSO KNOWN AS WE HAVE 6 SPEAKERS, SO IT'LL BE 3 MINUTES EACH.

FIRST UP, DON DUCKETT, FOLLOWED BY JEFF GORDER, STEVE KAHN, THEN SHASTA COUNTY WATCHDOG MS. ASHDOGH.

I WON'T NEED THE WHOLE 3 MINUTES TODAY. THANK YOU, STAFF, FOR ALL THE HARD WORK YOU DID ON THIS. I AGREE WITH JUST ABOUT EVERYTHING IN THE PRESENTATION. I WOULD LIKE THE BOARD TO CONSIDER, THOUGH, THAT 30 MINUTES OF OPEN TIME FOR THE PUBLIC IS VERY LIGHT. I MEAN, AT BEST, IF WE'RE DOING A ROLLING CLOCK, YOU'RE GOING TO GET 10 SPEAKERS PER MEETING. THIS CALENDAR YEAR, IT LOOKS LIKE WE'RE AVERAGING ABOUT 2 MEETINGS A MONTH.

I MEAN, YOU COULD GIVE US 2 HOURS A MONTH OF YOUR TIME TO INTERACT WITH YOU.

THIS IS OUR ONLY OPPORTUNITY, AND I'M NOT EVEN ASKING FOR 3 MINUTES. I JUST DON'T THINK THAT THAT YOU'RE LIMITING PUBLIC COMMENT TO 10 PEOPLE, WHETHER THEY'RE IN PERSON OR ON THE PHONE OR A COMBINATION OF BOTH, 15 MINUTES IN THIS ROOM, IT'S GOING TO GO QUICK. AND I JUST THINK THAT 30 MINUTES IS NOT A REASONABLE LENGTH OF TIME FOR OPEN COMMENT, BEING AS IT'S THE ONLY OPPORTUNITY WE HAVE TO ADDRESS NUISANCE ABATEMENT CONDITIONS IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD, OR THINGS THAT WE'RE UNHAPPY WITH, OR THINGS THAT WE ARE HAPPY WITH, ANNOUNCEMENTS OF EVENTS. ALL OF THOSE THINGS GET MISSED WHEN YOU LOCK DOWN THE PUBLIC COMMENT TIME LIKE THIS. SO THAT'S JUST MY FEEDBACK.

I JUST WANT TO JOIN IN THANKING STAFF FOR ALL THEIR HARD WORK ON THIS. I MEAN, IT'S VERY COMPLICATED, AND I AND I'M SURE IT'S BEEN DIFFICULT. AND I PROBABLY DON'T UNDERSTAND ALL THE NUANCES OF IT EITHER.

BUT I DO AGREE WITH DON THAT 30 MINUTES IS PRETTY LIGHT IN TERMS OF PUBLIC COMMENT.

NOW, YOU KNOW, MY CONCERN IS I THINK WE'VE HAD APPROXIMATELY 20, MAYBE A LITTLE MORE THAN 20 PUBLIC COMMENT SPEAKERS REGULARLY AT THESE MEETINGS.

THAT MEANS AND MAYBE I DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW THIS IS GOING TO WORK.. BUT WE DRIVE DOWN HERE, WE SIGN UP, MAYBE I'M NUMBER 16 ON THE LIST AND, OKAY, SORRY, YOU KNOW, WE JUST, WE CAN ONLY ACCOMMODATE 15. SO NUMBER 16, YOU'RE OUT OF HERE. AND I'M SURE MANY OF YOU WOULD BE HAPPY WITH THAT, BUT I WOULD NOT.

SO, YOU KNOW, 30 MINUTES SOUNDS PRETTY LIGHT. NOW, I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S A WAY TO PRIORITIZE THE IN-PERSON VERSUS THE CALLERS. SO IF YOU HAVE I WOULD SUGGEST AN HOUR

[02:35:02]

OF PUBLIC COMMENT TIME, MAYBE 40 MINUTES. AND LET'S ASSUME YOU HAD 40 MINUTES. IF YOU HAD 20 PEOPLE THAT SHOWED UP THAT WANTED TO SPEAK AND MAYBE THERE WERE 5 ON THE PHONE, WOULD YOU PRIORITIZE THE 20 THAT SHOWED UP AND THEY'D USE THE 40 MINUTES AND THE PEOPLE THAT ARE ON THE PHONE WOULD BE TOLD, SORRY, WE DON'T HAVE ANY PUBLIC COMMENT LEFT. I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S ALLOWABLE UNDER THE LAW, BUT IT CERTAINLY PRIORITIZES THOSE FOLKS THAT ARE WILLING TO COME DOWN HERE AND SHOW UP, AS OPPOSED TO SOMEBODY IN THEIR PAJAMAS IN NORWAY THAT WANTS TO CALL IN AND MAKE A NOW, I KNOW THERE ARE SOME PEOPLE THAT YOU WANT TO ACCOMMODATE BY PHONE THAT FOR SOME REASON CAN'T GET DOWN HERE. SO I DON'T WANT TO DISPARAGE THAT, BUT I ALSO WANT TO ENCOURAGE ENCOURAGE EVERYBODY THAT SHOWS UP HERE WITH AN OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK. AND I DON'T THINK THAT COULD HAPPEN WITH 30 MINUTES BECAUSE WE'VE HAD MORE THAN TODAY, WHAT DID WE HAVE, 19 PEOPLE? YOU KNOW, THAT'S 38 MINUTES RIGHT THERE. SO YOU HAVE 4 PEOPLE THAT ARE GOING TO BE TOLD, SORRY, YOU CAN'T SPEAK. SO I APPRECIATE ALL THE EFFORT THAT STAFF HAS DONE TO DO THIS. I THINK 30 MINUTES IS A LITTLE I KNOW IT CAN BE ADJUSTED, BUT I WOULD SUGGEST YOU START OUT WITH A MINIMUM OF 40 MINUTES, MAYBE 45, SEE HOW IT GOES. AND IF POSSIBLE, PRIORITIZE THE PEOPLE THAT SHOW UP HERE IN PERSON OVER THE PHONE. ANYWAY, THANKS AGAIN, FOLKS.

NEXT UP, STEVE KAHN, FOLLOWED BY SHASTA COUNTY WATCHDOG ROBERT, THEN LESLIE SAWYER. IF I CALLED YOUR NAME, PLEASE GET IN QUEUE.

YEAH, I AGREE WITH BOTH THOSE COMMENTS. AND NOT ONLY THAT, BUT OKAY, SO NOW WE'RE GOING TO HAVE PEOPLE CALLING IN THAT MAY BE NEFARIOUS AND TIE UP TIME, WHICH WILL ACTUALLY EVEN MORE REDUCE THE AMOUNT OF TIME THAT CITIZENS WITH CONCERNS ARE ABLE TO RELAY THEIR CONCERNS. NOW, I ALSO AM NOT HAPPY WITH THE 2-MINUTE TIME LIMIT. I THINK IT SHOULD BE 3 MINUTES. BUT, AND I WAS CONCERNED ABOUT, IT SEEMS AS THOUGH THE STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS ARE COMING OUT VERY RESTRICTIVE, AND I WAS GOING TO SAY SOMETHING ABOUT IT AND THEN I WASN'T.

BUT AFTER THE COMMENT THAT WE HAD THAT ORANGE COUNTY IS BECOMING MORE RESTRICTIVE, THAT THEY'RE LOOKING AT GOING TO 2 MINUTES OR EVEN PERHAPS 01, I AM CONCERNED BECAUSE ORANGE COUNTY HAS OVER 3 MILLION PEOPLE. I CAN SEE WHERE THEY MIGHT GET OVERRUN, BUT TO COMPARE US TO ORANGE COUNTY AND JUSTIFY THAT THAT IS A REASON TO REDUCE OUR TIME SPEAKING, I THINK IS IRRELEVANT. AND SO IT JUST SEEMS TO ME LIKE WE'RE THINGS ARE BEING JUSTIFIED TO RESTRICT US EVEN MORE AND MORE.

I THINK THAT ASKING THE BOARD TO GIVE US AN HOUR TO SPEAK, YOU KNOW, TWICE A MONTH ON AVERAGE, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF JUNE, IS NOT UNREASONABLE, ESPECIALLY SINCE THEY'VE GIVEN THEMSELVES A RAISE AND, YOU KNOW, THEY'RE A 59% RAISE AND ARE MAKING $90,000 A YEAR. I THINK THEY CAN LISTEN TO US FOR A COUPLE HOURS. UM, THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS IS SUPPOSED TO ANSWER TO THE PEOPLE. HOW DO YOU ANSWER THE PEOPLE IF YOU DON'T EVEN HEAR WHAT THEIR CONCERNS ARE? I'M NOT SURE HOW THAT HAPPENS. YOU KNOW, IT SOUNDS TO ME LIKE YOU GUYS ARE JUST DOING WHAT YOU WISH. NOW, I DO HAVE ANOTHER CONCERN, AND THAT IS WITH THE ABILITY, WHICH IS JUST BASICALLY THE ABILITY IS BEING GIVEN TO CHAIR KELLSTROM TO, YOU KNOW, PUT THE ORDER OF I MEAN, IT'S BEING SAID IT'S NOT GOING TO BE DONE THIS WAY, BUT IT SOUNDS TO ME LIKE HE'S GIVEN THE POWER TO PUT SPEAKERS IN ANY ORDER HE WISHES. AND THAT IS OF CONCERN TO ME.

SOMEBODY SAID, WELL, WE'RE WORRIED ABOUT SOMETHING THAT HASN'T HAPPENED. IT HAS HAPPENED. SPEAKER REQUEST FORMS HAVE BEEN REORGANIZED PRIOR BY A FIRE SUPERVISOR CHAIR.

AND I DO HAVE FEARS THAT THAT COULD OCCUR AGAIN. NOW, HOPEFULLY THERE WILL BE LIMITATIONS PUT TO WHERE IT CAN'T OCCUR, BUT IT DID OCCUR. AND SO IT'S NOT A FEAR THAT IS UNJUSTIFIED, IT'S A FEAR OF SOMETHING THAT DID HAPPEN.

AND SO I AM CONCERNED WITH THE ABILITY TO LIMIT WHO SPEAKS AND HOW MUCH THEY SPEAK, AND I WANT TO MINIMIZE AND MINIMIZE ALL THAT. I THINK THE PEOPLE HAS A RIGHT TO SAY WHAT THEY WANT DONE AND TO BE HEARD.

NEXT UP, SHASTA COUNTY WATCHDOG, FOLLOWED BY ROBERT, THEN LESLIE SAWYER.

IT'S OUR FREEDOM OF SPEECH. WE HAVE A CONSTITUTION RIGHT.

WHEN YOU ACTUALLY AGREE WITH SOMETHING THAT YOU ALWAYS THROW BACK TO THE PEOPLE SAYING IT'S OUR CONSTITUTION, OUR CONSTITUTION, BUT YET THIS IS OUR FREEDOM OF SPEECH. THERE'S A DIFFERENCE WHEN SOMEBODY BREAKS THE LAW AND GOES AGAIN AND BREAKS THE LAW, LIKE THE FEDERAL, WHAT THEY DID IN THE ELECTION. THAT'S THE DIFFERENCE. THE CONSTITUTION, FREEDOM OF SPEECH, IT'S VERY IMPORTANT. NOW I WANT TO MAKE, UM, AND I KNOW YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE SOMEBODY COME UP HERE AND BE HAPPY ABOUT IT BECAUSE LESLIE

[02:40:01]

SAWYER IS GOING TO BE SAYING, YEAH, GOOD, NOW YOU WERE NOT GOING TO HAVE ALL THESE PEOPLE COMING UP HERE, YOU KNOW. WE, WE KNOW HOW SHE ACTS UP HERE. OH, THANK GOODNESS WOULD HAVE TO HEAR THEM. WELL, YOU KNOW WHAT, KEVIN CRYE ACTUALLY, BACK IN DECEMBER LET ME SEE, OCTOBER, OCTOBER 7TH SHE ACTUALLY HAD A CONVERSATION WITH, UH, MR. BENJAMIN NGUYEN, AND SHE DIDN'T LIKE THE QUESTIONS SHE WAS ASKED. AND THEN IN DECEMBER, SO SHE RUNS TO KEVIN CRYE, AND THEN DECEMBER 9TH, 2025, KEVIN CRYE SAYS WE'RE GOING TO CLOSE THE CHAMBER NOW ON BECAUSE HE ONLY TOOK HER SIDE.

SO HE ACTUALLY VIOLATED THE OTHER CITIZENS' RIGHTS BY THROWING US OUT, OUT OF CHAMBER. YOU GUYS ARE ALWAYS DOING THINGS TO THE CITIZENS.

SO WHEN HE DID THAT, YOU OWN YOU PAT YOU CHANGED THAT POLICY IN FEBRUARY 10TH OF 2020. SO YOU ACTUALLY VIOLATED OUR CONSTITUTION RIGHTS BY THROWING US OUT IN THE HALLWAY. PEOPLE WHO ARE DISABLED, WHO HAVE DISABILITY, PUT US IN THE RAIN, PUT US IN THE HEAT. I FILED COMPLAINT WITH CIVIL RIGHTS AGAINST YOU GUYS FOR DOING THAT. FOR HOW LONG? OVER A YEAR. KEVIN CRYE DID IT.

KEVIN CRYE CONSTANTLY ATTACKS OUR FREEDOM. THEM. AND YET HE TALKS ABOUT HOW HE WANTS TO DO WHAT'S RIGHT FOR THE PEOPLE. AND THE OTHER THING THAT YOU GUYS ALSO DO, YOU WANT TO ELIMINATE EVERYTHING FROM US SPEAKING AND MAKING YOU ACCOUNTABLE FOR YOUR ACTIONS, INCLUDING WHEN YOU ACTUALLY DISCRIMINATED AGAINST JENNY, ALLOWING THESE KIND OF POSTERS IN THE HALLWAY. AND NOW YOU WANT TO ELIMINATE US FROM FROM BEING ATTENDING HERE TO MAKE YOU ACCOUNTABLE WHEN WE WANT TO SPEAK ON CERTAIN ITEMS. WE HAVE A RIGHT. WE HAVE A CONSTITUTION RIGHT. WE ARE TAXPAYERS. WE ELECTED YOU, AND NOW YOU ARE GOING TO TRY TO ELIMINATE OUR FREEDOM OF SPEECH LIKE YOU HAVE BEEN FOR YEARS BECAUSE YOU DON'T LIKE WHAT WE HAVE TO SAY. AND WE YOU CONTINUE TO CHIP OUR FREEDOM OF SPEECH. AND YOU'RE NOT WILLING TO STAND UP AND DO WHAT'S RIGHT. I'M TALKING ABOUT NOT DEFENDING PEOPLE WHO BREAK THE LAW. WHAT ABOUT OUR FREEDOM? YOU'RE PART OF THE PROBLEM.

NEXT UP, ROBERT, FOLLOWED BY LESLIE SAWYER.

I APPRECIATE THE HARD WORK THAT STAFF HAS PUT INTO THIS, BUT I THINK A 30-MINUTE TIME LIMIT ON THE TIME YOU ALLOW US TO SPEAK IS NOT NEAR ENOUGH.

ENOUGH.

FURTHER, AS RELATES TO THIS ITEM, I WAS SPEAKING TO MY FRIEND DAVID KEHOE. HE REMINDED ME THAT ALL OF YOU ARE BEING PAID FULL-TIME WAGES.

IN FACT, YOU GAVE YOURSELVES A 57% RAISE. WHAT ARE WE GETTING FOR OUR MONEY BESIDES BEING MUZZLED AND BEING SCOLDED AND TREATED LIKE SHEEP? HOW ABOUT THIS? SINCE WE PAY YOU, HOW ABOUT YOU SIT AT THE DAIS, PAY ATTENTION, AND PRETEND TO CARE? AND LISTEN TO EVERY SINGLE BLOODY ONE OF US FOR 3 MINUTES. YOU HAVE ONE MEETING EVERY 2 WEEKS WITH US, AND YOU CANNOT BE BOTHERED TO LISTEN TO A FEW HOURS OF PUBLIC COMMENTS TO ENSURE ALL YOUR CONSTITUENTS ARE HEARD? I DON'T CARE IF THE MEETING TAKES A COUPLE OF HOURS, AND NEITHER SHOULD YOU. WAIT UNTIL AFTER JULY TO SEE BEFORE YOU TAKE PUNITIVE ACTIONS. AND SOMEHOW, OUR SHASTA COUNTY PEOPLE NEED TO BE PRIORITIZED. ZOOM CALLERS CAN STILL PARTICIPATE, BUT WAIT UNTIL WE REST PRESIDENT ARE DONE REDRESSING OUR GRIEVANCES. THANK YOU.

NEXT UP, LESLIE SAWYER.

DARN IT, I FORGOT MY POM-POMS. 17 YEARS AS A CHEERLEADER, I HAVE A FEW PAIRS OF THEM, SO, UM, ACCURATE DESCRIPTION. I FIRST STEPHANIE, YOUR TEAM, YOU GUYS ARE AMAZING. THANK YOU, THANK YOU. I APPRECIATE YOU ALL. UM, SO FIRST, LET'S START WITH, HOW OFTEN HAS THIS BOARD EVER LIMITED PUBLIC COMMENT? HOW OFTEN HAVE WE EVER STOPPED A MEETING AND SAID, SORRY, NOBODY IS ALLOWED TO TALK, IT'S BEEN 30 MINUTES? HOWEVER, IF YOU GO TO THE CAPITOL, THEY ALLOW 4 MINUTES TOTAL FOR PUBLIC COMMENT, AND MOST TIMES YOU HAVE TO HAVE YOUR LETTER OF EITHER SUPPORT OR OPPOSITION IN DAYS BEFOREHAND, AND THEN YOUR ONLY OPTION TO SPEAK TO THE PEOPLE ELECTED TO SERVE YOU IS TO SAY MY NAME, WHO I REPRESENT, AND YES OR NO.

THAT'S IT, PERIOD. SO WE ARE GIVEN SO MUCH FREEDOM HERE IN THIS ROOM TO ACT LIKE IDIOTS. WE HAVE THE CONSTITUTIONAL NOT CONSTITUTION, RIGHT THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO ACT LIKE IDIOTS, AND YOU GUYS PUT UP WITH THAT. SO THANK YOU. AND THAT IS NOT LIMITED. HOWEVER,

[02:45:01]

YES, I DID TATTLETALE BECAUSE WE HAVE THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO ACT LIKE IDIOTS IN THIS ROOM. BUT THE STAFF DOES NOT HAVE THE DUTY OR OBLIGATION TO BABYSIT PEOPLE WHO CAN'T BEHAVE. SO I DID TALK ABOUT ABUSIVE BEHAVIOR THAT WAS HAPPENING. AND THEN I ALSO TAUGHT I TATTLED ON SOMEBODY USING A BLOWHORN OR BULLHORN, WHATEVER IT'S CALLED, DURING THAT TIME AS WELL. SO YES, I DID, BECAUSE IT'S NOT YOUR GUYS' JOB TO BABYSIT US DURING THOSE MOMENTS. SO I'M YES, I STAND BY THAT. UM, SO ANYWAY, I THINK THAT WE NEED TO LEAD BY EXAMPLE. AND HAD YOU READ THE SENATE BILL AND HAD YOU READ THE STAFF REPORT ON THIS, YOU COULD HAVE SEEN.

AND THEN MAYBE THE CONSTITUENTS WHO FOLLOW YOUR EXAMPLE OF NOT READING WOULD HAVE ACTED BETTER AND SPOKE BETTER. WE, RIGHT HERE IN THIS STAFF REPORT ACTUALLY, IT'S ALSO IN THE AGENDA ON THE MAIN PAGE, SO YOU DON'T EVEN HAVE TO DIG IT SAYS REMOVE LIMITATIONS, NOT ADD LIMITATIONS, IMPLEMENT LIMITATIONS. REMOVE LIMITATIONS FOR EACH SPEAKER TO SPEAK ON MORE THAN 4 ITEMS. THAT MEANS AFTER 4 TIMES OF HEARING SOMEBODY COME UP HERE AND COMPLAIN TO YOU, YOU COULD SAY YOU'VE HAD ENOUGH TODAY AND WE DON'T HAVE TO LISTEN TO IT. THAT WOULD SAVE THE COUNTY SO MUCH TIME, BUT YOU'RE REMOVING THAT LIMITATION.

WHY? BECAUSE YOU HAVE THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO ADDRESS YOUR GRIEVANCES, AND THESE PEOPLE SUPPORT THAT.

ALSO, YOU ARE INCREASING THE MAXIMUM PUBLIC COMMENT FROM WHAT WAS IN THE ORIGINAL REPORT, AND YOU ARE LEAVING IT TO THE JURISDICTION OF THIS BOARD, WHO, BY THE WAY, HAS NEVER LIMITED YOUR PUBLIC COMMENT. SO BEFORE YOU COME UP HERE AND SOUND DUMB, DO YOUR CHAIR, THAT WAS OUR LAST SPEAKER.

ALL RIGHT. AND WITH THAT, AGAIN, STAFF DID A LOT OF WORK ON THAT, AND I APPRECIATE EACH AND EVERY ONE OF YOU FOR DOING ALL THAT. SO SINCE I SPONSORED THIS, I WILL GO AHEAD AND MAKE A MOTION TO ACCEPT AS WRITTEN. SECOND BY SUPERVISOR CRYE. ANY OTHER BOARD DISCUSSION? SUPERVISOR CRYE.

YEAH, JUST REALLY QUICK, STEPHANIE, I JUST WANTED TO HIGHLIGHT THE WORK. I KNOW THAT YOU GUYS PUT PUT INTO THIS AS WELL. I KNOW THAT A LOT OF COUNTIES, AND 2 YEARS AGO OR 3 YEARS AGO WHEN WE MOVED IT, I MOVED IT FROM 3 TO 2, A LOT OF COUNTIES DO 1 MINUTE, THEY DO 15 MINUTES TOTAL, THEY CUT IT OFF, AND THESE ARE LIKE LA, ORANGE COUNTY, PLACES MUCH, MUCH BIGGER. AND ONE OF THE THINGS, YOU KNOW, AND I'M JUST DOING, I WISH I COULD PULL UP TRANSPARENT CALIFORNIA, BUT I MEAN, I COULD HAVE,.

BUT, YOU KNOW, WITH ONE SPEAKER WHO'S COME UP, AND I THINK SHE'S SPOKEN ALREADY 5 OR 6 TIMES, IT'S ABOUT $1,600 TO $1,700 A POP IS WHAT THE COUNTY STAFF WITH, AS WELL AS OUR ONE PERSON, OUR ONE DEPUTY. SO THAT STUFF ADDS UP. SO WHEN PEOPLE TALK ABOUT THE SUPERVISOR'S PAY UP HERE, AND THAT JUST SHOWS HOW NARROW-MINDED AND PROBABLY COULDN'T RUN A, YOU KNOW, I DON'T WANT TO SAY TACO CART, BECAUSE THAT'S ACTUALLY REALLY, THAT'S REALLY OFFENSIVE TO PEOPLE THAT RUN A GOOD TACO CART. BUT THE REALITY, IT'S NOT JUST US UP HERE, IT'S ALL THE DIFFERENT PEOPLE HERE THAT ARE IN THIS ROOM AS WELL. AND THE REASON I PERSONALLY HAVE DONE COFFEES FOR ALMOST EVERY FRIDAY FOR 4 YEARS AND TRIED TO BE AS AVAILABLE THAN ALL THE OTHER OUTSIDE THINGS IS FOR THE ACCESS.

BUT YOU KNOW WHAT, MOST PEOPLE USE THIS AS THEIR OWN LITTLE YOUTUBE CHANNEL FOR THEIR 3 LIKES ON FACEBOOK TO GET UP AND COMPLAIN.

STAFF, YOU GUYS ARE KILLING IT.

I APPRECIATE THE FACT THAT STEPHANIE, YOU DID EVERYTHING YOU COULD TO, YOU KNOW, MAKE A LOT OF THAT WORK, BECAUSE I WASN'T IN FAVOR OF SOME OF THIS, BUT I KNOW THE DILIGENCE YOU GUYS DID. AND WHEN YOU PUT THAT WORK IN, ME AS A CEO AND AS AN OWNER OF COMPANIES, I CAN SAY, LOOK, I DON'T LIKE IT, BUT AT END OF THE DAY, THE STAFF DID THE WORK TO SHOW WHY THIS IS THE PATH, AND THAT'S WHY I'M SUPPORTING IT. SO THANK YOU.

THANK YOU. AND I JUST IF I COULD, I JUST WANT TO RESPOND TO THAT. I KNOW A CONSTITUENT HAD BROUGHT UP THAT I HAD REFERRED TO ORANGE COUNTY JUST BECAUSE I KNOW, I KNOW THEIR CLERK REALLY WELL, AND THEY ARE GOING TO THE BOARD FOR SOME PUBLIC COMMENT CHANGES.

BUT I DID RESEARCH THE 5 COUNTIES THAT ARE CLOSEST IN POPULATION TO US. OUT OF THOSE 5 COUNTIES, 2 OF THEM HAVE A 15-MINUTE OVERALL NO, NO, AND ONE HAS A 30-MINUTE LIMIT.

YEAH, BUT, BUT, YOU KNOW, BUT THAT WOULD TAKE WORK FOR PEOPLE TO READ THE STAFF REPORT AND DIG INTO THAT, AND MOST PEOPLE DON'T WANT TO DO THAT WORK. SO, I MEAN, I JUST YOU'VE DONE A GREAT JOB, AND IN THE 4 YEARS I'VE BEEN UP HERE, I'VE SEEN YOUR WORK ETHIC.

YOU'VE ALWAYS HAD A GREAT WORK ETHIC, BUT I'VE SEEN HOW YOU'RE EVEN ELECTED BY YOUR PEERS NOW ON A STATE BOARD, AND I WAS HONORED TO BE A PART OF THAT AND GET TO WATCH THAT. SO YOU'RE LEADING FROM THE FRONT.

YOU'VE YOU'VE DONE A GREAT JOB, AND ESPECIALLY FROM PAST 4 YEARS AGO WHEN PEOPLE WERE LOCKED OUT THERE IN THE SMOKE, YOU'VE DONE A PHENOMENAL JOB.

THANK YOU, CHAIR. THIS WOULD BE A QUESTION FOR EITHER STEPHANIE OR COUNSEL. WHEN WE'VE HAD UNRESTRICTED PUBLIC COM OPEN PUBLIC COMMENT HISTORICALLY, WHAT HAVE THEY TENDED HOW LONG HAVE WE TENDED TO BE IN OPEN PUBLIC COMMENT? BECAUSE I HAVEN'T REALLY PAID ATTENTION TO ARE WE IN HALF AN HOUR, OR IS IT MORE LIKE AN HOUR? OR SO I WOULD SAY IF YOU'RE KIND OF IF YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT NOT HAVING LIKE AN OVERALL LIMIT FOR PUBLIC COMMENT, WE HAVE THAT NOW. SO WE TAKE AS MANY SPEAKERS THAT SIGN UP RIGHT NOW, AND DEPENDING ON THE NUMBER OF SPEAKERS, IT COULD BE EITHER 2 MINUTES OR 3 MINUTES, BUT WE DON'T HAVE A TIME LIMIT FOR THAT. AND SO WE GO UNTIL, UNTIL IT'S DONE. SO ONE THING THAT I'LL SAY TO THAT IS LIKE TODAY WE DID HAVE 19 SPEAKERS. SO THAT'S JUST UNDER 40 MINUTES. WE HAVE GONE UNTIL MIDNIGHT SOME NIGHTS.

[02:50:01]

THAT WAS DEFINITELY DURING THE COVID ERA WHEN WE DID HAVE A LOT OF PUBLIC COMMENT. BUT I HAVE SEEN PUBLIC COMMENT GO FOR HOURS. NOW, MIND YOU, THAT'S JUST FOR PUBLIC COMMENT OPEN TIME.

INDIVIDUAL ITEM, I CAN'T NECESSARILY TRACK BECAUSE IT WOULD JUST DEPEND ON THE ITEM AND HOW POLITICAL IT IS OR HOW CONTROVERSIAL, I GUESS, IS PROBABLY THE BETTER WORD FOR THAT, HOW CONTROVERSIAL AN ITEM IS.

SO WITH THAT, IT SOUNDS LIKE IT'S ALL OVER THE MAP.

AND SO AN AVERAGE, LIKE YOU SAID, 40 MINUTES.

I MEAN, THAT WOULD BE TODAY.

BUT KEEP IN MIND, IF WE DID HAVE WHETHER IT'S A 30-MINUTE RUNNING CLOCK OR 40-MINUTE RUNNING CLOCK. RIGHT NOW WITH EVERYBODY IN PERSON, THAT 2 MINUTES, WE'RE ABLE TO GET THROUGH EACH SPEAKER VERY QUICKLY. WHEN WE GO TO PHONE CALLERS, IT COULD TAKE 10 TO 15 SECONDS IN BETWEEN EACH CALLER, WHICH DOES EAT UP OUR TIME.

OKAY, OKAY. AND I WOULD SAY FOR, FOR THE PURPOSE OF BOARD DISCUSSION, WE, WE WANT TO HEAR FROM OUR CONSTITUENTS. THAT'S THEY'RE A SUPER IMPORTANT IMPORTANT PART OF THIS EQUATION. SO I GUESS I WOULD BUILD IN, AND I UNDERSTAND THE PRECAUTIONS THAT WE'RE BUILDING IN BECAUSE OF THE UNKNOWN, WHICH IS AB 707. SO I WOULD PROPOSE TWO THINGS, OR EITHER OF TWO THINGS, THAT HISTORICALLY WE'VE KIND OF AVERAGED AROUND 40 MINUTES, MAYBE-ISH. SO MAYBE WE EXPAND EXTEND IT FROM 30 TO 45 MINUTES FIRST THING. SECOND OPTION WOULD BE THAT WE WAIT AND SEE THE FALLOUT, BUT WE COMMIT TO COMING BACK TO OUR CONSTITUENTS IN A TIMELY MANNER AFTER WE START TO GET A MONTH OR 2 MONTHS OF DATA AS TO WHAT THE REAL FALLOUT IS AND HOW PUBLIC COMMENT OPEN IS GOING NEW 707.

SO JUST A THOUGHT PROCESS THAT WE COULD TAKE EITHER THOSE TWO ROUTES, THAT I'D BE HAPPY WITH EITHER, OR JUST, JUST A COMMITMENT THAT WE WOULD COME BACK ONCE WE KNOW THE IMPACT.

WE'VE ALREADY COVERED ALL THAT IN TODAY'S MEETING, SUPERVISOR LAWRENCE.

STEPHANIE, DID YOU NOT SAY THAT IF WE DON'T IF WE ONLY HAVE TWO CALLERS, THEN WE'RE GONNA GIVE THAT PUBLIC COMMENT? THAT'S NOT WHAT I'M ASKING.

THAT'S NOT WHAT I'M ASKING.

WHAT I'M ASKING IS A COMMITMENT FROM THE BOARD FORWARD THAT WE WILL COME BACK TO THE PUBLIC TO SEE WHETHER AND IN TIMELY FASHION TO SEE WHETHER WE'RE GOING TO EXPAND THE 30-MINUTE TOTAL COMMITMENT BASED ON THE DEMAND THAT WE HAVE NO IDEA.

AND I SAID THAT MULTIPLE TIMES, THAT WE'RE GOING TO START OUT TIGHT AND WE'RE GOING TO EXPAND IF THERE'S A PROBLEM.

I'M JUST SAYING THAT WE WILL COME BACK IN A TIMELY FASHION. THAT'S THE ONLY THING THAT I WOULD SAY THAT WE WILL HAVE THAT DISCUSSION SOONER RATHER THAN LATER BASED ON WHATEVER WE DECIDE IS SUFFICIENT DATA TO JUDGE THE IMPACT OF 707. SO IT COULD BE 2 MONTHS, IT COULD BE 4 MONTHS. I WOULDN'T WANT IT TO BE MORE THAN 6 MONTHS.

WE'LL HAVE A PRETTY GOOD IDEA OF WHAT THAT IS.

YOU COULD COMMIT TO HOSTING A TOWN HALL 30 DAYS FROM TODAY TO REVIEW IT. THAT MIGHT BE A GREAT WAY. WAY.

ALL RIGHT, ARE YOU DONE, SUPERVISOR LONG? YES.

SUPERVISOR PLUMMER? YES, I WAS INTERESTED IN KIND OF HOW LONG IT TAKES IN, SO I WAS TIMING TODAY'S PUBLIC COMMENT, AND I MIGHT HAVE MISSED MY COUNT, BUT WE BUT I KNOW FROM A TIMING STANDPOINT, THE LAST SPEAKER STARTED JUST BEFORE 30 MINUTES AND THEN WENT OVER THAT. SO IN THIS CASE, WHICH IS LESS THAN THE LAST FEW MEETINGS, BUT WE WOULD HAVE JUST MADE IT, AND WE FIT 11 7.5 PEOPLE BEFORE THE 20-MINUTE MARK. SO FOR THE REGULAR ITEM, MY ONE KIND OF RECOMMENDATION, AND I'M GLAD TO SEE IT GOING UP TO 30 MINUTES, WHICH IS WHEN THIS CAME IN FEBRUARY, THAT WAS WHAT I WAS HOPING AT THAT TIME, IS THAT WE JUST MAKE IT 30 MINUTES FOR EVERYTHING. I THINK IT WILL, ONE, JUST SIMPLIFY IT SO PEOPLE AREN'T LIKE, WHOA, IS IT 20 MINUTES OR 30 MINUTES AT THIS TIME? AND IN PARTICULAR, I LOVE TO HEAR PEOPLE'S THOUGHTS ON ITEMS THAT WE'RE VOTING ON., AND SO WHEN THERE IS I REMEMBER

[02:55:01]

WHEN THE HOLLIS FARM SITUATION CAME, I THINK WE HAD 45 COMMENTERS, AND THAT'S WE WERE ABOUT TO VOTE ON THAT. AND SO THAT'S REALLY WHEN I WANT TO I MEAN, PUBLIC COMMENT IS, IS REALLY IMPORTANT AS WELL, BUT IN PARTICULAR WHEN WE'RE ABOUT TO TAKE A VOTE, WANT TO MAKE SURE WE HEAR IT. SO I WOULD EITHER ASK SUPERVISOR KJELLSTROM IF YOU'D BE WILLING TO AMEND IT TO APPROVE WITH 30 MINUTES ACROSS THE BOARD BOARD, OR YES, PLUMMER, IF I COULD.

WE DID ADD INTO THE AMENDMENTS THAT THE CHAIR HAS THE AUTHORITY TO ADJUST THE TOTAL TIME OF PUBLIC COMMENT PER ITEM AND THE TIME ALLOTTED FOR ALL SPEAKERS ON EACH ITEM FOR SITUATIONS LIKE YOU JUST EXPLAINED. IF WE HAVE A BIG PROJECT, OR, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE AN ITEM THAT COMES BEFORE THE BOARD THAT WE'RE GOING TO RECEIVE A LOT OF PUBLIC COMMENT ON, HE WOULD HAVE TO DO THAT OVERALL FOR THAT ONE ITEM AND FOR EACH SPEAKER. SO HE COULD INCREASE OR DECREASE THE NUMBER OR THE AMOUNT

OF TIME EACH >>AS, OR HE COULD INCREASE OR DECREASE THE OVERALL TIME. SO THAT AUTHORITY WOULD BE GIVEN TO THE CHAIR FOR THOSE BIGGER PROJECTS.

ADDITIONALLY, WE WOULD NOT BE PUTTING ANY TYPE OF TIME LIMIT ON SCHEDULED HEARINGS, AS WE CAN'T, WE CAN'T DO THAT FOR SCHEDULED HEARINGS. SO ALL SCHEDULED HEARINGS WOULDN'T HAVE A TIME LIMIT. IT WOULD JUST BE SUBJECT TO THE 2-MINUTE TIME PER SPEAKER.

SO STAFF HAS DONE A TON OF WORK ON THIS. THEY'VE DONE A TON OF TESTING ON THIS. THIS IS WHAT THEY'VE COME UP WITH AS THE BEST CASE SCENARIO. I'VE SAID MULTIPLE TIMES IN HERE, MULTIPLE TIMES, THAT WE'RE GOING TO START OUT TIGHT. IF IT ENDS UP NOT BEING A PROBLEM, WE ARE GOING TO EXPAND IT. I'LL BE HAPPY TO EXPAND IT. I DON'T KNOW IF WE NEED TO PUT A TIME AND DATE ON THAT. I DON'T KNOW IF WE NEED TO WHY DON'T WE GET THROUGH OUR FIRST MEETING FIRST WITH THIS NEW SYSTEM AND THEN SEE WHERE WE NEED TO GO FROM THERE. BUT AGAIN, I'M STAFF HAS PUT IN A TON OF TIME AND TON OF EFFORT INTO THIS THING, AND THIS IS THEIR BEST RECOMMENDATION TO COME UP WITH, AND I FULLY SUPPORT THAT. SO MY MOTION STANDS.

STEPHANIE, ONE CLARIFICATION THEN. SO IF THE CHAIR DECIDED TO EXPAND OPEN PUBLIC COMMENT OR DECIDED TO EXPAND ANY OF THE INDIVIDUAL REGULAR ITEMS, HE CAN DO THAT AT ANY MEETING AND EXPAND OUT LIKE, LIKE, LET'S JUST SAY WE DON'T HAVE TO COME BACK AS A BOARD TO, TO CHANGE THAT ONCE WE FIND OUT THE IMPACT OF 707. HE COULD SAY, I'M GONNA EXPAND PUBLIC COMMENT TO 45 MINUTES OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

I'M GONNA DEFER TO COUNSEL ON THAT ONE BECAUSE NO, I DON'T BELIEVE THAT IS THE ANSWER TO THAT IS NO.

HE, HE HAS TO HE HAS DISCRETION WITHIN AN INDIVIDUAL MEETING TO MAKE AN ADJUSTMENT. HE DOESN'T HAVE THE INDIVIDUAL AUTHORITY TO MAKE ADJUSTMENT TO THE POLICY AS A WHOLE.

THE ADMIN POLICY. OKAY, SO AGAIN, THAT WOULD BE, THAT WOULD BE FOR SITUATIONS LIKE LARGE PROJECTS OR SOMETHING OF THAT NATURE. SO MY MOTION STANDS.

I'M GOING TO GO WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS, UM, AND TRY OUR FIRST MEETING UNDER THIS NEW SYSTEM, SEE WHERE IT GOES FROM THERE.

AND I'LL BE MORE THAN HAPPY TO CHANGE IT AFTER THAT IF IT SOMETHING DOESN'T WORK. AND AGAIN, IF WE ONLY HAVE ONE CALLER OR TWO CALLERS, THAT TIME GOES BACK TO THE IN-PERSON, UH, PEOPLE THAT ARE HERE. SO, UM, WITH THAT, I'M GOING TO GO ASK FOR A ROLL CALL VOTE, UH, STARTING WITH SUPERVISOR PLUMMER.

SUPERVISOR PLUMMER? YES.

SUPERVISOR CRYE? YES.

[R6 Introduce and waive the reading of “An Ordinance of the Board of Supervisors of the County of Shasta, Adding Limitations on the Exercise of Eminent Domain to the Shasta County Charter,” and adopt a resolution which calls for an election and consolidates it with the November 3, 2026, General Election.]

SUPERVISOR KELSTROM? YES.

SUPERVISOR HARMON? YES. AND SUPERVISOR LONG? YES. ALL RIGHT, PASSES 5-0.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. MOVING ON, BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, UH, INTRODUCE AND WAIVE THE READING OF AN AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF SHASTA ADDING LIMITATIONS ON THE EXERCISE OF EMINENT DOMAIN TO THE SHASTA COUNTY CHARTER AND ADOPT A RESOLUTION WHICH CALLS FOR AN ELECTION AND CONSOLIDATES IT WITH THE NOVEMBER 3RD GENERAL ELECTION. SUPERVISOR CRYE, WOULD YOU LIKE TO SPEAK TO THIS? I MEAN, I THINK WE'RE I'LL JUST MAKE A MOTION THAT WE MOVE FORWARD. IT'S NOT I MEAN, IT SHOULD BE.

OKAY, AND DO WE HAVE PUBLIC COMMENT ON THIS ITEM? WERE YOU DONE? SORRY, I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE YOUR MIC WAS YEAH, I JUST SAID, I MEAN, I MEAN, YOU SHOULD BE QUICK. WE DISCUSSED THESE ALL LAST WEEK.

YES, WE DO HAVE 7 PUBLIC COMMENTERS. SO THAT'LL BE $1,500 A POP.

WE'LL LISTEN TO THOSE 3 MINUTES EACH.

DON DUCKETT'S UP FIRST, FOLLOWED BY SHASTA COUNTY WATCHDOG, NICK GARDNER, THEN JENNY.

GOOD AFTERNOON, BOARD.

SUPERVISOR CRYE, YOU MENTIONED IN YOUR BOARD REPORT THAT YOU WERE GOING TO DO SOME WORK AS A PRIVATE CITIZEN IN JANUARY FOR THE MEDICAL SCHOOL, AND I THINK PUTTING THESE BALLOT MEASURES, UH, WOULD BE A GREAT THING FOR YOU TO WORK ON AS A PRIVATE INDIVIDUAL.

YOU COULD FORM A POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE YOU COULD TAKE DONATIONS AND SPEND OTHER PEOPLE'S TIME AND MONEY ON SOMETHING LIKE THIS. UH, THESE ARE UNNECESSARY MEASURES

[03:00:02]

FOR PROBLEMS THAT HAVE NEVER EXISTED IN SHASTA COUNTY. AND FOR THE REST OF YOU, THE VOTERS AND THE PEOPLE OF SHASTA COUNTY HAVE SENT YOU A LOUD AND CLEAR MESSAGE. THEY HAVE GOTTEN RID OF KEVIN CRYE. SUPERVISOR KJELLSTROM, YOU CAME WITHIN 97 VOTES OF LOSING YOUR SEAT. AND THAT'S BECAUSE WE ARE SICK AND TIRED OF HAVING OUR AGENDAS FILLED WITH NONSENSE THAT DOES NOT RELATE TO ANY TANGIBLE QUALITY OF LIFE ISSUE IN SHASTA COUNTY. THANK YOU.

NEXT UP, SHASTA COUNTY WATCHDOG, FOLLOWED BY NICK GARDNER, JENNY, THEN THOMAS.

IF I CALLED YOUR NAME, PLEASE GET IN QUEUE.

THANK YOU. ITEM 6, I'M NOT SURE, MAYBE I COULD EXPLAIN THIS THE WAY I NEED TO EXPLAIN THIS. MR. LONG, YOU MIGHT UNDERSTAND WHAT I'M GOING TO SAY AND MAYBE YOU COULD CLARIFY IT MAYBE AFTER. WHEN A, WHEN A HOUSE GETS RAIDED BY A AN OFFICER AND THEY FIND DRUGS AND THEY FIND OUT THE HOUSE AND EVERYTHING WAS BOUGHT BY DRUG MONEY. THAT HOUSE ACTUALLY GETS TAKEN AWAY, COMPENSATED, AND ACTUALLY GETS SOLD TO AUCTION. SO MY GUESS, AND THE WAY KEVIN THINKS, IN THE WAY HIS MIND THINKS, COVID-19 MONEY, ELOP FUNDS.

WHEN YOU COMMIT COVID-19 FRAUD, WHEN YOU TAKE MONEY AND THEY AN OFFICER HANG ON BEFORE YOU SAY ANYTHING, MR. LARIMER, OKAY, WHERE I'M GOING WITH THIS. WHEN SOMEBODY ACTUALLY, UM, LET'S SAY THE FBI GOES AFTER SOMEBODY AND THEY FIND OUT THAT THE HOUSE WAS BOUGHT WITH, YOU KNOW, COVID-19 FRAUD, WHICH I HAVE SOME CASES FROM THE FBI HERE, UM, THAT HOUSE WILL BE TAKEN AWAY.

MY, MY THINKING IS KEVIN KREIS TRYING TO PROTECT HIMSELF BECAUSE OF THE FRAUD MONEY HE COLLECT IS STILL COLLECTING OVER $20 MILLION. $20 MILLION, PEOPLE.

OKAY, BUT THAT'S CONFISCATION.

THIS IS EMINENT DOMAIN.

EMINENT DOMAIN IS COMPLETELY DIFFERENT. YES, IT IT IS.

BUT THAT MEANS HE'S TRYING TO FROM WHAT I'M SEEING, THE WAY KEVIN IS, HE'S TRYING TO PROTECT HIMSELF BECAUSE HE'S TRYING TO MAKE SURE THAT HOUSE DOESN'T GET TAKEN AWAY BY THE LAW ENFORCEMENT WHEN IT COMES DOWN, WHEN THEY, THEY COME AFTER HIM. BECAUSE THAT'S GOING TO BE THAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN.

IT TAKES A WHILE BECAUSE OF ALL THE MONEY HE'S COLLECTED.

WOULD HAVE TO BE THE CITY OF REDDING ONE TO TAKE HIS FRONT YARD FOR A SIDEWALK. THAT'S EMINENT DOMAIN.

I, I UNDERSTAND HOW THIS WORKS.

AND LIKE I SAID, KEVIN KREIS' MIND WORKS IT'S PRETTY BAD.

IT'S PRETTY SAD. HE'S THINKING ABOUT HIMSELF. HE'S NOT THINKING ABOUT THE PEOPLE BECAUSE IF HE WAS THINKING ABOUT THE PEOPLE, HE SHOULD HAVE THOUGHT ABOUT THIS A LONG TIME AGO.

WHY IS HE DOING IT NOW ON HIS WAY OUT THE DOOR WHEN HE ALREADY LOST THE ELECTION? IT'S ALL ABOUT KEVIN TO PROTECT HIS HOUSE. HE BOUGHT THE HOUSE CASH. HOW ARE THEY GOING TO FIND OUT HOW HE BOUGHT THE HOUSE? HE'S TRYING TO PROTECT HIMSELF.

AND THIS WILL BE GOING TO THE VOTERS. SO THE VOTERS WILL DECIDE.

YES, THE VOTERS AGAIN.

AGAIN, YOU WANT TO SEND THIS BACK AGAIN TO THE VOTERS AND WASTE TAXPAYERS' MONEY? HE DON'T CARE. KEVIN CARRIGH DOESN'T CARE ABOUT TAXPAYERS' MONEY. ARE YOU SERIOUS? YOU WANT TO CONTINUE WASTING TAXPAYERS' MONEY? YOU GUYS DON'T KNOW HOW TO MANAGE ANYTHING.

NEXT UP, NICK GARDNER, FOLLOWED BY JENNY THOMAS, THEN STEVE KAHN. IF I CALLED YOUR NAME, PLEASE GET IN QUEUE.

AN OUNCE OF PREVENTION IS WORTH MORE THAN A POUND OF CURE.

THIS IS ABOUT THE GOVERNMENT TAKING A PRIVATE ENTITY'S MONEY AND GIVING OR PROPERTY AND GIVING IT TO ANOTHER PRIVATE ENTITY. I OWN A PIECE OF PROPERTY THAT'S ON A DEAD-END STREET THAT'S ABOUT 450 FEET LONG. I LIVE RIGHT IN FRONT. I BOUGHT THE 3 LOTS BEHIND ME FOR PRIVACY AND AN INVESTMENT.

THERE'S NOTHING ON THESE, THESE 3 LOTS. IT'S 1.2 ACRES.

NOW HERE'S A HYPOTHETICAL SITUATION. G&G BUILDS POORLY CONSTRUCTION COMPANY. THAT'S, UH, GARBETT AND GORMAN UH, NOT GORMAN, UH, GORDER. UH, THEY GO AND GET A $13 MILLION GRANT TO BUILD A 26-UNIT MENTAL HEALTH FACILITY APARTMENTS FOR

[03:05:02]

CHRISTIAN SCHRADER'S IMPORTED MENTALLY ILL HOMELESS PEOPLE DUMPED IN OUR CITY. SO THEY GO TO THE COUNTY AND TELL THEM THEY'VE GOT THE MONEY TO BUILD THIS, BUT WE NEED NICK'S PROPERTY. SO THE COUNTY TAKES MY PROPERTY AND GIVES IT TO THEM TO BUILD THIS FACILITY, AND THEY'VE RUINED MY INVESTMENT, AND THEY'VE RUINED MY SERENITY, AND THAT ISN'T WHAT EMINENT DOMAIN IS ABOUT. AND ON TOP OF THAT, THEY MIGHT SAY, WELL, WE LOST OUR GRANT, SO WE'RE NOT GOING TO BUILD ANYTHING, BUT NOW THEY OWN THE PROPERTY.

THAT'S HOW THIS CAN BE ABUSED.

IT WAS DONE, I THINK IT WAS BLUE HARBOR IN MASSACHUSETTS. A BIG DEVELOPER CAME IN, THE COUNTY FORCED THESE PEOPLE OUT OF THEIR HOMES, AND I YOU'RE TALKING MULTIPLE 50 OR 60 HOMES. AND AT THE END OF THE DAY, THE DEVELOPER DIDN'T DEVELOP, THESE PEOPLE ARE KICKED OUT OF THEIR HOMES, AND THE COUNTY OWNS THE PROPERTY. THAT'S HOW THIS CAN BE ABUSED. USED.

LIKE CHRIS SAID, EMINENT DOMAIN IS FOR PUBLIC PROJECTS, NOT PRIVATE-TO-PRIVATE PROJECTS, AND I HOPE YOU'LL PROTECT THAT FOR US. REMEMBER, AN OUNCE OF PREVENTION IS WORTH MORE THAN A POUND OF CURE, AND IF THAT HAPPENED TO ME, I WOULD TAKE YOU TO COURT AND I WOULD COST YOU A LOT OF MONEY FIGHTING THIS, EVEN THOUGH I'D LOSE, BECAUSE IT'S THE PRINCIPLE OF THE THING. YOU CAN'T COME AND TAKE MY PROPERTY AND GIVE IT TO SOMEBODY ELSE, A PRIVATE ENTITY. THAT'S HOW I FEEL ABOUT IT. THANK YOU.

NEXT UP, JENNY, FOLLOWED BY THOMAS, THEN STEVE KAHN. IF I CALLED YOUR NAME, PLEASE GET IN QUEUE.

THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR LISTENING TO OUR COMMENTS, DEAR BOARD, EXCEPT I GUESS THE ABSENT MR. KRYGAN. AS IT WAS WITHIN MR. CRYE'S ORIGINAL PROMISES TO DO SO. PLEASE, MR. CRYE, I THINK THAT YOU FEEL THAT MY QUESTION TO YOU IS INSULTING OR RUDE, BUT IT IS SINCERE. WHAT IS THE POINT OF THIS? I DO NOT UNDERSTAND. I JUST NEED AN EXPLANATION OF WHAT THIS IS, NOT A GENERAL STANCE OF I WANT TO PUSH BACK ON THE STATE, BUT REALLY WHAT ARE YOU PUSHING AGAINST? AGAINST. FOR. I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHAT THE FEAR IS.

IT'S IMPORTANT TO EXPLAIN CASE LAW, PRECEDENT, PLACES WHERE THIS HAS HAPPENED BEFORE. HOW HAS THIS AFFECTED CITIZENS? WHY IS IT IMPORTANT? THE INFORMATION BEFORE ME MAKES NO SENSE, ESPECIALLY SINCE IT ALREADY IS IN THE CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION SINCE THE PASSING OF PROP 99.

SO I CANNOT ENCOURAGE A VOTER TO VOTE FOR THIS EVER. IF YOU WANT SOMEONE TO VOTE FOR YOUR MEASURE, THEN YOU NEED TO MAKE IT CLEAR WHY IT IS TRULY IMPORTANT AND WHAT IT IS REALLY ABOUT. WHAT IS YOUR TRUE CONCERN? OTHERWISE, IT JUST FEELS LIKE THIS IS A WASTE OF TIME AND EFFORT AND MONEY, AND ALL OF THIS CAN BETTER BE SPENT ON OTHER THINGS.

THANK YOU. NEXT UP, THOMAS, FOLLOWED BY STEVE COHEN.

GOOD AFTERNOON. I THINK IT DOESN'T HURT TO SMILE, CHRIS.

BUT ANYWAY, I SEEN A PICTURE ONCE OF A BIG CASINO, HAD A LITTLE FARMHOUSE OR A LITTLE HOUSE NEXT TO IT. SO THAT WAS EMINENT DOMAIN.

THE GUY DIDN'T WANT TO SELL HIS PROPERTY.

AND WE'RE LOSING OUR RIGHTS BY WHATEVER, THE STATE OR WHATEVER.

AND ANYTIME WE HAVE A CHARTER COUNTY NOW, ANYTIME WE CAN PUT ON SOMETHING THAT'S SENSIBLE, PROTECT CITIZENS' RIGHTS, I DON'T KNOW WHO COULD VOTE AGAINST IT.

AND WE HAVE A CHARTER COUNTY, SO LET'S GET THIS ON AND VOTE FOR IT AND GET ON WITH A GOOD LIFE, INDIVIDUAL LIFE. SHASTA COUNTY IS GREAT.

IF IT WASN'T, I WOULDN'T BE HERE.

HERE.

IT'S A GOOD PLACE TO LIVE.

SO LET'S MAKE IT EVEN BETTER BY PROTECTING THE CITIZENS.

AND AGAIN, I THINK THIS WILL GROW ERODED, ADDING LIMITATIONS TO THE EXERCISE OF EMINENT DOMAIN.

SO LET'S, LET'S, LET'S GIVE THAT LITTLE PROTECTION FOR THE GUY THAT SAYS MAYBE I DON'T AGREE. THIS IS COMMON SENSE.

ANOTHER, A FRIEND OF MINE HERE AN OUNCE OF PREVENTION IS WORTH A POUND OF CURE. SO LET'S START OFF WITH SIMPLE CHARTER COUNTY.

LET'S USE IT. LET'S TRY TO PROTECT OUR RIGHTS. WE JUST LOST OUR VOTING RIGHTS. RIGHT NOW WE'RE ATTACHED TO SOMEBODY IN TIMARON COUNTY OR SOMETHING.

SO VOTING. SO HERE'S A CHANCE FOR US TO HELP OURSELVES.

AND YOU GUYS HAVE THE VOTES.

NEXT UP, STEVE COLLINS.

WELL, WE WENT

[03:10:04]

THROUGH THIS BEFORE, YOU KNOW, TAKING PROPERTY THROUGH EMINENT DOMAIN AND GIVING IT TO A PRIVATE ENTITY HAS NEVER OCCURRED IN SHASTA COUNTY, EVER. I CAN'T EVER SEE IT HAPPENING IN SHASTA COUNTY. SO THIS WHOLE THING IS A WASTE, WASTED EFFORT AND A WASTE OF MONEY I THINK THAT THE ONLY REASON THIS IS BEING DONE IS THAT KEVIN CRYE WANTS TO AGAIN BE ON RIGHT-WING NATIONAL MEDIA BY DOING THIS, THIS ISSUE WHICH HE CAN BRING ATTENTION TO, AND THE MEASURE B SITUATION.

HE WANTS TO GATHER, YOU KNOW, GARNER ENOUGH ATTENTION SO THAT HE CAN ADVERTISE HIS NINJA COALITION NATIONALLY AGAIN FOR FREE. IT'S PROTECTED BY THE CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION. YOU KNOW, THAT WOULD HAVE TO BE CHANGED IN ORDER FOR PEOPLE FOR THIS SITUATION TO OCCUR.

THERE'S NO NEED TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS.

IT'S A TOTAL WASTE OF TIME AND MONEY, PERIOD.

THERE'S NO OTHER ARGUMENT TO IT.

SURE.

THAT WAS OUR LAST SPEAKER.

BRING IT BACK FOR BOARD DISCUSSION.

THANK YOU, CHAIR. I WILL NOT REITERATE EVERYTHING I SAID LAST WEEK, BUT I WILL NOT BE IN FAVOR OF THIS AGAIN. AND I, I WANT TO REMIND THE BOARD THAT THESE ARE DUPLICATE DUPLICATIVE EFFORTS. PROP 99 AT THE STATE CONSTITUTIONAL LEVEL ALREADY PROHIBITS THE EMINENT DOMAIN TRANSFER OF PRIVATE TO PRIVATE. THAT'S ALREADY TAKEN CARE OF. CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE, WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT MEASURE P, WHICH IS THE ABILITY TO APPOINT FOR ANY POSITION OTHER THAN A SUPERVISOR POSITION, SO ANY ELECTED OFFICIAL POSITION, CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE 24000 AND CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE 25301 304 STATE IN THE GOVERNMENT CODE THAT THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS SHALL FILL A VACANCY. SO IF, EVEN IF WE DRAW AN ARTIFICIAL TIMELINE, WE WILL APPOINT A VACANCY IN ANY ELECTED OFFICE UNLESS WE WANT TO BE IN VIOLATION OF STATE LAW. SO WE CAN PUSH THAT.

WE'RE ON OUR 6. THAT'S EMINENT DOMAIN IS R6. WRONG ITEM.

WELL, IT'S THIS. OKAY.

THAT'S THE WRONG ITEM.

THEY'RE IT'S TWO DIFFERENT ITEMS. OKAY. I WILL REST MY COMMENTS ON THAT AND THEN WE'LL GET TO THE SEPARATE. I FORGOT THEY WERE SEPARATED OUT. OKAY.

AND THIS IS AGAIN JUST TO PUT EMINENT DOMAIN ON THE BALLOT TO THE VOTE FOR THE VOTERS TO DECIDE WHETHER WE WANT TO ADD IT TO OUR COUNTY CHARTER AGAIN.

SO SUPERVISOR CRAIG MADE THE MOTION. I BELIEVE I SECONDED IT. DID SOMEBODY ELSE? I DON'T HAVE A MOTION OR A SECOND.

WOULD YOU LIKE TO RESTATE YOUR MOTION? YEAH, I JUST, I THINK WE PUT THIS BACK ON THE BALLOT. I THINK THERE WAS CONFUSION AND I THINK THIS IS GOING TO PASS OVERWHELMINGLY. I THINK IT WAS STACKED WITH LIKE 40 OTHER PROPOSITIONS IN THE STATE.

THERE WAS PROP 47. MOST PEOPLE WERE JUST TOLD, HEY, VOTE NO ON EVERYTHING BUT 47. THAT WAS 36, I BELIEVE.

YEAH, I'M SORRY.

WE HAVE A MOTION. WE HAVE A MOTION.

OH YEAH, I MADE THE MOTION ALREADY.

SECONDED. SO WE HAVE A MOTION BY SUPERVISOR CRYE.

SECOND WAS BY ME. SO, UH, AGAIN, THIS IS TO PUT IT ON THE MOTION OR PUT IT ON THE BALLOT TO GIVE TO THE VOTERS. YEAH, SO WE'LL TAKE A ROLL CALL VOTE STARTING WITH SUPERVISOR PLUMMER.

[R7 Introduce and waive the reading of “An Ordinance of the Board of Supervisors of the County of Shasta Adding Provisions for Filling Elected Department Head Positions in the Event of a Vacancy to the Shasta County Charter,” and adopt a resolution which calls for an election and consolidates it with the November 3, 2026, General Election.]

SUPERVISOR PLUMMER? NO.

SUPERVISOR CRYE? YES.

SUPERVISOR KELSTRA? YES.

SUPERVISOR HARMON? YES. AND SUPERVISOR LONG? NO. ALL RIGHT, PASSES 3-2.

NOW ON TO R7, WHICH, UH, WE INTRODUCED AND WAIVED THE READING OF THE ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, COUNTY OF SHASTA, ADDING THE PROVISION FILLING ELECTRIC DEPARTMENT HEAD POSITIONS IN THE EVENT OF A VACANCY TO THE SHASTA COUNTY CHARTER.

SO WE PUT IN OUR CHARTER THE ONLY THING WE HAVE IN OUR CHARTER IS TO, UM, UH, THE STATE GOVERNMENT SAID AFTER WE HAD A RECALL HERE THAT THEY WERE GOING TO APPOINT THE SUPERVISORS FROM THAT POINT FORWARD. SO WE PUT THAT IN OUR CHARTER. SO NOW THIS IS FOR THE OTHER DEPARTMENT HEADS.

SO FOR INSTANCE, A YEAR OR SO AGO, WE HAD A DEPARTMENT HEAD LEAVE.

THIS WOULD HAVE WENT TO THE VOTERS TO THE VOTE FOR THE VOTERS TO DECIDE WHO FILLS THAT DEPARTMENT HEAD SPOT. SO SUPERVISOR KRAUT, YOU WANT TO TAKE IT FROM THERE? YEAH. AND I OOPS. YEAH.

AND I APPRECIATED SUPERVISOR PLUMMER'S TWEAKS AS WELL. I MEAN, I WAS IN, I WAS IN FAVOR OF THOSE. I MEAN, AGAIN, WE'VE ALREADY BEAT THIS UP. WE ALREADY TALKED ABOUT IT LAST WEEK. I THINK IT'S, IT'S A NO-BRAINER AND IT'LL PROBABLY PASS 4/5.

ALL RIGHT, SUPERVISOR LONG, OR DID YOU HAVE A MOTION? OH YEAH, I MAKE A MOTION THAT WE MOVE R7 TO THE BALLOT FOR THE VOTERS TO DECIDE.

[03:15:01]

AND I'LL SECOND THAT MOTION.

OKAY, NOW THAT WE'RE ON THERE YOU GO. THIS TOPIC, BUT IT APPLIED TO BOTH.

BUT SO CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE, AS WE TALKED ABOUT IN THE LAST R6, GOVERNMENT CODE ALREADY PROHIBITS AND/OR AUTHORIZES THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS TO APPOINT TO THESE POSITIONS. THAT'S A GIVEN. YOU SHALL, YOU WILL. SO DRAWING A TIMELINE AS TO THE 12 MONTHS, I JUST DON'T SEE HOW THAT MAKES A DIFFERENCE. WE'RE GOING TO APPOINT NO MATTER WHAT, UNLESS WE'RE IN CONTRAST TO CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE, WHICH SAYS WE WILL DO THAT.

SO, AND I, AND I WANT TO REITERATE THE FACT THAT WE'RE TALKING $20,000 TO $50,000 PER EACH OF THESE MEASURES. SO THAT WOULD BE A COLLECTIVE TOTAL OF UP TO $100,000. AND FOR THINGS THAT ARE ALREADY COVERED UNDER GOVERNMENT CODE, AND THIS PARTICULAR R7 WOULD BE $20,000 TO $50,000 EXTRA TO PUT SOMETHING ON THERE THAT IS ALREADY REQUIRED UNDER CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE.

AND I THINK IT'S A REALLY BAD LOOK LOOK IN THE LIGHT OF IT'S A REALLY BAD LOOK IN LIGHT OF THE LAST BUDGET HEARINGS THAT WE JUST WENT THROUGH WHERE WE ALL ARE WE HAVE A STRUCTURAL DEFICIT, WE'RE BORROWING TO BALANCE THE BUDGET FROM OUR GENERAL FUND RESERVES, AND WE HAVE CAN YOU STOP TALKING, PLEASE? JEEZ, YOU'RE GRUNTING AND YOU'RE MUTTERING.

WE HAVE ALREADY TALKED ABOUT THIS, AND WE HASHED THIS OUT DURING BUDGET HEARINGS, AND WE TOLD OUR DISTRICT ATTORNEY, OUR PUBLIC DEFENDER, WE DON'T HAVE CASH. WE DON'T HAVE CASH. WE BARELY GOT THROUGH A RETENTION BONUS TO TRY TO HANG ON TO ATTORNEYS THAT ARE LEAVING.

AND IN THE INTEREST OF PUBLIC SAFETY, PUBLIC SAFETY PARTNERS, THE SHERIFF, EVERYONE INCLUDED, THIS IS A VERY BAD OPTIC WHERE THINGS THAT ARE ALREADY COVERED UNDER CALIFORNIA LAW THAT WE ARE WE'RE FIGHTING FOR THINGS THAT WE'RE IMAGINING MIGHT HAPPEN. AND SO I THINK THIS IS A REALLY BAD LOOK AND IT'S A BAD MOVE TO SPEND, IN THIS CASE, UP TO $50,000, UM, WHEN WE'RE TELLING OUR PUBLIC SAFETY PARTNERS, OUR SHERIFF, OUR DISTRICT ATTORNEY, OUR PUBLIC DEFENDER, WE'RE TELLING THEM WE DON'T HAVE ENOUGH MONEY AND WE'RE GOING TO THROW THIS INTO THE MIX AND IT'S GOING TO BE, UM, SOMETHING THAT IS DISCRETIONARY AND ALREADY DUPLICATED UNDER CURRENT CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE.

THIS IS A WASTE OF MONEY AND WE SHOULD NOT WE SHOULD NOT BE DOING THAT, AND WE SHOULD NOT BE SENDING THE MESSAGE TO OUR EMPLOYEES THAT ARE AT CRITICAL STAFFING LEVELS THAT, YEAH, OKAY, WE CAN'T PAY YOU PROPER SALARIES, BUT YET WE'RE GONNA, WE'RE GONNA THROW UP TO $50,000, AND IN BOTH CASES UP TO $100,000 TOWARD FRIVOLOUS THINGS THAT ARE ALREADY COVERED IN CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTIONAL LAW.

YES, SUPERVISOR LONG, I KNOW WE TALKED ABOUT THIS, AND I HAVE TO DISAGREE WITH YOU ON PARTICULARLY ON THE POINT OF DUPLICATION.

THE KEY THING THAT THIS WILL DO, AND, UH, IS THAT IT WILL PUT TO AN ELECTION THE APPOINTMENT OF, OR THE SELECTION OF, A VACANCY. AND I THINK THAT'S SUPER IMPORTANT. I KNOW MANY FOLKS WERE NOT HAPPY WITH HOW THE APPOINTMENTS WENT IN THE PREVIOUS TWO EXAMPLES, WHICH HAS HAPPENED TWICE IN THE LAST FOUR YEARS. AND I'M SURPRISED, IN FACT, THAT MANY OF THOSE WHO WERE NOT HAPPY WITH THAT AND WANTED THE VOTERS TO HAVE A CHOICE ARE NOW NOT IN FAVOR OF THIS, WHICH WOULD ALLOW THE VOTERS TO HAVE A CHOICE, WHEREAS THE STATE LAW CURRENTLY DOES NOT ALLOW US TO PUT IT TO AN ELECTION. SO THAT'S A KEY CHANGE, AND IT'S A VERY IMPORTANT CHANGE, IN MY OPINION.

PARTICULARLY BECAUSE WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT AN ELECTED OFFICIAL, IT IS SOMEONE WHO'S SUPPOSED TO BE SELECTED BY THE PEOPLE.

AND SO I THINK PRINCIPALLY ALSO THAT IT MAKES SENSE FOR THIS TO GO TO AN ELECTION. AND SO I, AS I DID LAST WEEK, AM IN FAVOR OF THIS, AND I THINK WE CAN MINIMIZE THE COST IN THE FUTURE BY HAVING IT, YOU KNOW, THE 12-MONTH STIPULATION. AND SO I THINK THIS IS KIND OF THE, THE SWEET SPOT.

IN ADDITION TO SUPERVISOR ADDITION FROM LAST TIME OF THE 4/5 VOTE, WHICH I THINK ALSO ENSURES THAT THERE WILL BE, REGARDLESS OF THE MAKEUP OF THE BOARD, THERE WILL BE A COMPROMISE AMONG BOARD MEMBERS

[03:20:01]

TO FIND SOMEONE THAT IS SUITABLE TO THE BROADER POPULATION.

BECAUSE THESE POSITIONS THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT ARE ALL REPRESENTED BY THE FULL COUNTY VERSUS A DISTRICT. AND I THINK IN THAT WAY, IT'S HELPFUL TO HAVE A BROADER CROSS-SECTION OF THE SUPERVISORS SUPERVISORS SELECTING THEM VERSUS 3. SO I THINK BOTH OF THESE CHANGES ARE MATERIAL AND SIGNIFICANT RELATIVE TO WHERE IT WAS ON THE BALLOT IN 2024. AND SO THIS REPRESENTS NOT JUST A REPOSITIONING OF THE SAME THING, BUT ALSO A NEW AND SUBSTANTIVE CHANGE. SO I, I AM FULLY SUPPORTIVE OF THIS.

YEAH, A COUPLE EXAMPLES THAT YOU USED IN YOUR, IN YOUR DISSENSION AGAINST THE SUPERVISOR LONG WAS THE SHERIFF AND THE DA, AND I MEAN, IF EITHER ONE OF THEM WERE TO FOR SOME REASON RESIGN TOMORROW OR WHATEVER, WE WOULD BE PICKING A REPLACEMENT AND NOT BEING OFFERED BEING ABLE TO OFFER IT TO THE VOTERS TO REPLACE THEM. SO SUPERVISOR LONG, GO AHEAD.

WELL, I'M GLAD YOU BROUGHT UP THAT POINT BECAUSE THE WAY IT WORKS AND THE WAY IT WILL WORK GOING FORWARD, AND I'M GOING TO READ GOVERNMENT CODE TO YOU FIRST.

SO THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS SHALL FILL A VACANCY BY APPOINTMENT APPOINTMENT.

THE APPOINTEE SHALL HOLD THE OFFICE FOR THE UNEXPIRED TERM OR UNTIL THE FIRST MONDAY AFTER JANUARY 1ST. THAT'S GOVERNMENT CODE 25304. SO THAT SAYS WE WILL APPOINT.

BUT I THINK THE POINT OF THE CHARTER IS TO ACTUALLY CHANGE, YOU KNOW, WHAT HAPPENS HERE. AND THE CHARTER, IN MY UNDERSTANDING AND EITHER STEWART OR KEONE COUNCIL CAN SPEAK TO THIS IS THAT IT GIVES US THE AUTHORITY TO OPERATE OUTSIDE OF WHAT THE STATE STATE GENERAL LAW DICTATES. AND SO THAT'S WHERE THE DIFFERENCE WOULD BE HERE AND WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO ASSERT.

BUT, BUT THE, THE, THE POINT THAT I'M TRYING TO MAKE IS THE FACT THAT, UH, LET'S JUST SAY AN ELECTED OFFICIAL, UH, QUITS THE JOB AND THEY'RE WITHIN THE 12-MONTH PERIOD, WHICH IS WHAT THIS IS AFFECTING. SO IF THEY QUIT THE JOB, THEY'RE WITHIN THE 12-MONTH PERIOD, THE DEPARTMENT IS NOT GOING TO RUN ITSELF.

UNTIL THE NEXT ELECTION. WE WILL BE APPOINTING AN INTERIM.

THE ONLY DIFFERENCE IS THE FACT WHEN YOU APPOINT AN INTERIM, THEN YOU'RE MESSING THEM OUT OF THEIR PERS BENEFITS BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT ACTING IN FULL CAPACITY. SO WE WILL, WE WILL BE APPOINTING REGARDLESS OF WHETHER IT'S IN THE 12 MONTHS OR UNDER.

IT'S NOT SOMETHING WHERE THE POSITION SIMPLY GOES UNFILLED.

YOU CANNOT HAVE A DEPARTMENT HEAD. SO WE WOULD BE APPOINTING OUTSIDE THAT, WE WOULD APPOINT OUTSIDE THE 12 MONTHS, AND WITHIN THE 12 MONTHS WE ARE GOING TO MAKE THE APPOINTMENT, PERIOD. THAT IS GOING TO HAPPEN. AND THE ONLY DIFFERENCE THAT I CAN TELL IS THE FACT THAT WE ARE GOING TO SCREW OUR APPOINTEE OUT OF THE BENEFITS UNDER CALPERS. SO WE'RE GONNA NOT HAVE THEM IN FULL TIME AND GRADE. AND SO REGARDLESS OF WHAT THIS IS, IT'S COVERED UNDER GOVERNMENT CODE. YOU SHALL APPOINT, AND WHETHER IT'S WITHIN 12 MONTHS OR IT'S OUTSIDE OF 12 MONTHS, WE WILL APPOINT.

WHETHER IT'S A NEW PERSON TO RUN THAT AND THEY'LL RUN OUT THE REST OF THE TERM, OR WHETHER IT'S AN INTERIM ACTING AND THEN THEY, THEY, THEY'LL FINISH OUT THE TERM.

BUT THE BOARD WILL APPOINT REGARDLESS OF THE TIME FRAME.

AND THAT IS MY POINT. THIS IS A WASTE OF MONEY TO DUPLICATE WHAT IS REQUIRED UNDER STATE LAW AND WHAT IS OUR COMMON PRACTICE, WHICH IS LESS THAN 12 MONTHS, WE WILL APPOINT.

I DON'T THINK GIVING THE SELECTION TO THE VOTERS IS A WASTE OF MONEY. IT'S NOT. OKAY, OKAY.

I MEAN, SO FOR INSTANCE, WE HAVE A ROCK STAR ELECTED OFFICIAL ON THE IN THE ROOM RIGHT NOW THAT JUST WON HER ELECTION AND SHE HAS 4 MORE YEARS. AND NOLDA, DON'T LISTEN TO THESE WORDS. THIS IS JUST A HYPOTHETICAL, OKAY? SO, YOU KNOW, WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IF NOLDA DECIDED THAT, YOU KNOW WHAT, I'D RATHER GO SIP A MARGARITA ON A BEACH SOMEWHERE. I'M DONE.

I'M OUT OF HERE. I'M GOING TO GO AHEAD AND RETIRE. WE WOULD WE WOULD THE VOTERS WOULD HAVE SOMEBODY THAT WAS NOT ELECTED FOR 4 YEARS, FOR 4+ YEARS. WELL, BUT YOU WOULD NEVER DO THAT.

NO, NO, NO. WHAT THIS PROVISION SAYS IS IT ROLLS TO THE NEXT ELECTION. SO THAT IS THE NEXT GENERAL ELECTION.

SO IF WE'RE OUTSIDE OF THE 12 MONTHS, THE BOARD WILL APPOINT. THIS IS THE PART OF WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE. IF WE'RE WITHIN THE 12 MONTHS, MY POINT IS WE WILL STILL APPOINT. IT WILL BE AN INTERIM ACTING, BUT WE'RE JUST GOING TO SUPERVISOR PLUMMER.

SUPERVISOR PLUMMER, WAIT, I'M NOT I'M JUST I'M QUITE ALMOST FINISHED.

OKAY, YOU'RE IN QUEUE AGAIN ALREADY.

SO SO WHAT I'M SAYING IS THAT WE WILL APPOINT REGARDLESS OF WHAT THE CIRCUMSTANCES ARE WITHIN 12 MONTHS. JUST LET HIM FINISH. CAN I FINISH? AND SO WE WILL APPOINT WITHIN THE 12 MONTHS OR WITHOUT THE 12 MONTHS, AND IT WILL BE SOMETHING WHERE THEY WILL IT

[03:25:01]

WILL ROLL WHOEVER WE APPOINT OR WHOEVER WE APPOINT AS THE ACTING INTERIM INTERIM WILL RUN UNTIL THE NEXT GENERAL ELECTION. SO WE'RE NOT GOING TO END UP WITH A 4-YEAR PERIOD WITH SOMEBODY. IT WILL BE TILL THE NEXT GENERAL ELECTION.

LARMOR, CAN YOU HELP THEM UNDERSTAND THE LAW? IT SAYS TO FINISH OUT THEIR TERM.

YEAH, YOU, YOU READ, SAID FINISH OUT THEIR TERM.

THE BOARD CANNOT THE BOARD CANNOT APPOINT AN INTERIM ELECTED OFFICIAL. IT DOES. YOU KEEP SAYING THAT, SO YOU'RE CLEARLY, CLEARLY OUT OF YOUR LEAGUE UNDERSTANDING THIS.

HELP THEM OUT, PLEASE.

THANKS.

SO THE FIRST THING TO UNDERSTAND IS, IS THE CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION, IN CREATING A CHARTER COUNTY, CREATED WHAT'S CALLED THE HOME RULE. AND THAT HOME RULE IS WELL-DEFINED IN THE AREA OF SELF-GOVERNANCE. AND WHEN THEY TALK ABOUT SELF-GOVERNANCE, YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT YOUR ELECTED OFFICIALS, THEIR APPOINTMENTS, THEIR TERMS, THEIR PAY, THOSE SORT OF THINGS. SO THIS FITS SQUARELY WITHIN THAT. IF YOU'RE WITHIN THE HOME RULE, YOU CAN HAVE A CHARTER THAT SUPERSEDES STATE LAW. WHEN, WHEN YOU HEAR THAT STATED RELATED TO MEASURE B OVER AND OVER, THAT'S CORRECT, AS LONG AS IT'S WITHIN THE BOUNDS OF THE HOME RULE. SO ONCE YOU ENACT A CHARTER IN THAT AREA, IT CAN SUPERSEDE STATE LAW.

WHAT IS BEING PLACED ON, ON THE BALLOT, IF YOU APPROVE THIS THIS.

THERE IS NO, UH, THERE IS NO ABILITY TO, UM, NECESSARILY MOVE THINGS TO AN ELECTION. WHAT IT STATES IS YOU SHALL APPOINT WITHIN A REASONABLE TIME. THE COURTS HAVE NEVER DEFINED EXACTLY WHAT THAT REASONABLE TIME IS. ESSENTIALLY, UM, WHAT YOU'RE DOING HERE IS SAYING THAT THAT REASONABLE TIME WILL NEVER BE LONGER THAN, THAN 12 MONTHS TO GET TO AN ELECTION.

IF IT'S LONGER THAN THAT, THAT YOU'LL POINT, ESSENTIALLY MODIFYING THE STATE LAW SLIGHTLY. THE PRIOR ATTEMPT AT THIS, I BELIEVE, HAD A SPECIAL ELECTION, WHICH THIS ONE NO LONGER HAS.

SO, SO, JOE, MY POINT IS THAT IF WE'RE WITHIN 12 MONTHS, THEN IT THAT THE TERM IS ENDING.

IT'S NOT GOING TO BE A 4-YEAR TERM AT THAT.

NO, THAT'S NOT THE TIME FRAME.

THE TIME FRAME IF THERE'S AN ELECTION, A REGULARLY SCHEDULED ELECTION, WITH 12 MONTHS IS MY UNDERSTANDING OF THE, THE ORDINANCE. SO IT'S NOT THAT THERE'S ONLY 12 MONTHS REMAINING ON THE TERM. IT'S THAT THERE'S 12 MONTHS OR LESS TO THE NEXT ELECTION. IF THAT ELECTION IS FURTHER OUT THAN 12 MONTHS, WHICH CAN BE 2 YEARS, RIGHT, THEN YOU WOULD APPOINT RATHER THAN WAITING 2 YEARS FOR AN ELECTION.

ELECTION. THAT, THAT'S, THAT'S THE WAY THIS ORDINANCE IS WRITTEN. AND I WILL INDICATE THAT I HAVEN'T GOTTEN TO DO A FULL REVIEW ON THIS ORDINANCE, SO IT'S BEFORE YOU TODAY WITHOUT A FINAL LEGAL REVIEW.

MISS BLANKENSHIP, DO WE HAVE PUBLIC SPEAKERS ON THIS ITEM? YES, SIR. 4 SPEAKERS. OKAY, SUPERVISOR PLUMMER.

SO, UH, JOE, ONE MORE CLARIFYING QUESTION. SO SAY, SAY, TO USE, UH, SUPERVISOR KELLSTROM'S EXAMPLE, THAT OUR AUDITOR DECIDED TO RESIGN EFFECTIVE TODAY. WE HAVE AN ELECTION COMING IN NOVEMBER, SO THIS WOULD BE PLACED ON THAT ELECTION FOR THE AUDITOR. WHAT WOULD HAPPEN BETWEEN NOW AND THAT ELECTION? WELL, SO THERE, THERE ARE NO LEGAL GROUNDS UNDER WHICH A BOARD CAN APPOINT AN INTERIM. THERE IS ONLY AN APPOINTMENT, AND ONCE AN APPOINTMENT IS DONE, THEY BECOME AN ELECTED OFFICIAL. THE WAY THAT THE GOVERNMENT CODE AND THE CASE LAW UNDER STATE LAW EXISTS, ESSENTIALLY THE SECOND IN COMMAND TAKES ON THOSE DAILY DUTIES UNTIL, TILL THE BOARD OR THE ELECTORATE TAKES SOME SORT OF ACTION.

OKAY, SO BASICALLY NOLDA'S NUMBER TWO WOULD BECOME AN ACTING I DON'T KNOW IF OFFICIALLY, BUT IN PRACTICE THEY WOULD THEY WOULD SO THE BOARD WOULDN'T BE PERMITTED TO TAKE ACTION AND APPOINT SOMEONE TO THAT POSITION IF UNDER HOW THIS IS CURRENTLY WRITTEN? THERE WOULD BE NO OFFICIAL CHANGE IN THEIR TITLE, BUT THEY WOULD TAKE ON THOSE DUTIES.

OKAY. AND IN MY MIND, THAT'S THE INTENT OF THIS, AND I THINK THAT ACHIEVES A SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE FROM, YOU KNOW, THE CURRENT PRACTICE TODAY.

AND SO, YEAH, YEAH.

SUPERVISOR CRYER, AND THEN WE'RE GOING TO GET TO PUBLIC COMMENT.

YEAH, AND THEN I KNOW, UH, UH, COUNCIL LARIMER WELL, YOU KNOW WHAT, WE'LL JUST, WE'LL JUST WAIT. I'LL WAIT AND SAVE MY FOR PUBLIC AFTER PUBLIC COMMENT.

ALL RIGHT, 4 SPEAKERS.

FIRST UP, DON DUCKETT, FOLLOWED BY SHASTA COUNTY WATCHDOG JENNY, THEN JEFF GORDER. IF I CALLED YOUR NAME, PLEASE GET IN QUEUE. NOT SEEING DON.

SHASTA COUNTY WATCHDOG FOLLOWED BY JENNY, THEN JEFF PORTER.

[03:30:06]

UNBELIEVABLE, THE WASTE OF TAXPAYERS' MONEY FOR THESE FREAKING STUPID CONVERSATIONS.

AND THEN ON TOP OF THAT, WHERE I AM SO TIRED OF IS MR. PLUMMER. YOU'RE ALWAYS ALWAYS KISSING KEVIN KREISS'S ASS.

AND I CAN SEE, I CANNOT UNDERSTAND HOW YOU'RE ALWAYS DOING THAT, LIKE HE'S RIGHT AND YOU FOLLOW.

HE DROPS A CRUMB, YOU KIND OF SEE, OH WELL, MAYBE I'LL GO ALONG WITH THEM. I'M SERIOUS, YOU ARE JUST LOOKING BAD.

DISTRICT 1, DISTRICT 4, WHEN IT'S TIME FOR YOU TO RUN, YOU'RE NOT RUNNING ALONE. I'M GOING TO RUN AGAINST YOU. I'M TIRED YOU'RE NOT STANDING FOR THE CITIZENS. I AM SERIOUS.

YOU'RE NOT REPRESENTING US AT ALL. AND FOR YOUR POLICY HERE, WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO DO I KNOW WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO DO BECAUSE THERE WAS, THERE WAS A CONVERSATION A WHILE BACK AND I TOLD SOMEBODY, AND SOMEBODY THAT I, I COULD CONFIDE IN, AND I TOLD THEM WHAT THEY WANTED TO DO ABOUT APPOINTING SOMEBODY.

THEY HAVE A PLAN HERE AND YOU DON'T SEE IT BECAUSE YOU'RE STUCK. YOUR MIND IS STUCK ALONG WITH AI. YOU'RE PART OF THE SYSTEM. YOU DON'T SEE BECAUSE YOU'RE NOT RIGHT WITH GOD. AND I'M TELLING YOU RIGHT NOW, THERE'S A PLAN FOR THIS.

YOU WANT TO APPOINT SOMEBODY HERE, AND, AND I KNOW THAT YOUR PLANS BECAUSE YOU SENT A LOT OF EMAILS IN THE, IN THE PAST, AND I RECEIVED THOSE EMAILS.

SO WHOEVER YOU WANT TO PLAN TO APPOINT AIN'T GOING TO WORK. BECAUSE I'LL TELL YOU, YOU, MR. LARIMER, I'M NOT ASKING FOR YOUR OPINION OR YOUR, OR YOUR LAW DEGREE OR INFORMATION, WHAT YOU KNOW, WHAT YOU DON'T KNOW. BUT I DO BELIEVE IF YOU CLAIM THAT WHEN WE BECAME A CHARTER, THIS OVERRIDES STATE LAWS IN CERTAIN THINGS THAT THESE PEOPLE ARE TRYING TO DO, THAT'S NOT TRUE, BECAUSE YOU ALSO GOT TO CHANGE THE POLICY THAT YOU HAVE IN PLACE BEFORE CHARTER SO FOR YOU TO SAY THAT THEY CAN DO THIS TO APPOINT SOMEBODY AND, AND, OR PUT THIS IN THE ELECTION, YOU CAN'T DO IT BECAUSE WE, YOU HAVEN'T GONE BACK TO CHANGE THOSE POLICY THERE IN PLACE. BECAUSE WHEN THEY GOT ELECTED, THEY GOT ELECTED BY THE PEOPLE. SO THEREFORE, WHATEVER YOU VOTE, WE ACTUALLY COULD OVERTURN WHAT YOUR DECISION IS. WE COULD OVERTURN INCLUDING WHAT YOU GUYS DID EARLIER. AND LIKE I SAID, KEVIN CRYE COMMITTED FRAUDULENT COVID-19. HERE'S A PRESS RELEASE FROM THE FBI, HOW THEY GO AFTER PEOPLE. SO KEVIN CRYE WILL BE ON ONE OF THOSE LISTS SOMEDAY. SO SOMEDAY, BUT IT'S GETTING CLOSER BECAUSE IT'S ALREADY ALMOST 4 YEARS THEY'VE BEEN ON IT. SO I'M TELLING YOU RIGHT NOW, I KNOW, CHRIS, YOUR POSITION'S ON THE LINE. AND I'M TELLING YOU, THE WAY YOU'RE GOING, YOU'RE GOING TO GO OUT. YOU'RE GOING TO LOSE THAT POSITION BECAUSE NO WAY SOMEBODY WANTS SOMEBODY LIKE YOU WHO'S GOING ALONG WITH KEVIN.

JENNY, FOLLOWED BY JEFF GORDER.

SO I ACTUALLY AGREE WITH THIS ONE. NOT ONLY DO I AGREE WITH YOUR, UM, NOT ONLY DID I AGREE WITH THE ORIGINAL ONE, BUT I ACTUALLY AGREE WITH THE CHANGES YOU'VE MADE, AND I FEEL THAT IT MAKES IT HELPFUL. NOW, A LOT OF THE PEOPLE IN THIS ROOM DID NOT REMEMBER THE APPOINTMENT OF THE SHERIFF, BUT IT WAS ALSO CONTROVERSIAL. I DON'T THINK THERE HASN'T BEEN A NON-CONTROVERSIAL APPOINTMENT IN THE LAST 6 YEARS. AND, UM, WELL, YEAH, I GUESS IS SHE WITHIN 6 YEARS? I THOUGHT SHE WAS BEFORE THAT.