[R1 Receive a presentation from Tehama County Supervisor Greg Jones regarding Tehama County's ordinance on mobile home park rent increases and consider providing direction to staff (Sponsored by Supervisor Long).]

R ONE RECEIVE A PRESENTATION FROM THE TEHAMA COUNTY SUPERVISOR GREG JONES REGARDING TEHAMA COUNTY'S ORDINANCE ON MOBILE HOME PARK NET INCREASES, AND CONSIDER PROVIDING DIRECTION TO STAFF SPONSORED BY SUPERVISOR LONG.

GOOD MORNING. GOOD MORNING. I'M QUITE PLEASED TO HEAR THE PUBLIC COMMENT DOESN'T OPEN YOUR MEETING.

I HAVE A COUPLE OF THINGS I'D LIKE TO PRESENT TO YOU. ONE IS AN ORDINANCE THAT COMES BEFORE OUR BOARD TODAY, AND ALSO CORRESPONDENCE FROM THE WMA REGARDING THEIR OPINION OF.

PUT THAT RIGHT THERE OF THE ORDINANCE THAT WE'RE PUTTING FORTH.

MY NAME IS GREG REDDING HAS A SPECIAL PLACE IN MY HEART.

MY PARENTS MET AT SHASTA COLLEGE IN 1968. I GREW UP IN CHICO AND I FARM PRUNES AND WALNUTS IN LOS MOLINOS.

LET ME START WITH A CONFESSION BEFORE WE GET INTO THE DETAILS OF IT.

[00:05:01]

I'VE TAUGHT ECONOMICS AT THE COLLEGE AND UNIVERSITY IN CHICO FOR 20 YEARS, AND I AM A CHILD OF MILTON FRIEDMAN AND BELIEVE IN EVERYTHING ABOUT MARKETS AND CLASSICAL ECONOMICS. I ALSO BELIEVE THAT PRICE CONTROLS ARE PERNICIOUS.

THEY CREATE SHORTAGES. I THINK PRICE CAN BE COLD, IT CAN BE UNFAIR, BUT IT IS QUITE EFFICIENT AT ALLOCATING THINGS.

AND WHEN A PRICE DOESN'T ALLOCATE THINGS, IT'S TYPICALLY A DIFFERENT TYPE OF BIAS.

WHO YOU KNOW, WHAT YOU LOOK LIKE AND SO ON. SO WHEN I WAS ASSIGNED TO AN AD HOC LAST YEAR, I WENT INTO IT WITH THIS LEVEL OF SKEPTICISM.

AND I'D LIKE TO EXPLAIN HOW A CONSERVATIVE FREE MARKET ECON TEACHER IS COMFORTABLE WITH THIS ORDINANCE.

THE ANSWER STARTS WITH THE FACT OF THE PRODUCT.

A MOBILE HOME IS ANYTHING BUT MOBILE. MOVING ONE CAN COST MORE THAN THE HOME IS WORTH, AND MANY OLDER UNITS CANNOT BE MOVED AT ALL.

SO THE PERSON WHO OWNS A REAL ASSET SITTING ON THE PROPERTY IS DEPENDENT UPON THE LANDOWNER'S RENT TO LIVE THERE.

ECONOMISTS HAVE A NAME FOR THIS. THEY CALL THIS A HOLD UP PROBLEM.

AND OLIVER WILLIAMSON WON A NOBEL PRIZE IN DESCRIBING IT IN THE 1970S, WHEN ONE PARTY HAS MADE AN INVESTMENT THAT CANNOT BE MOVED, THE OTHER PARTY CAN RAISE THE PRICE REGARDLESS OF THE COST, BECAUSE THE FIRST PARTY HAS NOWHERE TO GO.

I THINK BY ANY DEFINITION, THIS IS NOT A COMPETITIVE MARKET.

A RENTER IN AN APARTMENT OR A RENTER OF A HOME CAN GIVE NOTICE AND MOVE ACROSS TOWN.

THE RENTER OF A SPACE IN A MOBILE HOME PARK CANNOT.

SO THE QUESTION WAS WASN'T WHETHER OR NOT WE SHOULD REPEAL THE LAWS OF SUPPLY AND DEMAND.

IT WAS WHETHER A HOMEOWNER IN A PARK SHOULD BE TREATED EQUALLY FROM CITIZENS WHO RENT A HOME OR AN APARTMENT.

AND I THINK IF YOU PUT YOURSELF IN THAT POSITION, YOU WOULD WANT TREATMENT TO BE THE SAME.

SO HAVING REACHED THAT CONCLUSION, I THINK IT WAS THE JOB OF THE AD HOC TO DO AS LITTLE HARM AS POSSIBLE.

AND WE BUILT FOUR GUARDRAILS INTO THE ORDINANCE THAT WE AUTHORED.

THE FIRST ONE IS, IS WE DID NOT INVENT A NEW STANDARD.

WE COPIED THE STATE'S LAW AB 1482, WHICH SAYS THAT RENT CAN GO UP BY 5% PLUS CPI WITH A CAP OF 10%.

WE CHOSE IT DELIBERATELY. WE DID NOT WANT A TIGHTER LOCAL RULE.

SECONDLY, WE WANTED AN EXPIRATION DATE. I THINK GOVERNMENT SHOULD PROBABLY ADOPT THIS UNIFORMLY.

TOO OFTEN RULES AND LAWS ARE BASED BY THE INTENT THAT THEY'RE WANTING TO DO, RATHER THAN THE CONSEQUENCES IN WHICH THEY CREATE.

AND I INTENTIONALLY WANTED THIS RULE TO COME BACK BEFORE THE BOARD IN CASE THERE WERE UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES.

THROUGH THE DELIBERATION PROCESS IN THE COUNTY, WE ACTUALLY CHOSE TO MIRROR AB 1440 1482 THAT SUNSETS IN JANUARY OF 2030.

WE CERTAINLY DO NOT WANT A PERMANENT LOCAL PROGRAM OUTLIVING THE STATE POLICY.

IT WAS DESIGNED TO MATCH. THIRD, THE ORDINANCE LOOKS FORWARD.

IT'S PROSPECTIVE, NOT RETROSPECTIVE. IT IS ILLEGAL.

IT IS NOT ILLEGAL FOR AN INVESTOR TO BUY ANY PROPERTY IN CALIFORNIA OR THE UNITED STATES AND CHANGE THE ESSENCE OF THAT PROPERTY.

THAT IS WHAT A FREE MARKET ALLOWS, AND NOTHING IN OUR ORDINANCE PUNISHES ANYONE FOR PAST PURCHASES OR PAST INCREASES, AND THERE IS NO ROLLBACK TO AN EARLIER RENT. IF A HOME IS TRULY VACATED AND NO PRIOR TENANT REMAINS, THE OWNER MAY SET A NEW STARTING RENT AND WE DID NOT ADD A LOCAL JUST CAUSE EVICTION PROGRAM.

FOURTH THE ORDINANCE RESPECTS THE OWNER'S NEED TO COVER RISING COSTS.

I'M A FOURTH GENERATION FARMER. I RUN A BUSINESS, AND I'M FULLY AWARE OF THE IMPACT OF INFLATION ON A SMALL BUSINESS OWNER.

WHAT WE DID NOT CREATE WAS A RENT BOARD. WE DID NOT CREATE A REGISTRATION PROGRAM OR A COUNTY COMPLAINT PROCESS.

I THINK OUT OF THE AD HOC, WE ORIGINALLY HAD A MECHANISM LIKE THIS.

I THINK YOU COULD HAVE EMPATHY WITH ME. THERE WAS NOBODY IN THE COUNTY THAT WANTED TO TAKE THIS ON, BUT WE ALSO DID NOT WANT TO BE MORE ONEROUS TO LANDLORDS OF MOBILE HOME PARKS THAN THAN LANDOWNERS OF APARTMENTS OR HOMES THAT THEY RENT.

ENFORCEMENT FOR 1482 IS THROUGH THE COURTS. AND IN THE SPIRIT OF WANTING TO MIRROR AND TREAT EVERY RENTER THE SAME, WE KEPT THAT THERE. I'LL BE CANDID ABOUT WHERE THE INDUSTRY STANDS.

YOU'LL SEE AN EMAIL FROM THE WNBA OR WMA. THE PARK OWNERS ASSOCIATION OPPOSES AN ORDINANCE OF THIS KIND IN ANY WAY, AND I RESPECT THAT POSITION. BUT THEY'VE ALSO TOLD OUR COUNTY IN WRITING THAT THIS DRAFT IS MATERIALLY IMPROVED, THAT IT TRACKS WITH AB 1482. AND IF. IF THE COUNTY PROCEEDS, THESE PROVISIONS SHOULD BE PRESERVED WHEN THE PEOPLE WHO MOST DISLIKE A

[00:10:07]

POLICY TELL YOU THAT THIS IS THE VERSION TO KEEP.

I THINK IT'S WORTH LISTENING TO. SO LET ME CLOSE WHERE I STARTED.

I HAVE NOT STOPPED BELIEVING THAT MARKETS ALLOCATE THINGS BETTER THAN GOVERNMENTS.

I THINK WE ARE MUCH BETTER SUITED TO BE A REFEREE THAN AN ACTOR IN THE ECONOMY.

THIS ORDINANCE DOES NOT PAY ANYONE'S RENT. IT SIMPLY SETS AN OUTER LIMIT BORROWED FROM STATE LAW, ON HOW FAST RENT CAN RISE FOR PEOPLE WHO CANNOT MOVE THEIR HOMES.

IT'S TEMPORARY, IT'S PREDICTABLE, AND IT APPLIES THE SAME RULE TO EVERYONE.

THE PEOPLE IN MOBILE HOME PARKS ARE NOT ASKING FOR A HANDOUT.

MOST OF THEM OWN THEIR OWN HOMES OUTRIGHT AND PAY THEIR RENT EVERY MONTH.

THEY'RE SIMPLY ASKING FOR THE SAME RULE THEIR NEIGHBORS WHO RENT APARTMENTS AND HOMES ALREADY HAVE.

I THINK IT IS A FAIR REQUEST. I THINK IT IS A JUST REQUEST, AND I'M HAPPY TO TAKE YOUR QUESTIONS.

ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, SUPERVISOR LONG. MISS BLANKENSHIP, DO WE HAVE PUBLIC COMMENT ON THIS? YES, CHAIR. ALL RIGHT. I SAY SUPERVISOR LONG.

HE WAS IN QUEUE. I'M SORRY, SUPERVISOR JONES.

THAT'S RIGHT. HOW MANY SPEAKERS DO WE HAVE? SEVEN.

CHAIR. OKAY. SUPERVISOR LONG, WOULD YOU MIND LISTENING TO SPEAKERS FIRST? ALL RIGHT, LET'S GO AHEAD AND GET THE PUBLIC COMMENT ON THIS ITEM. OKAY. ALL SPEAKERS ARE IN PERSON. FIRST UP, SHASTA COUNTY WATCHDOG FOLLOWED BY SAULO LONDONO, KELLY RUGGIERO, THEN CRYSTAL BAKER. IF I CALLED YOUR NAME, PLEASE GET IN QUEUE.

GOOD MORNING. I DID A LITTLE RESEARCH ON THIS, AND I THINK IT'S YOU SHOULD KNOW THAT YOU SHOULD BE CONCERNED REGARDING THESE MOBILE HOME PARKS, BECAUSE WE HAVE A LOT OF CITIZENS WHO ARE STRUGGLING, AND THERE'S JUST NOT THE CITIZENS IN THE MOBILE HOME.

IT'S EVERYWHERE. SO YOU NEED TO MAKE THIS VERY LOOK AT THIS VERY CLEARLY IN REGARDING ANY DECISION YOU MAKE.

HERE'S WHAT I FOUND OUT. I DID A RESEARCH AND I FOUND OUT THAT THE MOBILE HOME PARK OWNERS OF THE COMPANY, ACTUALLY THE CORPORATION ACTUALLY FOR DISTRICT ATTORNEYS FROM DIFFERENT COUNTIES ACTUALLY FILE A LAWSUIT AGAINST THE COMPANY. SO I HAVE IT HERE AND I SPOKE TO THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY IN THE OTHER COUNTIES IN REGARDING THIS.

THEY ACTUALLY BEEN PENALIZED FOR MISLEADING ON PROFESSIONAL CODES OF THERE'S A BUNCH OF STUFF IN HERE.

SO IF THEY'RE IN VIOLATION OF THE PEOPLE'S RIGHTS AND THEY ACTUALLY VIOLATED LAWS AGAINST THE MOBILE HOME PARK, WHAT MAKES YOU THINK THEY'RE NOT DOING THE SAME THING AGAINST THESE CITIZENS? SO I, I RECOMMEND THAT YOU DO PUT A CAP BECAUSE THEY ALREADY HAVE CASE PENDING AND THEY ACTUALLY HAVE TO PAY PENALTIES. THAT MEANS THEY FOUND THEM GUILTY OF MISCONDUCT OF PROFESSIONAL CODES.

AND SO I THINK YOU NEED TO MAKE THAT DECISION.

I KNOW THEY'RE PROBABLY GOING TO HAVE PEOPLE SAYING, WELL, YOU KNOW, YOU COULD FACE A LAWSUIT AND EVERYTHING, BUT THESE CITIZENS HAVE THEY'RE NOT GOING TO HAVE NOWHERE TO GO.

THEY'RE GOING TO LOSE THE VALUE OF THEIR HOME.

THEY CAN'T MOVE THEIR MOBILE HOME OR MOBILE HOME.

THEY'RE NOT GOING TO ABLE TO GO ANYWHERE, SO THEY'RE GOING TO BE PUSHED OUT.

SO YOU AS A BOARD, YOU NEED TO START DOING THE RIGHT THING TO PUT A CAP ON THIS.

NEXT UP SWALLOW LONDONO FOLLOWED BY KELLY RUGGIERO, CRYSTAL BAKER, THEN NIKKI.

IF I CALLED YOUR NAME, PLEASE GET IN QUEUE. SWALLOW. COME ON UP. THANK YOU SUPERVISORS.

GOOD MORNING. MY NAME IS SAULO AND I'M HERE ON BEHALF OF MAY AND THE PARK OWNERS OF SHASTA COUNTY.

FIRST AND FOREMOST, I'D LIKE TO MAKE CLEAR THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE SITUATION AND WHAT HAPPENED IN TAMA COUNTY AND WHAT'S HAPPENING HERE IN THE COUNTY AND OUT OF STATE.

OPERATOR NEVER DONE BUSINESS IN CALIFORNIA BEFORE.

MADE SOME REALLY POOR BUSINESS DECISIONS AND CREATED SOME REALLY BIG FINANCIAL PROBLEMS FOR THEMSELVES AND FOR THE COMMUNITY.

THE OWNERS OF THAT PARK ARE NOW DEALING DIRECTLY WITH THE NEGATIVE CONSEQUENCES OF THOSE BAD DECISIONS, AND THE COUNTY ORDINANCE IS, FRANKLY, THE LEAST OF THEIR CONCERNS. THAT'S NOT WHAT'S HAPPENING HERE.

HARMONY COMMUNITIES HAS ALREADY HELD A TOWN HALL MEETING WITH THE RESIDENTS TO EXPLAIN THE INCREASE IN THE RENT CREDIT.

THE NET INCREASE ITSELF IS A MODEST, AFFORDABLE AND CONSISTENT WITH WHAT THE MARKET HAS SEEN OVER THE YEARS.

THE REALITY, HARSH REALITY, IS THAT DOING BUSINESS IN CALIFORNIA IS ONLY BECOMING MORE AND MORE EXPENSIVE.

IF RENTS CANNOT KEEP UP WITH COSTS, EVERYTHING WILL BEGIN TO DETERIORATE.

[00:15:02]

EVERY MOBILE HOME COMMUNITY IN THE COUNTY WILL FEEL THE NEGATIVE IMPACTS OF GOVERNMENT CONTROLLING RENTS WHILE COSTS CONTINUE TO INCREASE.

I WOULD ALSO SEND A DIRECT. IT WOULD ALSO SEND A DIRECT NEGATIVE MESSAGE TO HOUSING PROVIDERS IN THE COUNTY, AS WELL AS ANY FUTURE INVESTORS AND THE OWNERS OF SHASTA COUNTY ARE READY TO WORK WITH THE COUNTY AND WITH RESIDENTS ON ANY AND ALL ISSUES WHERE MEMBERS OF THIS COMMUNITY.

WE PROVIDE SOME OF THE LAST, LEAST SORRY, LAST NON-SUBSIDIZED AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN THE REGION, AND WE WANT TO CONTINUE TO DO THAT IN GOOD FAITH, EVEN IN TAJIMA COUNTY, WHERE THE FACTS ARE FAR MORE DIFFICULT, WE STILL BELIEVE AN ORDINANCE IS A MISTAKE. I THANK SUPERVISOR JONES FOR SHARING OUR COMMENTS TO THE BOARD, BUT THE REALITY IS THAT DUE TO BASIC RULES OF THE ECONOMY, THE BOARD MEMBERS AND TAJIMA ARE STILL MAKING THE WRONG DECISION AND SENDING THE WRONG MESSAGE. INSTEAD, WE SUPPORT DIRECT COMMUNICATION, COLLABORATION AND PROBLEM SOLVING WITH YOUR HOUSING PROVIDERS.

THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT THE BOARD MEMBERS OF THIS BOARD HAVE DONE THUS FAR, AND WE URGE YOU TO CONTINUE WORKING DIRECTLY WITH THE RESIDENTS AND WITH YOUR HOUSING PROVIDERS. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME TODAY. NEXT UP, KELLY RUGGIERO, FOLLOWED BY KRYSTAL BAKER.

NIKKI, THEN TAMMY JARVIS. IF I CALLED YOUR NAME, PLEASE GET IN QUEUE.

GOOD MORNING. AS A RIVERLAND RESIDENT, I'M ASKING THE COUNTY TO BE PROACTIVE RATHER THAN REACTIVE.

WE DIDN'T BRING THIS ISSUE TO THE COUNTY. IT WAS BROUGHT TO US AND IN THE PROCESS A GAP IN OUR LOCAL PROTECTIONS BECAME CLEAR.

THAT IS WHAT WE'RE BRINGING TO THE COUNTY. WE UNDERSTAND THE NEED TO CONSIDER BUSINESS PERSPECTIVE.

WE'RE ASKING THAT RESIDENT PERSPECTIVE RECEIVE THAT SAME CONSIDERATION.

THIS IS ABOUT OUR HOMES, OUR LIVELIHOODS AND OUR ABILITY TO REMAIN IN THE COMMUNITIES WE CALL HOME.

WE CAN AGREE TO DISAGREE ABOUT THE BUSINESS DECISION BEHIND RIVERLANDS RENT CREDIT, BUT THE FACT THAT THE COMPANY IS PLANNING TO BUFFER AGAINST POTENTIAL RENT REGULATION RAISES AN IMPORTANT QUESTION. WHAT PREDICTABLE PROTECTIONS DO RESIDENTS HAVE WHILE THE COUNTY CONSIDERS A PERMANENT FRAMEWORK? I RESPECTFULLY ASK THE BOARD TO EXPLORE AN URGENCY ORDINANCE FOR THE INTERIM PROTECTION WHILE DEVELOPING A FAIR RENT STABILIZATION POLICY.

THAT POLICY SHOULD ALSO PROTECT OWNERS BY ALLOWING THEM TO PETITION FOR DOCUMENTED EXTRAORDINARY EXPENSES WITH A FAIR REVIEW PROCESS.

SO RENT STABILIZATION ALONE DOES NOT LEAVE A PARK FINANCIALLY UNSUSTAINABLE.

WE SHOULD NOT HAVE TO FACE DISPLACEMENT OR REACH A CRISIS POINT BEFORE A KNOWN VULNERABILITY IS ADDRESSED.

I AGAIN URGE THE BOARD TO BE PRODUCTIVE, RATHER PROACTIVE RATHER THAN REACTIVE BY PURSUING AN URGENCY ORDINANCE THAT PROVIDES INTERIM PROTECTION, WHETHER THROUGH A TEMPORARY MORATORIUM OR, A TEMPORARY 5% PLUS CPI CAP.

WHILE PERMANENT FAIR AND BALANCED RENT STABILIZATION FRAMEWORK IS DEVELOPED.

WE HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO ACT NOW BEFORE RESIDENTS ARE PUT AT RISK OF LOSING THEIR HOMES, AND I RESPECTFULLY ASK YOU NOT TO WAIT UNTIL THAT HARM HAS ALREADY OCCURRED.

THANK YOU. NEXT UP, CRYSTAL BAKER, FOLLOWED BY NIKKI TAMMY JARVIS, THEN RALPH BERKELEY.

IF I CALLED YOUR NAME, PLEASE GET IN QUEUE. GOOD MORNING.

MY NAME IS CRYSTAL BAKER. I'M A MOBILE HOME HOMEOWNER IN ANDERSON.

ON SEPTEMBER 30TH AND OCTOBER 4TH, I HAVE CONTACTED SUPERVISOR CHRIS KELSTROM ABOUT THE URGENT NEED FOR RENT STABILIZATION ORDINANCE.

NEITHER EMAIL RECEIVED A RESPONSE. UPON LEARNING SUPERVISOR KELSTROM REPRESENTED MY DISTRICT, I FELT SOMETHING I HAVEN'T FELT IN A WHILE. HOPE.

HERE'S A MAN WHO CAMPAIGNED ON BEING TIRED OF SEEING THE LITTLE MAN BEING SQUEEZED OUT, AND WHO EMPHASIZED THE IMPORTANCE OF HIS CONSTITUENTS CONCERNS.

SUPERVISOR KELSTROM. WE ARE THOSE VERY PEOPLE RIGHT NOW WE ARE BEING SQUEEZED OUT OF OUR HOMES.

I REACHED OUT TO ANDERSON CITY COUNCIL AND COUNCIL MEMBER.

GALLAGHER WAS THE ONLY TO RESPOND, BUT HE INFORMED ME THAT THE AUTHORITY TO ADDRESS HER CONCERNS RESTS WITH THE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS.

SUPERVISOR KELSTROM. YOU REPRESENT US, WE ARE ASKING YOU TO ACT.

MY SPACE RENT HAS INCREASED WITHIN THE SAME YEAR FROM 450 TO 4 95 TO 645, WITH ANOTHER INCREASE TO 921 SCHEDULED FOR DECEMBER, WHICH IS BARELY A MONTH AWAY. I ALSO HAVE A PETITION WITH 31 SIGNATURES FROM TENANTS OF MY PARK.

WE OWN OUR HOMES, YET WE RISK LOSING THEM BECAUSE WE CANNOT AFFORD THE LAND BENEATH THEM.

AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND HOMELESSNESS ARE ALREADY SERIOUS ISSUES IN SHASTA COUNTY.

DISPLACING MORE FAMILIES WILL ONLY DEEPEN AN ALREADY EXISTING CRISIS.

SO I ASK YOU DIRECTLY, WHAT MORE MUST WE DO TO BE HEARD? HOW MANY FAMILIES MUST FACE DISPLACEMENT BEFORE PROTECTING THEM BECOMES A PRIORITY? WILL YOU HELP US PURSUE AN EMERGENCY RENT FREEZE AND A MEANINGFUL.

SO WE ARE NOT ASKING FOR SPECIAL TREATMENT. WE ARE ASKING FOR AN OPPORTUNITY TO KEEP OUR HOMES ALREADY.

SUPERVISOR KELSTROM. WE STAND BEHIND THE THE WORDS YOU USE ON YOUR CAMPAIGN AND STAND WITH THE PEOPLE WHO ELECTED YOU TO REPRESENT.

THANK YOU. NEXT UP NIKKI. NIKKI, WE HAVE TAMMY JARVIS, THEN RALPH BARKLEY.

IF I CALLED YOUR NAME, PLEASE GET IN QUEUE. I DON'T HAVE REALLY ANYTHING PREPARED TODAY.

I JUST WANT TO SAY THAT I APPRECIATE YOU GUYS BRINGING THIS UP AS IT IS AN ISSUE CURRENTLY, AND I REALLY HOPE THAT YOU GUYS DO WHAT YOU FEEL IS THE RIGHT THING FOR THE CONSTITUENTS OF SHASTA COUNTY.

[00:20:02]

NEXT UP, TAMMY, FOLLOWED BY RALPH BARKLEY. GOOD MORNING.

MY NAME IS TAMMY JARVIS, AND I WANT TO SAY I APPRECIATE MR. LONG GETTING GREG JONES HERE, AND MR. KELSTROM AND I DID REACH OUT TO YOU GUYS WITH EMAILS.

I AM NOT PARTICULARLY EDUCATED IN THE AREA OF MOBILE HOMES.

I WANTED TO BRING A LITTLE BIT OF HUMANITY TO THIS SITUATION.

I AM ABSOLUTELY IN LOVE WITH THE THE MOBILE HOME OWNERS THAT I HAVE RECENTLY COME TO LIVE AT COTTONWOOD RIDGE MOBILE HOME PARK.

THAT'S WHERE WE'RE FROM. I MOVED THERE BECAUSE MY PARENTS HAVE BEEN THERE FOR SEVEN YEARS.

I OWNED A HOME IN REDDING AND I'M A REGISTERED NURSE HERE IN REDDING, AND I RETIRED.

I SOLD MY HOME SO I COULD BE NEAR MY PARENTS.

I PAID CASH FOR MY MOBILE AND HEADING INTO RETIREMENT, I'M.

I WAS CONFIDENT I WOULD BE ABLE TO AFFORD ANY RENT AND ITS INCREASES.

THERE ARE SO MANY GOOD PEOPLE THAT HAVE HAD SIMILAR STORIES.

FOR WHATEVER REASON, MOBILE HOMES WERE MORE AFFORDABLE.

THEY'VE GONE THROUGH LIFE, THEY'VE RETIRED, AND NOW THEY'RE ABLE TO AT LEAST HAVE SOME DIGNITY AND OWN OWN THEIR OWN MOBILE AND HAVE THE LAND ON WHICH IT, YOU KNOW, THEY PARK IT AND RENT. I'M THANKFUL THAT WE HAVE LANDOWNERS THAT HAVE OPENED UP SPACES THAT WE CAN HAVE DIGNITY, HAVE A MOBILE HOME, HAVE A LITTLE SPOT WHERE WE CAN CALL HOME AND BE ABLE TO LIVE OUT OUR RETIREMENT YEARS.

THERE ARE SO MANY GOOD STORIES OF THE PEOPLE HERE IN THIS PARK.

I WALK AND I GET TO KNOW ALL THEIR STORIES. THERE'S PEOPLE THAT, YOU KNOW, HAVE THEIR LOVED ONES HAVE PASSED AWAY.

I DON'T HAVE MUCH TIME. I JUST WANT YOU GUYS TO REALIZE WE ARE NOT ASKING TO NOT HAVE THE RENTS RAISED.

THEY JUST NEED TO BE MORE EQUAL. WITH WHAT? RETIRED PEOPLE'S WAGES.

WE GET A COST OF LIVING RAISE, AND IF IT'S SO MUCH, IT DOESN'T EVEN.

IT'S NOT EVEN GOING TO BE COVERED BY OUR COST OF LIVING RAISE WHEN WE'RE ON FIXED INCOMES.

I APPRECIATE EVERYTHING YOU'RE DOING TO TRY TO AT LEAST ADDRESS THIS ISSUE.

THANK YOU. NEXT UP, RALPH BARKLEY. GOOD MORNING.

I'VE GOT THREE THINGS I'D LIKE TO TALK ABOUT.

ONE IS THE RENT CONTROL, WHICH YOU GUYS COULD SET A PRECEDENCE IN IN THIS COUNTY IF YOU WOULD IT ACT UPON IT AND ENFORCE IT.

I THINK THE LAWYER CAN DRAW UP THE PLANS AND WRITE IT IN SIMPLE LANGUAGE THAT WE'D ALL UNDERSTAND.

NUMBER TWO THERE'S A PROPERTY, THERE'S PROPERTY ON RIVERLAND DRIVE AND CLOVER LANE.

IT'S 8.2 ACRES. IT IS OVERGROWN WITH BRIERS. AND I HAVE CONTACTED THE TAX COLLECTOR. I'VE CONTACTED CAL FIRE. I'VE CONTACTED THE SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT AND NOBODY WANTS TO RED TAG THAT PROPERTY.

AND I FOUND OUT IT'S OWNED BY PEOPLE THAT LIVE UP SOMEWHERE UP ON THE HILL AND THEY WON'T COME DOWN AND TAKE CARE OF IT.

I'M ASKING YOU GUYS TO RED TAG IT AND NUMBER TWO RIVERLAND DRIVE.

WHEN YOU GUYS SEND SOMEBODY OUT TO, TO MOW THE PROPERTY THE ROADSIDE, YOU DON'T MOW IT FROM ONE END TO THE OTHER.

YOU JUST STOP. THEY STOP IN ONE SPOT AND WE'VE GOT WEEDS THAT COULD CATCH FIRE.

AND ONCE, ONCE A FIRE COMES UP THERE, WE'VE GOT ONE WAY IN AND ONE WAY OUT.

WE NEED AN EGRESS OUT THE SOUTH END OF THE STREET.

YOU GUYS NEED TO WORK ON THAT. THANK YOU. AND THAT WAS OUR LAST SPEAKER.

ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, MISS BLANKENSHIP. ALL RIGHT.

BEFORE I GET TO SUPERVISOR LONG, MISS BAKER, I APOLOGIZE IF I MISSED AN EMAIL.

EMAIL IS NOT THE BEST WAY TO GET IN TOUCH WITH ME.

BUT I DID SEE YOU AT OUR MEETING THAT WE HELD DOWN THERE IN ANDERSON, SO YOU MORE THAN SHOULD HAVE COME UP AND GOTTEN A CARD.

I'M MORE THAN HAPPY TO MEET WITH YOU ANYTIME. SO I'LL GET YOU A CARD IF I CAN.

WE HAVE THEM UPSTAIRS, SO THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

SUPERVISOR LONG. THANK YOU. CHAIR. OH, YOU'RE ALREADY HERE.

A COUPLE QUESTIONS FOR YOU. AND YOU AND I HAVE TALKED AT LENGTH ABOUT THIS SUBJECT AND AND THE TIHAMAH SITUATION AND WHERE, WHERE YOUR ORDINANCE IS COMING BEFORE YOUR BOARD TODAY.

ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS BECAUSE THIS IS HANDLED THROUGH THE COURTS FOR ANY GRIEVANCE OR REDRESS.

IT DOESN'T APPEAR THAT THE COUNTY WOULD SUFFER.

TEHAMA COUNTY WOULD SUFFER ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS TO ADMINISTER THIS PROGRAM.

AND I GUESS THERE'S THERE'S NO TEETH IN THE PROGRAM FROM THE COUNTY ORDINANCE.

BUT FOR THE COURTS, IS THAT IS THAT ACCURATE? YES. OKAY. YEAH. AND AND YOU AND I HAVE TALKED ABOUT THIS, BUT TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW YOU GOT TO THE STAGE OF THE ORDINANCE. IT SOUNDS LIKE IT WAS A LONG PROCESS OVER SEVERAL MONTHS AND THAT INVOLVED

[00:25:04]

MAYBE NOT THE ORIGINAL COMPLAINANT, WHICH KIND OF WAS MISSING IN ACTION, BUT COMMUNITY STAKEHOLDERS AND A LOT OF DIFFERENT.

CAN YOU TALK ABOUT THAT A LITTLE BIT, HOW YOU GOT TO THE POINT WHERE YOU, YOU DIDN'T HAVE LIKE NEGOTIATIONS THAT RESULTED IN END RESULTS AND THEN YOU WENT TO DIRECT OR YOU WENT TO THE ORDINANCE.

YEAH. WE HAD A WEEKLY AD HOC FOR ABOUT FOUR MONTHS.

AND SOLO WAS CORRECT. IT WAS AN INDIVIDUAL ACTOR THAT IS THE MAIN CAUSE OF, OF ACTION IN THIS ORDINANCE. BUT AND I THINK MAKING A LAW BASED ON ONE INDIVIDUAL IS PROBABLY WRONG.

I THINK LAW SHOULD BE BROAD AND APPLIED GENERALLY.

AND I DON'T THINK THIS ACTOR CREATED THE PROBLEM.

I THINK IT REVEALED IT. THE PROBLEM IS STRUCTURAL.

A NEW OWNER CAN COME IN AND PURCHASE A PROPERTY AND DEVELOP IT AND CREATE THE SAME OUTCOME.

AND THAT ACTOR WAS NOT PART OF THE AD HOC. HE REFUSED TO MEET WITH US.

WE DID MEET WITH WITH LANDOWNERS OF OTHER MOBILE HOME PARKS.

WE MET WITH REAL ESTATE BROKERS. WE MET WITH ANYBODY AND EVERYBODY THAT WANTED TO HAVE INPUT INTO THIS ISSUE.

AND ULTIMATELY FROM A RAWLS VEIL OF IGNORANCE, I JUST FELT IT WAS UNJUST.

THE VEIL OF IGNORANCE. IF YOU WERE TO PUT A VEIL OVER YOUR FACE AND DID NOT KNOW YOUR STATION IN LIFE, WHETHER YOU WERE WEAK OR STRONG, INFIRM OR HEALTHY, TALL OR SHORT WOULD YOU THINK A POLICY WAS GOOD REGARDLESS OF YOUR POSITION IN SOCIETY? AND I FELT THAT IT WAS UNJUST FOR US TO TREAT SOME CITIZENS IN OUR HOME WITH SOME PROTECTIONS AND OTHERS WITHOUT THEM.

THERE'S ALSO AN INVERSE RELATIONSHIP. IT'S NOT A PERFECT APPLES TO APPLES COMPARISON.

WHEN A HOMEOWNER BUYS A MOBILE HOME AND RENTS A SPACE.

IF RENTS GO UP, THE EQUITY THEY HAVE IN THAT HOME GOES DOWN.

AND SO OFTENTIMES PEOPLE DON'T NOT ONLY LOSE THEIR HOMES, BUT THEY LOSE THE EQUITY THAT THEY INVESTED IN TO BEGIN WITH.

AND I'D LIKE TO REITERATE, THERE'S NOTHING ILLEGAL ABOUT BUYING A PROPERTY AND TRANSFORMING IT INTO SOMETHING BETTER.

AND THERE COULD BE COST TO THAT. BUT THAT'S WHY I SAY THE PROBLEM WAS REVEALED.

IT WASN'T CAUSED BY THIS. AND MOVING FORWARD PROSPECTIVELY.

I WOULD JUST LIKE TO OFFER THOSE PROTECTIONS TO OFTENTIMES HOMEOWNERS OR RENTERS THAT ARE MOST VULNERABLE.

DID THAT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION? IT DID. IT DID.

AND GREG, WOULD YOU AND FIRST OF ALL, THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR BEING WILLING TO COME UP HERE.

I KNOW YOU'VE GOT A BOARD MEETING DOWN THERE, AND YOU'RE TAKING AWAY YOUR VALUABLE TIME TO COME HERE AND PRESENT TO US, AND I'M DEFINITELY APPRECIATIVE. SO THANK YOU FOR DOING THAT.

THE QUESTION I WOULD HAVE WOULD BE WHEN YOU MENTIONED AB 1482, CAN YOU DESCRIBE THAT A LITTLE BIT AND WHY THERE IS DISPARITY BETWEEN SOME THAT ARE PROTECTED IN AB 1482? AND THEN AND I APPRECIATE THE UNIQUE SITUATION WITH MOBILE HOME PARK OWNERS WHERE THEY HAVE PROPERTY, THEY HAVE EQUITY, AND IF THE RENTS GO UP TO WHERE THEY CAN'T AFFORD TO STAY, THEY LOSE THEIR INVESTMENT AND THEY LOSE THEIR HOME.

SO I THINK THOSE ARE REALLY IMPORTANT CONSIDERATIONS TO AND JUST ELABORATE A LITTLE BIT MORE ON 1482 AND WHY YOU THINK THAT DISPARITY EXISTS BETWEEN DIFFERENT TYPES OF RENTERS. WELL, IT WOULD BE INACCURATE IF I COULD TELL YOU THE DETAILS OF WHY THEY WERE OMITTED IN 2020, WHEN 1482 WAS PASSED. I THINK IT HAS TO DO WITH THE ENTITIES THAT GOVERN.

MOBILE HOMES ARE DIFFERENT FROM THE ENTITIES THAT WOULD WOULD MAKE RULES AND LAWS FOR APARTMENT COMPLEXES OR HOMES.

I THINK IT WAS CONSIDERED AT THE TIME AND OMITTED FOR A REASON, AND I DON'T KNOW THE DETAILS OF THAT.

1482 WAS WAS DESIGNED TO PROTECT RENTERS FROM RISING COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH INFLATION.

AND IT JUST SO HAPPENS THAT SOME RENTERS GOT THAT PROTECTION AND OTHERS DID NOT.

THIS WILL NOT FIX THE SHORTAGE PROBLEM OF HOUSING, WHICH IS ACUTE AND SERIOUS IN CALIFORNIA.

I WANT TO MAKE CLEAR TO THAT. BUT I'LL REITERATE, IF YOU DIDN'T KNOW WHERE YOU RENTED, I THINK YOU SHOULD BE TREATED THE SAME.

CORRECT. AND REAL, REAL BRIEFLY. MAYBE YOU CAN JUST COVER WHAT TYPES OF OWNERS ARE PROTECTED UNDER 1482.

IS IT MULTIFAMILY DWELLINGS? IS IT APARTMENT DWELLERS? IS IT ALL THOSE THINGS? AND THEN MOBILE HOME PARKS WERE LEFT OUT OF THAT EQUATION.

YEAH. MY WIFE AND I OWN A HOME AND WE RENT IT.

AND THERE ARE RESTRICTIONS ON WHAT WE CAN DO TO RAISE THE RENT ON THE TENANTS THAT WE HAVE.

IF YOU RENT IN AN APARTMENT, IT'S THE SAME THING.

SO THE THE ONE UNIQUE SET OF CITIZENS WHO RENT THAT ARE NOT AFFORDED THESE PROTECTIONS ARE PEOPLE THAT RENT SPACES

[00:30:10]

IN MOBILE HOME PARKS. OKAY. THANK YOU GREG. THAT'S THAT'S ALL MY QUESTIONS FOR YOU.

AND THANK YOU AGAIN FOR, FOR TAKING THE TIME OUT TO THIS IS THIS IS A REALLY IMPORTANT DISCUSSION AND I APPRECIATE YOUR, YOUR INPUT. DOES THE REST OF THE BOARD WANT TO TALK WITH HIM OR DO YOU WANT ME TO GO INTO MY BOARD DISCUSSION? GO AHEAD. YEAH. YOU NEED TO GET BACK TO THE COUNTY SUPERVISOR.

I HAVE A FEW QUESTIONS FOR SUPERVISOR JONES, BUT I KNOW SUPERVISOR HARMON IS ALSO IN QUEUE AHEAD OF ME, SO IF HE DOES, HE'S WELCOME TO GO BEFORE SUPERVISOR HARMON.

I MOSTLY JUST WANTED TO SAY TO GREG, THANKS FOR COMING.

COMING UP HERE, I KNOW YOU YOU DON'T YOU DON'T LIKE TO LEAVE TAMA COUNTY VERY MUCH.

BUT I APPRECIATE YOU DOING THAT. AND THEN AND I'M SURPRISED THAT IT'S NOT STANDARD PROCEDURE WHEN SOMEBODY IS RENTING A SPACE BECAUSE IT'S A BIG COMMITMENT, IT'S A IT'S A BIG SET UP COST.

AND IT'S I'M SURPRISED THAT IT'S NOT PRETTY STANDARD THAT THAT THERE'S LIMITATIONS.

LIKE WE'RE LIKE, WE'RE ALL TALKING ABOUT AND I DON'T KNOW HOW TO GET, I DON'T KNOW HOW WE, WE ADDRESS THAT AND GET THAT AT LEAST STANDARD IN SHASTA COUNTY, BUT IT SEEMS LIKE IT'S NEEDED.

YEAH. ARE YOU GOOD? SUPERVISOR HARMON. I DIDN'T MEAN TO PUT YOU ON THE SPOT, BUT.

SUPERVISOR PLUMMER. YEAH. YES. THANK YOU, SUPERVISOR JONES, FOR BEING HERE AND FOR SHARING THIS.

AND I APPRECIATED YOUR STARTING POINT BECAUSE THAT WOULD BE KIND OF MY INITIAL BIAS TOO, OF, YOU KNOW, NOT IMPOSING PRICE CONTROLS ON THE PRIVATE SECTOR FROM THE GOVERNMENTAL STANDPOINT.

IT DOES SOUND LIKE THAT YOUR KIND OF CORE AND CORRECT ME IF THIS IS WRONG, BUT YOUR CORE REASON FOR MOVING FORWARD IN THIS DIRECTION IS THE. THE LACK OF EQUALITY AMONG DIFFERENT TYPES OF RENTERS AND THE FACT THAT WE HAVE 1482, WHICH PROVIDES THAT PROTECTION FOR CERTAIN RENTERS, BUT NOT FOR THESE, WHICH ARE ACTUALLY AT A GREATER DISADVANTAGE.

LET ME ASK YOU THIS. WELL, ONE IS, IS THAT IS THAT A FAIR REPRESENTATION OF YOUR PERSPECTIVE? AND THEN TWO, IF 1482, AS YOU MENTIONED, WERE TO GO AWAY, WOULD YOU STILL BE IN FAVOR OF THIS ORDINANCE FOR THE MOBILE HOME PARKS? I THINK YOUR DESCRIPTION OF MY SENTIMENTS ARE ACCURATE.

AND, AND TRUST ME, AS A AS A PASTOR'S KID, GOD HAS A SENSE OF HUMOR THAT A FREE MARKET ECON TEACHER WOULD BE PUT ON AN AD HOC AND, AND TO DEAL WITH THIS ISSUE. I, I AGREE, IF IF FOR SOME REASON 1482 DISAPPEARED TOMORROW THIS ORDINANCE IS DISSOLVED.

IT IS STRICTLY DESIGNED TO, TO HAVE CONGRUENCY IN THE WAY MY CITIZENS WHO RENT ARE TREATED UNDER THE LAW.

SO THEN LET ME ASK YOU KIND OF A FOLLOW UP QUESTION ON THAT, BECAUSE I AGREE WITH THAT IN PRINCIPLE.

BUT IF YOU WERE TO SAY THAT YOU THINK 1482 IS BAD POLICY, AND LOOK AT THAT RELATIVE TO, SAY, OTHER STATES THAT DO NOT HAVE A RENT CAP ORDINANCE AND SAY, ACTUALLY 1482 IS HARMFUL.

YOU KNOW, I'M NOT I'M NOT SAYING IT IS. I'M JUST SAYING HYPOTHETICALLY, IT COULD BE. WOULD THAT MEAN WOULD THAT IN KIND OF THIS ARGUMENT, SUGGEST THAT, WELL, MAYBE IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE TO MAKE PARITY WITH A RULE THAT ACTUALLY IS NOT PRODUCTIVE.

THAT'S A FAIR CRITICISM. I THINK THE PRIMARY THING THAT OCCURS WHEN YOU PUT PRICE CONTROLS ON IS IT DISCOURAGES INVESTMENT.

AND THAT WOULD BE THE VERY THING THAT WOULD LOWER PRICES IN THE LONG RUN AND CURE THE SHORTAGES WE HAVE IN THE HOUSING MARKET.

BUT I'LL CIRCLE BACK TO THE REASON I CAN STAND HERE WITH CONVICTION AND SLEEP WELL AT NIGHT.

AND TELL MY WIFE THAT YOU WERE RIGHT, AND I AGREE WITH YOU ON THIS ISSUE, IS THAT IT'S ABOUT EQUITY FOR THE CITIZENS OF MY HOME.

THANK YOU. YEAH. AND ONE LAST QUESTION HERE. SO WHEN I DID SOME LOOKING TO SEE KIND OF WHAT OTHER COUNTIES HAVE RENT STABILIZATION ORDINANCE OR MOBILE HOMES, I FOUND ABOUT 12, WHICH IN, IN IS OBVIOUSLY A MINORITY OUT OF THE 58.

I'M CURIOUS ONE, DID YOU ENGAGE WITH OTHER COUNTIES EITHER WHO DO OR DO NOT HAVE RENT STABILIZATION ORDINANCES FOR MOBILE HOMES? IF SO, ANY PERSPECTIVE ON WHY SO FEW COUNTIES, PARTICULARLY? I WOULD SAY MY MY HYPOTHESIS WOULD BE THAT, YOU KNOW, MORE LIBERAL OR PROGRESSIVE LEANING COUNTIES WOULD BE MORE LIKELY TO INSTITUTE SOMETHING SIMILAR. AND SO IT KIND OF STRIKES ME AS ODD THAT SO FEW COUNTIES WOULD CURRENTLY HAVE THAT.

AND SO CURIOUS, ANY LESSONS YOU'VE LEARNED FROM THE OTHER COUNTIES? THERE ARE SOME ORDINANCES IN MUNICIPALITIES THAT WERE ACTUALLY MORE STRICT THAT CAPPED IT AT 3% PLUS SOME SORT OF PRICE INDEX.

WE DID NOT REACH OUT TO OTHER COUNTIES. OTHER COUNTIES REACHED OUT FOR OUR INPUT AND OUR AUTHORSHIP OF THIS AND OUR INTERESTED LIKE YOU AND WHAT WE

[00:35:06]

CRAFTED. BUT, BUT WE DID NOT REACH OUT TO ANY, AS FAR AS I BELIEVE.

I DO NOT BELIEVE OTHER COUNTIES HAVE A BROAD ORDINANCE THAT THAT, YOU KNOW, IS RESEMBLES THIS.

OKAY. THANK YOU. APPRECIATE IT. AM I FREE TO GO.

YEAH, I THINK YOU. YEAH. GET DOWN. GET DOWN TO THE TEHAMA COUNTY. THANK YOU, SUPERVISOR JONES.

APPRECIATE YOU. WELL, THAT WAS AWKWARD.

ALL RIGHT, WE'LL BRING IT BACK FOR BOARD DISCUSSION.

SO FIRST OF ALL, AND I WANT TO MAKE IT CLEAR THE HARMONY IS NOT THE SAME COMPANY THAT HAPPENED IN TEHAMA COUNTY.

IF IT WAS THAT SAME COMPANY, I WOULD BE 100% FOR PASSING THIS THING TODAY.

I THINK WE WOULD LIKE TO MEET WITH THE RESIDENTS AGAIN.

WE'D LIKE TO MEET WITH HARMONY AGAIN. I DON'T KNOW IF WE'LL HAVE A TOWN HALL, MAYBE GET A COUPLE REPRESENTATIVES FROM EACH PARK TO, YOU KNOW, MEET WITH HARMONY. HARMONY GIVEN YOU GUYS SAID YOU GIVE THE $300 CREDIT.

AND I KNOW THERE WAS, YOU KNOW, WHEN THEY'RE THREATENING YOUR HOME AND THREATENING TO MAKE YOUR HOME WORTHLESS AND RAISE THE RATE TO $1,000, OBVIOUSLY, THERE'S A LOT OF CONCERN THERE. AND YOU GUYS HAD EVERY RIGHT TO BE CONCERNED AND YOU SHOULD BE CONCERNED.

I THINK WHEN HARMONY PUT THAT IN WRITING THAT SAID, NO, YOU ARE GOING TO GET THIS.

IT'S GOING TO THE CREDIT WILL STAY THERE. THEN I THINK THAT, YOU KNOW, WE'RE MAKING SOME HEADWAY THERE.

SO I WOULD FEEL, I DON'T KNOW, SUPERVISOR LONG, HOW DO YOU FEEL YOU SPONSORED THIS BUT GO AHEAD.

YEAH. OKAY. ARE YOU. GO AHEAD. OKAY. THANK YOU CHAIR FOR FOR WEIGHING IN ON THIS.

AND SO I LOOK AT THIS AS A VERY IMPORTANT DISCUSSION BECAUSE, AS SUPERVISOR JONES VERY CLEARLY STATED, THERE ARE CERTAIN PROTECTIONS UNDER AB 1482 THAT ARE AFFORDED TO SOME, BUT NOT TO THE MOBILE HOME PARK.

SO THAT'S THAT'S AN IMPORTANT CONSIDERATION. THERE'S THE EQUITY CONSIDERATION OF BUYING INTO A HOME AND THEN LOSING THAT INVESTMENT IF THE RENTS GO UP TO AN UNSUSTAINABLE AMOUNT.

I DO BELIEVE IN A FAIR MARKET SYSTEM, BUT I DO BELIEVE IN FAIRNESS.

SO THIS I THINK THERE ARE STEPS THAT WE CAN PURSUE PRIOR TO AN ACTUAL ORDINANCE WHERE AS SUPERVISOR KELSTROM SUGGESTED, HE AND I ARE BOTH WILLING TO GET TOGETHER WITH THE MANAGEMENT AND TENANTS AND MAYBE KEEP IT TO A SMALLER NUMBER OF TENANTS THAT ARE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE GROUP, THAT WHOEVER THE GROUP SELECTS.

AND WE CAN WE'RE GOING TO FIGURE THIS OUT. AND I KNOW THAT DOESN'T PROTECT THE BIGGER PICTURE NECESSARILY WITH ALL MOBILE HOME PARKS IN THE CITY AND COUNTY. BUT IT'S A START. AND I THINK YOU HEARD SUPERVISOR JONES SAY THAT THEY HAD MONTHS OF MEETINGS BEFORE THEY GOT TO THE POINT WHERE THEY THEY FELT THAT AN ORDINANCE WAS APPROPRIATE FOR THEIR SITUATION IN THEIR COUNTY.

AND THEY HAVE THEY DO HAVE A VERY DIFFERENT SITUATION.

SUPERVISOR KELSTROM AND I KIND OF HOSTED A COMMUNITY MEETING WHERE WE TALKED AND FACILITATED A DISCUSSION BETWEEN OWNER OWNER AND RESIDENTS. AND IT WAS A REALLY, IT WAS, IT WAS TOUGH AT POINTS BECAUSE THERE WERE A LOT OF, THERE WAS A LOT OF UPSET AND ANGER IN THERE. AND THERE WAS SOME MISCOMMUNICATION AND SOME OF THE IDEAS, THE FACTS AND THIS. AND SO I THINK WE ALL CAME OUT BETTER, BETTER.

UNDERSTOOD OR NOT? NOT WE. BUT THE TENANTS UNDERSTOOD WHAT MANAGEMENT WAS THINKING.

MANAGEMENT UNDERSTOOD WHAT TENANTS ARE THINKING. AND SO I THINK THAT PROCESS, WE CAN ALWAYS BRING THIS BACK FOR AN ORDINANCE AT SOME POINT IN THE NEAR FUTURE.

SO I THINK THAT'S A THAT'S A GREAT STEP, BUT I THINK THERE ARE STEPS IN THE INTERMEDIATE THAT WE CAN DO TO RESOLVE THIS AND TRY TO GET SOME MUTUAL AGREEMENT. AND I'VE TALKED WITH REPRESENTATIVES OF THE GROUPS, THE TENANT GROUPS, AND I'VE TALKED WITH MANAGEMENT AND I, I THINK IT'S PRETTY CLOSE, BUT THAT I THINK WOULD BE WISE AND PRUDENT FOR US TO EXPLORE THAT OPTION.

AND THEN IF WE HAVE NO OTHER OPTION, WE CAN BRING THIS BACK AND TRY TO FIGURE THIS OUT AT A LATER DATE.

SO THAT WOULD BE MY RECOMMENDATION THAT WE MOVE THIS FORWARD.

IT'S A VERY IMPORTANT DISCUSSION. I AM ALL ABOUT.

I WAS A COP, RIGHT? I'M ALL ABOUT JUSTICE AND I'M ABOUT FAIRNESS.

AND THAT IS REALLY IMPORTANT TO ME. SO I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT PEOPLE ARE TREATED FAIRLY.

AND I THINK WE'LL GET TO THAT OR WE WON'T. I DON'T KNOW, BUT LET'S NOT CUT OUT THE INTERMEDIATE STEPS TO

[00:40:04]

GET TO THAT. AND MAYBE THERE IS NO NEED AT THIS TIME FOR AN ACTUAL RENT ORDINANCE.

OR MAYBE THERE IS, I DON'T KNOW. BUT I THINK WE CAN EXPLORE THAT POSSIBILITY AT THIS POINT AND FACILITATE THESE MEETINGS.

SO I WOULD, I WOULD AND SUPERVISOR KELSTROM AND I ARE MORE THAN WILLING TO HELP FACILITATE THAT DISCUSSION.

SO THAT WOULD BE MY REQUEST THAT WE WE GO THERE.

YEAH. AND SUPERVISOR LONG AND I HAVE HAD MANY, MANY DISCUSSIONS ON THIS, AND WE TOTALLY UNDERSTAND THE SERIOUSNESS OF THE SITUATION BECAUSE YOU GUYS OWN YOUR HOMES. IF THEY RAISE THE RENT UNDER THE, ON THE ON THE GROUND THAT THEY SIT ON TO A POINT WHERE YOU CANNOT PAY IT OR, YOU KNOW, THE HOME ENDS UP BECOMING WORTHLESS BECAUSE NOBODY ELSE IS GOING TO BUY A 30 YEAR OLD MOBILE HOME THAT'S SITTING ON A PIECE OF PROPERTY THAT YOU HAVE TO PAY $1,000 FOR. SO WE TOTALLY UNDERSTAND THE SERIOUSNESS OF THIS.

WE TOTALLY UNDERSTAND YOUR CONCERNS. AND WE WE WANT TO CONTINUE TO MEET WITH YOU GUYS, MEET WITH HARMONY, MAKE SURE THAT WE CAN GET TO SOMEWHERE WHERE YOU GUYS FEEL COMFORTABLE THAT WHAT HAPPENED IN RED BLUFF IS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN TO YOU GUYS.

SO IF YOU COULD FACILITATE SOME MEETINGS WITH US IN THE FUTURE WITH HARMONY, IF THAT WILL WORK OUT FOR YOU GUYS.

I HATE TO JUMP TO A RENT CONTROL RIGHT OFF THE BAT WHEN THIS IS NOT THE SAME SITUATION AS WHAT HAPPENED IN RED BLUFF.

IF THIS WAS THE SAME SITUATION AND THERE WASN'T THIS $300 CREDIT AND YOUR RATE WAS GOING UP TO $900, THEN WE WOULD BE JUMPING ALL OVER THIS THING.

SO I'M WITH SUPERVISOR LONG. I'D LIKE TO FACILITATE SOME MORE MEETINGS AND GET THIS WORKED OUT BEFORE WE PASS AN ORDINANCE.

CAN I ASK ONE LAST QUESTION? OH. I'M SORRY. DO YOU MIND IF I JUST THROW ONE MORE? SO I THINK IT'S AN IMPORTANT DISCUSSION.

AND I'VE HAD DISCUSSIONS WITH OWNERSHIP AND I'VE HAD DISCUSSION WITH TENANTS AND TENANTS.

UNDERSTAND? BELIEVE IT OR NOT, THEY UNDERSTAND THE NEED TO MAKE A PROFIT SO THAT THE PARK HAS A VIABILITY.

LONG TERM. THEY UNDERSTAND THAT WHAT THEY DON'T LIKE IS THE OKAY, WE'RE GOING TO CHARGE YOU $300 MORE.

985 AND THEN WE'LL GIVE YOU $300 CREDIT, BECAUSE WE'RE BUILDING IN A SAFEGUARD AGAINST THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA.

THEY DON'T LIKE THAT PART OF IT BECAUSE IT MESSES UP THEIR CREDIT WHEN THEY THEY SHOW A COMMITMENT BECAUSE THE RENT SHOWS IT'S 985 INSTEAD.

IT'S ACTUALLY 685. SO THEY THEY UNDERSTAND IN MY DISCUSSIONS AND BOTH SIDES, I THINK WE'RE REALLY CLOSE TO FIGURING THIS OUT.

AND SO I THINK, THE REPRESENTATIVES I'VE TALKED TO IN THE PARKS ARE VERY REASONABLE, ACTUALLY, AND THEY WANT THIS TO WORK OUT AS WELL. AND THEY WANT PROTECTIONS AND THEY WANT.

SO WE'LL FIGURE THIS OUT AND WE'LL FIGURE OUT HOW WE GET THERE.

AND IF WE INCLUDE THESE INTERMEDIATE STEPS, I THINK WE'LL BE BETTER FOR IT.

AND IF WE CAN'T GET YOU TO A COMFORTABLE SPOT, WE'RE MORE THAN HAPPY TO PASS THAT ORDINANCE. SO. SUPERVISOR PLUMMER.

YES. AND THIS IS A QUESTION FOR SUPERVISOR KELSTROM.

AND LONG, WHICH IS THE YOU KNOW, I APPRECIATE THE IDEA OF TRYING TO RESOLVE THIS OUTSIDE OF PASSING SOME NEW ORDINANCE.

MY QUESTION FOR YOU ALL IS WHAT IN THOSE CONVERSATIONS COULD HAPPEN THAT WOULD TRIGGER IN YOUR MINDS THE NEED TO BRING IT BACK FOR PASSING AN ORDINANCE? BECAUSE I'M KIND OF CURIOUS IF, IF THEN THIS IS LIKE WHAT THE PRINCIPLE IS BEHIND, YOU KNOW, WHERE AN ORDINANCE APPLIES VERSUS WHERE IT DOESN'T AND WHEN THAT'S APPROPRIATE.

YEAH. WELL, BASICALLY, I MEAN, WE WE HAD HEARD WHAT HAPPENED DOWN IN RED BLUFF. AND THEN ALL OF A SUDDEN WE HAD SOME RESIDENTS REACH OUT TO US THAT IT WAS SOUNDED LIKE IT WAS HAPPENING HERE IN THE TWO PARKS. ONE IS IN SUPERVISOR LLANOS DISTRICT.

ONE IS IN MY DISTRICT. SO WHEN WE HEARD THAT WE WEREN'T GOING TO LET THAT HAPPEN IN SHASTA COUNTY, THAT WHAT HAPPENED IN RED BLUFF? I MEAN, PEOPLE WERE LITERALLY PUSHED OUT OF THEIR HOMES. I MEAN, THEIR THEIR RENT DID GO TO 900 OR $1000 AND THERE WAS NO CREDIT IN THERE.

SO SUDDENLY PEOPLE COULDN'T AFFORD THE RENT. THE MOBILE HOME ENDS UP BEING WORTHLESS BECAUSE NOBODY ELSE IS GOING TO BUY A MOBILE HOME WITH THAT HIGH RENT UNDERNEATH IT TO MOVE A MOBILE HOME. IT'S EXTREMELY EXPENSIVE TO MOVE A MOBILE HOME. PLUS YOU HAVE TO PUT IT IN ANOTHER PARK MORE THAN LIKELY.

AND THEN THAT MAY SAME THING MAY HAPPEN TO THAT OTHER PARK.

SO YOU KNOW, I HAVE MULTIPLE FRIENDS THAT LIVE IN SOME PARKS AROUND THE COTTONWOOD AREA.

SO I MEAN, I'M ACTUALLY SEVERAL. AND SO I WAS VERY CONCERNED THAT IT WAS THE SAME THING THAT WAS HAPPENING HERE.

BUT THEN WE MET WITH THE RESIDENTS, I THINK BOTH SUPERVISOR LONG AND I BOTH WENT DOWN TO RIVERLAND SEPARATELY, MET WITH RESIDENTS DOWN THERE. DID SOME MORE DISCUSSIONS, GOT IN CONTACT WITH HARMONY.

ONE OF THE THINGS THAT MADE THE RESIDENTS UNCOMFORTABLE WAS THAT HARMONY WAS JUST PROMISING THEM THAT THEY WERE GOING TO GIVE THIS $300 CREDIT AND, YOU KNOW, DON'T WORRY ABOUT IT. WE WILL JUST GIVE IT TO YOU AND YOU'LL GET IT FOR GOOD. WHEN FINALLY WHEN HARMONY PUT THAT IN WRITING, I THINK IT MADE RESIDENTS FEEL A LITTLE BIT BETTER.

NO, NOT ALL OF THEM, OBVIOUSLY, BUT BUT WHEN THEY PUT THAT IN WRITING.

SO I THINK WE'RE GOING TO CONTINUE TO WORK WITH HARMONY AND THE RESIDENTS.

SO IF THEY GET COMFORTABLE WITH WHAT'S GOING ON, IF THEY GET COMFORTABLE WITH HARMONY. AND AGAIN,

[00:45:04]

I UNDERSTAND THE FEAR THAT BECAUSE WHAT HAPPENED IN RED BLUFF WAS ACTUALLY A TRAGEDY.

I MEAN, IT WAS ABSOLUTE TRAGEDY. SO SO I GUESS WHAT I'M WHAT I'M HEARING IS IF THERE WERE TO BE, SAY, 50% INCREASES IN RENT, THEN YOU, YOU WOULD THINK, OKAY, LET'S MOVE TO HAVE AN ORDINANCE.

SO WHICH I GUESS KIND OF IN SOME SENSE, IT FEELS A LITTLE STRANGE TO ME BECAUSE, WELL, IT'S BECAUSE IF WE, IF WE DON'T WANT PEOPLE INCREASING THE RENT BY, SAY, 50% OR SOME SIGNIFICANT NUMBER.

WHY WAIT FOR THAT VIOLATION TO HAPPEN TO PUT IT IN PLACE? YOU KNOW THAT THE THE ORDINANCE. ON THE OTHER HAND, IF WE DON'T THINK IT'S PRODUCTIVE TO HAVE AN ORDINANCE BECAUSE IT WILL UNDERMINE THE MOBILE HOMES IN THE FUTURE, THEN WHAT WOULD OTHER THAN SOMEONE, YOU KNOW, INCREASING RENT SIGNIFICANTLY WOULD TRIGGER THAT? SO THAT'S WHERE I'M KIND OF WRESTLING WITH IT A LITTLE BIT. SUPERVISOR PLUMMER.

IF I CAN ANSWER THAT. SO WE HAD DISCUSSION AT THE COMMUNITY MEETING WHERE HARMONY SAID THAT THEIR INTENT WAS NOT TO BE THE TOP CHARGE FOR RENT AND THEIR INTENT WAS NOT TO BE THE LOWEST CHARGE.

THEY WANTED SOME KIND OF A MIDDLE GROUND THAT THEY COULD JUSTIFY MAKING A PROFIT AND STILL KEEPING RENT REASONABLE FOR THE FOR THE TENANTS.

SO YEAH, WE COULD FACE A 50%. AND I THINK THERE WAS THE TEHAMA COUNTY MODEL, WHICH WE'VE DISCUSSED.

THAT WAS A LITTLE MORE DRASTIC. AND SO I THINK THERE'S STILL MISCOMMUNICATION.

THERE ARE SOME FINE POINTS TO FIGURING OUT THIS SITUATION.

AND THEN IF WE COME TO A RESOLUTION IN THIS SITUATION, THE QUESTION BEGS WHAT ABOUT THE CITY? WHAT ABOUT DIFFERENT MOBILE HOME PARKS THAT ARE NOT OWNED BY THIS OWNER? AND WE KNOW THAT THOSE ARE THOSE ARE LEGITIMATE QUESTIONS AS WELL.

SO I THINK ACCORDING TO THE PRESENTATION THAT WE HAD WITH THE COMMUNITY MEETING THEY'RE NOT TRYING TO TRY NOT, THEY'RE TRYING TO BE GOOD STEWARDS AND NOT TRYING TO GOUGE.

THAT IS OPEN FOR DEBATE, OBVIOUSLY, BECAUSE THE RESIDENTS FEEL THE ACTUAL INCREASES.

SO WE'RE, WE'RE TRYING TO COME TO RESOLUTIONS.

AND I THINK, I THINK WE WILL COME TO AN AGREEMENT BECAUSE I THINK BOTH PARTIES ARE VERY MOTIVATED TO FIGURE THIS OUT.

SUPERVISOR CRYE. ARE YOU GOOD? ARE YOU SURE? YEAH, I GUESS JUST MY.

I CAN HEAR THE WHEELS. YEAH. I MEAN, I GUESS MY PERSPECTIVE IS WE SHOULDN'T IF WE THINK A RULE OR POLICY IS CORRECT, WHICH I'M NOT SAYING THIS IS OR ISN'T, THEN WE SHOULD PASS IT.

YOU'RE USING LOGIC. IT'S LOST THE BUT I THINK AND AND SO TO ME, I WOULD EITHER PASS THIS BECAUSE I THINK THERE SHOULD BE EQUALITY WITH OTHER RENTERS OR I WOULD NOT PASS IT BECAUSE I DON'T THINK RENT CONTROL IS A GOOD IDEA.

AND I THINK AB 1482 IS BAD POLICY. SO TO ME, IT DOESN'T ACTUALLY MATTER BECAUSE I DON'T THINK WE WANT TO.

WELL, I APPRECIATE AND I THINK WE COULD FIND A GOOD SOLUTION HERE.

I THINK AND I THINK IT'S GREAT THAT YOU ALL ARE TALKING WITH THEM AND WILL COME TO SOMETHING.

I THINK THAT PROBABLY WILL HAPPEN. I THINK FROM A POLICY STANDPOINT, WE SHOULD MAKE IT INDEPENDENT OF WHAT SPECIFICALLY IS BEING NEGOTIATED IN THE CONTEXT. SO THAT'S SO I'M HAPPY TO HAVE YOU ALL CONTINUE CONTINUING THE CONVERSATION, BUT I THINK IF THIS DOES COME BACK TO ME, IT WOULD BE MORE OF THE PRINCIPLE VERSUS WHAT SPECIFICALLY DID HARMONY DO OR THE TENANTS OR BECAUSE I DON'T THINK THAT SHOULD BE WHAT DRIVES, AS SUPERVISOR JONES MENTIONED, WE SHOULDN'T RESPOND TO LIKE ONE ACTION AND DRIVE A POLICY ON IT.

SO I THINK THAT'S KIND OF THAT'S WHAT I'VE BEEN THINKING ABOUT DURING THIS CONVERSATION.

SUPERVISOR CRYE. ALL RIGHT, SO I JUST WANT TO APOLOGIZE TO ALL THE PEOPLE THAT CAME ON THIS ISSUE, BECAUSE I THINK YOU GUYS CAME HOPING YOU WERE GOING TO GET SOME DIRECTION.

AND I REALLY THINK IT'S A SHAME THAT YOU COME AND JUST HEAR A LOT OF WORDS.

I WOULD ASK SUPERVISOR KELSTROM LONG TO PUT A TIMELINE ON THIS, BUT REALISTICALLY, THIS ISN'T EVEN ABOUT HARMONY OR ANY PARK OWNERS.

IT'S NOT ABOUT THE RESIDENTS THAT ARE THERE TODAY. IT'S ABOUT A PHILOSOPHICAL AND IDEOLOGICAL STANCE.

WHETHER, WHETHER YOU BELIEVE IN FREE MARKET OR YOU BELIEVE IN SUBSIDIES I MEAN, IT'S, I MEAN, SUPERVISOR PLUMMER LIKE I, I, TRACKING WITH EXACTLY WHAT YOU'RE SAYING.

I THINK THAT THIS VOTE DECISION COULD BE MADE TODAY.

SO SUPERVISOR LONG. THIS IS YOUR ITEM. CAN WE COULD COULD YOU COMMIT A TIME TO THESE PEOPLE OUT HERE? BECAUSE IF THIS IS ABOUT HARMONY, IF THIS IS ABOUT HARMONY, WELL, HARMONY COULD SELL TOMORROW AND THE WHOLE PROCESS STARTS OVER.

PRIVATE EQUITY FIRM COULD COME IN AND BUY UP EVERY ONE OF THEM.

I MEAN, SHE'S NODDING. SHE GETS IT. SO CAN YOU GIVE US A TIME FRAME? ARE WE TALKING THREE MONTHS? ARE WE TALKING SIX YEARS? I'D BE WILLING TO WAIT ONE MONTH.

ONE MONTH? WELL, WE COULD MAKE IT A MONTH. AND SO.

SO YOU YOU SAY IT AGAIN. DECEMBER. DECEMBER. ALL RIGHT, HOLD ON.

OKAY. YOU APPEAR READY TO MAKE A DECISION RIGHT NOW.

[00:50:03]

CAN YOU WEIGH IN ON YOUR THOUGHTS ON RENT CONTROL ORDINANCES? OH, I FEEL VERY STRONGLY ABOUT IT. BUT I'M GOING TO HOLD YOU TO THE FIRE, AND I WANT TO HEAR WHAT YOUR PLAN IS TO GIVE THEM AN ANSWER IN 30 DAYS.

WELL, WE'LL FIGURE THAT OUT. AND THAT'S GOING TO TAKE SOME MEETING 30 DAYS.

BUT I'M JUST CURIOUS, IS THAT A MOTION? AND IT'S GOING TO COME BACK IN 30 DAYS.

I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO BRING IT BACK IN 30 DAYS.

IF WE CANNOT HAMMER OUT AN AGREEMENT THAT MAKES THE CITIZENS AND MAKES THE RESIDENTS HAPPY.

I'LL SECOND. I'LL SECOND. OKAY, I GOT IT. ALL RIGHT. MOTION MADE BY MYSELF. SECONDED BY SUPERVISOR CRYE. YOU GUYS DESERVE A DIRECTION AND RESULTS ONE WAY OR THE OTHER.

NO MORE TALKING. ALL RIGHT. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? AYE. AYE. PASSES FIVE ZERO. ALL RIGHT. WE WILL SEE YOU BACK HERE IN A MONTH.

IF WE CAN'T HAMMER SOMETHING OUT THAT YOU'RE SATISFIED WITH.

ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU FOR COMING.

AND THANK YOU FOR BRINGING THIS TO OUR ATTENTION, TOO. SO, I MEAN, IF YOU HADN'T COME IN HERE THAT FIRST MEETING, WE WOULD HAVE NOT KNOWN ANYTHING ABOUT THIS. SO APPRECIATE YOU. YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO.

IT'S ALL GOING TO GO. ALL RIGHT. YOU'RE DONE.

ALL RIGHT. WE'LL WAIT TILL THEY FILTER OUT HERE A LITTLE BIT.

ALL RIGHT, MOVING ON. R2, DISCUSS THE AGREEMENT APPROVED BY THE BOARD WITH FLOCK GROUP INCORPORATED FOR A LICENSE PLATE READER CAMERA SYSTEM AND THE USE OF ALPR SYSTEMS IN

[R2 Discuss the agreement approved by the Board with Flock Group, Inc. for license plate reader (ALPR) camera system and the use of ALPR systems in Shasta County (Sponsored by Supervisor Crye).]

SHASTA COUNTY. THIS IS SPONSORED BY SUPERVISOR CRYE. ALL RIGHT, WE'LL GIVE IT MAYBE ANOTHER SECOND TO GET THE DOORS CLOSED.

AND. YEAH. I MEAN, I THINK THIS IS A CONVERSATION THAT I ASKED TO BRING BACK BECAUSE THIS IS ONE OF THE REALLY THREE VOTES IN NEARLY FOUR YEARS THAT I REALLY JUST KIND OF WINCED AT AND WASN'T REALLY EXCITED ABOUT.

SO GIVEN ALL THE NEW INFORMATION THAT'S COME OUT NOT JUST OF COURSE IN SHASTA COUNTY, BUT MORE REGIONALLY, STATEWIDE AND THEN COUNTRYWIDE, I JUST WANTED TO HAVE THE DISCUSSION ALL OF US HERE, I KNOW SUPERVISOR OR CHAIR KELSTROM, YOU WERE, YOU WERE THE ONLY ONE THAT WENT TO THE, THE PUBLIC MEETING.

I CAN'T SPEAK FOR THE OTHER SUPERVISORS MEETING WITH THE SHERIFF ON THIS. I MET WITH THEM. BUT AGAIN, I HAVE THE MOST RESPECT FOR SHERIFF JOHNSON. AND THIS ISN'T ABOUT SHERIFF JOHNSON'S LEADERSHIP OR HIS ABILITY TO RUN HIS DEPARTMENT, WHICH. THERE'S FEW PEOPLE IN THIS ROOM I WOULD ASK TO TAKE CARE OF MY FAMILY IN ANY SITUATION.

SHERIFF JOHNSON IS DEFINITELY ONE OF THEM. THIS IS A BIGGER ISSUE.

AND I WANTED THIS TO COME BACK FOR DISCUSSION.

SO BEFORE I WANT TO GO TO PUBLIC COMMENT FIRST BEFORE WE OPEN IT UP.

YEAH, ABSOLUTELY. AND I'M BEING TOLD WE HAVE WE HAVE THREE PEOPLE.

YES. WELL OVER 20 PEOPLE. SO WE'RE JUST GOING TO PUT THE TIME LIMIT THAT EVERYBODY'S GOING TO GET THE CHANCE TO SPEAK.

ALL RIGHT. SO WE DO HAVE 25 SPEAKERS IN PERSON AND ONE PERSON REMOTE.

SO WITH THAT WE WILL TAKE THE FIRST TEN MINUTES OF IN PERSON.

THEN WE'LL SWITCH OVER TO THE PHONE LINE AND THEN WE'LL GO BACK TO IN PERSON.

SO WE'LL GO AHEAD AND CALL ASHLEY FIRST, FOLLOWED BY STEVE CONN, SHASTA COUNTY WATCHDOG, LAURA HOBBS, THEN BEV. IF I CALLED YOUR NAME, PLEASE GET IN QUEUE.

THANK YOU GUYS. TWO MINUTES FROM EVERY SPEAKER IN THIS ROOM IS NOT ENOUGH TIME TO PRESENT THE EDUCATION NECESSARY TO BE FLUENT IN ALPR CAMERAS, AI, DATA CONTROL, SHARING, AND CENTRALIZATION.

I URGE THIS COUNCIL TO DO YOUR OWN INDEPENDENT RESEARCH OUTSIDE OF THE BIASED MARKETING MATERIALS PROMOTED BY FLOCK.

I HAVE COLLECTED ROUGHLY 1000 PETITION SIGNATURES IN OPPOSITION TO FLOCK CAMERAS, OVER 600 OF WHICH WERE GATHERED IN PERSON FROM EAGER AND ENTHUSIASTIC SIGNERS. PRESENTLY, THERE ARE FIVE PIECES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION TARGETING THIS TECH, INCLUDING THE FLOCK OFF ACT, THE NO FLOCK ACT. IN CALIFORNIA, TECH COUNTIES SUCH AS SANTA CLARA HAVE BANNED THEIR USE.

CITIES SUCH AS SANTA CRUZ, EL CERRITO, MOUNTAIN VIEW, SOLANO BEACH, FAIRFAX, EUREKA, LOS ALTOS HILLS, CUPERTINO, SARATOGA AND CAMPBELL HAVE ALL CANCELED THEIR CONTRACTS COUNTRYWIDE.

IT'S HAPPENING DAILY. THERE ARE MAJOR CLASS ACTION LAWSUITS ON THE TOPIC, INCLUDING A NATIONWIDE PRIVACY CLASS ACTION, A CALIFORNIA OUT OF STATE DATA SHARING LAWSUIT, AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL VERSUS CITY OF EL CAJON.

THE ACLU HAS FILED MULTIPLE LAWSUITS ALONGSIDE CIVIL RIGHTS AND FOURTH AMENDMENT CHALLENGES STEMMING FROM OFFICER ABUSE AND FALSE ARRESTS.

[00:55:04]

WHERE THERE IS SMOKE, THERE IS FIRE. THESE ISSUES ARE NOT DUE TO INTERNET MISINFORMATION OR SOCIAL MEDIA RHETORIC.

THEY ARE DRIVEN BY MASSIVE OPPOSITION. FACTS AND ABUSES AND VULNERABILITIES OF THIS TECH.

HISTORY HAS PROVEN FREEDOM AND LIBERTY ARE DIMINISHED BY CONSTANT SURVEILLANCE, WHETHER PRIVATIZED OR GOVERNMENTAL.

WE HAVE NEVER HAD THE SURVEILLANCE CAPABILITIES WE DO NOW.

IT'S ADVANCING FASTER THAN WE CAN KEEP UP. BOTTOM LINE GOVERNMENT GOVERNING BY IGNORING THE ABSOLUTE WILL OF THE PEOPLE IS THE VERY DEFINITION OF TYRANNY.

YOU ALL WERE ELECTED TO REPRESENT THE PEOPLE, NOT TO TRACK THEM.

WE DO NOT CONSENT TO A DIGITAL DRAGNET. TECHNOLOGY DOES NOT OUTPACE OUR RIGHTS AND FREE PEOPLE DO NOT NEGOTIATE THE TERMS OF CON.

FOLLOWED BY SHASTA COUNTY WATCHDOG, LAURA HOBBS.

THEN BEV, IF I CALLED YOUR NAME, PLEASE GET IN QUEUE.

WELL, THIS IS ONE OF THOSE RARE MOMENTS WHEN I WON'T ACTUALLY NEED MORE THREE MINUTES TO TALK.

OR MORE THAN TWO AT LEAST. FLOCK CAMERAS. FLOCK CAMERAS HELPED SOLVE CRIME.

THAT'S WHY LAW ENFORCEMENT WANTS THEM. THEY TAKE PICTURES OF LICENSE PLATES AND CARS ON PUBLIC STREETS.

THIS IS NOT A FOURTH AMENDMENT RIGHT VIOLATION THAT HAS BEEN VERIFIED BY THE COURT SYSTEM.

THAT'S ALL THERE IS TO IT. THANK YOU. NEXT UP, SHASTA COUNTY WATCHDOG, FOLLOWED BY LAURA HOBBS, BEV, THEN DANIKA ADAMS. IF I CALLED YOUR NAME, PLEASE GET IN QUEUE.

I WASN'T READY. OKAY. REGARDING THE THESE CAMERAS, I UNDERSTAND THERE'S SOME GOOD AND SOME BAD.

I DO BELIEVE THAT IT'S GOING. IF WE DON'T HAVE CONTROL OF WHAT THE GOVERNMENT IS DOING TO THE PEOPLE, IT'S ACTUALLY HERE ALREADY. IT'S SUPPOSED TO HAPPEN.

BUT IF THE REASON WE'RE HERE NOW FIGHTING REGARDING THE CAMERAS AND EVERYTHING, PRIVACY IS BECAUSE THE PEOPLE DON'T KNOW HOW TO STOP AND STOP WHAT'S HAPPENING, AND THEY DON'T KNOW HOW TO FIGHT THE GOVERNMENT.

AND BY THE TIME THEY FIGHT THE GOVERNMENT, IT'S A LITTLE TOO LATE, YOU KNOW, AND AND IT'S HARDER TO FIGHT AND TO GET YOUR RIGHTS BACK.

BUT IT'S BEEN HAPPENING LITTLE BY LITTLE. IT'S BEEN THEY'VE BEEN CHIPPING AWAY, RIGHTS AWAY.

BUT THERE'S, THERE'S AN AGENDA ITEM HERE THAT IS VERY INTERESTING FOR ME BECAUSE LIKE I SAID, IT'S, IT'S GOING TO HAPPEN AND IT'S HAPPENING IN THE COURTS.

IT'S HAPPENING IN THE GROCERIES. IT'S HAPPENING EVERYWHERE.

THEY'RE TRACKING US. THE REASON THEY'RE TRACKING US IS BECAUSE WHEN IT COMES DOWN TO HERE PRETTY SOON, I DON'T KNOW WHEN, BUT THERE'S GOING TO BE A ONE WORLD ORDER.

SO WHEN IT WHEN IT DOES, THEY DO CALL MARTIAL LAW.

YOU'RE NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO LEAVE YOUR HOME BECAUSE WHEN IF YOU TRY TO LEAVE YOUR HOME, BASICALLY, THEY'RE GOING TO KNOW WHEN YOU LEAVE YOUR HOME BECAUSE THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE CAMERAS. AND I DO BELIEVE THAT, YOU KNOW, LIKE I SAID, IT'S A THERE'S SOME GOOD THINGS ABOUT IT AND BAD THINGS.

WELL, THE GOOD THINGS I KNOW THE LAW ENFORCEMENT, THEY NEED TO DO THEIR JOB AND AS MUCH AS THEY CAN TO BE ABLE TO CATCH THESE CRIMINALS.

BUT I DO BELIEVE THAT IT'S GONE BEYOND. ALSO, BESIDES OUR PRIVACY BEING VIOLATED, IT'S BECAUSE THEY WANT TO CONTROL THE PEOPLE, NOT JUST THE CRIMINALS, BECAUSE THE CRIMINALS ARE GETTING PICKED UP AND THEN PUT IN JAIL AND RELEASED.

SO THE ONES THAT ARE GOING TO GO AFTER IS PEOPLE LIKE US.

LAURA HOBBS, BEV, THEN DANIKA ADAMS. IF I CALLED YOUR NAME, PLEASE GET IN QUEUE.

GOOD MORNING SUPERVISORS. I'M OPPOSED TO FLOCK CAMERAS.

I DON'T LIKE THE FACT THAT YOU GUYS PUT THOSE OUT THERE AND AGREED TO HAVE THEM IN SHASTA COUNTY.

WHAT THEY DO IS THEY CREATE NOT JUST AN IMAGE OF A LICENSE PLATE.

THEY ACTUALLY CREATE A PATTERN OF LIFE AND THAT IS STALKING.

THE CITIZENS DO NOT WANT TO BE STALKED BY THEIR GOVERNMENT.

WE NEED TO REMOVE THE FLOCK CAMERAS. WE NEED TO REMOVE ALL CONTRACTS, NOT JUST WITH FLOCK, BUT WITH ANY OTHER SURVEILLANCE SYSTEM. THE PUBLIC CITIZENS.

WE HAVE A RIGHT TO MOVE ABOUT AND HAVE A DAILY LIFE THAT'S NOT TRACKED BY OUR GOVERNMENT.

THIS IS WRONG, AND I THINK THAT YOU NEED TO MAKE AN AGENDA ITEM TO HAVE THESE FLOCK CAMERAS REMOVED.

I'D LIKE TO HEAR SOMEBODY'S MOTION TO PUT THIS ON THE NEXT AGENDA TO REMOVE AND END THAT CONTRACT.

THANK YOU. NEXT UP, BEV, FOLLOWED BY DANICA ADAMS, MARGARET HANSON, THEN DAVID HALLIGAN.

IF I CALLED YOUR NAME, PLEASE GET IN QUEUE. TERMINATE THE SHASTA COUNTY FLOCK SAFETY CONTRACT.

REMOVE THE CAMERAS. WE SHOULD NOT HAVE THE GOVERNMENT SPYING ON US.

THIS STATE AND COUNTRY HAS BEEN MANIPULATED TO WHERE PEOPLE DON'T EVEN REALIZE THE DECEIT THAT'S BEEN GOING ON.

ON BOTH. BE BEHIND OUR BACKS AND RIGHT IN FRONT OF OUR FACES.

[01:00:01]

WE HAVE JUST IGNORED EVERYTHING AS WE HAVE MOVED CLOSER TO SOCIALISM.

DON'T CLOSE YOUR EYES. WHAT TO. TO WHAT IS HAPPENING.

HAPPENING WITH THE FLOCK. CAMERAS CAN DO TO OUR SOCIETY AND FREEDOM.

READ THE CONSTITUTION AND PROTECT OUR UNALIENABLE RIGHTS.

NOT EVERYONE IN GOVERNMENT PAID POSITIONS ARE HONORABLE.

AND BECAUSE OF THAT, YOU HAVE NO CONTROL OVER HOW THE FLOCK CAMERAS WILL BE USED IN THE FUTURE.

IS IT ANY SURPRISE TO YOU THAT THE COMPANY IS FROM SILICON VALLEY? THANK YOU. NEXT UP, DANIKA ADAMS, FOLLOWED BY MARGARET HANSON AND DAVID HALLIGAN.

WE ALSO HAVE THE PHONE CALLER ON THE LINE. BRAD GALUSHA SHOULD BE UP SOON.

GOOD MORNING, SHASTA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AND EXCUSE ME AND COMMUNITY.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND SERVICE. MY NAME IS DANIKA ADAMS. WITHOUT PUBLIC CONSENT, OUR COUNTY IS NOW OVERSEEN BY 90 AUTOMATED LICENSE PLATE READERS.

24 OF THESE CAMERAS INSTALLED EARLIER THIS YEAR IN REDDING ARE FLOCK SAFETY CAMERAS, AND THERE ARE MORE THROUGHOUT THE COUNTY.

THE FLOCK SAFETY SYSTEM ALSO INCLUDES 150,000 CAMERAS NATIONWIDE, NATIONWIDE.

THAT MEANS THIS COUNTY, SHASTA COUNTY, IS PART OF A NATIONWIDE SURVEILLANCE SYSTEM, ALLOWING 5000 PLUS AGENCIES IN OVER 6000 COMMUNITIES TO PARTNER IN ACCESSING THESE CAMERAS AND THE DATA PRODUCED BY THEM.

A SYSTEM DESIGNED TO WATCH OUR STREETS AND DETER CRIMINAL ACTIVITY BY THEIR MERE PRESENCE.

A TOOL TO AID IN THE WORK OF OUR LOCAL POLICE FORCE AND SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT.

THIS IS THE INTENDED USE. YET, AS TIME HAS PROVEN, THIS HAS NOT BEEN THE ONLY USE.

NEFARIOUS ACTS HAVE BEEN COMMITTED BY TRUSTED OFFICERS OF THE LAW.

EVEN THE VALUE OF THIS TECHNOLOGY CANNOT OVERRIDE THE PUBLIC'S FAITH IN OUR LAW ENFORCEMENT OR CITY AND COUNTY OFFICIALS WHO MAKE CRUCIAL DECISIONS FOR OUR BENEFIT AND OUR SAFETY.

WITH OVER 20 BILLION VEHICLES SCANNED PER MONTH, THE SYSTEM IS GATHERING DATA FOR A MUCH LARGER AI SYSTEM.

A STATE LEVEL MOVE BY A LEADER. I'M GOING WAY DOWN BECAUSE I THOUGHT I HAD LONGER.

A STATE LEVEL MOVE BY LEADERS IN FLORIDA HAS PROMPTED LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES ACROSS THE STATE TO BEGIN REMOVING CAMERAS.

GOVERNOR RON DESANTIS AND THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION HAVE BANNED ALL A L P R'S FROM STATE CONTROLLED HIGHWAYS.

AND NEXT UP, MARGARET HANSEN. AFTER MARGARET WILL SWITCH TO OUR PHONE LINE AND HEAR FROM BRAD GALUSHA.

THEN WE'LL GO BACK TO IN PERSON. GO AHEAD MARGARET.

SO FLOCK A PRIVATE COMPANY, ALONG WITH OTHER SURVEILLANCE CAMERAS, USE A BACK DOOR APPROACH TO SKIP THE BOUNDARIES AND LAWS THAT KEEP LAW ENFORCEMENT ABUSES AND VIOLATION IN CHECK. ANYONE CAN ACCESS THIS UNFETTERED MASS SURVEILLANCE, INCLUDING FOREIGN ENTITIES.

IT VIOLATES THE FOURTH AMENDMENT RIGHTS OF CITIZENS AND IS BLATANTLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

LAW ENFORCEMENT HAS RULES AND LAWS THEY MUST FOLLOW.

KLUTZ STANDS FOR CALIFORNIA LAW ENFORCEMENT TELECOMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS, A HIGH SPEED COMMUNICATION, COMMUNICATION COMPUTER NETWORK AND MESSAGE SWITCHING SYSTEM MANAGED BY THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE.

KLUTZ DOES DATABASE ACCESS, DRIVER'S LICENSE HISTORIES, CRIMINAL HISTORIES, INTERAGENCY COMMUNICATION, AND ENABLES FAST POINT TO POINT ADMINISTRATION MESSAGING BETWEEN POLICE DEPARTMENTS, SHERIFF DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES.

RESTRAINING AND PROTECTIVE ORDERS. CIVIL RESTRAINING ORDERS, DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, PROTECTIVE ORDERS.

BUT THEY HAVE RULES AND LAWS. HERE IT IS. YOU SHOULD BE DISCUSSING THIS.

STRICT ACCESS ONLY AUTHORIZED PERSONNEL WHO PASS A BACKGROUND CHECK AND FINGERPRINTING CAN USE CLIPS.

NEED TO KNOW BASIS OFFICERS MUST HAVE A BOTH A LEGAL RIGHT TO KNOW AND AN OFFICIAL NEED TO KNOW TIED TO ACTIVE WORK DUTIES, MISUSE AND PENALTIES. THEY COULD GET ARRESTED.

THEY CAN HAVE THEIR JOB TERMINATED. CIVIL LAWSUITS.

THE CRIMINALS CAN GET AWAY WITH THE FLOCK SYSTEM IF YOU USE IT, BECAUSE THAT'S A LOOPHOLE THAT'S NOT EVEN THAT VIOLATES CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS.

THIS HAS HAPPENED ALREADY. I FIND IT INTERESTING THAT THIS INFORMATION HAS NOT BEEN PRESENTED NOR SPOKEN ABOUT.

AND YOU SHOULD. THANK YOU. WELL, NOW PAUSE TO GO TO THE TO THE CALLERS ON THE PHONE AFTER THE CALLER WILL GO TO DAVID HALLIGAN.

GARY OXLEY, THEN ASHER, IF I CALLED YOUR NAME, PLEASE GET IN QUEUE AT THIS TIME.

BRAD. IT IS NOW YOUR TURN TO SPEAK. YOU HAVE TWO MINUTES.

[01:05:05]

GOOD MORNING. I WAS BORN AND RAISED IN SHASTA COUNTY AND I WORK HERE AND I SPEND MY MONEY HERE.

I CURRENTLY LIVE IN TEHAMA COUNTY. I AM NOT YOUR CONSTITUENT, BUT WHEN I DRIVE INTO THE COUNTY, YOUR CAMERAS READ MY PLATE. THANK YOU FOR PUTTING THIS AGENDA ITEM BACK ON.

DISCUSSION IS NOT ENOUGH. I'M ASKING THE BOARD TO DIRECT STAFF TO COME BACK WITH A VOTABLE ITEM ON ENDING THIS AGREEMENT, AND TO COMMIT THAT ANY NEW RENEWALS COME BACK ON THE REGULAR CALENDAR, NOT CONSENT.

I SEARCHED EIGHT YEARS OF YOUR AGENDA'S BLOCK APPEARS ON EXACTLY ONE OF THEM BEFORE TODAY, THE MORNING YOU APPROVED IT. FIVE YEARS OF THE MORNING YOU APPROVE APPROVED.

FIVE YEARS OF IT. $500,000. YOUR OWN AGENDA CALLED THOSE ITEMS ROUTINE AND NON-CONTROVERSIAL.

THE AGENDA DID NAME FLOCK. I WENT BACK AND WATCHED THAT MEETING AND I COULD NOT FIND THE WORD FLOCK SPOKEN ANYWHERE IN IT.

YOUR STAFF REPORT SAYS THAT AFTER FIVE YEARS, THIS COSTS ABOUT $107,000 A YEAR, AND THAT LANDS ON THE GENERAL FUND.

NO COURT. NO COURT HAS RULED THAT THESE NETWORKS FLATLY ARE UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

BUT THIS JUNE IN THE SUPREME COURT HELD THAT PHONE LOCATION HISTORY IS PROTECTED BY THE FOURTH AMENDMENT.

SO THE DIRECTION IS CLEAR WHERE THIS IS HEADING.

I WOULD ASK COUNTY COUNSEL TO STATE ON THE RECORD WHAT THE COUNTY'S EXIT RIGHTS ARE AND WHAT LEAVING MIDTERM WOULD COST.

YOU WERE TOLD THAT THIS WAS ROUTINE. IT IS NOT.

BRING IT BACK FOR A VOTE. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT.

NEXT UP WE HAVE DAVID HALLIGAN FOLLOWED BY GARY OXLEY.

ASHER. THEN MELODY, IF I CALLED YOUR NAME, PLEASE GET IN QUEUE.

FLOCK. SAFETY CAMERAS ARE A MASSIVE WIN FOR PUBLIC SAFETY IN SHASTA COUNTY.

IT'S A GAME CHANGER. IN JUST THEIR FIRST SIX WEEKS ON OUR STREETS, THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE USED THESE 24 CAMERAS TO SECURE 14 FELONY ARRESTS, RECOVER FOUR STOLEN VEHICLES, AND SAFELY LOCATE TWO MISSING SENIORS UNDER SILVER ALERTS.

IF THAT ISN'T PROOF THAT THIS TECHNOLOGY WORKS, I DON'T KNOW WHAT IS.

AS AN EXPANSIVE RURAL AREA, OUR LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS FACE A MASSIVE GEOGRAPHICAL CHALLENGE.

DEPUTIES CAN'T BE ON EVERY STRETCH OF HIGHWAY ON OUR UNINCORPORATED ROADS.

THE FLOCK SYSTEM ACTS AS A CRUCIAL FORCE MULTIPLIER.

IT DOESN'T USE INVASIVE FACIAL RECOGNITION, AND IT ISN'T TRACKING INDIVIDUAL CITIZENS.

INSTEAD, IT GIVES OUR DEPUTIES A DEFINITIVE DIRECTION OF TRAVEL THE MOMENT A STOLEN VEHICLE OR A SUSPECT ENTERS OUR COUNTY LINES, DRASTICALLY SLASHING CRITICAL SEARCH TIMES. I KNOW SOME FOLKS HAVE VALID QUESTIONS ABOUT PRIVACY, BUT WE NEED TO LOOK AT ALL THE FACTS. CALIFORNIA'S SENATE BILL 34 STRICTLY PROHIBITS THE STATE FROM BEING SHARED WITH OUR OUT OF STATE OR FEDERAL AGENCY.

AS I UNDERSTAND IT, ALL, UNFLAGGED FOOTAGE IS COMPLETELY WIPED FROM THE SYSTEM AFTER 30 DAYS IN SHASTA COUNTY.

IN ADDITION, THIS SYSTEM DID NOT COST SHASTA COUNTY TAXPAYERS A SINGLE DIME OF NEW TAXES BECAUSE IT WAS FULLY FUNDED BY THE ZOGG FIRE SETTLEMENT MONEY FOR FIVE YEARS. IT'S A PROACTIVE INVESTMENT IN KEEPING OUR FAMILIES SAFE FROM POSSIBLE CHILD ABDUCTIONS.

SENIORS WALKING OFF. BURGLARY, STOLEN VEHICLES, VIOLENT CRIMES AND ARSON.

YES. ARSON IN OUR COUNTY. THE STATISTICS SPEAK FOR THEMSELVES.

THESE CAMERAS PROTECT THE VULNERABLE. BRING STOLEN PROPERTY BACK AND PUT DANGEROUS PEOPLE BEHIND BARS.

LET'S SUPPORT SHERIFF JOHNSON AND HIS TEAM AND KEEP THE FLOCK CAMERAS ACTIVE ON OUR ROADS AGAIN.

IT'S A GAME CHANGER FOR THE GOOD GUYS. NEXT UP, GARY OXLEY, FOLLOWED BY ASHER MELODY.

THEN ASHER. IF I CALLED YOUR NAME, PLEASE GET IN QUEUE.

GOOD MORNING SUPERVISORS. MY NAME IS GARY OXLEY.

I'M AN ARMY VETERAN AND GRANDSON OF A FORMER BUTTE COUNTY DEPUTY SHERIFF.

I'M A SUPPORTER OF LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS, AND AS I UNDERSTAND IT, IN THE LICENSE PLATE, READERS ARE USED AS A DETERRENT FOR CRIME. AUTO THEFT AND KIDNAPINGS ARE TWO OF THE MOST STRONGEST ARGUMENTS FOR THAT SYSTEM. AS BEST I CAN DETERMINE, NO ONE HAS BEEN CAUGHT OR ARRESTED FOR ANY KIDNAPINGS.

THERE HAVE BEEN CASES OF AUTO THEFT. THE POINT THAT I WANT TO MAKE HERE TODAY IS OUR CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM IS BROKEN.

GENTLEMEN. WE'VE SPENT ALL THIS MONEY FOR THESE READERS TO GO AND FIND CRIMINALS, BUT NOW WE CAN'T PROSECUTE THEM.

THERE'S TWO CASES. IF YOU WANT THE CASE NUMBERS, I'LL PROVIDE THEM FOR YOU.

I DON'T WANT TO DO IT FOR PRIVACY OF THE INDIVIDUALS.

BUT THERE ARE TWO CASES. ONE, BOTH OF THEM ARE AUTO THEFT.

ONE, BOTH OF THEM WERE BOOKED. THE ONE WAS RELEASED ON BAIL PENDING TRIAL OR PLEA BARGAIN.

THE OTHER ONE, AS BEST I CAN DETERMINE, IS STILL INCARCERATED.

BUT PENDING TRIAL OR PLEA BARGAIN. THE D.A. IS A THOUSAND CASES BEHIND YOU GUYS.

[01:10:02]

YOU CAN CATCH ALL THE CRIMINALS YOU WANT. SHERIFF JOHNSON DOESN'T HAVE A JAIL TO PUT HIM INTO.

SO WHAT ARE WE GOING TO DO? WE'RE GOING TO RELEASE HIM BACK ON THE STREETS. I URGE YOU TO PLEASE CANCEL THIS CONTRACT.

GIVE THAT MONEY TO THE TO DISTRICT ATTORNEY SO SHE CAN HIRE A DEPUTY DAS SO THAT THEY CAN CRIMINALIZE, SO THAT THEY CAN CONVICT THESE CRIMINALS AND KEEP THEM OFF THE STREET.

THANK YOU. NEXT UP, ASHER, FOLLOWED BY MELODY, JIM BURNETT, THEN MACEY.

GOOD MORNING. MY NAME IS ASHER. I'M 12 YEARS OLD AND I'M HERE TODAY BECAUSE I'M CONCERNED ABOUT FLOCK CAMERAS, MASS SURVEILLANCE, AND THE FUTURE OF OUR COUNTY AND COUNTRY.

I UNDERSTAND THAT THESE CAMERAS ARE SUPPOSED TO HELP KEEP OUR COMMUNITY SAFE, BUT I ALSO BELIEVE THAT OUR FREEDOM AND PRIVACY ARE WORTH PROTECTING.

FLOCK CAMERAS CAN RECORD WHEN AND WHERE VEHICLES TRAVEL, AMONG OTHER THINGS.

THAT MIGHT NOT SEEM LIKE A BIG DEAL TODAY, BUT WHERE DOES IT STOP? A COMMENT ABOUT CELL PHONES BEING THE SAME THING WAS BROUGHT UP BEFORE, BUT I ASK ALL OF YOU THIS SIMPLE QUESTION WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN FLOCK AND PHONES? IT'S QUITE SIMPLE. I HAVE A CHOICE. I HAVE A CHOICE IN CHOOSING WHAT PHONE TO BUY OR WHAT IT'S ALLOWED TO TRACK.

I DON'T HAVE A CHOICE WHEN IT COMES TO FLOCK OR ANY OTHER LICENSE PLATE READING COMPANIES.

HISTORY HAS SHOWN US THAT BIG CHANGES DON'T ALWAYS HAPPEN OVERNIGHT.

SOMETIMES THEY HAPPEN. ONE SMALL DECISION AT A TIME.

ONE CAMERA BECOMES TEN, TEN BECOMES A HUNDRED.

AND SOMETHING THAT SEEMED UNUSUAL BECOMES ACCEPTED BY EVERYONE WITHOUT QUESTIONING.

I'M 12 YEARS OLD, BUT THE DECISIONS YOU MAKE TODAY WILL AFFECT THE WORLD I GROW UP IN.

SO I ASK YOU TO THINK ABOUT SOMETHING. JUST BECAUSE WE HAVE THE TECHNOLOGY TO WATCH PEOPLE, DOES THAT MEAN WE SHOULD? AND JUST BECAUSE SOMETHING SEEMS HARMLESS TODAY, DOES THAT MEAN IT WON'T CAUSE HARM FOR TOMORROW? THE FREEDOMS WE GIVE UP LITTLE BY LITTLE ARE THE HARDEST ONES TO GIVE BACK.

PLEASE REMEMBER THAT EVEN THE SMALLEST DECISIONS YOU MAKE TODAY CAN HAVE THE BIGGEST IMPACT FOR MY GENERATION.

THANK YOU. NEXT UP, MELODY, FOLLOWED BY JIM BURNETT.

MACY, THEN JOEY. IF I CALLED YOUR NAME, PLEASE GET IN QUEUE.

GOOD MORNING BOARD. THANK YOU SUPERVISOR CRYE FOR PLACING THIS ITEM ON THE AGENDA FOR DISCUSSION.

IT'S 1 A.M. AND YOU RECEIVE A KNOCK AT THE DOOR THAT YOUR 23 YEAR OLD DAUGHTER WAS INVOLVED IN A FATAL CAR ACCIDENT, KILLING THREE PEOPLE. SHE'S OKAY, BUT SHE'S ACCUSED OF THREE COUNTS OF VEHICULAR HOMICIDE AND FLEEING THE SCENE.

SHE WAS CONFINED. SHE WAS CONFINED TO SOLITARY CONFINEMENT FOR 86 HOURS, 13 DAYS IN JAIL, DENIED BOND AND HAD VIRAL MUGSHOTS ALL OVER SOCIAL MEDIA.

HER NAME'S LINDSEY. LINDSEY ISAACS, AND SHE WAS A VICTIM OF A MISTAKEN IDENTITY, AN UNCHECKED POWER.

IT'S FROM FLORIDA. LOOK HER UP. I WENT INTO A LOT OF DETAIL, BUT I HAD TO REDACT IT ALL.

SEAN RYAN, AMERICAN PODCASTER AND FORMER U.S.

NAVY SEAL, COVERED THE DANGERS OF THE GROWING SURVEILLANCE NETWORK ON HIS SHOW FIVE DAYS AGO.

HE STATED THAT THE PUSH FOR THIS TECHNOLOGY IS ACCELERATING FASTER THAN THE RULES THAT GOVERN IT.

WHY WOULD WE ALLOW ANYTHING TO GET AHEAD OF THE RULE OF LAW? LAW GIVES ORDER AND SAFEGUARDS AGAINST FALSE ACCUSATIONS, LIKE THE CASE OF LINDSEY ISAACS, THE YOUNG GARRETT LANGLEY, CEO OF THE FLOCK ENTERPRISE, WORTH $8.3 BILLION.

CALLED WILL FREEMAN, HEAD OF DF.LOC, A TERRORIST ORGANIZATION.

LANGLEY HAS SINCE APOLOGIZED AFTER A LOT OF BACKLASH.

RIGHT NOW, THE SURVEILLANCE NETWORK IS PRIVATELY OWNED.

WHAT HAPPENS WHEN THAT OWNERSHIP IS CENTRALIZED TO THE SAME AUTHORITY THAT VOWS TO OVERSEE IT? HOW IS FLOCK TRENDING? WELL, IT JUST PICKS UP ANOTHER NAME LIKE AXON.

IN FEBRUARY, PRESIDENT TRUMP PURCHASED 1 TO 5 MILLION AXON STOCK.

TWO WEEKS LATE AFTER THAT, ICE ENTERED A $220 MILLION CONTRACT FOR ROUGHLY 18,000 NEW TASERS.

THE AXON HIRED CLAUDIA DAVIDSON, WHO CALLED FOR WHO WORKED FOR PALANTIR, A COMPANY KNOWN FOR DATA INTEGRATION AND SOFTWARE ANALYTICS, TO EXPAND FEDERAL CONTRACTS. CRIMINALIZING INNOCENT CITIZENS TO CATCH A HANDFUL OF CRIMINALS DOESN'T MAKE SENSE.

THE GOOD DOESN'T OUTWEIGH THE BAD. THANK YOU.

NEXT UP, JIM BURNETT, FOLLOWED BY MACEY, JOEY, THEN AVERY.

IF I CALLED YOUR NAME, PLEASE GET IN QUEUE. JIM, COME ON UP. GOOD MORNING.

THE WHOLE ISSUE AROUND FLOCK AND OTHER LICENSE PLATE READERS REVOLVES AROUND THE CONCEPT IN RIGHT OF PRIVACY.

THE CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION SAYS THIS ABOUT PRIVACY AND OTHER RIGHTS WE HAVE.

ALL PEOPLE ARE BY NATURE FREE AND INDEPENDENT AND HAVE INALIENABLE RIGHTS.

AMONG THEM ARE ENJOYING AND DEFENDING LIFE AND LIBERTY, ACQUIRING, POSSESSING AND PROTECTING PROPERTY AND PURSUING AND OBTAINING SAFETY,

[01:15:03]

HAPPINESS AND PRIVACY. CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE HAS THIS TO SAY ABOUT PRIVACY.

THE RIGHT TO PRIVACY IS BEING THREATENED BY THE INDISCRIMINATE COLLECTION, MAINTENANCE AND DISSEMINATION OF PERSONAL INFORMATION, AND THE LACK OF EFFECTIVE LAWS AND LEGAL REMEDIES.

THE INCREASING USE OF COMPUTERS AND OTHER SOPHISTICATED INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY HAS GREATLY MAGNIFIED THE POTENTIAL RISK TO INDIVIDUAL PRIVACY THAT CAN OCCUR FROM THE MAINTENANCE OF PERSONAL INFORMATION.

IN ORDER TO PROTECT THE PRIVACY OF INDIVIDUALS, IT IS NECESSARY THAT THE MAINTENANCE AND DISSEMINATION OF PERSONAL INFORMATION BE SUBJECT TO STRICT LIMITS. BRUCE RUSSELL, IN A LETTER TODAY TO THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, SAYS, AND I QUOTE, THIS BOARD DOES NOT NEED TO WAIT FOR A COURT DECISION DECLARING A PARTICULAR SURVEILLANCE PROGRAM UNLAWFUL BEFORE DECIDING THAT IT EXCEEDS WHAT THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT SHOULD BE DOING. ELECTED OFFICIALS HAVE AN INDEPENDENT RESPONSIBILITY TO DETERMINE WHETHER A GOVERNMENT POWER SHOULD EXIST, NOT MERELY WHETHER IT CAN SURVIVE. LEGAL CHALLENGE.

WE'VE BEEN HERE BEFORE AND WE EXPECT YOU TO DO THE RIGHT THING.

THANK YOU. NEXT UP, MACY, FOLLOWED BY JOEY AVERY, THEN DARREN HALE.

IF I CALLED YOUR NAME, PLEASE GET IN QUEUE. GOOD MORNING BOARD.

HI, MY NAME IS MACY. RIGHT NOW THERE IS A SURVEILLANCE NETWORK BEING BUILT AROUND YOU.

YOU PROBABLY DIDN'T VOTE FOR IT. YOU PROBABLY DIDN'T SIGN UP FOR IT.

THESE CAMERAS ARE READING LICENSE PLATES ALL ACROSS THE COUNTRY.

THESE FLOCK CAMERAS CAN SEE A REMARKABLE DETAILED PICTURE OF YOUR LIFE WHERE YOU GO, WHAT YOU SEE, WHAT YOU BUY, AND EVEN WHAT YOU BELIEVE. THE MASSIVE AMOUNTS OF DATA BEING COLLECTED EVERY DAY CAN BE USED TO DETECT FRAUD, IDENTITY THEFT, AND POTENTIALLY STOP CRIMES BEFORE MORE PEOPLE BECOME VICTIMS. THIS TECHNOLOGY CAN DO REALLY GOOD. THE QUESTION IS, WHAT HAPPENS WHEN THOSE CAPABILITIES GROW FASTER THAN THE RULES THAT GOVERN THEM? WHERE DO WE DRAW THE LINE BETWEEN PUBLIC SAFETY AND PERSONAL PRIVACY? BUT WE DON'T HAVE TO CHOOSE BETWEEN FEELING SAFE AND FEELING FREE.

WE CAN ASK FOR BOTH. WE CAN ACCEPT, EXPECT BOTH, AND IF WE DON'T TALK ABOUT IT, SOMEONE ELSE WILL DECIDE FOR US.

NEXT UP JOEY, FOLLOWED BY AVERY. DARREN HALE, THEN ANI LIST.

IF I CALLED YOUR NAME, PLEASE GET IN QUEUE. HELLO BOARD, I AM JOEY LANE, I AM 13 AND I'M GOING TO BE TALKING ABOUT WHY FLOCK CAMERAS CONTRACT NEEDS TO BE RESCINDED. FLOCK CAMERA VIOLATES THE FOURTH AMENDMENT, WHICH IS OUR STABILITY ON PRIVACY.

AND I WANT TO PROTECT MY OWN RIGHTS AND MY FUTURE GENERATIONS RIGHTS.

FLOCK IS AN ECOSYSTEM. IT HAS AN ECOSYSTEM WHERE PRIVATE BUSINESSES AND INDIVIDUALS COULD GET INTO OUR BUSINESS.

I KNOW I FOR SURE DO NOT WANT MY BUSINESS BEING, GETTING, GETTING, GETTING INTO.

PEOPLE HAVE USED ABUSED ALPR ACCESS FOR PERSONAL REASONS.

THIS MAKES A PRETTY CLEAR POINT THAT STALKING IS AN OPTION, AND IT'S ALREADY HAPPENED MANY TIMES BEFORE. THERE HAVE BEEN MISIDENTIFICATIONS OF MANY PEOPLE, INCLUDING A WOMAN THAT HAD TO GO TO JAIL AND PEOPLE ARE BEING DETAINED AND INNOCENT FAMILIES ARE BEING HELD AT GUNPOINT FOR THINGS THAT THEY DIDN'T EVEN DO.

EVEN THOUGH SOME PEOPLE DON'T LIKE FLOCK CAMERAS, THEY DO HAVE BENEFITS.

BUT I BELIEVE THAT OUR RIGHTS SHOULD BE PROTECTED.

AND I AM REALLY CONCERNED FOR MY GENERATION AND THE PEOPLE THAT COME AFTER THAT.

THANK YOU BOARD, FOR EVERYTHING YOU DO, AND I HOPE YOU GUYS HAVE AN AMAZING REST OF YOUR DAY. NEXT UP AVERY FOLLOWED BY DARREN HAIL ARNI LIZ, THEN ANTONIA. IF I CALLED YOUR NAME, PLEASE GET IN QUEUE. GO AHEAD AVERY. GOOD MORNING BOARD.

I'M AVERY LIGHT HERE TO STATE MY OPINION ON THE FLOCK CAMERAS.

I BELIEVE THAT THE FLOCK CAMERAS POSE A INSIDIOUS THREAT TO OUR COMMUNITY BY VIOLATING OUR FOURTH AMENDMENT.

FOR INSTANCE, IN FEBRUARY OF 2026, A COUPLE IN ARKANSAS GOT PULLED OVER AT GUNPOINT WITH A SIX MONTH OLD BABY IN THE BACK BECAUSE A FLOCK CAMERA MISREAD A LICENSE PLATE BY ONE DIGIT AND FLAGGED IT AS STOLEN.

IF YOU WANT AN EXAMPLE THAT IS CLOSER TO US IN NOVEMBER OF 2025, A 31 YEAR OLD MAN WAS ARRESTED AND HELD IN JAIL FOR WEEKS BECAUSE A FLOCK CAMERA MISREAD HIS FRIEND'S LICENSE PLATE AND LINKED IT TO A CAR HIJACKING, EVEN THOUGH THE MAN HIMSELF WAS MILES AWAY.

IF I'M GOING TO BE HONEST, I JUST DON'T FEEL COMFORTABLE WITH THIS CONSTANT SURVEILLANCE THAT THE FLOCK CAMERAS THAT THE FLOCK CAMERAS PROVIDE. NOT ONLY IS THIS THE FUTURE OF MY SIBLINGS AND FRIENDS, BUT IT IS ALSO MINE.

IN CONCLUSION, TO BECOME A, WE DO NOT WANT TO BECOME A COMMUNITY WHERE SURVEILLANCE OUTWEIGHS AND OVERPOWERS OUR PRIVACY AND INALIENABLE RIGHTS.

[01:20:01]

THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. NEXT UP, DARREN HALE, FOLLOWED BY ANI LIST, ANTONIA, THEN ELIE G.

GOOD MORNING CHAIR BOARD. THANK YOU FOR PLACING THIS ON THE AGENDA.

IMMEDIATELY UPON THE REQUEST. I DO APPRECIATE THAT.

I DO WANT TO SAY I DON'T I DO NOT FAULT THIS BOARD FOR PASSING FLOCK SAFETY.

NOR DO I FAULT PREVIOUS ANDERSON CITY COUNCIL FOR DOING IT.

WHO DOES NOT WANT TO CATCH BAD GUYS COMMITTING CRIMES? THAT'S THAT'S A NO BRAINER. WE ALL WANT THAT.

I THINK WHAT THE THE NATION AND THE COMMUNITY HAS LEARNED SINCE THOSE DECISIONS HAVE BEEN MADE, THE THE BENEFITS ARE NOT OUTWEIGHING. YOU KNOW, WHAT'S GOING ON WITH FLOCK SAFETY.

I, I DO WANT TO MENTION THAT THIS ISN'T HAVING ANYTHING TO DO WITH SHERIFF JOHNSON, WITH ANDERSON, POLICE CHIEF WITH RPD. THEY'RE GOOD COPS. THEY WANT TO PROTECT THE COMMUNITY.

I APPRECIATE THEM VERY MUCH. SO THIS HAS TO DO WITH THE COMPANY AND ALPR TECHNOLOGY.

IT IS ENCROACHING ON OUR FOURTH AMENDMENT RIGHT.

AND IT'S IT'S EVER EXPANDING RIGHT NOW IN SAN FRANCISCO.

THEY HAVE AI POWERED FLOCK DRONES. WE DON'T. WE ALL KNOW THAT WHATEVER HAPPENS DOWN SOUTH, IT'S JUST A MATTER OF TIME BEFORE IT GETS UP HERE.

THIS IS A MASS SURVEILLANCE STATE. I THANK YOU GUYS FOR BRINGING THIS FORWARD AND ASK THAT YOU GUYS BRING THIS BACK FOR CONSIDERATION ON CANCELLATION.

THANK YOU. NEXT UP, ARNIE LIST, FOLLOWED BY ANTONIA LEE JY, THEN MICHELLE DE.

IF I CALLED YOUR NAME, PLEASE GET IN QUEUE. GOOD MORNING, ARNIE LIST.

APPRECIATE THE TIME. THIS IS A VERY UNIQUE ISSUE AND SITUATION I.

FIRST, I WANT TO CONGRATULATE ALL THE YOUNG LADIES AND THE YOUNG MEN WHO ARE SO WELL SPOKEN.

AND IT'S VERY ENCOURAGING TO SEE THAT GENERATION REALLY BE INVOLVED IN POLITICS.

WE NEED MUCH MORE OF THAT. THESE ARE FUTURE VOTERS IN SHASTA COUNTY AND FUTURE POTENTIAL POLITICAL FIGURES AS WELL.

SO I JUST WANT TO CONGRATULATE YOU ALL FOR THAT AND YOUR PARENTS AS WELL.

KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK. SO THE BOARD HAS AN OPPORTUNITY HERE, IN MY OPINION, TO HOWEVER, THEY DECIDE THIS TO BRING SOME UNITY INTO A COMMUNITY THAT IS DEFINITELY NEED IN NEED OF SOME, YOU KNOW, UNITY.

FRANKLY, THERE'S SO MUCH SEPARATION IN THE COMMUNITY WITH DIFFERENT ISSUES.

THERE'S A POSSIBILITY OF ACTUALLY THE UNITY, THE COMMUNITY COMING TOGETHER IN A CERTAIN WAY.

BUT SO I WANT TO JUST MAKE SOME OBSERVATIONS THAT ARE PRETTY SIMPLE.

BUT THIS IN MY OPINION, CELL PHONES AND VEHICLES THAT HAVE NAVIGATIONAL SYSTEMS, THEY DO A LOT OF THE SAME THING.

WE'RE ALL BEING TRACKED. WE'RE ALL BEING OUR CELL PHONES ARE BEING TRACKED.

OUR CARS ARE BEING TRACKED. THIS SEEMS LIKE REDUNDANCY TO ME, FOR ONE THING.

AND THAT BECOMES A FINANCIAL. WHY ARE THE TAXPAYERS OF SHASTA COUNTY BEING FOOTED WITH THE BILL THAT FRANKLY SEEMS REDUNDANT FROM DATA GATHERING, GATHERING DATA. BUT IT ALSO OPENS UP THE POSSIBILITY OF.

MR. LARMORE HAPPEN TO BE GETTING INVOLVED DEFENDING THE COUNTY WITH PEOPLE WHO ARE UNAUTHORIZED TO ACCESS THE DATA, FOLLOWING AND TRACKING THEIR EX HUSBANDS AND WIVES AND ALL THESE THINGS THAT HAPPEN.

THESE ARE HAPPENING NOW. THERE WILL BE LAWSUITS WITH DIFFERENT PEOPLE THAT ARE BEING, YOU KNOW, TRACKED, AND THEY'RE NOT GOING TO TAKE IT. SO I WOULD JUST ADVISE THEM, THE COUNTY, TO PLEASE REALLY CONSIDER CANCELING THIS CONTRACT FOR FINANCIAL REASONS, FOR PRIVACY REASONS, BUT ALSO FUTURE LIMITING THE EXPOSURE OF THE COUNTY TO LIABILITY AND LAWSUITS AS WELL.

THANK YOU. NEXT UP, ANTONIA, FOLLOWED BY ELLIE G, MICHELLE D, THEN JENNY.

GOOD MORNING BOARD. I AM OPPOSED TO FLOCK CAMERAS, AND I ALSO BELIEVE THE GOVERNMENT IS TAKING AWAY MORE OF OUR FREEDOM BY SPYING ON US. TAKE AWAY THESE CAMERAS. THESE CAMERAS ARE VIOLATING VIOLATING OUR FOURTH AMENDMENT RIGHTS.

CONSIDER PROTECTING THE CITIZENS OF SHASTA COUNTY.

THANK YOU. NEXT UP, ELLIE G FOLLOWED BY MICHELLE D, JENNY, THEN SAMANTHA MONTGOMERY.

GOOD MORNING BOARD. IN ORDER TO GIVE A PUBLIC COMMENT AT THIS PUBLIC MEETING, I'M REQUIRED TO GIVE MY NAME AND PHONE NUMBER AND OTHER PERSONAL IDENTIFICATION QUESTIONS ARE THERE TOO. AND I JUST KIND OF WANT TO SAY THAT IT FEELS UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

BUT THAT'S NOT WHY I'M HERE. THIS MAY SEEM CONTROVERSIAL TO THE MATTER, BUT I THINK WE NEED MORE FLOCK CAMERAS.

I THINK WE NEED THEM THAT GIVE REAL TIME UPDATES ABOUT THE SHERIFF AND EACH OF YOU SO-CALLED REPRESENTATIVES, INCLUDING YOUR SPOUSES. AND YOU ARE SWORN TO UPHOLD THE OATH AND ANY OF YOUR CHILDREN.

WE SHOULD BE MONITORED. IT'S FOR SAFETY. RIGHT? COULD YOU IMAGINE? I MEAN, WHAT THE FLOCK. YOU GUYS.

[01:25:01]

FLOCK IS SERIOUSLY DISMANTLING THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.

AND YOU'RE ALL RESPONSIBLE FOR ALLOWING THE VIOLATION.

YOU ALL SIT HERE AS ELITIST, ALLOWING THIS INVASION.

WHEN FLOCK CLAIMS TO BE FOCUSED ON CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS.

IT'S FALSE. IT'S NOT BEING USED TO TRACK DOWN MISSING CHILDREN OR STOP ANY MASS CRIME.

IT'S DESENSITIZING US TO THE NORMALIZATION OF MASS SURVEILLANCE.

IT'S AN ABSOLUTE TROJAN HORSE THAT'S CONCEALING A MALICIOUS INTENT DESIGNED TO DESTROY OUR COUNTRY FROM WITHIN.

INCLUDING YOUR SIGN IN METHOD. COULD YOU IMAGINE IF WE ALL TURNED OUR PUBLIC RECORD REQUESTS IN FOR OUR FLOCK DATA? I THINK THE SHERIFF WOULDN'T BE READY TO HANDLE OR DEAL WITH THAT, BUT I'M CONSIDERING IT.

I'M REQUESTING THAT YOU CANCEL THIS FLOCK CONTRACT AND REMOVE THEM FROM OUR COUNTY.

THE BEST WAY TO TAKE CONTROL OF OUR PEOPLE AND CONTROL THEM IS TO UTTERLY TAKE A LITTLE OF THEIR FREEDOM AT A TIME, AND THE PEOPLE WILL NOT SEE THOSE RIGHTS OF FREEDOMS BEING REMOVED UNTIL THE POINT OF WHICH THESE CHANGES CANNOT BE REVERSED.

WE ALL HAD TO LEARN THAT IN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL, RIGHT? WE, THE PEOPLE, HAVE THE POWER AND IT'S IN WHAT WE SUPPORT AND CHOOSE TO DO.

AND WE MAY CHOOSE TO VOTE EACH OF YOU OUT IF YOU DON'T PRESERVE OUR RIGHTS.

THANK YOU. NEXT UP, MICHELLE DE FOLLOWED BY JENNY, SAMANTHA MONTGOMERY, STEVEN, THEN PATRICK.

IF I CALLED YOUR NAME, PLEASE GET IN QUEUE. GOOD MORNING.

I JUST WANT TO REMIND CHRIS KELSTROM AND SHERIFF JOHNSON.

I WAS AT THE MEETING FOR THE SHASTA COUNTY PRESENTATION FOR FLOCK LAST NOVEMBER.

I'M THE 73 YEAR OLD WHO STOOD UP AND SAID I'D BE THE FIRST ONE TO CUT THEM DOWN.

PEOPLE LAUGHED AND I LAUGHED BECAUSE I WOULD NEVER DO THAT.

THAT'S ILLEGAL. I WOULDN'T DO THAT. BUT THAT'S HOW STRONG I FEEL ABOUT IT.

I DON'T CARE ABOUT MYSELF. I'M 73. I DON'T CARE ABOUT MYSELF, I HAVE GRANDCHILDREN.

I AM REALLY CONCERNED ABOUT WHAT'S GOING ON. MASS SURVEILLANCE TECHNOLOGY HAS DISRUPTED OUR SOCIETY THROUGHOUT OUR NATION WITH GODLIKE POWER, GOVERNMENT AGENCIES CAN NOW FULLY ANALYZE AND BE AWARE OF EVERY CITIZEN'S MOVEMENT AND WHAT THAT INTIMATELY MEANS ABOUT THEM. AM I GETTING AN ABORTION TODAY? AM I GOING TO THE BAR? AM I GOING TO A CHURCH THAT YOU DON'T AGREE WITH? IS IT COVID TIME? AND I'M NOT FOLLOWING THE MANDATES.

I'M REALLY AFRAID OF THAT. USING A VAST SURVEILLANCE DRAGNET OF AN ENTIRE CITY, COUNTY, STATE AND NATION. EVEN THOUGH CALIFORNIA DOESN'T ALLOW NATIONWIDE TRACKING, WE DO HAVE LOGS THAT SHOW THAT CERTAIN WE'RE NOT READY TO SAY IT YET, BUT CERTAIN CLOSE COMMUNITIES HAVE BEEN USING NATIONWIDE TRACKING.

WHAT IT DOES IS NORMALIZE THE SURVEILLANCE OF EVERY CITIZEN.

NORMALIZE SUSPICIONLESS SEARCHES, NORMALIZE THE MISUSE OF PROBABLE CAUSE.

NORMALIZE THE USE OF WARRANTLESS SEARCHES. CURRENTLY, THERE'S 100,000 WARRANTLESS SEARCHES OF FLOCK SYSTEM EVERY MONTH, ACCORDING TO AUDIT LOGS BY 404 MEDIA. DATA IS STORED FOR 30 DAYS BY LAW ENFORCEMENT, BUT IN PER.

I CAN'T PRONOUNCE THIS PERPETUATED FOREVER BY FLOCK WITH GODLIKE POWER.

GOVERNMENT HAS A TOOL. IT CAN SURVEIL EVERYONE.

NEXT UP JENNIE, FOLLOWED BY SAMANTHA MONTGOMERY, STEPHEN, THEN PATRICK.

IF I CALLED YOUR NAME, PLEASE GET IN QUEUE. JENNIE, COME ON UP.

THANK YOU SUPERVISORS, FOR BRINGING THIS SUBJECT TO LIGHT.

WHILE I UNDERSTAND THIS IS MUCH MORE OF A COMPLEX ISSUE THAN WE SEE ON ITS FACE, AFTER ALL, THE FLOCK CAMERA OFF BY IGOR OHNO IS THE ONE THAT FOUND NIKKI SALLY OR AT LEAST HER VEHICLE.

BUT THE QUESTION BEFORE US IS THE DRAWBACK OF GIVING AWAY OUR FOURTH AMENDMENT RIGHTS WITH CONSTANT SURVEILLANCE WORTH THE BENEFITS OF THE EXTRA PUBLIC SAFETY? THAT IS A DIFFICULT QUESTION TO ANSWER, AND I DON'T WISH TO BE IN ANY ONE OF YOUR SHOES.

I THINK THE BIGGEST ISSUE BEFORE US IS WHO GETS THE INFORMATION.

EVEN IF WE TRUST THE COMPANY OR THE GOVERNMENT ENTITY RIGHT NOW, WILL WE ALWAYS.

THIS IS AN. THIS IS AN AREA HIGHLY SUSPICIOUS OF THE OF THE DAY.

GOVERNMENT WILL WORK AGAINST US. DO WE WANT CAMERAS ALL OVER THE CITY, ALL OVER OUR COUNTY, KNOWING WHERE EACH ONE OF US ARE, WHAT AND WHAT EACH ONE OF US IS DOING AT ALL TIMES.

THE GOVERNMENT IS A MUCH MORE EFFICIENT AND TERRIFYING PROSPECT THAN MOST OF US REALIZE.

FOR ME PERSONALLY, THE CONSISTENT MONITORING IS UNSETTLING AT LEAST, AND EXTREMELY DANGEROUS.

I SUPPOSE MY BEST ADVICE IS TO THINK WISELY AND CREATIVELY, TO DO WHAT IS BEST FOR OUR CITIZENS.

[01:30:06]

THANK YOU. NEXT UP, SAMANTHA MONTGOMERY, FOLLOWED BY STEVEN PATRICK.

THEN, JIM, IF I CALLED YOUR NAME, PLEASE GET IN QUEUE. GOOD MORNING SUPERVISORS.

MY NAME IS SAMANTHA MONTGOMERY AND I AM A SHASTA COUNTY RESIDENT AND A MILITARY VETERAN.

I OPPOSE THE COUNTY'S AGREEMENT WITH FLOCK GROUP FOR AUTOMATED LICENSE PLATE READER CAMERAS BECAUSE OF CONCERNS ABOUT PRIVACY, DATA SECURITY, ACCOUNTABILITY, AND TAXPAYER COSTS.

I SUPPORT PUBLIC SAFETY. THAT INCLUDES PROTECTING RESIDENTS FROM UNNECESSARY SURVEILLANCE AND MISUSE OF THEIR PERSONAL INFORMATION.

WHAT IMAGES AND INFORMATION ARE ACTUALLY COLLECTED? HOW LONG ARE THEY RETAINED AND WHO CAN SEARCH THEM? CAN OUTSIDE AGENCIES OR PRIVATE ENTITIES ACCESS THEM? AND WHAT HAPPENS WHEN SOMEBODY ACCESSES THEM AND ABUSES THEM? I'M CONCERNED ABOUT MINORS WHO LEGALLY DRIVE VEHICLE RECORDS COULD REVEAL PATTERNS INVOLVING A CHILD'S SCHOOL, WORKPLACE AND HOME, AND WHAT THEIR ROUTINE IS, WHAT SAFEGUARDS PRESENT PREVENT SOMEONE FROM USING THAT INFORMATION TO STALK, HARASS OR TARGET THEM. CAMERA PLACEMENT ALSO MATTERS.

WHAT ENFORCEABLE LIMITS PREVENT CAMERAS FROM CAPTURING PRIVATE DRIVEWAYS, YARDS OR ACTIVITY BEYOND THE ROADWAY? RESIDENTS ALSO DESERVE A FULL ACCOUNTING OF COSTS, EQUIPMENT INSTALLATION, SUBSCRIPTIONS, MAINTENANCE AND STAFF TIME. WILL ADDITIONAL EMPLOYEES BE HIRED TO MONITOR OR ADMINISTER THIS SYSTEM, AND WHAT WILL TAXPAYERS BE PAYING ANNUALLY, AND WHAT HAPPENS WHEN THOSE OUTSIDE FUNDING COSTS END? D.ORG INDICATES THAT CAMERAS ARE ALREADY OPERATING LOCALLY.

PLEASE CLARIFY WHICH OF THESE BELONG TO THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE AND PROVIDE DOCUMENTED RESULTS.

AND WHAT SPECIFIC CASES HAVE THESE CAMERAS ASSISTED INVESTIGATIONS OR CONTRIBUTED TO ARRESTS IN OUR AREA? AND WHAT WAS THE ACTUAL ROLE AND WHAT WAS THEIR OUTCOME? PROMISES ARE NOT ENOUGH AND WE NEED INDEPENDENT OVERSIGHT.

ACCESS AUDITS. STRICT RETENTION LIMITS AND CONSEQUENCES FOR MISUSE.

MONTEREY COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS RECENTLY VOTED TO REJECT THE FLOCK AGREEMENT AND DIRECT REMOVAL OF THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE 63 CAMERAS.

I ASKED THE BOARD TO CONSIDER THAT AS AN EXAMPLE.

HAVING CAMERAS ALREADY INSTALLED SHOULD NOT PREVENT US FROM RECONSIDERING WHETHER THE COSTS AND PRIVACY RISKS SERVE OUR COMMUNITY. AS A SHASTA COUNTY RESIDENT, I BELIEVE THE FUNDS. THE PUBLIC FUNDS COULD BE BETTER SPENT IN ADDRESSING OUR COMMUNITY'S NEEDS.

NEXT UP, STEVEN, FOLLOWED BY PATRICK, THEN JIM.

THANK YOU, BOARD AND FELLOW CITIZENS. I'M HERE TO REQUEST THAT THE CONTRACT FOR FLOCK BE TERMINATED BECAUSE IT IS GOING TO BE ABUSED.

HASN'T HAPPENED NOW AS FAR AS WE KNOW, BUT IT'S IT'S BEEN SHOWN TO BE ABUSED ACROSS THE COUNTRY.

ACROSS THE STATE. IT'S A SPYWARE. IT DOESN'T JUST CAPTURE THE LICENSE PLATE, IF THAT'S ALL IT DID.

YOU KNOW, A LOT OF US WOULD PROBABLY LOSE OUR ARGUMENT, BUT IT CAPTURES YOUR CAR. IT CAPTURES THE STICKER. IT CAPTURES WHAT ROUTE YOU TAKE TO CHURCH. WHAT AS LADY SAID, IF YOU GO TO THE BAR, IF YOU GO TO PICK UP YOUR KIDS, IT'S TRACKING ALL THESE THINGS.

AND THE GENTLEMAN SAID, IT'S NOT A FOURTH AMENDMENT VIOLATION.

I DISAGREE BECAUSE OUTSOURCING IT TO A PRIVATE COMPANY IS JUST A VIOLATION WITH A LOOPHOLE.

THIS DATA IS GOING TO BE SOLD. IT'S A PRIVATE COMPANY.

THEY WANT TO MAKE MONEY LIKE THE MOBILE PARK HOME. THEY WANT TO MAKE MONEY. THEY'RE GOING TO SELL OUR INFORMATION.

THEY'RE GOING TO SELL IT TO INSURANCE COMPANIES TO FIND OUT, OH, WE DROVE FIVE MILES MORE THAN WE WERE SUPPOSED TO ON OUR POLICY OR WE BROKE BROKE TOO HARD, YOU KNOW, AVOIDING A DEER OR WHATEVER IT MAY BE.

PEOPLE SAY, WELL, YOU'RE BEING TRACKED RIGHT NOW BECAUSE YOU'RE A PHONE. I COULD LEAVE MY PHONE AT HOME. THIS YOUNG MAN SAID, YOU CAN HAVE OPTIONS. I CAN LEAVE IT AT HOME, MY VEHICLE.

WELL, LUCKILY I HAVE A VEHICLE THAT DOESN'T HAVE ANY OF THAT TRACKING INFORMATION ON IT.

THAT'S CALLED SAFETY BY THE TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT, BUT IT'S TRACKING MY VEHICLE IS OLD ENOUGH, RIGHT? THEY CAN BE DRIVEN AND IT'S FINE. I'M NOT GOING TO BE TRACKED, BUT THAT LICENSE PLATE READER IS GOING TO TAKE A PICTURE OF MY VEHICLE.

AND THEN MAYBE IT TAKES A PICTURE OF THAT DENT THAT I HAVE, AND THAT DENT IS MISREAD WHEN WHEN LAW ENFORCEMENT LOOKS INTO IT AND I GET PULLED OVER WHEN I'M WALKING ON THE SIDE OF THE ROAD ON PUBLIC STREET.

MY HABITS, MY PATTERNS ARE DOCUMENTED, AND I GO TO THIS SCHOOL OR I GO TO THE STORE, I GET TRACKED, I GET FALL. HEY, THAT'S MY CHOICE. BUT ON A PUBLIC ROAD THAT'S DIFFERENT.

AND IT'S NOT A TRAFFIC LIGHT IN THE SENSE OF A RED LIGHT WHERE I'M PROBABLY BREAKING THE LAW, OR A TURN SIGNAL LIGHT WHERE I'M PROBABLY BREAKING THE LAW, OR COP PULLS ME OVER FOR PROBABLY PROBABLE CAUSE, AND HE'S GOT A CAMERA ON HIM.

NEXT UP, PATRICK, FOLLOWED BY JIM. GOOD MORNING BOARD.

LET'S TALK ABOUT TRUST A LITTLE BIT. NOW, SOME OF YOU ARE AWARE OF THE ILLEGAL ACTIVITY OF ERIC MAGRINI AND THAT HE BROKE THE LAW.

HE RESEARCHED THE BACKGROUND CHECK AND FOUND THAT MATT PONTIUS WAS A CONVICTED FELON.

HE BROKE THE LAW. WHAT HAPPENED TO ERIC MAGRINI? NOTHING. LET'S TAKE A LOOK AT THE SUMMER OF 2022, JUST BEFORE THE SUCCESSFUL RECALL OF LEONARD MODY.

MY ELECTRONIC KEY CARD TO THIS ROOM WAS DEACTIVATED.

[01:35:01]

I WENT ON THE RADIO THAT MONDAY, LETTING THE PUBLIC KNOW THAT I CANNOT ENTER THIS ROOM AND THAT I WOULD HAVE A LARGE SCREEN TV IN THE FRONT OF THIS BUILDING, WHICH I DID, AND I WOULD HAVE THE BEST MEETING THAT I COULD, WHICH I DID AT THAT TIME.

TWO SWAT TEAMS WERE ASSEMBLED AROUND THE BACK OF THE BUILDING.

A DRONE WAS PUT OVERHEAD AND TWO PLAINCLOTHES OFFICERS ACROSS THE STREET, TWO INDIVIDUALS ENTERED TO INCITE A RIOT.

IT WAS UNSUCCESSFUL. LET'S KEEP THIS TO FLOCK.

THIS IS FLOCK. THIS IS ABOUT TRUST WITH FLOCK.

TRUSTING OUR SHERIFFS. WHAT THEY DID TO ME BECAUSE I WAS THE ONLY PERSON THERE INCITING A RIOT.

IT'S ILLEGAL. AND IT'S A MISUSE OF COUNTY RESOURCES.

SO IF YOU THINK THAT THE SHERIFFS AREN'T GOING TO ABUSE THIS DATA, YOU WOULD BE WRONG.

KEVIN CRYE I'M HAPPY YOU THINK SHERIFF JOHNSON WOULD BE SAFE AROUND YOUR FAMILY.

I AM NOT. JIM, COME ON UP, JIM AND CHAIR. THIS WILL BE OUR LAST SPEAKER. MORNING. I MEAN, EVERYBODY'S KIND OF TOUCHED ON MOST OF IT.

WHAT HE SAID TO COMES DOWN TO TRUST. AND A COUPLE GENTLEMEN TOUCHED ON IT THAT CALIFORNIA HAS ALREADY HAS A LAW THAT SAYS WE CAN'T SHARE EVEN WITH THE COUNTRY RIGHT NOW IN SAC, THERE'S ALREADY OVER 12 CASES OF THEM SHARING INFORMATION WITH OTHER OUTSIDE THE STATE LAW ENFORCEMENT.

SO THAT CANCELS THAT. THINK ABOUT THE MONEY FROM IT'S FROM THE ZOGG FIRE.

I DON'T, I MEAN, COULD WE, DOES ZOLOFT SETTLEMENT, COULD WE USE THAT MONEY TO MAYBE HELP THE DISPLACED FAMILIES AND KIDS VERSUS PUTTING IT TOWARDS THIS? YOU HAVE THE LAW THAT ALREADY SAYS THAT THE CELL PHONE GPS IS ILLEGAL BECAUSE IT GOES OUT OF PRIVATE. THEY CAN'T TRACK YOU. AND THEY SAY THAT THIS IS PUBLIC INFORMATION.

WELL, IT HAS BLUETOOTH CAPABILITY, WHICH THEY DON'T TELL YOU WHICH YOU CAN THEN TRACK.

I CAN BE IN MY HOUSE OR IN A IN A PRIVATE PROPERTY AND IT CAN STILL PICK ME UP.

IT DOES HAVE FACIAL RECOGNITION. LIKE THEY WERE INCORRECTLY STATED.

THAT'S ALREADY BEEN PROVEN. I MEAN, YOU WANT US TO GIVE ALL THIS INFORMATION TO LAW ENFORCEMENT BECAUSE LAW ENFORCEMENT IS SO TRUSTED.

I MEAN, TWO OFFICERS WERE JUST ARRESTED FOR STALKING A 17 YEAR OLD GIRL USING FLOCK, GOING TO HER SCHOOL, HER WORK, EVERYTHING. SO, I MEAN, YOU'RE GIVING ALL THIS INFORMATION.

THEY BROUGHT UP THE STALKING. LAW ENFORCEMENT IS UP TO FOUR.

THE STUDIES SHOW 40% OF LAW ENFORCEMENT THEY EXPERIENCE DOMESTIC VIOLENCE IN THEIR HOME, AND THEY'RE ALSO STALKING THEIR PARTNERS.

SO THAT SEEMS LIKE A REALLY BAD COMBO RIGHT THERE BY ITSELF.

YOU KNOW, IT, I MEAN, IT'S, IT'S RIGHT THERE IN YOUR FACE.

I CAN'T PUT A CAMERA OUT ON THE STREET JUST FOR MY OWN WANT TO.

BUT THEY CAN PUT THEM EVERYWHERE, MAKE MONEY AND SELL MY INFORMATION AND THEN SELL ADS BASED AROUND MY TRAVEL, LIKE THEY SAID. WHERE DO I GO TO EAT? WHERE DO I GROCERY SHOP? WHERE DO I GET MY CLOTHES? EVERYTHING. ALL RIGHT, I SEE YOU IN Q SUPERVISOR CRYE. I'M GOING TO. CAN I SAY SOMETHING? YEAH. ALL RIGHT. SO THANK YOU. CHAIR. COUNSEL LARMER.

YOU KNOW, IT WOULD IT WOULDN'T BE BAD TO HAVE THE SHERIFF COME OUT, BUT I KNOW BECAUSE THIS IS A NO VOTE ITEM, HE'S HE'S NOT ALLOWED TO SINCE HE DIDN'T COME UP IN PUBLIC COMMENT.

SO I BELIEVE WE CAN ASK HIM QUESTIONS. THE SHERIFF COULD ANSWER SOME QUESTIONS, BUT HE COULDN'T PUT A PRESENTATION ON IT.

THAT WOULD HAVE TO BE ON THE AGENDA. OKAY. OKAY.

WELL, YEAH, YEAH, I WOULD, YEAH. SO I'LL START BECAUSE I WAS THE ONLY ELECTED OFFICIAL AT THAT MEETING THAT THE SHERIFF HELD A YEAR AGO.

AND I WAS GLAD TO SEE THE DATES ON THE AGENDA BECAUSE I'VE BEEN ACCUSED OF.

YOU LET THIS. YOU PUT THIS ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR. I DID NOT PUT THIS ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR. I WAS NOT CHAIRMAN AT THE TIME WHEN THIS WENT ON THE CHAIR ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR. SO I WENT TO THAT MEETING. I WANTED TO BE INFORMED.

I WANTED TO KNOW WHAT WAS GOING ON WITH FLOCK CAMERAS. AND I DID SEE MICHELLE THERE AND EXCUSE ME, SHELLEY. AND THERE'S PROBABLY A DOZEN OTHER PEOPLE THERE.

THERE WAS VERY LOW TURNOUT. I DIDN'T SEE ANYBODY HERE THAT THAT RAISED CONCERNS WITH THE EXCEPTION OF.

IS IT MICHELLE? NO, YOU WEREN'T THERE, MELANIE.

YOU WERE IN CITY OF SHASTA LAKE. NO YOU WEREN'T.

NO. SO I WAS THERE. AND AT THAT TIME I WANT TO TELL YOU AT THAT TIME, A YEAR AGO, FLOCK CAMERAMEN ABOUT AS MUCH TO ME AS NIKON CAMERA OR KODAK CAMERA.

IT MEANT NOTHING. I MEAN, AND THE SHERIFF, CODY BODNER, LIEUTENANT CODY BARTON, PUT ON A GREAT PRESENTATION.

HE ANSWERED EVERYBODY'S CONCERNS. ALL THE CONCERNS THAT YOU GUYS HAVE BROUGHT UP HERE WERE ANSWERED AND DIRECTED AT THAT MEETING. THE SHERIFF ENDED UP STEPPING IN.

IN FACT, I MIGHT CALL THE SHERIFF UP HERE IF HE'S WILLING TO COME UP, AND I'LL ASK HIM A QUESTION OR TWO. BUT THE SHERIFF TOOK THE MEETING OVER AFTER THAT AND ANSWERED EVERYBODY'S QUESTIONS. I FELT COMFORTABLE WHEN I LEFT THERE.

WE HAD LICENSE PLATE READERS ALREADY ON CARS. THAT'S HOW THEY PULLED THE STOLEN CARS OUT OF THE WALMART PARKING LOT ALL THE TIME, BECAUSE THEY'RE ON THE SQUAD CARS AS THEY GO THROUGH THE PARKING LOT. SO AT THAT TIME, AUTOMATIC PLATE READER REALLY MEANT NOTHING.

[01:40:03]

NOW, SINCE THAT TIME, OBVIOUSLY IN THE LAST 6 OR 8 MONTHS, ALL THESE CONCERNS THAT YOU GUYS HAVE BROUGHT TO ME, YOU KNOW, HAVE YOU VERY GOOD VALIDITY TO THEM.

SO, YOU KNOW, I WAS DOWN IN CRC AT SANTA BARBARA AND TALKING TO SOME PEOPLE, AND THEY WERE TALKING ABOUT DATA FOR A CERTAIN PARK.

AND THIS WOMAN THAT WAS RUNNING THE PARK WANTED THE DATA ON IT.

AND THERE WAS A DATA BROKER THAT TOOK CELL PHONE DATA AND COULD SELL THIS DATA TO, I MEAN, AS A BROKER, THAT'S WHAT HE DOES. HE COLLECTS ALL THIS DATA, SELLS IT TO WHOEVER WANTS IT.

AND BASICALLY, THEY CAN TELL YOU HOW MANY PEOPLE WENT TO THAT PARK, WHERE THEY WENT, HOW LONG THEY STAYED THERE, WHERE THEY PARKED, HOW MANY TIMES THEY WALKED AROUND. I MEAN, IT'S INCREDIBLE THE AMOUNT OF TRACKING.

I ALSO HEARD SOMEBODY ON THE RADIO SAY THAT BACK IN SWEDEN, NORWAY, SOMEWHERE IN FINLAND, SOMEWHERE BACK THERE THAT THEY HAD NOT ONLY THESE LICENSE PLATE READERS, BUT THEY HAD SENSORS AND CAMERAS ALL OVER THE ROAD WHERE LITERALLY, IF YOU'RE AT 2:00 IN THE MORNING AND YOU ROLL THROUGH A STOP SIGN WITH NOT A SINGLE OTHER PERSON ON THE ROAD, YOU'LL GET A TICKET IN THE MAIL. SO IT IS A VERY SLIPPERY SLOPE.

AND YOU GUYS HAVE BROUGHT EVERYTHING TO MY ATTENTION NOW AND AGAIN.

I WISH THAT IF THESE CONCERNS HAD BEEN RISEN A YEAR AGO AND WE HAD THAT MEETING IN CITY OF SHASTA LAKE, I THINK IT WOULD HAVE BEEN MUCH DIFFERENT THAN THE WAY IT PLAYED OUT. BUT AGAIN, AT THAT TIME, FLOCK CAMERAMEN AS MUCH TO ME AS KODAK CAMERA.

SO, SHERIFF JOHNSON, IF YOU WOULD MIND, COULD I ASK YOU JUST A QUICK QUESTION OR TWO? A LITTLE TOUGHER CROWD HERE THAN A YEAR AGO. WASN'T IT A LITTLE DIFFERENT? THAT'S. THAT'S OKAY. YEAH. SO THERE HAS BEEN OBVIOUSLY A TON OF CONCERNS SINCE THAT MEETING A YEAR AGO AND TODAY.

SO WOULD YOU BE WILLING TO DO A PRESENTATION IN THE FUTURE? YOU CAN'T DO IT NOW. IS IT NOT AGENDIZED. BUT WOULD YOU BE WILLING TO DO A PRESENTATION IN THE FUTURE AND COME BACK WITH SOME OF THE STATS AND SOME OF THE CRIMES THAT HAVE SOLVED THE FLOCK CAMERA AND SOME OF THE CONCERNS THAT WE'VE HEARD HERE TODAY WITH THE CITIZENS? I ABSOLUTELY WOULD.

AND JUST SO YOU KNOW, CHAIR, I AGREE THAT, YOU KNOW, THERE IS THERE ARE SOME CONCERNS AND THERE'S NO DOUBT ABOUT IT, NO SYSTEM IS FLAWLESS. AND PEOPLE'S CONCERN ABOUT SURVEILLANCE AND TRACKING AND ALL THAT, I GET IT.

AND I WAS TAKING NOTES ON ALL OF THAT. I WILL TELL THEM I WOULD LIKE TO JUST STATE THIS BEFORE I DO COME FOR A FORMAL PRESENTATION THAT A COUPLE OF THINGS.

ONE, WE DON'T MONITOR THE, THE, THE SYSTEM WITHOUT CAUSE.

IT'S TO FURTHER AN INVESTIGATION AND PRESENT EVIDENTIARY VALUE OR ADDITIONAL TRACKING OF SUSPECTS ALREADY DETERMINED TO BE SUSPECTS.

THAT'S ONE. TWO. IS IT? IT CURRENTLY IS NOT A CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE.

AND WE WOULD NOT HAVE THESE CAMERAS IF IT WAS A CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE.

SO THERE'S A THING CALLED THE PLAIN VIEW DOCTRINE, WHICH HAS BEEN UPHELD IN THE COURTS FOR YEARS AND YEARS.

WHEN IT COMES TO LAW ENFORCEMENT, IT'S THE RIGHT TO BE AND THE RIGHT TO SEE AND THE RIGHT TO BE.

MEANS YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO BE IN PUBLIC. AND THE RIGHT TO SEE IS YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO SEE WHAT YOU SEE IN PUBLIC.

AND THAT IS WHAT THIS SYSTEM IS BASED ON, THE PLAIN VIEW DOCTRINE.

AND THAT'S WHY WE USE IT TO SOLVE CRIMES OR TO FIND MISSING PEOPLE.

WE'RE NOT TRACKING PEOPLE ON A DAILY BASIS, OR JUST BECAUSE SOMEBODY WANTS TO KNOW SOMETHING ABOUT SOMEBODY ELSE.

WE WOULD FIRE INDIVIDUALS OR AT LEAST DISCIPLINE AND UP TO FIRE INDIVIDUALS, JUST LIKE WE DO ON THE SYSTEM FOR MISUSE OF THE SYSTEM.

SO CURRENTLY THAT'S WHERE WE ARE. BE HAPPY TO COME BACK AND BRING STATS AND BRING MORE DETAILED PRESENTATION ON THE SYSTEM, IF THAT'S WHAT THIS BOARD WANTS ME TO DO. I WOULD DEFINITELY LIKE TO BRING YOU BACK TO HAVE A PRESENTATION, BECAUSE AGAIN, THIS WAS NOT AN ISSUE A YEAR AGO WHEN WE HAD THE PRESENTATION UP THERE IN CITY SHASTA LAKE.

I MEAN, THERE WAS CONCERNS, THERE'S NO QUESTION ABOUT THERE WAS CONCERNS. THERE WAS PROBABLY 12, 15 PEOPLE THERE. AND THEY BROUGHT UP ALL THESE THINGS THAT WERE BROUGHT UP TODAY. AND IT SEEMED TO ME, I MEAN, I WAS YOUR ANSWERS SATISFIED ME AT THAT TIME.

AND IT SEEMED LIKE MOST OF THE CROWD WAS FAIRLY SATISFIED TOO.

BUT, YOU KNOW, OBVIOUSLY THAT HAS GROWN AND CHANGED SINCE THAT TIME.

SO I MAKE A MOTION TO HAVE THE SHERIFF COME BACK WITH A PRESENTATION ON FLOCK CAMERAS AT THE NEXT MEETING THAT HE'S ABLE TO MAKE IT.

I'LL SECOND. ALL RIGHT. SO DO YOU WANT TO TAKE A VOTE ON THAT BEFORE I GET TO YOU? SUPERVISOR CRYE. NOW, LET'S HAVE SOME BOARD. I I'D PREFER TO HAVE SOME BOARD DISCUSSION.

OKAY. GO. SUPERVISOR CRYE. SHERIFF JOHNSON ISN'T THE.

CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, BUT ISN'T THERE A CAMERA IN BERNIE THAT'S POINTED DIRECTLY AT A HOUSE AT A BEND IN A ROAD THAT I SAW ONLINE.

NO, IT'S NOT ANYMORE. I GOT A NOTIFICATION TEXT FROM A CITIZEN ABOUT THAT THIS WEEKEND, AND WITHIN AN HOUR, I HAD SOMEBODY UP THERE AND GO CORRECT THAT CAMERA.

WHAT HAD HAPPENED? IT HAD BEEN VANDALIZED, IF YOU WILL.

SOMEBODY HAD INTENTIONALLY REDIRECTED THAT CAMERA TO THAT HOUSE AND WE WERE UNAWARE OF IT.

AND AS SOON AS I WAS MADE AWARE OF IT, WE WENT UP THERE AND CORRECTED THAT AND PUT IT BACK ON THE ROADWAY.

[01:45:05]

THAT'S GREAT. YOU KNOW, AND YOU KNOW HOW I FEEL ABOUT, YOU KNOW, THIS SITUATION.

YOU KNOW, FIRST OFF, KUDOS TO YOU YOUNG PEOPLE VERY WELL SPOKEN YOUNG PEOPLE.

AND I DON'T KNOW, GREAT JOB. I DON'T KNOW IF YOU GUYS ARE ROOTS OR ARISE, BUT ALL THE MORE REASON TO NOT BE A NORMAL PUBLIC SCHOOLS HERE IN SHASTA COUNTY.

ANYWAY, THE. THIS COUNSEL LARMER. I MEAN, BECAUSE I HEAR A LOT OF US TALKING HERE ABOUT, WELL, WE DIDN'T KNOW THIS A YEAR AGO. WE DIDN'T KNOW THIS A YEAR AGO. WE DIDN'T KNOW THIS YEAR AGO. WELL, HOW NICE WOULD IT BE IF WE COULD GO BACK WHEN WE LOOK AT INVESTING MONEY IN THE STOCK MARKET OR IN A CD OR A BOND AND SAY, WELL, YOU KNOW, IF WE ONLY WOULD HAVE KNOWN, IF WE ONLY WOULD HAVE KNOWN, WELL, ALL WE CAN DO IS DEAL WITH THE HAND WE'RE DEALT TODAY AND WHERE WE ARE TODAY AND WITH WHAT WE KNOW TODAY.

AS FAR, AS FAR AS I UNDERSTAND, THE APPROPRIATIONS MONEY IN THE BUDGET WOULD START OVER IN JULY.

SO RIGHT NOW, THIS BOARD VOTED LAST BUDGET SEASON IN JUNE TO FUND IT FOR THIS YEAR.

SO IF WE WERE TO CANCEL, WE HAVE ESSENTIALLY PAID FOR THIS YEAR.

SO REGARDLESS, WE HAVE PAID FOR THIS YEAR. IS THAT CORRECT? SO THE THE BOARD APPROPRIATED FUNDS FOR THIS CONTRACT IN THE LAST BUDGET CYCLE.

AND THAT WOULD HAPPEN AT EACH ADDITIONAL BUDGET CYCLE FOR THE FIVE YEAR TERM OF THE CONTRACT.

AND I THINK WHAT YOU'RE SPEAKING OF IS SECTION 11.16 WHICH IS THE NON APPROPRIATIONS TERMINATION.

YEAH. SO WHAT WOULD HAPPEN. JUST SO PEOPLE UNDERSTAND THE CONTRACT PROCESS, AS FAR AS I'M WRITTEN, I'M NOT AN ATTORNEY. BUT IF IF THIS BOARD OR THIS BODY VOTED TO TURN THEM OFF, RIGHT? TURN THEM OFF LIKE WE'VE ALREADY PAID FOR THEM THROUGH JUNE, WE'VE APPROPRIATED THE MONEY, THE MONEY'S GONE UNDER CONTRACT. BUT IF THE FUTURE BOARD DOESN'T APPROPRIATE THE MONEY, THEN THE CONTRACT BY DEFAULT, THERE'S NO MONEY APPROPRIATED.

SO THERE IS NO CANCELLATION FEE. SO WHETHER IT'S A FIVE YEAR CONTRACT, TEN YEAR CONTRACT OR IN PERPETUITY.

BOTTOM LINE IS IF THE NEW BOARD DOESN'T APPROPRIATE MONEY, IT JUST GOES AWAY AND THERE IS NO CANCELLATION FEE.

SO UNDER THE CODE SECTION THAT I OR THE SECTION THAT I JUST DISCUSSED, IF THE FUNDS ARE APPROPRIATED BY THE BOARD, THEN THE RIGHT TO TERMINATE THE AGREEMENT UPON 30 DAYS NOTICE TO THEM THAT THAT THOSE FUNDS WERE APPROPRIATED, THE CONTRACT CAN BE TERMINATED. OKAY. SO BOTTOM LINE I THINK THIS COMES BACK EVEN TO LIKE THE PREVIOUS YOU KNOW ONE, IT COMES DOWN TO AN IDEOLOGY, BELIEF IN WHAT YOU BELIEVE.

LIKE I THINK AGAIN, AND I'VE SAID THIS, IF SHERIFF JOHNSON WAS THE SHERIFF IN PERPETUITY, I MEAN, HE DID THAT, RIGHT? HE WENT OUT. HE I MEAN, I DIDN'T KNOW THAT.

I JUST I DIDN'T KNOW YOU WENT OUT AND FIXED IT, BUT IT MAKES SENSE. I KNOW YOU KNOW, THE INTENTION, THE INTENTION DOESN'T ALWAYS JIVE WITH WHAT ACTUALLY THE ACTIONABLE ITEMS ARE IN ANY ENDEAVOR.

SO I'M GOING TO MAKE A SUBSTITUTE MOTION THAT WE, I'LL TELL YOU WHAT WE'LL DO.

WE'LL GO AHEAD AND LISTEN TO EVERYBODY FIRST. AND BEFORE I MAKE MY SUBSTITUTE MOTION. THANK YOU.

CHAIR. SUPERVISOR PLUMMER. YES. THANK YOU, SHERIFF, FOR COMING UP.

I HAVE A NUMBER OF QUESTIONS, BUT I'LL JUST ASK ONE QUESTION AT THIS POINT, WHICH IS IN TERMS OF THE POLICY THAT GOVERNS YOUR OFFICE'S USE OF THIS TECHNOLOGY AND THE DATA SURROUNDING THAT. WHERE IS THAT POLICY SET AND HOW IS THAT ACCESSIBLE TO THE PUBLIC? SAY IN TERMS OF THAT POLICY, THE TERMS OF THAT POLICY AND EVERYTHING I'D BE HAPPY TO BRING FORWARD IN MY PRESENTATION.

IT IS A BASIC POLICY WITH FLOCK, AND IT HAS TO DO WITH ACCESS AND PROVIDING A REASON TO ACCESS THE CAMERA.

AND A RETENTION PERIOD OF 30 DAYS IS WHAT WE CURRENTLY HAVE.

AND SOME OTHER DETAILS ON THAT. I'M HAPPY TO BRING THAT BACK TO YOU.

SUPERVISOR PLUMMER. I CAN TELL YOU THIS, THE POLICY IS OPEN FOR.

SCRUTINY BY ME, AND I CAN FURTHER RESTRICT IT OR FURTHER MAKE IT A LITTLE BIT MORE LIBERAL, WHICHEVER WE CHOOSE TO DO AND WHATEVER THE BOARD'S WILL WOULD BE AS WELL.

SO THAT'S A DISCUSSION I THINK WE COULD CERTAINLY HAVE DURING THE PRESENTATION.

YES, I THINK THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL FOR FOR THE BOARD AND FOR THE PUBLIC TO UNDERSTAND THE SPECIFICS OF THAT AND SUPERVISOR PLUMMER, EXCUSE ME FOR INTERRUPTING, BUT IT'S CERTAINLY NOT IT'S NOT A SECRET.

IT'S, YOU KNOW, IT'S POLICY. ALL OF OUR POLICIES ARE ARE PUBLIC.

AND I'M, I WILL BE HAPPY TO PROVIDE COPIES OR WHATEVER YOU WANT WHEN WE COME FORWARD.

GREAT. THANK YOU. AND ONE SPECIFIC QUESTION ON THAT.

SO I KNOW WE'VE TALKED ABOUT A 30 DAY RETENTION POLICY AND YOU JUST MENTIONED THAT FOR YOUR OFFICE.

MEANING THAT ONCE THE DATA PASSES 30 DAYS, THAT EXPUNGED.

IS THAT TRUE? FOR FLOCK ITSELF IN THE SENSE THAT DOES IT GET REMOVED FROM, SAY, THEIR SERVERS?

[01:50:06]

AND MAYBE YOU DON'T KNOW THIS OFFHAND, BUT. OR DO THEY KEEP BECAUSE SOMEONE MADE A COMMENT THAT LIKE THEY KEEP ALL THE DATA FOREVER OR FOR HOWEVER LONG? EVEN THOUGH WE DELETE IT FROM OUR ACCESS? YEAH, I FULLY LOOK INTO THAT BECAUSE I HEARD THE SAME COMMENT, ACTUALLY MADE A NOTE ABOUT THAT. IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING HAS GONE.

THE DATA IS OURS AND WHEN WE PURGE IT, IT'S GONE.

BUT I WOULD HATE TO SAY THAT AND THAT AND THEN BE DOING SOMETHING I DON'T KNOW ABOUT.

SO I WILL DEFINITELY FIGURE THAT OUT AND LOOK INTO THAT.

THANK YOU. SUPERVISOR LONG. THANK YOU, CHAIR, AND THANK YOU, SHERIFF, FOR BEING WILLING TO COME BACK AND PRESENT ON THIS.

SURE. YOU AND I HAVE DISCUSSED THIS SITUATION, AND THERE'S BEEN A NUMBER OF CONCERNS THAT HAVE BEEN RAISED HERE TODAY.

SO I WOULD IN THE INTEREST OF TIME, I'M GOING TO JUST RUN THEM THROUGH.

AND THEN YOU TELL ME IF I GET SOMETHING WRONG FROM OUR CONVERSATION.

IS THAT OKAY? THAT'S CORRECT. YEAH. GO AHEAD.

OKAY. SO WE OWN THE DATA. SHASTA COUNTY OWNS THE DATA THAT IS STORED.

THEY'RE NOT SELLING IT TO THIRD PARTIES. THEY'RE NOT SELLING THE DATA.

THEY DON'T ACCESS ON A PREVENTATIVE MEASURE. IT'S ONLY WHEN THERE IS AN ACTIVE INVESTIGATION.

AND THAT IS AUTHORIZED BY A SERGEANT OR ABOVE STATUS ON BEHALF TO ACCESS FLOCK FOR THE DATA ONLY ON AN INVESTIGATIVE PURPOSE. IT'S RETAINED FOR 30 DAYS.

UNLESS IT'S PART OF AN ACTIVE CASE, THEN WE MAY PULL THAT DATA FOR THE ACTIVE CASE.

CORRECT? CORRECT. IT NEEDS AN ACTUAL CASE NUMBER, MUCH LIKE KLUTZ DOES TO ACCESS THE DATA WHEN AUTHORIZED BY A SERGEANT. YES. IT, WE DON'T ACTUALLY ENTER THAT CASE NUMBER INTO THE TRACKING SYSTEM BECAUSE WE DON'T WANT TO MAKE THAT DISCOVERABLE BY ANYBODY ELSE. BUT THE REASON IS IS LISTED ON THERE, THE AGENCY, THE OFFICER, EVERYTHING IS, IS PUT ON WHO ACCESS THAT CAMERA AND FOR WHAT REASON.

OKAY. THERE IS NO DATA SHARING AND SO IT WILL NEVER LEAVE YOUR AGENCY TO ENTER OUR OTHER STATES AND IT WILL NOT BE GIVEN TO THE FEDS.

IT WILL NOT BE GIVEN TO OTHER AGENCIES NECESSARILY, UNLESS THEY'RE INVESTIGATING A CRIME THAT HAS OCCURRED.

SO THAT COULD POTENTIALLY CAUSE THE TRANSFER OF DATA, IS THE WAY I UNDERSTOOD IT.

CORRECT? CORRECT. OTHER OTHER AGENCIES CAN ACCESS OUR CAMERA WITH OUR PERMISSION IF THEY HAVE AN ACTIVE CASE.

THAT'S CORRECT. CORRECT. OKAY. SO I JUST WANTED TO GET SOME OF THOSE POINTS OUT AND I LOOK FORWARD TO YOUR PRESENTATION AND ADDRESSING ALL THE CONCERNS BECAUSE THEY'RE LEGITIMATE CONCERNS.

YES THEY ARE, THEY'RE ABSOLUTELY LEGITIMATE CONCERNS.

AND NONE OF US WANTS TO FEEL LIKE ALL OF OUR ACTIONS ARE MONITORED.

AND I THINK THERE'S A LITTLE BIT OF MISINFORMATION HERE AS TO WHAT THE DATA IS, IS GENERATED AND WHAT IT'S USED FOR AND WHAT PURPOSE.

AND ANOTHER THING YOU TOLD ME THAT DMV OWNS THE RIGHT TO THE LICENSE PLATES.

AND WHEN THOSE ARE IN PUBLIC VIEW, A PUBLIC ACCESS, THAT'S NOT A CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATION.

SO THAT'S CORRECT. WHEN YOU GET A DRIVER'S LICENSE AND GO THROUGH THE TESTING PROCESS WITH THEM, YOU LEARN THAT IT'S NOT A RIGHT, IT'S A PRIVILEGE.

AND THE PLATE IS ACTUALLY OWNED BY DMV. THAT'S CORRECT.

OKAY. OKAY. AND I LOOK FORWARD TO THE PRESENTATION.

AND I JUST WANTED TO ADDRESS SOME OF THOSE THINGS TO PUT THE INFORMATION OUT THERE, BECAUSE THERE'S A LOT OF UPSET WITH THIS PROGRAM RIGHT NOW, AND I JUST WANTED TO NOT WAIT UNTIL A FUTURE MEETING TO ADDRESS SOME OF THOSE ISSUES FROM ONE OTHER THING THAT WAS BROUGHT UP THAT I CAN TELL YOU RIGHT NOW, TOO, IS I'VE HEARD WHEN I WAS AT THE ANDERSON CITY COUNCIL MEETING, LISTENING TO THE CONCERNS THAT WERE BROUGHT UP THERE, IT WAS SAID BY SEVERAL PEOPLE THAT IT IS NOT A NOT PROVED TO BE PREVENTING CRIME.

WE'RE NOT WE DIDN'T PUT THEM UP TO PREVENT CRIME NECESSARILY.

IF IT DOES, THAT'S A GREAT BENEFIT. WE'VE PUT THEM UP TO SOLVE CRIMES AND PROTECT THE COMMUNITY.

QUICKER. EASIER. AND THEY AGAIN HAVE AN EVIDENTIARY VALUE IN AN INVESTIGATION WHEN WE BRING A CASE FORWARD TO THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY.

OKAY. OKAY. AND THE LAST THE LAST COMMENT I'LL MAKE.

AND THEN WE'LL WAIT FOR THE PRESENTATION. BUT YOU AND I TALKED BRIEFLY ABOUT THERE WAS ONE JUVENILE THAT WAS LOCATED AND THEY WERE BEING SEX TRAFFICKED. THAT'S CORRECT.

OUT OF STATE JUVENILE MISSING PERSON WAS LOCATED BY FLOCK IN OUR COUNTY.

SHE TURNED OUT TO BE A VICTIM OF HUMAN TRAFFICKING.

THAT'S CORRECT. OKAY. SO I THINK THERE'S ALWAYS A BALANCE BETWEEN NECESSITY AND PROPER CONTROLS.

[01:55:01]

AND IF I UNDERSTOOD CORRECTLY FROM OUR CONVERSATION ANYWAY YOU WOULD BE WELL, YOU ALREADY SAID IT HERE THAT YOU WOULD BE OPEN TO CONVERSATION TO TIGHTEN THE PROCESS MORE OR LOOSEN THE PROCESS DEPENDING ON WHAT THE BOARD WANTS AND WHAT WHAT IS PRUDENT.

SO. AND YOU KNOW, THE COMMENT THAT WAS MADE BY A COUPLE DIFFERENT PEOPLE THAT CAME UP, EVEN ONE OF THE YOUNG SPEAKERS ABOUT, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE TO WEIGH, DOES THE GOOD OUTWEIGH THE BAD OF ANY SYSTEM OR ANY PROCESS THAT WE'VE GOT IN PLACE? I AGREE WITH THAT. WE DO HAVE TO WEIGH THAT WAY.

THERE ARE SEVERAL EXAMPLES OF MISUSE BY LAW ENFORCEMENT OR OTHERS WITH THE FLOCK SYSTEM PALE IN COMPARISON TO HOW MANY EXAMPLES I COULD GIVE YOU OF SUCCESSES WE'VE HAD WITH SOLVING CASES, NOT JUST WE SHASTA COUNTY, BUT LAW ENFORCEMENT ACROSS THE UNITED STATES.

NOW, WHEN YOU TAKE ALL THAT INTO TOTALITY OF CIRCUMSTANCES, YES, YOU HAVE TO WEIGH, IS THIS GOING TO BE SOMETHING THAT WE WANT TO CONTINUE WITH IF THE COURTS END UP RULING THAT THIS IS IN FACT SOME SORT OF FOURTH AMENDMENT OR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT, I'LL BE THE FIRST ONE TO TAKE THEM DOWN AND GO SALAZAR THEM OFF THAT DAY, BECAUSE I'M NOT NOT ABOUT TO VIOLATE ANYBODY'S CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS.

AND BUT CURRENTLY, THAT'S NOT WHERE WE'RE AT.

AND IT'S EFFECTIVE FOR US. WE'RE WE'RE USING IT VERY REGULARLY TO HELP SOLVE CRIMES.

AND THAT'S A BIG PLUS FOR US. IT IS PROBABLY, AS TECHNOLOGY GOES, THE NUMBER ONE INVESTIGATIVE TOOL WE HAVE CURRENTLY GOING FOR US RIGHT NOW. AND I COMPARED IT BEFORE TO THE BODY CAMERA.

YOU HAVE ALL THESE OFFICERS WITH BODY CAMERAS NOW WALKING AROUND.

THOSE CAMERAS ARE CAPTURING ALL THAT IMAGES AND MORE.

AND THAT FOR THOSE IMAGES, WE DO HAVE ADDITIONAL TOOLS, THOSE BODY CAMERAS YOU CAN PLUG IN TO USE FACIAL RECOGNITION, AI AND ALL THAT SAME WAY, PROBABLY EVEN TO A BIGGER DEGREE.

AND THOSE ARE OUT IN PUBLIC AS WELL. OKAY. THANK YOU.

I LOOK FORWARD TO YOUR PRESENTATION. OKAY. THANK YOU.

QUESTION BEFORE I GET TO SUPERVISOR HARMON. SO THE MINOR THAT WAS CAUGHT, YOU MUST HAVE HAD A LICENSE PLATE.

OR WAS THERE FACIAL RECOGNITION INVOLVED OR I MEAN, HOW DID YOU THE MINOR THAT WAS BEING TRAFFICKED? NO FACIAL RECOGNITION. IT WAS A LICENSE PLATE THAT WAS ENTERED BY THE AGENCY THAT TOOK THE MISSING PERSONS REPORT OUT OF STATE.

I WANT TO SAY IS OKLAHOMA, BUT I DON'T DON'T QUOTE ME ON THAT. I DON'T REMEMBER WHAT I COULD LOOK THAT UP AND I'LL MAKE THAT PART OF THE PRESENTATION IF YOU WANT. WAS OUT OF STATE. IT PINGED ON IN OUR COUNTY. WE MADE THE STOP AND WE RECOVERED HER.

OKAY, SO THE LICENSE PLATE WAS IN THE SYSTEM AND IT READ THE LICENSE PLATE. OKAY. CORRECT. SUPERVISOR HARMON. SO YOU'RE KIND OF ANSWERING MY QUESTIONS.

MY THOUGHTS AS, AS WE'RE, YOU KNOW, BATTING THIS BACK AND FORTH.

BUT THE BIG CONCERN EVERYBODY HAS IS BIG GOVERNMENT OR NOT REALLY BIG GOVERNMENT, BUT AI OR, OR BIG BROTHER WATCHING WHERE YOU'RE GOING, TRACKING, YOU'RE CREATING A PATTERN, ALL THAT THAT'S ALL LEGITIMATE, LEGITIMATE PEOPLE GETTING INVOLVED. WE ALL WANT TO CATCH THE CRIMINALS. AND, YOU KNOW, I MEAN, HEAVEN FORBID, YOU KNOW, CATCH ONE, ONE CHILD TRAFFICKER, KIDNAPED CHILD OR WHATEVER, YOU KNOW, IT'S ALL WORTH IT, RIGHT? IF IF WE ONLY CATCH ONE, BUT WE KNOW IT'S GOING TO DO A LOT MORE THAN THAT.

BUT I SO I GUESS AND YOU AND YOU SAID A LITTLE BIT, YOU MADE A LITTLE COMMENT THERE ABOUT BEING ABLE TO PUT PARAMETERS ON THE SYSTEM.

YES, I CAN, I CAN CHANGE THE PARAMETERS AND THE RESTRICTIONS ON THE SYSTEM.

AND I'M, I'M WILLING TO HAVE THAT DISCUSSION.

AND THAT SHOULD VERY MUCH BE A PART OF THE DISCUSSION IN THE PRESENTATION, BECAUSE THAT OFFERS A LITTLE BIT OF MORE OF LOCAL CONTROL AND OVERSIGHT OF THE SYSTEM, WHICH I KNOW THAT IF WE END UP KEEPING THE SYSTEM, WHICH I HOPE WE WILL, BECAUSE IT'S VERY USEFUL TO LAW ENFORCEMENT WE CAN HOPEFULLY UP PEOPLE'S COMFORTABILITY WITH WHAT WE'VE GOT GOING.

SO, SO ONE MORE QUESTION IS, IS THERE ANY OTHER IS THERE ANY OTHER PRODUCT OUT THERE THAT DOES ANYTHING LIKE THE FLOCK CAMERA? BECAUSE WE'RE ALL WORRIED ABOUT HOW BIG AND PRIVATELY OWNED THE FLOCK CAMERA SYSTEM IS AND WHO'S GOING TO WHO'S GOING TO BE THE FIRST ONE TO HACK IT.

AND THE, THE, THE CONVERSATION SHOULD BE REALLY MORE GEARED TOWARDS ALPR AUTOMATIC LICENSE PLATE READER SYSTEMS. FLOCK IS JUST THE BIGGEST IN THE GIANT IN THE INDUSTRY RIGHT NOW AND CREATING A NETWORK SYSTEM.

OTHERS ARE DOING THE SAME THING NOT AS READILY RECOGNIZABLE OR NOT.

NOT YOUR HOUSEHOLD NAME LIKE FLOCK IS SO REALLY THE.

YES, THERE'S A TON OF THEM. WE WERE TRYING TO, WHEN WE GOT FLOCK SYSTEM, WE ORIGINALLY INTENDED ON GETTING THE TROLL SYSTEM, WHICH IS ALONG THE HIGHWAYS AND THE CHP WAS USING AND GETTING AN MOU WITH THE CHP AND USING THEIR CAMERAS.

[02:00:01]

THAT WAS OUR ORIGINAL INTENT, BUT THAT SYSTEM WAS BECOMING OBSOLETE.

AND THE CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL WAS GOING TO BE MOVING AWAY FOR IT, SO THEY WEREN'T WILLING TO ENTER INTO MOU.

IT WAS GOING TO BE A WASTE OF MONEY FOR US. THAT'S WHY WE ENDED UP GOING WITH FLOCK, BECAUSE THEY HAD THE BEST TECHNOLOGY GOING AT THE TIME.

AND THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN LAST QUESTION, THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN JUST FOR EVERYBODY'S INFORMATION, THE RED LIGHT CAMERAS, CITY READINGS AT AN INTERSECTION.

TELL ME WHAT THE BECAUSE THAT'S GOT TO HAVE SOME BENEFITS.

YOU KNOW THAT FLOCK CAMERAS SYSTEM HAS. OR IS IT NOT? YEAH, I CAN'T I CAN'T SPEAK TO THE RED LIGHT SYSTEMS AS WELL, OTHER THAN I'VE GOT A TICKET FOR HIM BEFORE BECAUSE I ROLLED A STOPLIGHT.

BUT I DON'T KNOW ENOUGH ABOUT WHAT THEY. MY UNDERSTANDING IS THEY ONLY USE THAT FOR TRAFFIC CONTROL AND NOT, NOT FOR ANYTHING ELSE. AND I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE CAPABILITIES OF THAT SYSTEM IS OR ISN'T.

IT JUST MAKES ME THINK ABOUT, YOU KNOW, WHAT SYSTEM DO WE ALREADY HAVE? BECAUSE WE ALREADY WE'RE ALREADY CHECKING INTERSECTION. THERE IS A TON.

THE FOLKS THAT CAME UP HERE AND SPOKE ARE RIGHT.

THERE IS A TON OF DIFFERENT SYSTEMS OUT THERE NOW.

WHEN YOU GO TO THE CASINOS OR YOU GO TO THE AIRPORT OR YOU GO TO ANY OF THOSE PLACES, THEY'VE GOT FACIAL RECOGNITION GOING, IRIS SCANNING EYE SOFTWARE, THEY'VE GOT LICENSE PLATE READERS, THEY'VE GOT EVERYTHING GOING.

AND IT IS CONCERNING THE AMOUNT OF MASS SURVEILLANCE THAT'S GOING ON.

THE DIFFERENCE IS WHAT I'M TELLING YOU WITH THE FLOCK SYSTEM, THE ALPR SYSTEMS THAT WE'RE USING IS WE'RE SCANNING LICENSE PLATES.

YES, BUT IT'S IN PUBLIC. IT'S IN PUBLIC VIEW.

THERE'S NO EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY, AND WE DO NOT USE IT FOR PROACTIVE INVESTIGATIONS.

WE USE IT WHEN WE ALREADY HAVE LAUNCHED AN INVESTIGATION TO AID IN OUR INVESTIGATION.

RIGHT. AND I'M NOT WORRIED ABOUT WHAT YOU'RE DOING WITH IT.

I'M WORRIED ABOUT WHAT SOME BAD. AND I UNDERSTAND THAT.

AND I UNDERSTAND THAT CONCERN. AND I UNDERSTAND THE.

I ACTUALLY APPRECIATE THE FACT THAT THIS WAS BROUGHT UP.

AND WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IT TOO, IN PUBLIC, BECAUSE THERE'S OBVIOUSLY A LOT OF CONCERN ABOUT IT AND PEOPLE'S APPREHENSIONS ABOUT IT, AND RIGHTFULLY SO. AND SOME OF THE AREAS. BUT I'M HERE TO TELL YOU AS A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, AS AS THE GUY WHO IS IN CHARGE OF THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE AND PROTECTING THE PUBLIC IN SHASTA COUNTY, IT IS A HIGHLY EFFECTIVE TOOL FOR US. AND WE'RE USING IT ALL THE TIME.

AND IT'S PRODUCING. THANK YOU. SUPERVISOR CRYE.

ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU CHAIR. AND SHERIFF, THANK YOU.

I KNOW WHEN YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THE INTENDED USE OF YOU KNOW, IT'S NOT MEANT TO DO IT FOR THIS, BUT LIKE, YOU KNOW, CODE ENFORCEMENT IS STILL IN THE PAST WENT OUT AND FOUND, YOU KNOW, THE POOLS ON 30 ACRES AND MADE SOMEBODY PUT A FENCE AROUND IT BECAUSE IT'S UNSAFE. RIGHT? SO EVEN THOUGH THEY'RE NOT SUPPOSED TO DO IT, THAT DOES HAPPEN.

I HAD A QUESTION FOR SUPERVISOR LONG. DID YOU TALK TO CHIEF TECHNOLOGY OFFICER TOM SCHREIBER ABOUT THE REDUNDANCY OF DATA? SO I WOULD ASK, DID ANYBODY HERE TALK TO TOM SCHREIBER ABOUT IT? SO I'VE TALKED TO HIM ABOUT IT BEFORE, SO I WOULD ASK THAT IF WE DO DO A PRESENTATION THAT WE INVOLVE OUR, YOU KNOW, CTO, TOM SCHREIBER, IN THAT AS IT RELATES TO THE REDUNDANCY OF DATA AND ALSO THE SECOND PART SUPERVISOR LONG, BECAUSE ANYTIME WE TALK ABOUT ANYTHING LAW ENFORCEMENT, I PAY EXTRA ATTENTION TO WHAT YOU SAY.

SO COULD YOU READ THE VERY FIRST PART OF THE OF YOUR SECOND POINT THAT YOU MADE TO SUIT TO TO THE SHERIFF? WOULD YOU MIND READING THAT BEGINNING PART? DO YOU REMEMBER WHAT IT WAS? I DON'T OKAY. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE I HEARD IT CORRECTLY.

I BELIEVE WHAT IT WAS ABOUT, IF I WAS ABOUT THE INTENDED USE OF COLETTE'S.

AND BECAUSE IT'S USED FOR CERTAIN SPECIFIC PURPOSE, THAT'S WHY IT MAKES SENSE TO USE AND I.

AND SO IF YOU WANT TO, I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE I'M ACCURATE IN WHAT I SAID, BECAUSE THAT'S.

THE EXACT POINT IS, THOUGH, WE HAD A SPEAKER COME UP AND TALK ABOUT THE GROSS MISUSE OF A SYSTEM BY AN ACTUAL LAW ENFORCEMENT PERSON INSIDE OF OUR COUNTY. SO THAT KIND OF THING DOES HAPPEN.

SO HERE, HERE IS MY SUBSTITUTE MOTION BECAUSE WE CAN JUST WE COULD BEAT THIS UP ALL DAY.

BOTTOM LINE, I THINK THIS IS REALLY ABOUT AN OVERARCHING DISCUSSION OF DISCUSSION OF IDEOLOGY.

I DON'T THINK ANYBODY'S GOING TO REFUTE THE FACT THAT THERE ARE SOME BENEFITS TO THEM.

SO I'D MAKE A SUBSTITUTE MOTION THAT WAY. THERE'S ACTUALLY CLOSURE TO THIS, AND THE CAN DOESN'T GET KICKED DOWN THE ROAD VERY MUCH LIKE THE LAST ITEM.

I WOULD SAY WE HAVE A PRESENTATION COME BACK BY THE SHERIFF ALSO THAT IF THIS BOARD THEN CHOOSES THAT THE PRESENTATION ISN'T SUFFICIENT, THAT WE WOULD TERMINATE THE CONTRACT OF FLOCK.

IF THERE IS A PRESENTATION THAT'S MADE AND IT'S DEEMED GREAT BY THIS BOARD, THEN THERE WOULD BE NO CANCELLATION OF THE CONTRACT.

SO WHAT WE'D HAVE IS WE'D HAVE THE FINALITY IN SHASTA COUNTY OF A DECISION EITHER WAY, BECAUSE THAT'S REALLY,

[02:05:01]

I THINK WHAT THE PEOPLE WANT IS THEY JUST WANT TO KNOW LEFT OR RIGHT, NO KICKING THIS DOWN THE ROAD, NO TALKING ABOUT IT FOR SIX YEARS, NO LIP SERVICE.

IT'S JUST WE'RE GOING THIS WAY. AND HERE'S WHAT I WOULD CHALLENGE TO EVERYBODY ELSE.

OH, SO SO THAT THAT'S MY MOTION IS TO HAVE A CONTRACT OR A.

AND IT WOULDN'T BE VERY MUCH FOR COUNTY COUNCIL TO PUT IT TOGETHER BECAUSE REALLY IT'S JUST ABOUT THE APPROPRIATION OF THE MONEY. SO THERE'S NO THERE'S NO DOLLAR AMOUNT THAT IT'S GOING TO COST US GOING FORWARD TO CANCEL.

AND THEN WE HAVE THE PRESENTATION AT THE SAME TIME.

SO THAT'S MY MOTION. ALL RIGHT. I'LL SECOND THAT MOTION.

OKAY. SO HERE'S HERE'S WHAT I WOULD TELL THE PEOPLE.

WE HAD SUPERVISOR KELSTROM AND SUPERVISOR RICKERT, OUR FORMER SUPERVISOR RICKERT.

IF YOU REMEMBER, GO OUT TO PALO CEDRO. REMEMBER CHRIS KELSTROM YOUR CHAIR.

YOU SAID IT WAS ONE OF THE GREATEST DAYS OF YOUR LIFE, SPENDING THAT TIME OUT WITH SUPERVISOR RICKERT AND PALO CEDRO. THANK YOU DARREN.

AND WHAT IT WAS IS WE HAD A BIG DECISION AS A BOARD.

AND I SAID, AT THE END OF THE DAY, I THINK THIS SHOULD BE THE RESIDENTS THAT PUSH THAT.

SO YOU HAD ONE GROUP AND WHAT WAS THE ITEM OVER? IT WAS OVER THE PARK AND THEN THE, THE THE SITE SPECIFIC PLAN.

THANK YOU. SUPERVISOR PLUMMER. AND REALLY, YOU KNOW, YOU HAD TWO GROUPS THAT FELT VERY PASSIONATE AND THEY LOBBIED THEIR NEIGHBORS AND THEY SHOWED UP AT THE PARK AND THEY DID A HAND COUNT BALLOT.

AND THERE WAS A DECISION OF HOW WE MOVE FORWARD. AND I SAID AT THAT TIME, I WAS GOING TO GO WITH WHAT THE PEOPLE SAID.

SO MY VOTE WAS THERE. SO WHAT I WOULD SAY TO BOTH GROUPS, IF YOU WANT FLOCK OUT OF THE AREA AT OUR NEXT MEETING, YOU FILL THIS ROOM WITH EVERY SINGLE PERSON, EVERY GUIDE DOG, EVERY PARROT, EVERY GRANDPARENT.

IT DOESN'T MATTER. GET THEM HERE. AND IF YOU WANT FLOCK HERE, THEN DO THE SAME.

YOU KNOW, AND YOU KNOW, WE HAVE A FORMER SUPERVISOR THAT COULD PROBABLY HELP US MOVE THE CHAIRS OUT TO CREATE MORE ROOM. I'M JUST KIDDING. SORRY.

THANK YOU. NICK. SO THAT'S MY MOTION. I APPRECIATE THE SECOND.

SUPERVISOR KELSTROM. SUPERVISOR PLUMMER. I HAD ONE FOLLOW UP QUESTION FOR SHERIFF JOHNSON.

IF SO, WE TALKED ABOUT THE POLICY THAT YOU HAVE IN PLACE FOR GUIDING HOW YOUR DEPARTMENT USES IT.

IF SOMEBODY IN YOUR DEPARTMENT WERE TO VIOLATE THAT POLICY, BECAUSE THAT'S ONE OF THE KEY CONCERNS THAT I HEAR IS EXAMPLES WHERE PEOPLE VIOLATED POLICIES WHICH CAN HAPPEN FOR ANYTHING, NOT JUST FLOCK CAMERA USAGE, BUT, YOU KNOW, ANY NUMBER OF YOUR POLICIES.

BUT I'M CURIOUS IF SOMEBODY IN YOUR DEPARTMENT WERE TO VIOLATE THE POLICY CONCERNING HOW YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO USE FLOCK CAMERAS, WHAT WOULD HAPPEN AT THAT POINT? IT DISCIPLINE UP TO TERMINATION IT, YOU'D HAVE TO LOOK AT THE CASE IN ITS TOTALITY BECAUSE THERE'S ALWAYS DIFFERENT NUANCES THAT CAN HAPPEN. BUT DEFINITELY IF THEY VIOLATED POLICY AND MISUSE THE SYSTEM, THERE WOULD BE DEFINITELY DISCIPLINE, MOST LIKELY TERMINATION. THAT WAS WHAT I EXPECTED.

I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY THAT, AND I THINK THAT'S AN IMPORTANT POINT AS WELL.

THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. SUPERVISOR LONG. THANK YOU.

CHAIR. SUPERVISOR CRYE. I DON'T REMEMBER SPECIFICALLY GETTING INTO THE DISCUSSION, BUT IT'S ON RECORD AND MAYBE I DID, BUT MY UNDERSTANDING WAS, AND WE WERE WHEN I WAS WORKING FOR THE POLICE DEPARTMENT, WE HAD, WE TOOK KLETZ ACCESS VERY SERIOUSLY. AND IT HAD TO HAVE A LEGITIMATE PURPOSE ASSOCIATED WITH IT.

AND WE ENTERED A CASE NUMBER. AND THERE HAVE BEEN VIOLATIONS THAT LED TO TERMINATIONS IF THAT SYSTEM WAS ABUSED.

AND WHAT I IF I SAID TALKED ABOUT KLETZ, I WAS MAINLY REFERENCING THE SHERIFF'S INTEREST, WHICH IS THE A CASE NUMBER IS ASSOCIATED WITH EVERY ACCESS WHEN IT'S USED FOR AN INVESTIGATIVE TOOL.

AND SO I SEE, I SEE SIMILAR COMPARISONS THERE.

AND I THINK THAT WE CAN TWEAK AND ADJUST AND TIGHTEN THINGS AS WE DEEM FIT AND GET THE SAME LEVEL OF CONTROL. AND ALL POLICE OFFICERS THAT I WORKED WITH KNEW YOU DON'T ABUSE COLETTE'S, BECAUSE IF YOU DO, YOU GET FIRED. SO IT'S IT'S THERE ARE WAYS TO HOLD PEOPLE ACCOUNTABLE FOR THE POOR DECISIONS AND ACTIONS OF AN OFFICER, LET'S SAY. BUT ANYWAY, SO THAT'S THAT'S THERE YOU GO.

SUPERVISOR CRYE. YOU GOT MORE TO SAY? YEAH, JUST THE LAST THING I WANT TO GIVE EVERYBODY A WEBSITE. IF YOU GO TO CISA.GOV AND YOU COULD LOOK UP THE CRITICAL VULNERABILITIES VULNERABILITIES IN PHP REQUIRE AND HOW IT REQUIRES IMMEDIATE PATCHING.

I MEAN, IF YOU'RE IN THE TECH SPACE OR YOU'RE FAMILIAR WITH BLACK OCTOBER, LOOK AT BLACK OCTOBER AND WHAT'S GOING ON RIGHT NOW.

I MEAN, AGAIN, I DON'T DISAGREE WITH ANYTHING THAT'S BEING SAID UP HERE AT THE BOTTOM OF MY HEART.

I JUST WANT I JUST THINK THE PUBLIC REALLY NEEDS TO SHOW UP AND WEIGH IN AND LET IT BE WHAT IT IS.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU, SHERIFF, AND I HOPE I DIDN'T PUT YOU ON THE SPOT, BUT I APPRECIATE YOU COMING.

THAT'S OKAY. ALL RIGHT. OKAY. WE HAVE A MOTION ON THE TABLE MADE BY SUPERVISOR CRYE.

SECONDED BY MYSELF. IF I CAN GET CLARIFICATION ON THAT MOTION, PLEASE.

[02:10:03]

DID YOU BRING BACK A PRESENTATION? AND THEN, DEPENDING ON THE PRESENTATION, PUT THE VOTE TO END THE FLOCK ON ON THE AGENDA.

OKAY. AND NO DATE CERTAIN, NO DATE CERTAIN. AS FAR AS WHAT WAS THE INTENT OF THE MOTION TO BRING IT BACK AT THE NEXT MEETING, SIMILAR TO THE ORIGINAL MOTION? YEAH. NEXT MEETING OR THE MEETING AFTER THAT, WHICHEVER.

YEAH. DEFINITELY WANT TO GET IT SOON. SOONER RATHER THAN LATER. BEFORE.

BEFORE THE END OF NOVEMBER. YEAH YEAH YEAH. YES.

YEAH. OKAY. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR. AYE. ANY OPPOSED.

OKAY. PASSES 4 TO 1. ALL RIGHT. MOVING ON. R THREE.

[R3 Receive an annual update from the Shasta Public Libraries Director, Julia Parsons, on the Shasta Public Library System.]

RECEIVE AN ANNUAL UPDATE FROM THE SHASTA PUBLIC LIBRARIES DIRECTOR JULIA OR JULIE JULIA PARSONS ON THE SHASTA PUBLIC LIBRARY SYSTEM.

WE'LL GIVE HIM A FEW MINUTES. JULIA, TO FILTER OUT.

I WAS HOPING ALL THESE PEOPLE WERE HERE FOR THE LIBRARY. I WAS WONDERING, I KIND OF.

GO RIGHT AHEAD. DO I HAVE TO WAIT FOR. NO. GOOD TO GO.

GOOD MORNING, CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS. THANK YOU FOR ALLOWING ME THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK TO YOU TODAY. FOR THOSE I HAVEN'T HAD THE PLEASURE OF MEETING.

MY NAME IS JULIA PARSONS, AND I SERVE AS YOUR LIBRARY DIRECTOR OVER ALL OF SHASTA PUBLIC LIBRARIES.

SO READING ANDERSON AND BURNEY, I'M EXCITED TO SHARE HIGHLIGHTS FROM OUR 2024 AND 2025 ANNUAL REPORTS.

THESE TWO YEARS WERE FILLED WITH GROWTH, COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIPS, AND IMPROVEMENTS IN HOW WE SERVE SHASTA COUNTY.

TODAY, I'D LIKE TO HIGHLIGHT NOT JUST WHAT WE'VE ACCOMPLISHED, BUT HOW THOSE ACCOMPLISHMENTS BENEFIT THE COMMUNITIES WE SERVE.

WE HAVE FOUR STRATEGIC GOALS THAT GUIDE THE LIBRARY.

THE FIRST IS LIBRARY AWARENESS, MAKING SURE RESIDENTS KNOW WHAT RESOURCES, PROGRAMS, AND OPPORTUNITIES ARE AVAILABLE TO THEM.

THE SECOND IS FLEXIBLE SPACES, ENSURING OUR BUILDINGS CAN ADAPT TO CHANGING COMMUNITY NEEDS, WHETHER THAT'S QUIET STUDY, FAMILY ACTIVITIES, TECHNOLOGY ACCESS OR LARGE COMMUNITY GATHERINGS.

THE THIRD IS CULTURAL CONNECTION, BRINGING TOGETHER, BRINGING PEOPLE TOGETHER THROUGH SHARED EXPERIENCES, PARTNERSHIPS, AND PROGRAMS THAT REFLECT THE COMMUNITIES WE SERVE.

AND FINALLY, LIFETIME LEARNING, SUPPORTING EDUCATION AND CURIOSITY AT EVERY AGE.

FROM A BABY'S FIRST BOOK TO ADULTS LEARNING NEW SKILLS.

THESE FOUR GOALS HELP US MAKE INTENTIONAL DECISIONS ABOUT OUR SERVICES AND RESOURCES.

FIRST, WE'LL TALK ABOUT LIBRARY AWARENESS. ON THE SCREEN, YOU CAN SEE OUR TEEN ACTION BOARD.

SO ONE OF MY FAVORITE EXAMPLES OF LIBRARY AWARENESS COMES FROM OUR TEEN ACTION BOARD IN 2024, THEY TOOK A CLOSER LOOK AT HOW THEY WANTED TO PARTICIPATE IN IN THE LIBRARY AND HOW WE COULD GIVE THEM A MORE MEANINGFUL VOICE.

RATHER THAN SIMPLY ASKING TEENS TO ATTEND PROGRAMS, WE INVITED THEM TO HELP SHAPE SHAPE THE DIRECTION OF THE BOARD ITSELF.

THEY RESTRUCTURED HOW THE BOARD OPERATED, CONTRIBUTED IDEAS FOR SOCIAL MEDIA, AND HELPED US CONNECT WITH STUDENTS THROUGH LOCAL SCHOOLS.

THIS WAS AN IMPORTANT. THIS WAS IMPORTANT BECAUSE TEENS ARE NOT JUST LIBRARY USERS.

THEY ARE ADVOCATES, VOLUNTEERS, AND THEY TAKE OWNERSHIP OF THEIR LIBRARY.

ANOTHER MAJOR PART OF BUILDING LIBRARY AWARENESS AWARENESS IS PROGRAMING.

SO THROUGHOUT 2024 AND 2025, WE HOSTED EVENTS LIKE OUR GLOW PARTY, HARRY POTTER PARTY, TEDDY BEAR PICNIC, AND SUMMER READING ACTIVITIES IN PARTNERSHIP WITH TURTLE TURTLE BAY EXPLORATION PARK.

THESE EVENTS ARE FUN, BUT THEY ALSO SERVE A LARGER PURPOSE FOR MANY FAMILIES.

A SPECIAL EVENT IS THEIR FIRST INTRODUCTION TO THE LIBRARY OR THEIR FIRST VISIT IN SEVERAL YEARS.

ONCE THEY'RE THROUGH OUR DOORS, THEY DISCOVER THAT THE LIBRARY OFFERS FAR MORE THAN BOOKS.

THEY FIND EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMS, TECHNOLOGY RESOURCES FOR THEIR CHILDREN, AND A WELCOMING PLACE TO SPEND TIME TOGETHER.

PROGRAMING HELPS US. EACH HELPS US REACH RESIDENTS WHO MIGHT NOT OTHERWISE THINK OF THE LIBRARY AS A RESOURCE FOR THEIR FAMILY, FOR OUR FLEXIBLE SPACES. SO YOU WILL SEE THAT THIS IS THE NEW READING LIBRARY AFTER ITS RENOVATION IN 2025.

OF OUR THREE LOCATIONS, THEY EACH SERVE DIFFERENT COMMUNITIES, AND EACH BUILDING NEEDS TO BE FLEXIBLE ENOUGH TO MEET LOCAL NEEDS.

OUR SPACES SUPPORT EVERYTHING FROM CHILDREN'S STORYTIMES AND COMMUNITY MEETINGS TO INDIVIDUAL STUDY, TECHNOLOGY USE AND EDUCATIONAL WORKSHOPS. A MAJOR MILESTONE IN 2025 WAS PREPARING THE READING LIBRARY FOR ITS FLOORING RENOVATION.

WE CLOSED THE MAIN BRANCH IN AUGUST OF 2025 AND REOPENED IN FEBRUARY OF 2026.

WHILE THE REOPENING FALLS JUST OUTSIDE THESE ANNUAL REPORTS, IT REPRESENTS THE RESULT OF PLANNING AND PREPARATION COMPLETED DURING THE YEAR OR 2025.

THE RENOVATION GAVE US AN OPPORTUNITY TO IMPROVE HOW THE BUILDING FUNCTIONS AND CREATE A MORE WELCOMING, ADAPTABLE SPACE FOR OUR COMMUNITY. OUR GOAL IS TO ENSURE THESE PUBLIC BUILDINGS CONTINUE TO SERVE RESIDENTS EFFECTIVELY FOR YEARS TO COME.

NEXT IS CULTURAL CONNECTOR. OUR LIBRARIES ARE ALSO PLACES WHERE COMMUNITY CONNECTION HAPPENS.

ONE OF OUR MOST POPULAR SUMMER PROGRAMS IS LUNCH AT THE LIBRARY, WHICH PROVIDES MEALS FOR CHILDREN WHILE CREATING OPPORTUNITIES FOR FAMILIES TO PARTICIPATE

[02:15:06]

IN ACTIVITIES AND CONNECT WITH LOCAL ORGANIZATIONS.

WE'VE PARTNERED WITH ORGANIZATIONS LIKE HAVEN HUMANE SOCIETY FOR SPECIAL EVENTS, INCLUDING AN ADOPT A PET STORYTIME, WHERE WE TAUGHT CHILDREN WHAT ADOPTING A PET WAS LIKE AND HOW MANY ADOPTABLE PETS THERE WERE IN SHASTA COUNTY IN 2024.

WE ALSO OFFERED GUIDED HIKES AT WHISKEYTOWN, TAKING LEARNING BEYOND THE WALLS OF THE LIBRARY.

AND EACH YEAR WE CELEBRATE THE WEEK OF THE YOUNG CHILD THROUGH REV, RUMBLE AND ROAR.

FOLLOWING THE POPULAR BUG RUN HOSTED BY PARKS AND RECREATION, THIS EVENT BRINGS FAMILIES TOGETHER TO EXPLORE VEHICLES, VISIT COMMUNITY BOOTHS AND ENJOY HANDS ON ACTIVITIES.

THESE PARTNERSHIPS ALLOW US TO OFFER EXPERIENCES THAT NORMALLY, NORMALLY WOULD BE DIFFICULT TO PROVIDE ALONE, WHILE HELPING RESIDENTS BUILD STRONGER CONNECTIONS WITH THEIR COMMUNITY.

LIFETIME LEARNING IS ONE OF THE MOST POPULAR ONES, BECAUSE EVERYBODY OF ALL AGE CAN COME TO THE LIBRARY AND DO SOMETHING THEY ENJOY.

IN 2024, WE EXPANDED OUR STORYTIMES AND EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMS, PLACING A STRONGER EMPHASIS ON EARLY CHILDHOOD DEVELOPMENT AND LITERACY.

BUT LEARNING DOESN'T STOP IN CHILDHOOD. WE ALSO OFFERED EXPERIENCES LIKE GENEALOGY WORKSHOPS, COFFEE ROASTING CLASSES, AND GUIDED HIKES, GIVING ADULTS OPPORTUNITIES TO EXPLORE NEW INTERESTS AND DEVELOP SKILLS.

ONE OF OUR MOST EXCITING ACCOMPLISHMENTS CAME IN 2025, WHEN WE OFFICIALLY LAUNCHED DOLLY PARTON'S IMAGINATION LIBRARY IN SHASTA COUNTY IN PARTNERSHIP WITH FIRST FIVE SHASTA AND SHANTI SHANTI.

ANTI SHASTA COUNTY OFFICE OF EDUCATION. THIS PROGRAM PROVIDES FREE, AGE APPROPRIATE BOOKS DELIVERED DIRECTLY TO CHILDREN'S HOMES FROM BIRTH UNTIL AGE FIVE.

TODAY WE HAVE SERVED 3718 ACTIVE CHILDREN, AND ANOTHER 577 CHILDREN HAVE GRADUATED FROM THE PROGRAM ALREADY.

THAT'S 4295 CHILDREN IN SHASTA COUNTY WHO ARE CURRENTLY BENEFITING FROM OR HAVE COMPLETED THE PROGRAM.

THIS IS AN INVESTMENT IN EARLY LITERACY, SCHOOL READINESS AND THE FUTURE OF SHASTA COUNTY.

THE NEXT SLIDE IS ALL NUMBERS, AND I WILL SAY THAT I DID NOT GET INTO LIBRARIES FOR NUMBERS, SO WE CAN DO SOME QUICK MATHS AND ADD THEM TOGETHER.

SO I'D LIKE TO CLOSE OFF WITH A FEW NUMBERS THAT WE HAVE UP ON THE SCREEN.

SO OVER THE TWO YEARS OUR LIBRARY IS WELCOMED MORE THAN 731,000 PATRONS.

YOU CAN SEE THAT THE FOOT TRAFFIC IS SLIGHTLY LOWER FOR 2025 THAN FOR 2024 BECAUSE OF THE CLOSURE OF THE READING LIBRARY, BUT WE STILL WELL EXCEEDED THE NUMBERS THAT WE THOUGHT WE WOULD.

WE CIRCULATED MORE THAN 1.15 MILLION PHYSICAL ITEMS, ALONG WITH NEARLY 278,000 DIGITAL CHECKOUTS THROUGH LIBBY, WHICH IS OUR ONLINE E-RESOURCES. WE OFFERED MORE THAN 1750 IN-PERSON PROGRAMS, AND WE WELCOMED OVER 36,000 ATTENDEES IN THOSE TWO YEARS. WE ALSO ADDED MORE THAN 27,000 ITEMS TO OUR COLLECTION, ENSURING RESIDENTS CONTINUE TO HAVE ACCESS TO NEW AND RELEVANT MATERIALS.

AND ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT MEASURES FOR US IS ACCESS TO TECHNOLOGY.

ACROSS THE TWO YEARS, OUR LIBRARIES RECORDED MORE THAN 516,000 WI-FI SESSIONS IN ALL THREE BRANCHES.

THESE NUMBERS REPRESENT MORE THAN TRANSACTIONS.

THEY REPRESENT FAMILIES ACCESSING BOOKS, STUDENTS FINDING A PLACE TO STUDY, RESIDENTS CONNECTING TO THE INTERNET, AND COMMUNITY MEMBERS DISCOVERING NEW OPPORTUNITIES.

AND I WANT TO THANK THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS FOR YOUR CONTINUED SUPPORT OF SHASTA PUBLIC LIBRARIES. I KNOW I'VE SEEN SOME OF YOU AT OUR GALA, SO I'M REALLY EXCITED ABOUT THAT, AND WE LOOK FORWARD TO CONTINUING THIS WORK WITH YOU TO MAKE OUR LIBRARIES EVEN STRONGER.

COMMUNITY RESOURCES. THANK YOU. AWESOME. THANK YOU JULIA.

GREAT PRESENTATION. WE APPRECIATE THAT. THANK YOU.

MISS BLANKENSHIP, DO WE HAVE ANY PUBLIC COMMENTERS ON THIS ONE? CHAIR, JUST ONE MOMENT. IT'S A NO VOTE ITEM.

SO WE HAVE THREE SPEAKERS. OKAY, FIRST UP, SHASTA COUNTY WATCHDOG, FOLLOWED BY JENNY, THEN STEVEN.

IF I CALLED YOUR NAME, PLEASE GET IN QUEUE.

I HAVE A QUESTION, BUT I KNOW I'M JUST GOING TO SAY WHAT I'M GOING TO SAY HERE REGARDING THIS PROGRAM.

I THINK IT'S A WONDERFUL, WONDERFUL PROGRAM. BUT MY QUESTION IS TRANSPARENCY.

OKAY? WE ALWAYS TALK ABOUT TRANSPARENCY REGARDING GOVERNMENT.

WELL, THIS PROGRAM REGARDING THE LIBRARY DIRECTOR, I JUST WORRY THAT IF.

DO WE SHOULD WE HAVE ANY CONCERNS IN REGARDING THE PERSON WHO'S RUNNING THE PROGRAM BECAUSE SHE'S GOT THREE CASES AGAINST HER PENDING FROM THE.

IT'S CALLED THE THE PEOPLE OF CALIFORNIA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA.

THREE CASES PENDING IN THE NEXT COURT HEARING IS 1112, 2026.

[02:20:05]

SO THAT'S WHY I WAS WONDERING, DO YOU GUYS DO YOUR HOMEWORK TO CHECK ON THAT? BECAUSE IF THERE'S SOME KIND OF CONCERN, IF SHE'S RUNNING THE PROGRAM.

NEXT UP, JENNY, FOLLOWED BY STEVEN.

THANK YOU, BOARD, FOR UPDATING US ON HOW OUR LIBRARIES ARE DOING.

PERHAPS FOR MOST OF YOU, THIS IS A ROOM WITH SHELVES AND BOOKS AND NOTHING MORE.

BUT I'M FROM BERNIE. THE ENTIRE OUTSIDE WORLD EXISTED ONLY IN BOOKS.

FOR ME, IT'S A PLACE OF ADVENTURE WHERE I MET NOT ONLY IMAGINARY CHARACTERS BROUGHT TO LIFE, BUT GOT TO KNOW INDIVIDUALS WHO HAVE CHANGED THE WORLD THROUGH THEIR BIOGRAPHIES. THE LIBRARY HAS BEEN A BIG PART OF MY LIFE AND MY CHILDREN'S LIVES AS WELL, AND I HOPE THAT WE CONTINUE TO FUND AND PROMOTE THIS BEAUTIFUL SPACE FOR TIME TO COME.

THANK YOU. NEXT UP, STEPHEN. THANK YOU FOR THE PRESENTATION.

I WANT TO SAY I GO TO THE LIBRARY MAYBE ONCE OR TWICE A WEEK.

AND ALTHOUGH THE RENOVATIONS WERE NICE, THERE'S SOME, SOME THINGS I THINK ARE LACKING.

AND I DON'T THINK IT'S NECESSARILY THE DIRECTOR'S FAULT.

I THINK MAYBE IT'S A LITTLE FUNDING ISSUE OR A BUDGET ISSUE. WHATNOT IS SOME OF THE SEATING IS NOT VERY COMFORTABLE, AND I DON'T THINK THE WHOLE PLACE NEEDS TO BE LIKE A BARNES AND NOBLES, BUT THERE USED TO BE SOME COMFORTABLE SEATS.

YOU COULD SIT DOWN, LOOK OUT, YOU KNOW, TO THE NORTH OR THE SOUTH.

LOOK AT MOUNT SHASTA, YOU KNOW, LOOKS OUT TO THE VOLKSWAGEN PLACE.

AND THEY'RE GONE. AND ANOTHER THING IS A LOT OF THE TABLES ARE NOW POSITIONED WHERE THERE'S NOT AN OUTLET FOR SOMEBODY PLUG IN THE PHONE, PLUG IN THEIR COMPUTER OR WHATNOT. AND I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S BECAUSE THOSE PORTALS ARE BROKEN AND THEY FIGURED, WELL, WHY FIX THEM? BUT IT'D BE NICE TO BE ABLE TO GO IN THERE AND HAVE MORE TABLES AND MORE CHAIRS THAN NOT HAVE ACCESS TO A PLUG IN.

ALSO, THE, THE RESTROOMS ARE A LITTLE, A LITTLE RUNDOWN AND THEY COULD USE SOME WORK.

I DO WANT TO SAY IT'S NICE. I DON'T KNOW IF WHO'S, WHO'S WHO'S RESPONSIBLE FOR IT.

BUT IT'S NICE TO HAVE A SECURITY GUARD, WHICH I ALWAYS DID.

BUT NOW THEY DO BATHROOM CHECKS. AND I'M PRETTY SURE WE ALL KNOW WHY THEY DO THAT.

AND IT'S A, IT'S A NICE THING TO SEE. AND ONE LAST THING IS I WAS ACTUALLY THERE YESTERDAY AND I WANT TO SAY YOUR STAFF DOES A GREAT JOB. THERE WAS A PERSON WHO CAME IN AND THEY WERE RAMBLING AND TALKING TO THEMSELVES AND BEING REALLY LOUD AND, AND THE STAFF CAME UP VERY CALMLY AND VERY PROFESSIONALLY SAID, YOU KNOW, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO ASK YOU TO LEAVE FOR TODAY.

AND THEY DIDN'T ELEVATE THEIR VOICE. THEY DIDN'T GET EXCITED. THEY JUST CALMLY LET THE PERSON KNOW THAT THEY HAD TO LEAVE THE LIBRARY. SO THANK YOU.

I'M SURE THAT WAS OUR ONLY OR THAT WAS OUR LAST SPEAKER.

ALL RIGHT. AND THANK YOU AGAIN, MISS PARSONS, FOR THE PRESENTATION. APPRECIATE THAT. SO THIS IS A NO VOTE ITEM.

SO WE WILL UNLESS THERE'S ANY BOARD DISCUSSION, I THINK WE'LL JUST MOVE ON TO RECEIVE AN UPDATE FROM THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER ON

[R4 Receive an update from the County Executive Officer on County issues and consider action on specific legislation related to Shasta County’s legislative platform and receive Supervisors’ reports on countywide issues.]

COUNTY ISSUES AND CONSIDER ACTION ON SPECIFIC LEGISLATION RELATED TO SHASTA COUNTY'S LEGISLATIVE PLATFORM AND RECEIVE SUPERVISOR'S REPORTS ON COUNTY WIDE ISSUES.

AND IF WE HURRY, WE CAN SKIP SUPERVISOR CRYE.

GOOD MORNING, CHAIRMAN KELSTROM AND MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS. DAVE RICKERT COUNTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER, REPORTING WITH AN UPDATE ON COUNTY ISSUES ON OCTOBER 22ND, 2026, THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE RECEIVED A NOTICE THAT SHASTA COUNTY HAS BEEN OFFICIALLY HONORED WITH THE CALIFORNIA STATE COMPTROLLER OFFICE AWARD FOR COUNTY FISCAL TRANSACTION REPORTING FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED JUNE 30TH, 2025.

THIS STATE LEVEL RECOGNITION IS AWARDED TO EXCLUSIVELY TO COUNTIES THAT DEMONSTRATE EXCELLENCE IN ACCOUNTANCY AND TIMELINESS IN REPORTING ON THEIR ANNUAL FINANCIAL TRANSACTIONS. THE AWARD DIRECTLY REFLECTS THE HIGH LEVEL OF PROFESSIONALISM, TRANSPARENCY AND DEDICATION MAINTAINED BY THE SHASTA COUNTY AUDITOR CONTROLLER'S OFFICE, AS WELL AS THE COLLABORATIVE EFFORT OF ALL COUNTY DEPARTMENTS CONTRIBUTING TO THE FISCAL REPORTING PROCESS TO REVIEW COUNTY LOCAL FINANCIAL TRANSPARENCY DATA OR LEARN MORE ABOUT COUNTY FISCAL MANAGEMENT.

VISIT THE OFFICIAL SHASTA COUNTY AUDITOR COMPTROLLER'S OFFICE WEBSITE.

THIS. CONTROL. THIS CONCLUDES MY REPORT. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU. CEO RICKERT. SUPERVISOR PLUMMER. HI EVERYONE.

A FEW UPDATES THERE. THE FIRST ONE WHICH I'VE MENTIONED, I SEE ROY IN THE ROOM HERE.

WE DID HAVE A GOOD LONG MEETING ABOUT THE JONES VALLEY WATER SYSTEM LAST WEEK.

AS MANY OF YOU KNOW, THE WATER SYSTEM FAILED ABOUT THREE WEEKS AGO.

[02:25:06]

AND SO WE'RE KIND OF IN A, THERE'S A THREE STAGE PROCESS THAT WE'RE GOING THROUGH TO TRY TO GET THAT TO WHERE IT WILL BE A STABLE AND RELIABLE FOR THE LONG TERM.

AND SO RIGHT NOW WE DO HAVE WE, WE'VE RENTED PUMPS BECAUSE BASICALLY THAT WATER SYSTEM, YOU PUMP THE WATER OUT OF THE LAKE AND IT SERVES ABOUT A LITTLE OVER 500 CUSTOMERS THERE. SO RIGHT NOW WE'VE RENTED PUMPS, DIESEL POWERED PUMPS, AND THE PUBLIC WORKS TEAM IS REFUELING THEM ONCE OR TWICE A DAY.

WE DO, AT LEAST AS OF LAST WEEK AND HAVEN'T TALKED WITH OUR PUBLIC WORKS TEAM YET THIS WEEK ABOUT IT, BUT WE DID HAVE A VERBAL KIND OF AGREEMENT FROM THE STATE TO PROVIDE ABOUT $1 MILLION IN FUNDING TO BASICALLY MOVE US INTO WHAT I'M THINKING ABOUT AS LIKE PHASE TWO, WHICH IS LIKE AN INTERIM SOLUTION WHERE WE DROP ANOTHER PUMP TO THE BOTTOM OF THE LAKE, AND THAT WILL GET US BACK TO WHERE WE WERE BEFORE THE TWO PUMPS FAILED.

HOWEVER, THOSE TWO PUMPS FAILED. AND SO THERE'S NO GUARANTEE THAT THIS ONE WOULD LAST FOR THE 20 TO 30 YEARS THAT THESE TYPES OF PUMPS TYPICALLY LAST. AND SO WE ARE GOING TO TRY TO RETRIEVE THE TWO PUMPS THAT FAILED.

SO WE CAN HOPEFULLY DIAGNOSE THAT AND FIGURE OUT WHAT WENT WRONG.

AND REALLY THE GOAL IS TO TRY TO GET ABOUT $10 MILLION, WHICH IS WHAT WE BELIEVE WOULD BE NECESSARY FOR A PERMANENT SOLUTION OR, YOU KNOW, A 20 TO 30 YEAR SOLUTION, WHICH MIGHT INVOLVE PUTTING THE PUMPS IN A CASING AND HAVING A SYSTEM FOR BEING ABLE TO RETRIEVE THEM.

SO MORE TO COME ON THAT WE'RE HAVING CONVERSATION WITH THE U.S.

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE TOMORROW TO EXPLORE DIFFERENT FUNDING PATHS ON THAT FRONT, BUT WE'LL CONTINUE AS WE KIND OF MOVE INTO PHASE TWO.

WE'LL CONTINUE TO LOOK FOR THAT PERMANENT SOLUTION.

I'VE ALSO REACHED OUT TO OUR SENATOR'S TEAM TO SEE WHAT OTHER OPTIONS THERE MIGHT BE FOR LONG TERM FUNDING, SO I HOPE TO HAVE SOME UPDATES ON THAT BY THE END OF THIS WEEK IN TERMS OF POTENTIAL FOR LONG TERM SOLUTIONS.

ON ANOTHER TOPIC, I'VE TALKED ABOUT THIS IN THE PAST THAT WHEN IT COMES TO ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT IN THE COMMUNITY, THAT GROWING OUR ECONOMY AND DOING WHAT WE CAN AS THE GOVERNMENT TO HELP FACILITATE THAT IS IMPORTANT FOR THE LONG TERM BENEFIT OF THE COMMUNITY AS WELL AS THE SUSTAINABILITY OF THE GOVERNMENTS THAT OPERATE WITHIN THE COUNTY. AND SO ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I'VE BEEN WORKING WITH OUR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION TO DO IS TO SAY, WHAT IF WE IDENTIFY A FEW DIFFERENT INDUSTRIES THAT WE WANT TO FOCUS ON? AND SO TIMBER AND WOOD PRODUCTS BEING ONE OF THEM. AND SO LAST MONDAY, WE HAD A CONVENING OF INDUSTRY LEADERS AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PROFESSIONALS TO SAY, WHAT IF WE FOCUSED AND DEVELOPED A PROACTIVE STRATEGY AROUND GROWING THE TIMBER AND WOOD PRODUCTS INDUSTRY IN SHASTA COUNTY.

AND THERE SPECIFICALLY, WE WERE LOOKING AT AND THE GROUP CENTERED AROUND WHAT WE CALL GROSS REGIONAL PRODUCT.

SO HOW MUCH IS THAT INDUSTRY PRODUCING? AND WHAT WOULD IT LOOK LIKE TO SIGNIFICANTLY INCREASE THAT OVER THE NEXT FIVE YEARS? WHAT LOCAL POLICIES COULD BE ADOPTED? AND SO WE'RE STARTING TO THINK ABOUT, ARE THERE THINGS THAT COULD COME BACK TO SHASTA COUNTY TO SIGNAL THAT AND BE FAVORABLE FOR GROWING THAT INDUSTRY HERE? ARE THERE STATE POLICIES TO ADVOCATE FOR? AND THEN ARE THERE OTHER ACTIONS THAT COULD HELP FACILITATE THAT WITHIN THE COMMUNITY.

SO OUR NEXT STEP THERE IS TO BEGIN TO PUT TOGETHER A PROACTIVE STRATEGY THAT SAYS, WHAT DOES IT LOOK LIKE TO GROW THAT OVER THE NEXT FIVE YEARS? I WAS ALSO ABLE TO ATTEND THE COMMISSION ON AGING.

I WAS ASKED BY MY APPOINTEE WHICH I KNOW THERE ARE OF THE, THE APPOINTEES FROM THE SUPERVISORS, JUST A PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT THAT THREE ARE CURRENTLY VACANT.

SO IF YOU DO HAVE RECOMMENDATIONS TO APPOINT SOMEONE TO THAT, THEY'RE LOOKING TO TRY TO FILL THAT FULL ROSTER.

AND WE DID GET TO HEAR OF A PROGRAM BY DIGNITY HEALTH CONNECTED LIVING.

I THINK IT'S CALLED POWER TO SENIORS, WHICH HELPS WITH UTILITY EXPENSES FOR SENIORS.

AND SO I JUST WANTED TO FLAG THAT FOR THOSE IN THE COMMUNITY THAT IF YOU ARE STRUGGLING WITH YOUR UTILITY PAYMENTS DIGNITY, HEALTH, CONNECTED LIVING DOES HAVE AN OPTION FOR HELPING, YOU KNOW, COVER SOME OF THAT COST, DEPENDING ON ELIGIBILITY AND A VARIETY OF DIFFERENT THINGS. SO I WANTED TO FLAG THAT.

AND THEN A FINAL THING THAT I'LL SHARE AN UPDATE ON IS ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I'VE BEEN LOOKING AT IS THE, THE STRAIN ON OUR PUBLIC SAFETY SYSTEM. WE HEARD ABOUT THAT ABOUT A YEAR AND A HALF AGO, AND TWO SPECIAL MEETINGS THAT THIS BOARD HOSTED WITH A NUMBER OF OUR PUBLIC SAFETY PARTNERS AND HAVE HEARD ABOUT IT WITH THE DAS OFFICE BACK IN MAY WITH THEIR DECISION TO SUSPEND KIND OF FILING SOME OF THE CASES DUE TO STAFFING. AND SO WAS ABLE TO HAVE A FEW CONVERSATIONS IN THE PAST TWO WEEKS ABOUT CREATIVE IDEAS FOR TRYING TO OFFLOAD SOME OF THAT BURDEN SO THAT WE CAN HOLD PEOPLE ACCOUNTABLE REHABILITATE THEM WHEN THAT'S APPROPRIATE AND REDUCE THE STRAIN ON OUR SYSTEM.

SO I LOOK FORWARD TO HAVING SOME ADDITIONAL CONVERSATIONS ON THAT FRONT OVER THE NEXT FEW WEEKS.

[02:30:04]

THANK YOU, THANK YOU. SUPERVISOR PLUMMER. SUPERVISOR HARMON.

HE SAYS YOU STILL HAVE FIVE MINUTES. LET ME TAKE YOUR TIME.

YEAH. NO. TAKE YOUR TIME. ON THE 27TH OR. SORRY, 21ST.

WE HAD BOARD. MEETING IN BOERNE. REGARDING THE IT WAS A TOWN HALL MEETING.

MIRANDA HEADED IT UP. SHE DID A GREAT JOB. I DON'T SEE HER.

I THINK SHE'S OUT IN THE LOBBY. SHE DID A SHE DID A GREAT JOB.

AND SHE HAD A LOT OF HELP. WE HAD A PANEL UP THERE.

I DON'T KNOW. EVERYBODY'S PROBABLY PRETTY FAMILIAR WITH HOW THAT WORKS, BUT WE HAD CAL FIRE PLANNING.

THERE SHE IS. MIRANDA. GOOD JOB. AND THEN AND THEN AFTER THAT MEETING, IT ROLLED INTO THE CHAMBER MEETING WITH REBECCA BAUER. AND I STAYED FOR THAT. THAT WAS THAT WAS PRETTY FUN.

THEY BOTH DO A GOOD JOB. REBECCA, ANN AND MIRANDA DO A GREAT JOB.

AND THEN ON THE 22ND, WE HAD NORTEK AIR BOARD MEETING IN ANDERSON, WHICH GREG JONES, WHO'S OUR SPEAKER FROM TAMA COUNTY GOT NOMINATED AS THE NEW CHAIRMAN OF THE OF THAT BOARD.

A PRETTY BIG JOB, I THINK THERE'S FOUR, ISN'T THERE FOUR BOARDS ON THAT ONE BOARD CUMULATIVELY.

AND THEN ON THE, THE OH, THE OTHER ONE WAS COUNTY WEIGHTS AND MEASURES, BUT I HAVE SOMETHING I WANT TO BRING UP.

IT'S GOING TO BE A LITTLE CONTROVERSIAL. I'M USUALLY NOT VERY CONTROVERSIAL, BUT I'M GOING TO YOU GUYS STAY CALM.

OKAY? WHEN I, WHEN I BRING THIS AND I HAVE IT AND I JUST WANT EVERYBODY TO KNOW I HAVEN'T TALKED TO ANYBODY ABOUT THIS.

SO IT'S GOING TO BE A LITTLE BIT OF A SURPRISE.

BUT I WOULD LIKE TO REEVALUATE. THE OLD COURTHOUSE DEMOLITION.

I HAVE SOME SECOND THOUGHTS ABOUT. I WENT I WENT TO A COUPLE OF NOBODY'S.

I DON'T HAVE A BUNCH OF INFLUENCE OUTSIDE INFLUENCE.

HEARD A FEW PEOPLE SAY THINGS HAD ONE CONVERSATION WITH SOMEBODY, BUT THIS IS SUPERVISOR HARMON TALKING.

THIS ISN'T, YOU KNOW, THE ONES THAT ARE OPPOSING IT, THE ONES THAT ARE PROPONENTS OF IT.

THIS IS JUST ME TALKING. AND I'VE, I'VE NOW BEEN TO TWO OF THE FALLEN OFFICERS AWARDS OR, OR MEMORIAL SERVICE IN FRONT OF THAT COURTHOUSE AND BOTH TIMES SITTING OUT IN FRONT OF IT FOR, I DON'T KNOW HOW LONG THAT SERVICE GOES FOR, LIKE AN HOUR OR SOMETHING SITTING OUT IN FRONT OF IT. EVERY AND EVERY TIME I LOOK AT IT, IT'S LIKE, WHAT, YOU KNOW, WHAT A SHAME. I'M, I CAN'T HELP IT.

I'M A BUSINESSMAN AND I, AND I THINK ONE OF MY THOUGHTS WAS, IF I OWNED THAT BUILDING, WHAT WOULD I DO WITH IT? AND MY SECOND THOUGHT WAS, I DO OWN THAT BUILDING ALONG WITH YOU ALONG WITH THE PEOPLE.

THAT IS OUR BUILDING. AND, AND I FEEL LIKE AND I, AND I KNOW THERE'S, I KNOW THERE'S LOTS OF LOTS OF PROS AND CONS HERE, BUT I WOULD JUST LIKE TO, TO GO BACK AND REEVALUATE BEFORE WE GET TOO FAR.

I FEEL LIKE THIS IS A, THIS IS A BIG, BIG CHOICE TO DEMO DEMO THAT BUILDING.

I KNOW THERE'S LEAD PAINT AND ASBESTOS, BUT THAT'S GOT TO GET DEALT WITH WHETHER YOU DEMO THE BUILDING OR YOU WAS TO RENOVATE THE BUILDING. THE COST IS STILL THERE. SO THAT'S KIND OF A MOOT POINT.

YOU CAN, YOU CAN KIND OF FORGET ABOUT THAT. AND THEN BUT WHEN I THINK ABOUT, I'D LIKE TO GET SOME FEEDBACK FROM REALTORS, COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE. YOU KNOW, WHAT'S WHAT'S IT WORTH? WHAT'S THE WHAT'S THE. AND I KNOW A LOT OF THIS IS ALREADY DONE.

I JUST WANT TO GO BACK AND REEVALUATE. I FEEL LIKE THERE WAS SOME.

HARD PUSH TO DEMO THAT BUILDING THAT WAS I DON'T KNOW, MAYBE MAYBE A LITTLE TOO HARD.

ON THE NEGATIVE SIDE, I THINK, I THINK THERE'S SOME, A LOT OF POSITIVE REASONS WHY WE MIGHT WANT TO RECONSIDER THIS.

SO WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO DO, I DON'T WANT TO, I DON'T WANT TO, I DON'T WANT TO DO A A MOTION TODAY, BUT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE IF WE CAN PUT IT ON THE AGENDA FOR TWO WEEKS OR THE OR THE NEXT BOARD MEETING TO REEVALUATE. AND I'D LIKE TO GET SOME FEEDBACK AND YOU NEED A MOTION TO DO THAT.

OKAY. WELL, THEN I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO BRING THIS BACK AT THE NEXT BOARD MEETING.

[02:35:03]

OR IT CAN BE A IT'S THE ONLY THING I'M REALLY CONCERNED ABOUT IS WHAT'S IN MOTION RIGHT NOW THAT I'D LIKE TO GET IN FRONT OF JUST IN CASE.

WE WANT TO TURN THIS DECISION AROUND. SUPERVISOR HARMON.

CAN YOU BE A BIT MORE SPECIFIC IN TERMS OF WHEN YOU SAY REEVALUATE, ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT HAVING A PRESENTATION, JUST THE BOARD DISCUSSION ABOUT IT OR LOOKING AT DIFFERENT OPTIONS? WHAT ARE YOU SUGGESTING WOULD HAPPEN AT THIS NEXT MEETING? BECAUSE THIS WITHOUT GETTING INTO THE DETAILS, THIS IS SOMETHING THAT I'VE LOOKED AT EXTENSIVELY OVER THE PAST FEW MONTHS AS WELL. SO I'M JUST CURIOUS KIND OF WHAT WHAT SPECIFICALLY YOU'RE HOPING WOULD HAPPEN AT DO YOU WANT JOHN HEATH TO DO A PRESENTATION? DO YOU WANT JOHN DUNLAP TO COME IN AND DO A PRESENTATION? DO YOU WANT JUST JUST SIMPLY DISCUSS IT AND MAKE THOSE DECISIONS AT THAT MEETING? I WOULD LIKE I WOULD LIKE TO. WELL, ONE OF, ONE OF MY LITTLE HESITATION HERE WAS I HAVEN'T TALKED TO ANY OTHER SUPERVISORS, SO I DON'T KNOW. I DON'T KNOW WHAT OTHER INTERESTS THERE MIGHT BE SUPPORT WISE.

SO I WAS TRYING TO GIVE MYSELF A LITTLE BIT OF TIME TO BUT I'LL DO A MOTION TO BRING IT, TO BRING IT BACK.

I WAS TRYING TO GIVE MY GIVE A LITTLE BIT OF TIME TO SEE I REALLY LOVE THE BROWN ACT.

YOU KNOW, WHERE YOU CAN'T GO TALK TO YOUR FELLOW SUPERVISORS. I MEAN, I'D LOVE TO WENT AND TALKED TO YOU ABOUT IT AND THEN YOU AND YOU AND GOT A FEEL FOR SUPERVISOR HARMON. AND THE BROWN ACT IS GOING TO CUT THIS OFF.

WE NEED TO MAKE A CLEAR MOTION AND HAVE THE DISCUSSION AT THAT TIME.

I'M GOING TO CUT IT OFF. I'M TALKING ABOUT IT IN FRONT OF EVERYBODY. SO IT'S ALL RIGHT.

NOT ON THE AGENDA. SO PUT IT ON THE AGENDA. MAKE A MOTION. ALL RIGHT. PUT IT ON. I'M GOING TO MAKE A MOTION TO PUT IT ON THE AGENDA.

WITH ONE QUESTION FIRST. HOW MUCH HOW FAST IS THE DEMOLITION PART OF THIS MOVEMENT.

BECAUSE I NEED TO KNOW HOW FAST I NEED TO MOVE.

PROBABLY MORE OF A PUBLIC WORKS QUESTION, BRYCE IS OH, THERE'S SAVES THE DAY.

GO AHEAD. BRYCE. SAVE ME, WOULD YOU? GOOD MORNING, I THINK.

STILL, CHAIR. MEMBERS OF THE BOARD. BRYCE RITCHIE, SENIOR ADMINISTRATIVE ANALYST. THE NEXT STEP IN THE PROCESS IS FOR PUBLIC WORKS TO RETURN WITH THE EIR DETERMINATION. AND THAT NEEDS TO BE DONE REGARDLESS OF WHETHER WE DEMO OR DO SOMETHING ELSE WITH THE BUILDING.

RIGHT. I'M GOING TO CUT YOU OFF AND JUST GIVE A TIME FRAME.

OKAY. I WOULD EXPECT THAT TO COME BACK IN NOVEMBER AND WE COULD HAVE YOUR DISCUSSION THEN AS WELL.

ALL RIGHT. I DON'T REALLY LIKE YOUR ATTITUDE, JOE.

JUST KIDDING. I'M JUST KIDDING. I UNDERSTAND I GOT TO FOLLOW RULES HERE, BUT THANK YOU, BRYCE FOR SAYING THAT.

SO I WANT TO I WANT TO MAKE A MOTION. SO I'M UNDERSTANDING THAT THIS IS NOT ON FIRE.

I GOT A LITTLE BIT OF TIME. SO I WOULD LIKE TO MOTION TO BE FOR SAY A MONTH OUT.

MR. CHAIRMAN, IF I MAY. I BELIEVE IT'S GOING TO COME BACK.

SO THERE'S, THERE'S REALLY NO NEED FOR MOTION.

WE COULD HAVE THAT DISCUSSION AT THE TIME THE EIR COMES BACK.

AND, AND WHEN DID YOU SAY THAT? HE SAID IT WOULD COME BACK IN NOVEMBER.

NEXT MONTH. ALL RIGHT. WHAT IS YOUR MOTION? DO YOU WANT TO BRING THIS BACK AND HAVE A PRESENTATION BY PUBLIC WORKS? ARE YOU LISTENING? HE SAID I DON'T HAVE TO BRING A MOTION. WE'RE JUST GOING TO DO IT WHEN THE WHEN THEY HAVE THE DISCUSSION.

IT'S COMING BACK. YES. ALL RIGHT. DOES THAT CONCLUDE YOUR REPORT? THAT CONCLUDES MY REPORT. THANK YOU. SUPERVISOR LONG.

THANK YOU CHAIR. WELCOME, EVERYONE. SUPERVISOR KELSTROM AND I MET WITH HARMONY ON A HARMONY COMMUNITIES ON A ZOOM MEETING, AND WE'VE TALKED ALL ABOUT THAT. SO I WON'T GET INTO THAT.

AND THEN WE SUBSEQUENTLY HAD THAT COMMUNITY MEETING MET WITH THE RESIDENTS AND MANAGEMENT, AND THAT WAS A PRODUCTIVE MEETING. SO WITH THAT I ATTENDED A PSA TWO ON AGING ALONG WITH SUPERVISOR PLUMMER, AND THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, TERRY GABRIEL GAVE US AN UPDATE ON THE MASTER PLAN FOR AGING UNDER SENATE BILL 1249.

THAT WAS AN INTERESTING UPDATE, AND ONE OF THE THINGS THAT SUPERVISOR PLUMMER HAD REQUESTED THAT AGE PSA TWO ON AGING CONDUCT WAS A STATISTICAL ANALYSIS OF THE LEVEL OF ADULT PROTECTIVE CASES IN THIS COUNTY AND THE NUMBER OF FRAUD CASES THAT WERE A SUBSET OF THE ADULT PROTECTIVE CASES IN GENERAL.

AND WHAT WERE THE TRENDS LOOKING FORWARD? SO IT WAS A LITTLE DISTURBING ACTUALLY TO LOOK AT SOME OF THE TRENDS.

BUT IN 2021, WE DIDN'T KNOW THE ACTUAL APS CASES THAT WASN'T AVAILABLE.

FRAUD WAS 771 IN 2022. THE ADULT PROTECTIVE CASES IN AGGREGATE JUMPED TO 2596, OF WHICH WE HAD 100 OR 1004 FRAUD CASES. SO IT'S GOING UP. THEN IN 233404.

PROTECTIVE CASES AND FRAUD CASES JUMPED TO 1480.

SO IT'S A CLEAR TREND THAT IT'S INCREASING PRETTY STEADILY.

[02:40:03]

AND 24 AND 25 IT IT INCREASED 3550. AND THEN FINALLY IT DROPPED A LITTLE BIT IN IN LAST YEAR.

25. AND THE FRAUD CASES WENT FROM 1217 TO 1357.

SO STILL, COMPARED TO FIVE YEARS AGO, FRAUD AMONG OUR SENIORS IS WAY UP.

AND SO I THINK NEXT, NEXT STEPS WILL BE TO TRY TO FIGURE OUT WHY AND IF THERE'S ANYTHING WE CAN DO TO HELP MITIGATE SOME OF THOSE THINGS.

LET'S SEE HERE. I ATTENDED A SHASTA COUNTY FIRE SAFE COUNCIL MEETING AND WE'VE HAD A TRANSITION TO A NEW EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR.

GOT TO MEET HER ON ZOOM. THAT WAS, THAT WAS A GREAT MEETING.

AND THEN ALSO HOPE SETH WHO HELPED US DEVELOP OUR STRATEGIC PLAN VISION PLAN FOR SHASTA COUNTY.

SHE'S BEEN WORKING WITH SHASTA FIRE SAFE COUNCIL.

SHASTA COUNTY FIRE SAFE COUNCIL AND DEVELOPING THEIR FIVE YEAR STRATEGIC PLAN AS WELL.

SO IT WAS SHE DID MANY OF THE SAME THINGS SHE DID FOR US, WHICH I THINK SHE DID A WONDERFUL JOB FOR US.

AND I THINK THAT'S IT. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, SUPERVISOR LONG.

I'M NOT SURE WHERE SUPERVISOR CRYE IS, SO I'LL JUST GO AHEAD AND GO ON THE 14TH I HAD A LAW LIBRARY MEETING AND THEN ON THE 16TH I WENT TO OVER THE COURTHOUSE AND THEY HAD A BEHAVIORAL HEALTH COLLABORATION GRADUATION WITH JUDGE FLYNN.

THERE'S ONLY TWO GRADUATES AT THAT TIME. BUT I TELL YOU, IF YOU EVER GET A CHANCE TO GO TO ONE OF THOSE, THEY'RE PRETTY GREAT STORIES THAT SHOWS THEM THEY START OUT KIND OF SHOWING THEM, TELL THEM WHAT THEY DID AND THE PROGRESS THEY'VE MADE.

IT'S, IT'S, IT'S A VERY LONG PROGRAM FOR THEM TO GO THROUGH.

TELLS THEM HOW MANY DAYS SOBER THE GRADUATES HAVE COMBINED, AND THEN THEY HAVE THE GRADUATE SPEAK.

AND THE FIRST THING THEY DO IS THEY SHOW THEM THEIR BOOKING PHOTO. AND IT'S AMAZING WHEN YOU SEE THEM IN THE BOOKING PHOTO AT THE LOWEST POINT IN THEIR LIFE, AND THEN YOU HEAR HOW WELL THEY'VE DONE AND THAT TO GET TO THAT GRADUATION CEREMONY.

SO IF YOU EVER HAVE A CHANCE TO GO SEE ONE OF THOSE, I HIGHLY RECOMMEND IT.

ON THE 17TH, I HAD, I WAS IN ANDERSON VFW. THEY HAD AN AUXILIARY MEETING.

I WAS SUPPOSED TO PRESENT A FLAG TO MODOC COUNTY, A FLAG THAT HAD FLOWN OVER THE FEDERAL CAPITAL.

THERE'S A LITTLE FAUX PAS. WHEN I GOT THERE, I THOUGHT THEY HAD THE FLAG. THEY THOUGHT I HAD THE FLAG. BUT WE GOT THE FLAG. WE GOT IT TO THEM. SO MODOC HAS A NEW FLAG THAT FLEW OVER OUR FEDERAL CAPITAL.

AND THEN NEXT DAY I HAD A SHINGLETOWN VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT AUXILIARY LUNCHEON THE VERY NEXT DAY ON SUNDAY.

AND THEN I HAD A TOWN HALL WITH SUPERVISOR LONG.

SO WE HAD THE RESIDENTS THERE OF THE MOBILE HOME PARKS HAVE BROUGHT THEIR CONCERNS TO US.

WE WERE ABLE TO THROW TOGETHER A REAL QUICK TOWN HALL.

I THINK WE THREW IT TOGETHER IN THREE DAYS OR SOMETHING, BUT THERE'S ABOUT 50, 60 PEOPLE THERE.

SO IT WENT IT WENT PRETTY WELL. YEAH. AND THEN WE LISTENED TO THEIR CONCERNS AND WE HAD HARMONY, YOU KNOW, ADDRESS THE ISSUE. AND AND THEN WE HAD HARMONY COME BACK AGAIN.

SO WE'RE STILL GOING TO CONTINUE TO WORK WITH THAT.

AS YOU SAW EARLIER IN THE MEETING. AND THEN ON THE 20TH, I HAD A FIRE SAFE COUNCIL MEETING OUT IN MANTON.

THE 21ST, I HAD A CLEAR CREEK WATER DISTRICT MEETING.

THEY HAD A CLEAR CREEK WATER DISTRICT. HAPPY VALLEY.

THEY THEY HAVE A VERY AGING INFRASTRUCTURE. SO THEY'RE, THEY'RE CONSTANTLY PATCHING PIPES AND PATCHING LEAKS AND, AND THEY DON'T HAVE ENOUGH ISOLATION VALVES. SO WHEN THEY GET A BREAK, IT SHUTS OFF HALF THE COMMUNITY OUT THERE.

SO THEY HAD NINE BREAKS IN TWO WEEK PERIOD BEFORE THIS LAST MEETING.

SO THEY GOT A GOOD NEW DIRECTOR THOUGH, AND THEY GOT A GOOD BOARD.

SO I MEAN, THEY'RE DOING EVERYTHING THEY POSSIBLY CAN. THE NEXT NIGHT I MISSED THE HAPPY VALLEY FIREWISE MEETING BECAUSE I WAS ROASTED AT A FUNDRAISER WITH SUPERVISOR CRYE AND VANESSA AUDET AND AARON REZNOR AND BRENDA HAINES.

AND THEN WE HAD A CHAMBER MIXER IN COTTONWOOD ON MAIN STREET ON THE 23RD.

AND THEN I WAS AT A RALLY AT THE RIVER YESTERDAY.

SO THAT CONCLUDES MY REPORT. AND I GUESS WE'LL GET BY WITHOUT SUPERVISOR CRYE REPORT.

SO MOVING ON TO PUBLIC COMMENT. DO WE HAVE SOME PUBLIC COMMENT?

[PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD - OPEN TIME]

OF COURSE CHAIR. WE HAVE 24 IN PERSON SPEAKERS.

FIRST UP ASHLEY, FOLLOWED BY DON DUCKETT, STEVE CONN, THEN LARRY S IF I CALLED YOUR NAME, PLEASE GET IN QUEUE. YEAH. ASHLEY. NOT SEEING ASHLEY.

DON. COME ON UP.

IT'S STILL MORNING. SO GOOD MORNING BOARD. I RECENTLY HEARD DISTRICT FIVE CANDIDATE MIKE GALLAGHER MAKE A STATEMENT THAT REALLY RESONATED WITH ME.

HE SAID THAT THE FIRST STEP TOWARDS STABILIZING THE COUNTY'S BUDGET IS ACKNOWLEDGING THAT WE HAVE A SERIOUS FINANCIAL PROBLEM LOOMING.

[02:45:01]

I COULD NOT AGREE MORE. YET, WEEK AFTER WEEK, THIS BOARD DEVOTES CONSIDERABLE TIME AND ENERGY TO AGENDA ITEMS THAT GENERATE LENGTHY DISCUSSIONS AND PRODUCE LITTLE, IF ANY, MEASURABLE BENEFIT TO THE CITIZENS OF THIS COUNTY.

MEANWHILE, THE COUNTY'S FINANCIAL CHALLENGES REMAIN, WITH A NEW BOARD ON THE HORIZON.

I WOULD URGE YOU TO FOCUS YOUR ATTENTION TOWARDS THE COUNTY'S FINANCIAL FUTURE.

SOLVENCY. THAT MEANS. WELL, FIRST, I WOULD LIKE TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I APPRECIATE THIS BOARD'S EFFORTS IN COST SAVING MEASURES THAT YOU'VE ASKED THE HHS TO DO.

I THINK THAT YOU COULD TAKE IT A STEP FURTHER AND LOOK AT THE COUNTY AS A WHOLE, AND SPECIFICALLY OUR GENERAL FUND.

AND THAT MEANS IDENTIFYING STRUCTURAL PROBLEMS, ESTABLISHING SPENDING PRIORITIES, MAKING THE DIFFICULT DECISIONS NECESSARY TO PUT SHASTA COUNTY ON A SUSTAINABLE FINANCIAL PATH. FOR THOSE SUPERVISORS PREPARING TO LEAVE OFFICE, I WOULD HOPE THAT YOUR FINAL PRIORITY WOULD BE TO LEAVE SHASTA COUNTY IN A BETTER POSITION THAN YOU FOUND IT.

THAT WOULD BE A LEGACY WORTH LEAVING. THANK YOU.

NEXT UP, STEVE KARN, FOLLOWED BY LARRY S SHASTA COUNTY WATCHDOG, THEN LAURA HOBBS.

THE ELECTION IS UPON US. THE OUTCOME OF THIS ELECTION IS VERY IMPORTANT.

KELSTROM IS UP FOR REELECTION, BUT WE REALLY NEED TO CONSIDER THE DECISIONS THAT HE'S MADE WITH THE BOARD MAJORITY.

HE CHOSE TO SEND A LETTER OF OPPOSITION TO THE STATE OPPOSING A $200 MILLION BEHAVIORAL HEALTH CAMPUS, A CAMPUS THAT WOULDN'T HAVE COST THE COUNTY A PENNY.

BEHAVIORAL HEALTH TREATMENT THAT SHASTA COUNTY DESPERATELY NEEDS, SOMETHING THAT WOULD HAVE HELPED THE TREATMENT OF MENTALLY ILL AND DRUG ADDICTED.

IT WOULD HAVE PROVIDED FAMILIES THE ABILITY TO GET TREATMENT FOR FAMILY MEMBERS.

INSTEAD OF TRAVELING HUNDREDS OF MILES LOCALLY.

THIS IS A HUGE BURDEN ON FAMILIES. TREATING FAMILY MEMBERS SUCH A LONG DISTANCE AWAY IS NOT NEARLY AS EFFECTIVE AS HAVING FAMILY AND SUPPORT.

CLOSE BEHAVIORAL HEALTH CAMPUS ALSO WOULD HAVE REDUCED THE BURDEN ON OUR EMERGENCY ROOMS. IT WOULD HAVE HELPED OUR COMMUNITY IN SO MANY WAYS.

KELSTROM AND THE VOTE AND THE BOARD MAJORITY SENT A LETTER OF OPPOSITION.

LIVES WILL BE LOST. PEOPLE WILL SUFFER BECAUSE OF KELSTROM DECISION TO SIGN A LETTER OF OPPOSITION.

THEN WE HAVE KELSTROM AND THE BOARD MAJORITY AT THE TIME, BYPASSING THE COURT SYSTEM AND VOTING TO GIVE KELSTROM FRIEND CROP HALLER $2.8 MILLION IN A LAWSUIT THAT CROP HALLER VERY LIKELY WOULD HAVE LOST.

LET'S NOT FORGET KELSTROM LIES. I THINK WE HAVE.

WE'VE ONLY GOT TIME FOR ONE, BUT IT'S AN OBVIOUS ONE.

IT'S THE ONE WE SUFFER FROM RIGHT HERE. AT EVERY MEETING.

HE HAS RESTRICTED THE PUBLIC'S ABILITY TO SPEAK.

THEN HE PROMISED THAT IF IN CALL SPEAKERS WERE NOT A PROBLEM, TAKING UP MASSIVE AMOUNTS OF TIME, THAT HE WOULD AGAIN GIVE US BACK SOME OF THOSE RIGHTS TO SPEAK.

HE HAS NOT. HE LIED TO US. KELSTROM THE PUZZLER.

PLEASE VOTE MIKE GALLAGHER FOR DISTRICT FIVE.

SUPERVISOR LET'S START GETTING SOME WORK DONE.

NEXT UP, LARRY S NOT SEEING LARRY S COME ON UP.

SHASTA COUNTY WATCHDOG, FOLLOWED BY LAURA HOBBS, BEV, THEN KATHY.

IF I CALLED YOUR NAME, PLEASE GET IN QUEUE. YES.

TWO MINUTES SUCKS TO CONTINUE TO BE ABLE TO HAVE TWO MINUTES.

OUR CONSTITUTION RIGHTS. YOU THE CONSTITUTION PERSON WHO CLAIMS TO BE A CONSTITUTION.

YOU VIOLATE PEOPLE'S RIGHTS. FIRST THING I WANT TO GIVE YOU HERE IS THAT YOU SHOULD.

AT THE LAST MEETING, YOU AS A CHAIR SHOULD STOP THE DAMN MEETING.

WHEN NICK GARNER ACTUALLY THREATENED SOMEBODY WITH A GUN TO SHOOT HIM.

YOU SHOULD HAVE. YOU SHOULD HAVE STOPPED THAT.

YOU SHOULD HAVE SHUT DOWN THE MEETING, NICK, AND INTERRUPT.

YOU SHUT DOWN THE MEETING WITH JENNY GETS UP HERE WITH THE SIGN, BUT YET YOU DON'T STOP THE MEETING TO HAVE HIM SEARCH FOR HIS GUN THAT HE CARRIES ON HIS ANKLE. THE DEPUTY SHOULD HAVE STOPPED THIS MEETING.

THEY SHOULD HAVE SEARCHED HIM. BECAUSE UNDER CALIFORNIA PENAL CODE 422.

PC, THAT IS A CRIME. WHEN YOU THREATEN SOMEBODY, YOU SHOULD HAVE SHUT DOWN THIS MEETING AND YOU DID IT.

YOU FAILED THE PUBLIC. YOU FAILED TO KEEP US SAFE.

BUT YET YOU STOPPED THE MEETING FOR JENNY. JUST HOLDING A SIGN.

ARE YOU KIDDING ME? WHERE'S YOUR PRIORITIES? DO YOU HAVE ANY? OR HAVE YOU LOST THEM BECAUSE YOU WERE TRYING TO FIGHT FOR YOUR SEAT? BECAUSE YOU ACTUALLY VOTED FOR YOURSELF TO BE ABLE TO.

TO MAKE SURE YOU HAVE A GOOD JOB OVER BECAUSE YOU WEREN'T MAKING MONEY BEING A GROCERY GUY IN A GROCERY STORE.

ARE YOU KIDDING ME? YOU CONSTANTLY DO THIS TO US AND YOU EXPECT US TO TRUST YOU.

AND HERE WE GOT CORKY, WHO ACTUALLY IS ANOTHER PERSON WHO ACTUALLY VIOLATES THE LAWS OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST MAKING CONTRACTS.

[02:50:05]

DID YOU KNOW WHEN THEY FIND HIM GUILTY THAT ACTUALLY HE WILL BE? ACTUALLY, HE WILL NEVER BE. HE WILL NEVER BE QUALIFIED TO RUN AND HE ACTUALLY WILL BE DISQUALIFIED.

ANY CONTRACT THAT IS MADE IN CONFLICT OF INTEREST, YOU GUYS WILL BE PROSECUTED.

AND YOU WILL NEVER, EVER, EVER BE ABLE TO HOLD OFFICE AGAIN.

THIS LOSS IS WHY I PULLED FROM MY BOOK FROM THE ATTORNEY GENERAL.

AND YET HE HAD LESLIE SAWYER READ THE CONFIDENTIAL EMAILS.

YET HE'S STILL SITTING THERE. YOU'RE NOT GOING TO BE SITTING THERE LONG.

NEXT UP, LAURA HOBBS, FOLLOWED BY BEV CATHY OR BORGAL AND THEN ROY VINCENT.

NOT SEEING LAURA. BEV, COME ON UP. OH, COME ON UP, LAURA.

COME IN. HELLO. MORNING. I'M SPEAKING AS A PRIVATE INDIVIDUAL, NOT AS AN EMPLOYEE OF SHASTA COUNTY.

FOR ANYONE WITH QUESTIONS. SO BASICALLY WHAT I WANT TO TALK ABOUT IS THE ELECTIONS.

WHAT'S HAPPENING RIGHT NOW IS ELECTION INTERFERENCE.

CLINT CURTIS HAS NOT BEEN GIVEN ACCESS TO ALL THAT HE NEEDS TO CONDUCT THIS ELECTION.

AND I BELIEVE THE COUNTY IS CULPABLE FOR THAT.

IT SEEMS THAT THE COUNTY IS ACTING IN A COORDINATED FASHION TO INTERFERE WITH THIS ELECTION.

HE'S NOT BEEN GIVEN ACCESS TO THE THINGS HE NEEDS, INCLUDING PROPER LIGHTING, COMPUTER ACCESS, SIMPLE NECESSITIES NEEDED TO CONDUCT AN ELECTION.

AND I'M CONCERNED. IF THIS ENDS UP BEING SOMETHING WHERE THE COUNTY IS INDEED ACTING TOGETHER IN UNISON AND COORDINATION, SUCH AS LIKE A RICO SCENARIO, THEN ALL OF YOU GUYS CAN BE HELD RESPONSIBLE.

AND I THINK THIS IS A DISSERVICE TO THE CITIZENS OF SHASTA COUNTY.

I KNOW YOU THINK THIS IS FUNNY, JOSEPH LAMORE, BUT IF WE WERE TO USE THE ANALOGY OF A CRIMINAL SYNDICATE, YOU WOULD BE THE HEAD MAFIOSO BEHIND THIS BECAUSE YOU ARE ALSO RESPONSIBLE FOR THIS.

IT GOES THROUGHOUT ALL LEVELS, ALL DIFFERENT DEPARTMENTS OF SHASTA COUNTY, PERSONNEL, FACILITIES, ETCETERA. SO I WOULD LIKE YOU TO TAKE THIS SERIOUSLY AND START REVERSING COURSE.

GET CLINT CONYERS ALL THAT HE NEEDS TO CONDUCT THIS ELECTION SUCCESSFULLY.

THANK YOU. NEXT UP BEV, FOLLOWED BY CATHY, ROY, VINCENT, THEN ALEX.

IF I CALLED YOUR NAME, PLEASE GET IN QUEUE. WE HAVE HAD VOTING PROCEDURES THAT HAVE SELECTED THE WINNERS OF THE DIFFERENT RACES AND NOT ELECTED WINNERS FOR YEARS. JUST LETTING YOU KNOW OUR VOTER ROLLS ARE IN GREAT SHAPE TO HAVE ANOTHER FRAUDULENT ELECTION.

EVEN IF THE BALLOT COUNTS ARE ACCURATE, YOU CANNOT ELIMINATE THE COUNTERFEIT BALLOTS IN THE COUNT.

BECAUSE OF THE BOGUS LAWS THAT CALIFORNIA HAS PASSED TO MAKE FRAUD IN OUR ELECTIONS EASIER.

FRAUDULENT VOTERS ARE ON OUR VOTER ROLLS AND CANNOT BE REMOVED UNTIL THEY DON'T VOTE FOR SO MANY YEARS.

THEY ARE FRAUDULENT. THEY ARE NOT GOING TO EVER NOT VOTE AS NEEDED.

THANK YOU. NEXT UP, KATHY, FOLLOWED BY ROY, VINCENT, ALEX, THEN ALEC MCFARLAND.

GOOD MORNING, CHAIR AND SUPERVISORS. I'M KATHY BORGAL.

I LIVE AT 200 WILSHIRE DRIVE IN THE COUNTY, ABOUT TWO BLOCKS AWAY FROM THE HENDERSON DITCH.

SEVEN FAMILIES WERE FLOODED LAST DECEMBER WITH NEARLY $700,000 IN LOSSES.

A WATERSHED IS ALL THE LAND WHOSE RAIN RUNS TO ONE PLACE.

THE HENDERSON WATERSHED DITCH DRAINS ABOUT 275 ACRES, BUT KELLY LANE BUSINESSES, THE KMART CENTER, TWO SCHOOLS AND I FIVE. NONE OF THE WATER COMES FROM OUR NEIGHBORHOOD.

IN 1963, SHASTA COUNTY HAD ABOUT 66,000 PEOPLE.

TODAY IT HAS ABOUT 181,000. THE PAVEMENT GREW, BUT THE DITCH DIDN'T.

AND THIS DITCH ISN'T ON ANY STORM DRAIN MASTER PLAN THAT WE HAVE FOUND.

IN 1948, THE ROBBERS DEDICATED THIS DRAINAGE WAY SINGULAR, NOT PLURAL, FOR PUBLIC USE, FOREVER.

IN 1963, THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY WARNED THIS BOARD THAT IF THE FREEWAY ADDED WATER, THE COUNTY SHOULD APPROACH THE DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS TO ENLARGE THE DITCH AND THAT AN ACCEPTED DITCH MUST BE ADEQUATE TO ACCOMMODATE ANY FORESEEABLE RUNOFF.

THAT SAME YEAR, THE BOARD VOTED 4 TO 1 TO REPAIR IT.

IN 1968, THE COUNTY TOOK A GRANT DEED FOR THE REALIGNMENT OF HENDERSON DITCH.

[02:55:04]

IT ADOPTED RESOLUTION 68149, ASKING FOR THE DISTRICT FOR THE PURPOSE OF MAINTAINING AND IMPROVING IT.

THERE IS NO RECORD THAT IT WAS EVER FORMED. IT WAS SUPPOSEDLY SENT TO LAFCO AND THAT'S IT.

IN 1977, THE MAYOR OF REDDING SAID FROM 1948 TO 1969, THE COUNTY MAINTAINED THE DITCH ON THEIR OWN.

YOUR OWN PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR SAID THE HISTORY OUTLINE IS ACCURATE.

THE COUNTY MAINTAINED THIS DITCH FOR 21 YEARS.

THEN IT STOPS CLEARING. TODAY IS NOT A REPAIR.

THERE ARE STILL TWO LARGE BREAKS. I'M ASKING FOR THREE THINGS.

PUT THE HENDERSON DITCH AND THE WILSHIRE LATERAL ON A FUTURE AGENDA.

SIT DOWN WITH THE CITY AND CALTRANS AND PUT IN WRITING WHO OWNS AND WHO DRAINS INTO EACH SECTION.

NEXT UP, ROY VINCENT, FOLLOWED BY ALEX. MA'AM, YOUR TIME IS OVER.

ROY COME ON UP! FOLLOWED BY ALEX. ALAN MCFARLAND.

THEN MIKE. JAMES. HELLO, BOARD. I WISH I WAS UP HERE A LITTLE EARLIER IN THE DAY, BUT HERE WE ARE.

SO AS MATT PLUMMER SPOKE EARLIER IN HIS REPORT, HE CAME OUT TO OUR MEETING IN JONES VALLEY TALKING ABOUT THE WATER LOSS THAT WE HAD WITH THE PUMPS FAILED. SO THAT WAS GREAT.

IT WAS HIM. DAVID RICKERT, SOME COUNTY WORKS PUBLIC DIRECTOR OF THE NEWLY APPOINTED ONE IS ENGINEERING STAFF.

WE HAD CHANNEL SEVEN NEWS AND ABOUT 25 OR SO CITIZENS.

THE REASON I'M UP HERE TODAY IS TO KIND OF ADDRESS THAT.

BUT IT STARTED BACK IN 2018 WHEN RC, A RURAL COMMUNITY ASSISTANCE CORPORATION, WAS BROUGHT IN BY THE RATE PAYERS OUT THERE BECAUSE JB HAD SEVERE INFRASTRUCTURE PROBLEMS. IT TURNS OUT BACK THEN THAT THE MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD INCOME WAS NOT CALCULATED RIGHT FOR YEARS.

AND NOW, BECAUSE OF THEIR WORK, WE HAVE A CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN AND RESERVE FUNDING AND A FEW OTHER THINGS THAT WERE PUT IN PLACE.

PACE ENGINEERING A GO TO FOR SHASTA COUNTY HAS REALLY FAILED MISERABLY AND THEY.

BACK IN THE 2020, WE STARTED LOSING BRAND NEW PUMPS.

THEY CALLED IT DIRTY POWER. THEY PUT THE BLAME ON PGE, PGE SPOKEN HERE.

IT WAS THEIR ENGINEERING THAT WAS AT FAULT. DPW AND PACE FAIL TO OPERATE THE WALL RAW WATER PUMPS CORRECTLY THAT ARE OUT THERE NOW THAT JUST FAILED ON TEN DAYS OR THREE WEEKS AGO, WE WERE SUBJECTED OF FIVE DAYS WITHOUT WATER.

IT'S NOW COSTING US 18,000 PER MONTH FOR PUMPS.

THE STATE DIVISION OF DRINKING WATER NEEDS TO GET STEP IN.

OUR PROPERTY VALUES ARE DROPPING. BECAUSE OF THIS, THE NEW PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR IS SINCERE.

NEXT UP ALEX, FOLLOWED BY ALAN MACFARLANE, MIKE JAMES, THEN DANICA ADAMS. IF I CALLED YOUR NAME, PLEASE GET IN QUEUE. ALEX, COME ON UP.

GOOD MORNING. BEEN A WHILE. LAST TIME I TALKED ABOUT VETTING.

NOW I'M TALKING ABOUT ONE CITIZEN'S STANCE. THAT WOULD BE ME.

WHY? BECAUSE NOBODY ELSE WILL. YOUR HONESTY IS UNUSUAL. YOU ALWAYS SEEM TO BACK UP WITH A LAWYER OR SOME CONTRACT.

HERE'S THE FACT. WE GOT A BUNCH OF ILLEGALS TAKING UP THE JOBS, TAKING UP THE FOOD.

WE HAVE A WAR GOING ON OF WHICH THEY TAKE SUPPLY BECAUSE THEY NEED IT.

THEY HAVE A DEMAND FOR IT, SO THEY SEND IT OVERSEAS.

WHAT ABOUT US? HOME. BUT FIRST OF ALL, LET'S DEAL WITH THE CRIME.

WHEN WE DEAL WITH PEOPLE WHO DON'T HAVE ALL THEIR THOUGHTS AVAILABLE TO THEM, MENTAL, WHATEVER, MAYBE THEY'RE FROM A DIFFERENT COUNTRY.

WE HAVE TO GET ALONG. YOU HAVE TO HOLD THEM ACCOUNTABLE.

YOU HAVE TO PROVIDE ONE LAW FOR THE AMERICANS.

ONE LAW FOR THE CITIZENS, NOT TEN. NOT THE KIND WHERE YOU JUST LET THEM GO.

[03:00:01]

LET THEM GO, LET THEM GO. YOU THINK SOMEBODY'S GOING TO COME ON YOUR PROPERTY AND TRY TO KILL YOU, AND YOU'RE GOING TO LET THEM GO? THAT HAPPENS BECAUSE I CAN TELL YOU RIGHT NOW.

NEXT UP, ALAN MACFARLANE, MIKE JAMES, DANICA ADAMS, THEN MARGARET HANSON.

IF I CALLED YOUR NAME, PLEASE GET IN QUEUE. HI.

THIS HAS BEEN A REALLY WONDERFUL DAY. I'M GLAD TO WATCH IT.

I'VE BEEN TALKING TO YOU ABOUT SHASTA COUNTY SHERIFF EMPLOYEE AND WAS GENETICS, WHICH IS 100% INFALLIBLE. IF YOU HAVE THIS HDR ONE B GENE COME UP, YOU GOT BRAIN PARTS MISSING. YOU HAVE A PSYCHOTIC BREAK WITH REALITY GOING ON.

AND SOMEONE WHO WILL VIOLATE THE LAW, VIOLATE THE CONSTITUTION AND VIOLATE PEOPLE, AND THEY'RE A COUNTY EMPLOYEE, OR THEY'RE THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE, DENNIS HASTERT, OR THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, AND THEY'RE VERY GOOD AT ACTING. THEY'RE HARD TO DISCERN AND FIND OUT, PARTICULARLY IF IT'S A ONE ON ONE CONVERSATION.

NOW, THIS CHAP, HOW THIS WAS GOING ON RIGHT IN FRONT OF EVERYBODY AND THEY COULDN'T SEE IT.

WHAT'S GOING ON WITH THEM IS THAT THEY WERE RAISED IN A VIOLATOR FAMILY WHERE THEIR MOM AND DAD, ONE OR THE OTHER, WAS HAVING EXTRAMARITAL AFFAIRS, AND IT WAS DONE IN SECRET, AND THEY WERE DEVELOPMENTALLY DAMAGED OR DEVELOPMENTALLY RAISED THAT WAY. AND THEY WERE BLIND TO IT FROM CHILDHOOD.

A BLIND SPOT IN THEIR RADAR AND THEY COULDN'T SEE IT.

AND THE FIX FOR THAT IS TO GO FORWARD. AND HORMONE EVOLUTION, THE ADULT BRAIN.

RIGHT NOW, THEY STILL CURRENTLY HAVE A CROSS-WIRED TEENAGE BRAIN, EVEN THOUGH THEY'RE 30, 40, 50 YEARS OLD. AND YOU CAN HEAR HIM JUSTIFY IT AND COME UP WITH BS ABOUT WHY THEY'RE VIOLATING THE LAW, THE CONSTITUTION, AND PEOPLE. NEXT UP, MIKE JAMES, FOLLOWED BY DANICA ADAMS, MARGARET HANSON, DAVID HALLIGAN, THEN RALPH BARKLEY. IF I CALLED YOUR NAME, PLEASE GET IN QUEUE.

MIKE, COME ON UP. MY NAME IS MIKE JAMES. I LIVE IN DISTRICT FIVE.

I AM KIND OF AT A CROSSROADS RIGHT NOW BETWEEN VOTING FOR MR. KELSTROM AND MR. GALLAGHER. WE'RE AT A PRECIPICE HERE OF UNDERSTANDING THAT KELSTROM DOESN'T REALLY TAKE CARE OF OUR DISTRICT. BUT AT THE SAME TIME, MR. GALLAGHER WANTS TO TAKE CARE OF OUR DISTRICT.

BUT AT THE IN CONJUNCTION WITH. WE ALREADY HAVE MATT PLUMMER.

THAT IS A STAUNCH PERSON OF THE BETHEL CHURCH AND MIKE GALLAGHER IS A STAUNCH ADVOCATE OF THE BETHEL CHURCH. THE BETHEL CHURCH IS GROWING BY ABOUT 10%, ROUGHLY A YEAR OF WHO THEY BRING IN AND WHAT THEY DO IN THE AREA. IF YOU GET THREE MEMBERS OF THE BETHEL CHURCH ON THE SHASTA COUNTY BOARD, WE WILL BE GOVERNED BY ONE ENTITY, AND THAT IS A CHURCH.

I DON'T GO TO CHURCH. I DON'T CARE IF YOU DO OR YOU DON'T.

THAT'S YOUR CHOICE. BUT I DON'T WANT TO BE GOVERNED BY A CHURCH.

HAVING MORE THAN TWO BOARD MEMBERS FROM ANY GIVEN SECTOR.

COULD BE COLLUSION. AND WHEN MIKE GALLAGHER TAKES OVER KELSTROM SEAT.

ALL THEY'RE GOING TO NEED TO RUN THIS COUNTY IS ONE MORE SEAT.

TAKE IT FOR WHAT IT'S WORTH. NEXT UP, DANIKA ADAMS NOT SEEING DANIKA.

NOT SEEING MARGARET HANSON. DAVID, COME ON UP.

AFTER DAVID WE HAVE RALPH BARCLAY, ALISA BALLARD, THEN MELODY, IF I CALLED YOUR NAME, PLEASE GET IN QUEUE.

OKAY, ONE WEEK TO GO. PUBLIC RECORDS AND CHRIS KELSTROM CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURES REVEAL A DEEPLY TROUBLING TIME LINE, POINTING TO WHAT I SEE ARE MULTIPLE VIOLATIONS OF THE LEVINE ACT, WHICH STRICTLY PROHIBIT PAY TO PLAY VENDOR RELATIONSHIPS.

ON AUGUST 11TH, 2026, WITH SUPERVISOR KELSTROM PROCEEDING AS CHAIR, THIS BOARD APPROVED $155,000 MARKETING CONTRACT TO REDDING ADVERTISING DOING BUSINESS AS MEDIA PLUS. THIS PASSED ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR WITH NO DISCUSSION, NO DISCLOSURE, AND NO RECUSAL FROM YOU. SUPERVISOR KELSTROM.

[03:05:02]

YET PUBLIC RECORDS SHOW THAT JUST ONE MONTH PRIOR, ON JULY 6TH, MR. KELSTROM, YOUR CAMPAIGN PAID MEDIA PLUS $9,500 FOR CAMPAIGN MARKETING SERVICES.

BECAUSE OF THIS ACTIVE FINANCIAL RELATIONSHIP, THE.

THEY WORK FOR YOU. SIR, YOU HAD A LEGAL OBLIGATION TO DISCLOSE IT AND RECUSE YOURSELF FROM THE AUGUST 11TH VOTE.

YOU DIDN'T EITHER. FURTHERMORE, THE LEVINE ACT PROHIBITS AN OFFICIAL FROM ACCEPTING CONTRIBUTIONS OVER $500 FROM A CONTRACTOR OR THEIR AGENT FOR 12 MONTHS FOLLOWING A CONTRACT DECISION. DESPITE THIS, JUST TWO WEEKS LATER, ON AUGUST 26TH, MEDIA PLUS PRODUCER CHRISTINE ZAGHAWA CONTRIBUTED $400 TO YOUR CAMPAIGN.

AND ON SEPTEMBER 11TH, MISS SAGWA INJECTED ANOTHER $1,220.

THAT'S $1,620 IN CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS ACCEPTED FROM A COUNTY VENDOR AGENT WITHIN 30 DAYS OF A $155,000 PUBLIC CONTRACT APPROVED BY YOU, MR. KELSTROM. THIS IS A BLATANT DISREGARD OF THE STATE'S MANDATED 12 MONTH POST VOTE BLACKOUT WINDOW.

THESE PATTERNS, DONATIONS AND TIMELESS DEMANDS REQUIRE FULL ACCOUNTABILITY.

MR. KELSTROM I'VE SUBMITTED THIS IN ALL EVIDENCE TO THE FPC, CALLING FOR AN INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION INTO WHAT I SEE ARE PAY TO PLAY VIOLATIONS IN YOUR CURRENT DISTRICT FIVE CAMPAIGN. NEXT UP, RALPH BARKLEY.

NOT SEEING RALPH ELISA BALLARD AFTER ELISA WE HAVE MELODY, JIM BURNETT, ARNIE LIST, ANTONIA THEN KENNETH MICHOD.

IF I CALLED YOUR NAME, PLEASE GET IN QUEUE. GOOD MORNING.

ELISA BALLARD, SHASTA UNFILTERED REPORTER. I'M HERE ABOUT THE BOARD'S MARCH 2025 DECISION TO DEMOLISH THE OLD COURTHOUSE ANNEX AND JAIL.

MORE DETAIL IS IN MY OCTOBER 17TH ARTICLE. SUPERVISOR KELSTROM WAS THE ONLY VOTE AGAINST DEMOLITION.

AT THE END OF JUNE, I SUBMITTED A PUBLIC RECORDS REQUEST FOR ALL DOCUMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS RELATED TO THAT DECISION.

AFTER THREE AND A HALF MONTHS, THE COUNTY CLOSED THE REQUEST AND RELEASED ROUGHLY 50 DOCUMENTS.

WHAT I FOUND WAS A STRIKING LACK OF DUE DILIGENCE BY PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR TROY BARTOLOMEI.

HE PRESENTED FOUR OPTIONS WITH COST FIGURES, YET THE RECORDS CONTAIN NO SUPPORTING WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS.

INDEPENDENT ASSESSMENTS, INTERNAL EMAILS, MEETING NOTES OR CONTRACTOR COST ESTIMATES.

THERE IS NO EVIDENCE HE CONSULTED WITH CONTRACTORS ABOUT ASBESTOS REMOVAL AND REPURPOSING OR DEPARTMENT HEADS ABOUT POTENTIAL USES OF THE BUILDINGS.

HE APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN THE SOLE DECISION MAKER AND STEERED THE BOARD TOWARD DEMOLITION.

AN ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT CONFIRMS ASBESTOS REMAINS, BUT MOST WAS REMOVED DURING THE 1993 REMODEL.

WHAT IS LEFT IS LIMITED AND ENCAPSULATED, BARTOLOMEI TOLD THE ASSESSMENT FIRM.

THE WORK WAS FOR DEMOLITION PURPOSES BEFORE HE PRESENTED THE OPTIONS TO YOU.

THAT CHOICE BELONGED TO THE BOARD, NOT HIM. HE NEVER OBTAINED A BID TO REMOVE THE ASBESTOS.

STRUCTURAL ENGINEER JOHN DUNLAP, WHO OVERSAW THE 1993 REMODEL, RECENTLY RECEIVED A TELEPHONE BID OF APPROXIMATELY $486,000 FROM A LOCAL FIRM. THAT OPTION WAS NEVER BROUGHT TO YOU.

THE MAIN COURTHOUSE WAS LISTED AT 48,000FT², WITH A REMODEL COST OF 16.6 MILLION $346 PER SQUARE FOOT.

THAT BUILDING IS STRUCTURALLY SOUND. WHY WOULD EVERY SQUARE FOOT NEED FULL REMODELING AT A NEW CONSTRUCTION COST? IT NEEDS A NEW AIR CONDITIONING SYSTEM AND POSSIBLY ROOF WORK.

MEANWHILE, THE COUNTY CONTINUES LEASING PRIVATELY OWNED.

NEXT UP. MELODY. NOT SEEING. MELODY. JIM. COME ON UP.

FOLLOWED BY ANI LIST AND THEN ANTONIO. IF I CALLED YOUR NAME, PLEASE GET IN QUEUE.

GOOD AFTERNOON. FIRST, I WANT TO THANK THE BOARD FOR REVISITING THE STATUS OF THE COURTHOUSE IN CORKY FOR BRINGING IT UP AGAIN, BECAUSE IT NEVER DID SEEM RIGHT TO ME THAT THAT THING SHOULD JUST BE DEMOLISHED AND THEN MADE A PARKING LOT.

SO I APPRECIATE THAT. SECONDLY AS YOU KNOW, I'VE BEEN BEATING THE DRUM FOR ELECTION INTEGRITY.

AND SO ONCE AGAIN, I'M DISAPPOINTED WITH THIS BOARD FOR FOR MONTHS AND MONTHS OF HOBBLING MR. CURTIS AND PREVENTING HIM FROM DOING A GOOD JOB, HE WAS HE WAS BROUGHT HERE TO OPEN UP THE PROCESS, WHICH HE DID. IT'S A LOT MORE TRANSPARENT. COUNTING VOTES IS VERY SIMPLE, BUT THE MANIPULATION OF BALLOTS IS NOT.

BUT HE'S, HE'S OPENED EVERYTHING UP FOR PUBLIC SCRUTINY SO THAT YOU CAN SEE THAT CHEATING AND MANIPULATION COULD NOT OCCUR WITHOUT IT BEING VERY OBVIOUS. AND WHAT WE, WHAT WE FIND WITH THIS BOARD IS THEY KEEP ON GETTING IN THE WAY OF HIS EVEN BEING ABLE TO PERFORM DUTIES THERE. FOR ONE THING, HE STILL CAN'T SEE VIDEOS.

VIDEO RECORDINGS OF ACTIONS THAT OCCURRED MONTHS AGO.

[03:10:01]

THESE ARE VIDEOS THAT ARE OFFERED. OFFERED TO EVERY BUSINESS I KNOW OF.

AND HE CAN'T. HE CAN'T REVIEW THEM FOR SOME REASON.

THEY'RE SEQUESTERED AND PEOPLE ARE GOING THROUGH THEM AND TRYING TO BLUR OUT PEOPLE'S FACES WHEN THOSE FACES ARE ACTUALLY STAFF MEMBERS.

BREAKING PROTOCOL. WE WANT TO KNOW WHY THEY BROKE PROTOCOL, WHAT WAS GOING ON WITH THAT? HOW CAN WE HAVE OUR TRUST IN AN ELECTIONS DEPARTMENT IF WE DON'T KNOW WHAT'S GOING ON? AND YOU'RE COUNTENANCING THIS, SO PLEASE STOP IT.

GIVE HIM WHAT HE NEEDS. THANK YOU. NEXT UP, ANI LIST, FOLLOWED BY ANTONIA.

HI. GOOD AFTERNOON. I JUST WANT TO START OUT BY REAL QUICK.

CHRIS, I'M STILL WAITING FOR YOUR ANSWER ON THE CHALLENGE TO MEET WITH CLINT CURTIS IN OPEN FORUM AND ACCEPT QUESTIONS BY THE MEDIA LIVE WITH NO PRE NOTICE OF WHAT THOSE QUESTIONS WOULD BE. I WILL CUT YOU SOME SLACK BECAUSE IF YOU'RE BEING MANIPULATED BY UNION WORKERS AND BEING GIVEN AN ACCURATE INFORMATION, MAYBE YOU DON'T KNOW THE TRUTH ABOUT WHATEVER THOSE DOCUMENTS ARE THAT THEY FOUND.

BUT I PRIMARILY CAME HERE TO LET EVERYBODY HERE KNOW.

I DID CALL THE DOJ ABOUT THE 2024 ELECTION AND THE DESTRUCTION OF THE DOCUMENTS.

I HAD A SEVEN PLUS MINUTE CONVERSATION YESTERDAY WITH ERIC GRANT'S OFFICE.

AND THE FIRST TIME I DID THIS THAT RESULTED IN THE INVESTIGATION INTO THE 2026 ELECTION, WHICH IS ONGOING NOW.

SO I'M JUST GIVING YOU THAT HEADS UP. BUT MY OTHER THING IS, IT'S CLEAR TO ME THAT THE WEAKEST LINK ON THIS WHOLE BOARD IS DAVE RICKERT. DAVE, I WANT TO GIVE YOU A LITTLE BIT OF INPUT.

AND I KNOW YOU'RE SMILING OVER THERE, BUT YOU MAY NOT BE SMILING.

ARE YOU AWARE THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP JUST PUT OUT A $1 MILLION REWARD FOR PEOPLE WHO GIVE INFORMATION THAT LEADS TO ARRESTS OF ELECTION FRAUD. SO A COUPLE OF THINGS. ARE YOU AWARE THAT THERE ARE THREE WHISTLEBLOWERS AND THREE OF THEM? THE THIRD ONE NAMED NAMES, DAVE JOE LARMER. IF YOU'RE SITTING ACROSS FROM THE FBI AND THE DOJ IS NOT GOING TO HELP YOU.

HE IS NOT A PROSECUTOR AND HE'S NOT GOING TO BE THERE BY YOUR SIDE.

YOU'RE GOING TO BE LOOKING AT A POTENTIAL TO A VERY DIFFERENT FUTURE FOR YOURSELF WHEN YOU'RE SITTING ACROSS THE TABLE FROM THE DOJ AND THE FBI. AND IF THERE WAS CRIMINALITY HERE AND YOU KNOW ABOUT IT, I'M POSITIVE THAT YOU'RE BECOMING AWARE OF THE NEWLY ELECTED ROV THAT ARE MAKING YOU UNCOMFORTABLE AS MORE AND MORE THINGS COME OUT YOUR WINDOW OF OPPORTUNITY.

DAVE IS RUNNING OUT. I WOULD IMPLORE YOU TO DO.

NEXT UP ANTONIA. COME ON UP, ANTONIA. OKAY. SHE PASSES KENNETH MASHHAD.

NOT SEEING KENNETH. SAVE OUR CHILDREN, UPPER NORTHERN CALIFORNIA. OH, SORRY ABOUT THAT.

GOOD MORNING. BOARD. MY NAME IS KEN MASHHAD. I LIVE IN COTTONWOOD. IN SEPTEMBER 2025, THE BOARD APPROVED SPENDING $135,000 FOR CAMERAS AND EQUIPMENT TO LIVE STREAM AND RECORD THE BALLOT TABULATION PROCESS TO REVEAL OR PREVENT ANY MANIPULATION OF BALLOTS OR VOTE COUNT.

ROV CLINT CURTIS HAS CONDUCTED TWO ELECTIONS IN NOVEMBER 2025 AND THIS PAST JUNE.

USING THE CAMERA AND VIDEO SYSTEM. BUT I ASK ROV CURTIS AND I HOPE THE BOARD ASKS, WHERE'S THE BEEF? WHAT ARE THE RESULTS? 55,391 BALLOTS WERE CAST AND THE JUST PAST JUNE PRIMARY.

HOW MANY OF THOSE 55,391 BALLOTS APPEAR ON THE VIDEO FOR $135,000? ROV CURTIS SHOULD BE ABLE TO EASILY PROVIDE THIS NUMBER.

ALSO, WHERE IS THE COMPARISON OF THE VOTES COUNT FROM THE VIDEOS TO THE VOTE COUNT FROM THE TABULATORS? THAT IS THE WHOLE POINT OF SPENDING THE $135,000, BUT WE HAVE NOTHING TO DATE.

ROV CURTIS WILL BE GONE IN JANUARY BEFORE HE GOES.

THE BOARD AND THE VOTERS SHOULD GET THEIR $135,000 WORTH.

MR. CURTIS GOT HIS 135,000. WHEN DO WE GET RESULTS? HOW MANY OF THE 55,390 1ST JUNE BALLOTS WERE VIDEOED? AND HOW DOES THE VIDEO COUNT COMPARE TO THE TABULATOR COUNTS? LET'S HAVE SOME ACCOUNTABILITY FOR THAT $135,000.

THANK YOU. AND THAT CONCLUDES OUR 30 MINUTES.

THE CHAIR HAS AGREED TO EXTEND OUR TIME TO ALLOW THE NEXT TWO SPEAKERS SAVE OUR CHILDREN UP FOR NORTHERN CALIFORNIA AND THEN NICK GARDNER.

GOOD AFTERNOON. NOW, OFFICIALLY, THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR ALLOWING ME THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK TO YOU GUYS TODAY ON A VERY DIFFICULT TOPIC TO NOT ONLY TALK ABOUT,

[03:15:05]

BUT LISTEN TO. I AM HERE TO REPRESENT AND ADVOCATE FOR CHILDREN ALL OVER THE WORLD, INCLUDING OUR LOCAL COUNTY, TO END CHILD SEX TRAFFICKING, CHILD SEXUAL EXPLOITATION, AND THE ABUSE OF WOMEN AND CHILDREN.

NOW, THIS IS A TOPIC I HEAR FAR TOO LITTLE ABOUT, AND WE HAVE AN EXCEEDINGLY LARGE PROBLEM HERE IN SHASTA COUNTY.

AS MANY OF YOU HAVE HEARD, WE HAVE A MASSIVE INFLUX OF EXTREMELY HIGH RISK PAROLEES, INCLUDING MANY SEXUAL PREDATORS AND SEXUAL OFFENDERS THAT ARE RELEASED INTO OUR COUNTY THROUGH MULTIPLE PROGRAMS, INCLUDING TRANSITIONAL HOUSING LIKE NO BOUNDARIES TRANSITIONAL HOUSING PROGRAM AND THE NEW LIFE DISCOVERY PROJECT, WHICH ARE PRIVATE NON-PROFITS AND HAVE A HISTORY OF OF CONFLICT OF INTERESTS IN THEIR FINANCING.

WHERE IS THAT FUNDING GOING? WHERE IS IT COMING FROM? AND HOW IS IT BENEFITING OUR COUNTY TO HAVE BETWEEN 350 TO 450 SEXUAL AND VIOLENT PREDATORS RELEASED IN OUR COUNTY EVERY YEAR? THIS HAS BEEN GOING ON FOR WELL OVER A DECADE.

HOW IS THIS HELPING OUR COMMUNITY? THERE'S A LOT OF QUESTIONS THAT NEED TO BE ANSWERED, SUCH AS IF YOU ARE PUTTING 350 TO 400 PREDATORS IN OUR COMMUNITY EVERY YEAR FOR A DECADE, HOW MANY CRIMINALS, POOR CITIZENS PER CITIZENS CAPITA HAS BEEN INCREASING IN REDDING ALONE IN THIS AMOUNT OF TIME. AND IN WHAT WAY IS THIS BENEFITING OUR COMMUNITY.

IT ISN'T. IT IS INCREASINGLY PUTTING OUR CHILDREN, OUR WOMEN AND OUR FAMILIES IN MASSIVE, HIGH RISK. THEY ARE BEING FULLY FUNDED BY TAXPAYER DOLLARS.

THEY ARE FILLING THE HOTELS AND COMMUNITIES. THE SHERIFF AND THE POLICE DEPARTMENT HAVE SPOKEN PUBLICLY ABOUT THIS AND ARE VERY UNHAPPY ABOUT IT.

THEY ARE EVEN NICK GARDENER. NICK, COME ON UP.

WE NEED TO END THE NO BOUNDARIES PROGRAM. RETROACTIVE ABORTION FOR PEDOPHILES.

THAT'LL WORK. LISTEN, I'M THE NEIGHBOR OF KATHY BOURDELLE, AND I'M REAL FAMILIAR WITH THE HENDERSON DITCH OVERFLOW PROBLEM.

FLOODING PROBLEM. AND THE CITY OF REDDING IS TRYING TO STICK IT, TRYING TO SAY THAT THAT'S A PRIVATELY OWNED DITCH, WHICH IS A BUNCH OF BULL. SO I WONDER IF, IF ONE OF YOU SUPERVISORS OR A COUPLE OF.

YOU WOULD PUT TOGETHER SOME FORUMS WHERE WE COULD GET BOTH SIDES TOGETHER AND GET A MEDIATOR AND GET THIS SETTLED.

CATHY BOARD GOT A LOT OF INFORMATION, A LOT OF STUDYING, AND WE'VE GOT A REALLY, REALLY GOOD SOLID ARGUMENT. BUT IT SEEMS LIKE THEY'RE JUST KICKING THE CAN DOWN THE ROAD AND THEY DON'T REALLY CARE IF WE GET FLOODED.

THEY'VE ADMITTED THEY'RE RESPONSIBLE FOR UPKEEP ON THE DITCH AS FAR AS LEAKS GO.

THEY HAVEN'T EVEN ATTEMPTED TO FIX ANY OF THE LEAKS.

THEY CLAIM THEY'RE GOING TO CLEAN IT OUT A ONE TIME BASIS, WHICH IS GOING TO COST A MEASLY $2,000, BUT THEY WON'T CONFIRM OR COMMIT TO DO ANY MORE THAN THAT.

IT'S 100% THEIR WATER, AND I JUST WISH SOMEBODY WOULD TAKE THE INITIATIVE TO GET THE PARTIES TOGETHER AND FIND A MEDIATION.

OKAY. THANK YOU. NICK. I THINK THAT THE NEXT COUNCILMAN, THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO BRING THAT FORWARD? YEAH, THEY'RE GOING TO KICK THE ROAD DOWN. THEY'RE TRYING TO TELL THE BROTHERS THEY OWN THAT DITCH.

THEY'VE NEVER COLLECTED ANY TAXES ON IT. HOW CAN THEY SAY THEY OWN IT? THERE'S SO MUCH INFORMATION. AND THE CITY OF REDDING IS GIVING OUT MISINFORMATION AND THEY'RE BEING DISHONEST.

THEY'RE TRYING TO TELL US, THE PROPERTY OWNERS, THAT WE'RE RESPONSIBLE TO CLEAN IT OUT.

ALL THE TRASH, ALL THE HOMELESS TRASH, ALL THAT KIND OF STUFF.

I'M NOT DONE YET, CHRIS. I KNOW, BUT YOUR TIME SAYS YOU ARE.

THANK YOU. NICK. OKAY. SO I WOULD GO RIGHT TO CONSENT, BUT WE HAD AN ITEM PULLED, SO WE WE NEED TO.

WELL, WE NEED TO BREAK AT NOON, SO WE'RE GOING TO GO TO CLOSED SESSION AND DO WE HAVE ANY PUBLIC COMMENT ON CLOSED SESSION ITEMS. WE DO. IF YOU'D LIKE TO TAKE AT LEAST THE REMAINDER OF THE CONSENT WITH THE EXCEPTION OF C TWO.

OKAY. WE COULD CERTAINLY DO THAT IF YOU WANTED TO. AND THEN WE DO HAVE THREE SPEAKERS FOR CLOSED SESSION. OKAY. I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION FOR THE REMAINDER OF CONSENT MINUS C 22.

I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE CONSENT MINUS C 22.

ALL RIGHT. MOTION MADE BY SUPERVISOR PLUMMER.

SECONDED BY SUPERVISOR LONG. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? AYE.

ANY OPPOSED? PASSES FIVE ZERO. OKAY. NOW CLOSED SESSION PUBLIC COMMENT FOR ITEM R NINE.

WE HAVE ONE SPEAKER SHASTA COUNTY WATCHDOG FOR ITEM R TEN.

WE HAVE TWO SPEAKERS SHASTA COUNTY WATCHDOG THEN BEV.

[03:20:12]

I'M GOING OFF FOR R TEN. IS THAT THE CLOSED SESSION NINE AND R TEN.

BUT THIS IS R NINE. OKAY WELL I GUESS I'LL HAVE TO WAIT.

DID YOU CALL ME ON R NINE. YES. THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE UP HERE FOR.

NEGOTIATION. I'LL SKIP THAT ONE. I'LL WAIT FOR NUMBER TEN.

OKAY. OKAY. GO AHEAD. YOUR FIRST STEP. NUMBER TEN.

OKAY. ALL RIGHT. REGARDING THE R TEN, IT SAYS HERE POTENTIAL LITIGATION.

OKAY. POTENTIAL WHATEVER. LAWSUIT. OKAY. ALL THE LAWSUITS THAT THEY'RE PROBABLY I DON'T KNOW WHICH ONES IT IS, BUT IF YOU GET ANY FROM THE ELECTION OFFICE, THEN ALSO I NEED YOU TO CONSIDER WHAT YOU DONE.

YOU MADE A BIGGEST MISTAKE EVER TO PUT CLINT CURTIS.

YOU KNOW, THAT LAWSUIT PENDING IN FLORIDA, HE ACTUALLY WAS SUED BECAUSE HE WAS ACTUALLY CLAIMED TO BE A LAWYER AND HAD A CLAIM TO REPRESENT A CLIENT PRACTICING LAW WITHOUT A LICENSE.

YOU HIRE SOMEONE WHO ACTUALLY DID NOT QUALIFY, WHO MADE A CHAOS IN THIS COUNTY.

NOW YOU NEED TO DO SOMETHING. WHY HAVEN'T YOU DONE ANYTHING? WHY HAVEN'T YOU FILED SOMETHING AGAINST HIM? WHAT ARE YOU AFRAID OF? YOU SHOULD BE MORE AFRAID WHAT HE'S GOING TO DO.

ALL THESE LAWSUITS ARE GOING TO BE COMING FROM ALL THESE PEOPLE WHO COME UP HERE.

LAURA, HUB, ALL THESE PEOPLE, YOU KNOW. I MEAN, IT'S RIDICULOUS.

YOU CAUSED THIS PROBLEM TO. TO THE COUNTY. YOU CALLED CHRIS.

YOU'VE BEEN UP THERE. HOW LONG DO YOU THINK YOU GOT JOKER OVER THERE LAUGHING ALL THE TIME LIKE A LAUGHING GALLINA.

KEVIN CRYE. THEN YOU GOT THIS OTHER JOKER NEXT TO YOU.

YOU GUYS MADE THE BIGGEST MISTAKE EVER TO RUIN OUR COUNTY.

AND THEN YOU HAVE POTENTIAL WITHOUT EVEN IDENTIFYING THE POTENTIAL LAWSUITS.

WHAT A JOKE. YOU SCREW UP THE COUNTY. WHY ARE YOU STILL SITTING THERE? WHY HAVEN'T YOU TAKEN ACTION? THE BOARD HAS POWER.

YOU TALK ABOUT THE POWER YOU HAVE. WHAT HAPPENED TO YOU? YOU LOST YOUR POWER. OR DID YOU LOSE YOUR BACKBONE? NEXT UP, BEV. IF THE LITIGATION HAS ANYTHING TO DO WITH CLINT CURTIS, YOU SHOULD CONSIDER SETTLING. SETTLING OUT OF COURT WILL PROBABLY BE MUCH CHEAPER FOR YOU.

SHASTA COUNTY HAS CONSPIRED AGAINST HIM SINCE BEFORE HE STARTED.

CAN YOU SAY YOU DID NOT CONTRIBUTE TO THAT? WITH EVERYTHING THIS COUNTY HAS PUT HIM THROUGH, I'M SURE HE COULD WRITE A BEST SELLER BOOK. ALL HE HAS EVER WANTED TO DO IS HAVE HONEST AND TRANSPARENT ELECTIONS, AND THAT IS STILL HIS PRIORITY. THANK YOU. THAT WAS OUR LAST SPEAKER, CHAIR.

ALL RIGHT. ESTIMATED TIME IS 25 MINUTES. I DON'T THINK IT'S GOING TO TAKE THAT LONG.

SO WE WILL SAY WE WILL NOT BE BACK HERE BEFORE 1235.

ARE WE RECESS? CHAIR? YES WE ARE. RECESS. OKAY.

[CLOSED SESSION ANNOUNCEMENT]

WITH THAT, I JUST ASK THAT WE CLEAR THE CHAMBERS FOR CLOSED SESSION.

I'LL REOPEN THE DOORS ONCE THE BOARD GOES BACK INTO OPEN SESSION.

THANK YOU. I DON'T KNOW. OKAY. COMING BACK FROM CLOSED SESSION.

COUNSEL LARMER DO WE HAVE ANY REPORTABLE ACTION ITEMS? R TEN AND R NINE WERE HEARD IN CLOSED SESSION.

THERE IS NO REPORTABLE ACTION. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU.

SO WE'LL MOVE ON. WE PASS THE REST OF THE CONSENT CALENDAR. MOVE ON TO C 22.

[CONSENT CALENDAR]

[C22 Take the following actions: (1) Waive competitive procurement requirements; (2) approve the purchase of night vision goggles from Tactical Night Vision Company; and (3) approve a budget amendment which increases appropriations and revenue by $30,201 in the Sheriff Budget (BU 235).]

APPROVE A BUDGET AMENDMENT WHICH INCREASES APPROPRIATIONS BY $90,000.

AND THE SHERIFF'S BUDGET. SUPERVISOR PLUMMER, YOU PULLED THIS.

DO WE HAVE ANY PUBLIC COMMENT ON THIS BEFORE WE START STUFF? OKAY. YEAH.

SO THIS BASICALLY, AND IS A HIT ON OUR GENERAL FUND, GENERAL PURPOSE BALANCE, WHICH GOING BACK TO OUR BUDGET HEARINGS, THAT IS THAT $1.7 MILLION, WHICH IS BUDGETED.

IT'S NOT, YOU KNOW, WE'LL SEE WHERE WE TURN OUT. BUT AND SO ANYTIME WE TAKE A HIT ON THAT THAT IS CONCERNING.

AND, YOU KNOW, TWO ITEMS LATER, WE'LL BE TALKING ABOUT ANOTHER $150,000 HIT ON THAT, WHICH WHEN YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT 1.7 MILLION, YOU ONLY HAVE TO DO THAT ABOUT 10 TO 15 TIMES AND YOU'LL BE OUT OF THAT.

AND SO AS A RESULT, I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THAT WE LOOK FOR 90,000 WORTH OF CUTS TO COMPENSATE FOR THIS ADDED EXPENSE BEING ADDED. SO I WOULD MAKE A MOTION THAT WE HAVE SHERIFF AND HIS TEAM AND JEN AND THE

[03:25:09]

ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE WORK TO FIND $90,000 IN CUTS FROM OTHER PARTS OF THE BUDGET TO COMPENSATE FOR THIS ADDED EXPENSE, RATHER THAN PULLING THAT FROM THE GENERAL FUND.

ALL RIGHT. MISS BURTON, IS THIS A GENERAL FUND HIT? IT IS SO. GOOD AFTERNOON. CHAIR. KELSTROM MEMBERS OF THE BOARD AND BURTON DEPUTY COUNTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER.

SO IN THE CASE OF THIS ITEM FOR THE ACTUAL TRUCK, AB 109 MONEY IS PAYING FOR THAT.

BUT THE TRUCK WASN'T PUT IN THE BUDGET. AND SO THE NET RESULT IS $90,000 FROM THE GENERAL FUND, FROM THE GENERAL PURPOSE UNRESTRICTED. MY REQUEST WOULD BE THAT IF THE BOARD WERE TO APPROVE THIS, THAT THEY APPROVE THE BUDGET AMENDMENT AS IT IS AND DIRECT STAFF TO BRING BACK ANOTHER BUDGET AMENDMENT TO REDUCE THE EXPENDITURES IN OTHER SHERIFF'S BUDGET UNITS BY THE $90,000. AND THE REASON THAT I ASKED THAT IS BECAUSE WE'RE KIND OF IN A TIME FRAME WHERE OUR FLEET DEPARTMENT HAS THE ABILITY TO ORDER VEHICLES NOW, BUT THAT WINDOW IS A SHORT WINDOW. I'M FINE WITH AMENDING TO WHAT MISS BURTON SAID.

OKAY. MOTION MADE BY SUPERVISOR PLUMMER AND SECONDED BY SUPERVISOR CRYE.

ANY. SUPERVISOR LONE. THANK YOU. CHAIR. AND WHAT I UNDERSTAND IS THAT THIS IS COMPLETELY FUNDED.

THE $90,000 THROUGH THE CCP, WHICH COMES FROM THE STATE.

AND IF WE DON'T APPROVE THIS AT THIS POINT, THEN THAT MONEY WOULD ROLL BACK TO CCP AND THEN WE IT WOULD BE KIND OF A A LOSS OF 90,000.

IS THAT ACCURATE? IT IS SORT OF IN THAT IT WOULD JUST STAY IN THE FUND BALANCE.

SO IT DOESN'T NECESSARILY ROLL BACK TO CCP, BUT WHAT THE SHERIFF'S BUDGET INCLUDED THAT THE CCP APPROVED INCLUDED THIS VEHICLE.

THEY DON'T PURCHASE THE VEHICLE. THEN THAT MONEY STAYS IN THE FUND BALANCE AND WOULD STILL COME FROM THE UNRESTRICTED FUND BALANCE.

CORRECT. AND IT SOUNDS LIKE TIMELINESS IS OF THE ESSENCE IN THIS CASE, BECAUSE GETTING INTO THE FLEET BID AND THIS WHOLE PROCESS RIGHT NOW TO GET THE PRICE, THAT'S THAT'S A LITTLE BIT TIMELY. AND SO WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IF THE SHERIFF DOESN'T GET THIS APPROVED TODAY? YOU KNOW, IT COULD BE THAT HE MIGHT HAVE TO WAIT UNTIL THE FOLLOWING YEAR TO GET THE VEHICLE, WHICH IS WHY I SUGGESTED, AND I THINK SUPERVISOR PLUMMER AGREED TO IF THE BOARD AGREES TO TAKE THIS ACTION NOW AND COME BACK WITH A BUDGET AMENDMENT WITH LOOKING FOR A DECREASE IN THE $90,000 AT A LATER MEETING.

OKAY. OKAY. I THINK THAT'S A GOOD IDEA. AND, SHERIFF, COULD I CALL YOU FORWARD? CORKY SAID, THIS IS THE ONLY TIME I CAN TELL THE SHERIFF WHAT TO DO.

I CAN ASK. RIGHT. SO YOU AND I HAVE TALKED ABOUT THIS.

AND SO IS THIS AGREEMENT WHICH BRINGING BACK A BUDGET AMENDMENT AT A LATER DATE.

IS THAT ACCEPTABLE TO YOU BECAUSE YOU THOUGHT THAT YOU WILL DEFINITELY BE ABLE TO MEET CUTS IN YOUR PROGRAMS ACROSS THE BOARD TO MAKE THE $90,000 BACK, EVEN THOUGH THIS WAS KIND OF AN ACCOUNTING ERROR, WAS AN EXPENSE PROPERLY? YES, ABSOLUTELY. SUPERVISOR ALONG THE AS MISS BURTON ALLUDED TO, THE THE TIMING ON THIS IS CRITICAL FOR US BECAUSE WE'RE OUR FLEET IS DOWN AND WE'VE NEEDED THIS VEHICLE REALLY BAD FOR QUITE SOME TIME.

SO I DON'T WANT TO LOSE THE OPPORTUNITY TO GRAB THAT VEHICLE.

AND WITH THOSE APPROVED FUNDS ALREADY WITH CCP, IT'LL IT'LL BE AN EASY, EASY TASK FOR US IF WE CAN IF YOU GUYS WILL AGREE TO APPROVE IT NOW. OKAY. OKAY. THANK YOU. I'M GOOD WITH YOUR MOTION.

OKAY. ANY MORE BOARD DISCUSSION? MOTION WAS MADE BY SUPERVISOR PLUMMER, SECONDED BY SUPERVISOR CRYE IS NO LONGER IN THE ROOM.

SO ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? AYE. PASSES. HE HAS TO BE IN THE ROOM.

PERFECT. I CAN SECOND MOTION AND DO A SECOND.

DO YOU WANT TO REDO THE MOTION? I'LL SECOND IT. YES.

I WILL APPROVE THIS BUDGET AMENDMENT AND REQUEST THAT STAFF BRING BACK A FUTURE BUDGET BUDGET AMENDMENT THAT REDUCES THE SHERIFF'S BUDGET BY $90,000, AND I WILL SECOND THAT. ALL RIGHT. NOW, NEW MOTION MADE BY SUPERVISOR PLUMMER, SECONDED BY SUPERVISOR LONG.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? AYE. PASSES FOUR ZERO. ALL RIGHT.

MOVING ON TO REGULAR CALENDAR R5 AND SORRY ABOUT THAT.

[R5 Receive a presentation from the Health and Human Services Agency, Behavioral Health and Social Services Branch regarding the transition of the regional Drug-Medi-Cal Organized Delivery System from Partnership Health Plan of California to CalMHSA.]

WE YOU GUYS ALL CAME DOWN HERE AND THEN WE WENT TO CLOSED SESSION, SO I APOLOGIZE FOR THAT.

RECEIVED A PRESENTATION FROM THE HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY, BEHAVIORAL HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES BRANCH REGARDING THE TRANSITION OF THE REGIONAL DRUG MEDI-CAL ORGANIZED DELIVERY SYSTEM FROM PARTNERSHIP HEALTH PLAN OF CALIFORNIA TO CAL MHSA WELCOME.

THANK YOU. ONE MOMENT. GIVE ME JUST ONE MOMENT, CHAIR.

[03:30:17]

GOOD AFTERNOON, CHAIR KELSTROM, MEMBERS OF THE BOARD.

BAILEY COGGER, DEPUTY BRANCH DIRECTOR AND DRUG AND ALCOHOL ADMINISTRATOR.

I'M HERE TODAY TO DISCUSS OUR ADMINISTRATIVE TRANSACTION TRANSFER FROM PARTNERSHIP TO CAL MESA.

SO SOME OF THE TOPICS WE'LL BE TALKING ABOUT TODAY IS OUR DRUG MEDI-CAL ORGANIZED DELIVERY SYSTEM, OR DMC ODS, OUR CURRENT REGIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE STRUCTURE, WHY WE'RE TRANSITIONING TO CAL MESA AND NEXT STEPS AND FUTURE PLANNING.

SO AS FAR AS OUR DRUG MEDI-CAL CURRENT STRUCTURE GOES, THE STATE OFFERS TWO SEPARATE OPERATING PATHS FOR PROVIDING SUBSTANCE USE TO TO MEDI-CAL BENEFICIARIES. A STATE PLAN DMC MODEL AND A DRUG MEDI-CAL ORGANIZED DELIVERY SYSTEM.

COUNTIES ARE REQUIRED TO PROVIDE CITY SERVICES UNDER ONE OF THESE MODELS TO ITS MEDI-CAL BENEFICIARIES.

SHASTA COUNTY OPTED INTO THE DMC MODEL, AS WELL AS ESTABLISHED A REGIONAL APPROACH WITH SIX OTHER COUNTIES IN THE 2021 TIME FRAME.

SO WHY THE DMC MODEL? THIS MODEL OFFERS A COMPREHENSIVE ACM ALIGNED CONTINUUM OF CARE.

ACM STANDS FOR THE AMERICAN SOCIETY OF ADDICTION MEDICINE, AND IT IS AN EVIDENCE BASED SCREENING AND ASSESSMENT TOOL.

SO WITH THIS TOOL AND THIS STRUCTURE, WE WERE ABLE TO OFFER EXPANDED SERVICES NOT AVAILABLE UNDER THE STATE PLAN MODEL.

THIS STRUCTURE OFFERS RESIDENTIAL TREATMENT, CLINICALLY MANAGED WITHDRAWAL MANAGEMENT, MEDICATION ASSISTED TREATMENT, OR MAT CASE MANAGEMENT, AS WELL AS ONGOING RECOVERY SUPPORT FOR SUSTAINED RECOVERY.

SO WHY THE REGIONAL APPROACH? WHY IS DMC SO HARD TO IMPLEMENT IN RURAL COUNTIES ALONE? SO THERE ARE NETWORK CHALLENGES WITH THIS MODEL.

THERE ARE SPECIFIC NETWORK REQUIREMENTS THAT ARE HARD IN A RURAL COUNTY BY ITSELF.

THERE'S ALSO FINANCIAL RISKS, AS WELL AS LIMITED STAFFING THAT'S DISPROPORTIONATE TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS.

THE DMC MODELS REQUIRE AN EXTENSIVE MENU OF REPORTING AND REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS IN ORDER TO BE ABLE TO BE DELIVERED.

THAT INCLUDES TREATMENT PERCEPTION SURVEYS, QUALITY IMPROVEMENT, REPORTING FOR MORE MEASURABLE OUTCOMES THAT SPEAK TO ACCESS TIMELINESS AND FOLLOW UP TO CARE ACCESS LINE MONITORING, NETWORK ADEQUACY TOOL FOR PROVIDER NETWORK GRIEVANCES AND APPEALS UTILIZATION MANAGEMENT, MONITORING REPORTS, AND AN ANNUAL OUTSIDE AUDIT.

SO THE BENEFITS OF THIS STRUCTURE PROVIDES ADDITIONAL ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT CLAIMS SUPPORT.

THERE'S ALSO CONSISTENCY ACROSS THE REGIONAL MODEL.

TRAINING IS PROVIDED. CONTRACT MONITORING TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE AND DOCUMENTATION STANDARDS.

IT ALSO GIVES THE REGION TO COMPARE AND CONTRAST DATA AND TRENDS.

CURRENTLY, PARTNERSHIP HEALTHPLAN OF CALIFORNIA IS OUR ADMINISTRATIVE OVERSIGHT.

WHAT THEY CURRENTLY PROVIDE IS PROVIDER CONTRACT OVERSIGHT, FISCAL, ADMINISTRATIVE AND CLAIMS SUPPORT, PROVIDER COORDINATION, TRAINING, REPORTING, AUDIT SUPPORT, QUALITY ASSURANCE AND GRIEVANCE PROCESSES.

PARTNERSHIP IS ALSO OUR LOCAL MANAGED CARE PLAN, WHICH MEANS THAT THEY ALSO SERVE MEDI-CAL BENEFICIARIES IN THE MENTAL HEALTH WORLD AND PHYSICAL HEALTH WORLD. THIS CAN MEAN THAT THERE'S COMPETING PRIORITIES.

SOME OF THE OTHER CHALLENGES FROM THIS CURRENT STRUCTURE IS THE PER USER, PER MONTH FISCAL STRUCTURE.

IT'S NOT ALIGNED WITH THE STATE'S FEE FOR SERVICE MODEL, AND WE HAVE NOTICED THAT IT IS NOT FISCALLY.

SUSTAINABLE. AND THERE ARE THERE'S A NEED FOR IMPROVEMENT.

DCS ALSO RECENTLY HAD HAD NEWLY UNDERSTOOD REGULATIONS AND EXPECTATIONS.

AND SO THROUGH THAT EVOLUTION PARTNERSHIP WAS NO LONGER ABLE TO PROVIDE THE SUPPORT THAT THEY ONCE WERE.

SO WHO IS CAL MESA AND WHY ARE WE TRANSITIONING TO THAT? SO IN FEBRUARY 2026, WE WERE INFORMED BY PARTNERSHIP THAT THEY WOULD NO LONGER BE ABLE TO PROVIDE THE ADMINISTRATIVE OVERSIGHT OF OUR REGIONAL DMC ODDS MODEL.

THEY GAVE US TO THE END OF THE YEAR IN ORDER TO COME UP WITH A TRANSITION TIMELINE, WHICH COULD HAVE GONE BACK TO THE STATE MODEL, WHICH WOULD HAVE SEVERELY REDUCED THE SERVICES THAT WE WOULD HAVE BEEN ABLE TO PROVIDE IN SHASTA COUNTY, OR THERE WAS AN OPTION WITH CAL MESA TO CONTINUE ON IN A MULTI-COUNTY MODEL.

SO CAL MESA STANDS FOR THE CALIFORNIA MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES AUTHORITY.

IT'S A JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY THAT WAS CREATED IN 2009 BY COUNTIES THAT TO PROVIDE SHARED BEHAVIORAL HEALTH SERVICES,

[03:35:06]

INFRASTRUCTURE AND STATEWIDE COORDINATION. THIS IS WHAT THEY DO.

THEY PROVIDE IT SUPPORT THROUGH THEIR STATE RECOGNIZED EHR.

THEY HAVE HELPED SUPPORT IMPLEMENTATION OF OTHER COMPLEX SYSTEMS. THIS IS THEIR KIND OF BREAD AND BUTTER, SO TO SPEAK, IN TERMS OF WHAT THEY HAVE AN UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT TO DO.

THEIR PROGRAM LEAD RIGHT NOW WAS ALSO A FORMER COUNTY BEHAVIORAL HEALTH DIRECTOR AND STOOD UP IN A RURAL COUNTY.

THE DMC MODEL. SO I'M GOING TO KIND OF RUSH A LITTLE BIT BECAUSE I'M RUNNING OUT OF TIME.

SO CHANGES WHAT DOES THIS CHANGE LOOK LIKE? SO ONE OF THE BIGGEST CHANGES IS A NEW PAYMENT STRUCTURE.

CAL MESA WAS ABLE TO REEVALUATE OUR PAYMENT STRUCTURE, MAKE IT COME IN LINE WITH THE REST OF THE DMC COUNTIES TO BE A FEE FOR SERVICE MODEL.

THEY WERE ALSO ABLE TO RENEGOTIATE RATES. THAT IS GOING TO SAVE THE COUNTY, APPROXIMATELY, BASED ON ESTIMATIONS AT THIS POINT, ABOUT $500,000 A YEAR.

SOME OF THE OTHER THINGS THAT WILL COME FROM THIS IS MORE STREAMLINED DATA AND REPORTING, REAL TIME ELIGIBILITY CHECKS, AND JUST BETTER PROCESSES AND SUPPORT THAT CAL MESA IS MORE PRIMED TO DO, BECAUSE IT IS PART OF WHAT THE ORGANIZATION IS BUILT TO DO.

SO THE BENEFITS OF THIS IS THAT IT INCREASED ADMIN CAPACITY THERE, SMOOTHER TRANSITION BETWEEN LEVELS OF CARE.

AND THERE'S GOING TO BE STANDARD CONTRACTING BETWEEN COUNTIES AND OUR PROVIDERS.

SO WHAT ARE THE IMPACTS TO THE BENEFICIARIES OR THE CLIENTS OR THE MEDI-CAL MEMBERS.

THEY REALLY SHOULD NOT SEE ANY IMPACTS WITH THIS TRANSITION.

WE ARE ABLE TO STILL PROVIDE THE SAME LEVEL OF SERVICE DELIVERY.

THIS IS TRULY JUST AN ADMINISTRATIVE BEHIND THE SCENES TRANSITION.

AND SO WITH THAT, THEY WILL CONTINUE TO BE ABLE TO ACCESS THE FULL CONTINUUM OF CARE.

THEY WILL NOT HAVE TO REAPPLY FOR ANY TYPE OF INSURANCE ELIGIBILITY.

THEY STILL MEET THAT THROUGH THE SAME PROCESSES.

THERE WILL BE NO INTERRUPTION IN TREATMENT AUTHORIZATIONS OR ELIGIBILITY.

AND THE COUNTY BEHAVIORAL HEALTH DEPARTMENT OR SHASTA COUNTY STILL REMAINS RESPONSIBLE FOR LOCAL CARE COORDINATION AND GOVERNING OVERSIGHT AS WELL.

THIS IS NOT A TRANSITION OF OUR LEGAL AUTHORITY.

THE BOARD STILL GOVERNS THAT. THIS IS JUST US DELEGATING ADMINISTRATIVE TASKS TO A THIRD PARTY, WHICH IS CAL MESA. SO WHAT IS THE TIMELINE AND TRANSITION LOOK LIKE? WE WILL BE BRINGING THE CAL MESA CONTRACT TO THE BOARD NEXT MONTH FOR APPROVAL.

AND THEN THIS WILL GO INTO EFFECT JANUARY 1ST OF 2027.

ADDITIONALLY, WE WILL BE DEVELOPING OUR PROVIDER CONTRACTS AND SHASTA COUNTY OFFER OR OPERATES AS A PROVIDER AS WELL.

AND THEN GOING FORWARD, THE HOPE IS TO GROW THE UNDERSTANDING AT THE STATE LEVEL OF THIS REGIONAL MODEL, DEVELOP NEW REGULATIONS THAT SUPPORT THAT, AS WELL AS INCLUDE ADDITIONAL COUNTIES TO COME ON BOARD AS WELL.

THANK YOU. AND I'M AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS. THANK YOU.

PLEASE. TURN IT OFF. OKAY. BECAUSE EVERY TIME I TURN IT ON AND GO BACK OFF.

ALL RIGHT. BOARD DISCUSSION. SUPERVISOR PLUMMER.

I'LL NOTE IT DOWN. I THOUGHT YOU WERE TRYING TO HELP ME.

STUFF. SUPERVISOR PLUMMER. YES. THANK YOU. BAILEY.

AND I THINK THIS IS A POSITIVE DEVELOPMENT, GIVEN THE UNCERTAINTY.

A NUMBER OF MONTHS AGO ABOUT WHERE THIS WOULD GO.

A FEW QUICK QUESTIONS. AND I KNOW WE TALKED BRIEFLY ABOUT THIS YESTERDAY, BUT THE IN TERMS OF THE CONTRACT WITH CAL MESA FOR THIS, IS THAT A SINGLE YEAR OR IS IT MULTI-YEAR? LIKE, HAVE THEY COMMITTED TO DO THIS FOR A WHILE? YES, IT IS A MULTIYEAR AGREEMENT. OUR HOPE IS THAT IT WILL GET APPROVED FOR FIVE YEARS.

OKAY. AND THEN YOU MENTIONED KIND OF BROADENING STATE SUPPORT.

AND AS WE TALKED ABOUT, ONE OF THE CHALLENGES PARTNERSHIP HAD WAS GETTING THE STATE TO BE AGREEABLE TO HOW THINGS WOULD WORK FROM A REGIONAL MODEL.

I ASSUME THE STATE HAS BEEN KIND OF INVOLVED OR AT LEAST AWARE OF THE DEVELOPMENT HERE AND IS SUPPORTIVE OF IT, OR HAS AT LEAST BEEN AGNOSTIC TO IT OR. YES. YEAH, THEY HAVE BEEN VERY SUPPORTIVE OF US GETTING THIS UP AND RUNNING.

THE ONLY CHALLENGES ARE WHERE THEY'RE NOT READY TO MOVE FORWARD YET IS JUST EXPANSION AND CREATING NEW REGULATIONS FOR A REGIONAL MODEL.

SO WE REALLY HAD TO TRANSITION AND MAKE SURE THAT, AND THAT'S WHY WE'RE TECHNICALLY CALLING THIS A MULTI-COUNTY MODEL GOING FORWARD RATHER THAN REGIONAL, BECAUSE WE WILL ALL HAVE INDIVIDUAL AUDITS.

WE WILL HAVE TO ALIGN WITH THE SPECIFIC DMC REGULATIONS RATHER THAN DOING THAT COLLECTIVELY AS A GROUP.

SO THOSE ARE THINGS THAT IS STILL KIND OF SOME STICKING POINTS, BUT THAT'S WHERE WE HOPE TO TO GROW AND TO GET DHS TO COME ON BOARD WITH THAT.

[03:40:06]

GREAT. AND THE LAST QUESTION, IN TERMS OF US AS A PROVIDER IN THIS CONTRACT AND THE REIMBURSEMENT RATES THERE WITH THE RENEGOTIATIONS, DO WE EXPECT OUR REIMBURSEMENT RATES ON SERVICES WE PROVIDE TO INCREASE AS WELL, OR WILL THOSE STAY PRETTY MUCH THE SAME? YES.

AND PLEASE KEEP THIS IN MIND THAT THESE ARE PROJECTIONS.

AND SO CAL MESA HAS SHARED SOME PRELIMINARY NUMBERS WITH US OF WHAT THIS COULD LOOK LIKE.

AND IT ACTUALLY LOOKS LIKE THERE COULD BE A NET REVENUE OF $140,000 THROUGH THIS MODEL.

BUT AGAIN, THOSE ARE JUST VERY PRELIMINARY PROJECTIONS.

THERE'S NOT REALLY ANY WAY THAT WE CAN COMPARE THIS GOING FORWARD VERSUS OUR CURRENT MODEL BECAUSE THEY ARE SO DIFFERENT.

SO THAT THAT MONEY WILL NOT BE SEEN BY BY CAL MESA THAT WOULD COME BACK TO THE COUNTY.

OKAY. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. AND THIS IS A NO VOTE ITEM.

DO WE HAVE ANY PUBLIC COMMENT? DO WE HAVE ONE REQUEST TO SPEAK? SHASTA COUNTY WATCHDOG. COME ON UP. THANK YOU.

CAN YOU GIVE IT TO THE NEXT PART OF.

THIS PROGRAM ESPECIALLY SOUNDS LIKE IT'S FOR PEOPLE WHO HAVE MENTAL ISSUES.

MY CONCERN IS SINCE WE HAVE A LOT OF BILLS COMING FROM THE STATE, HOW IS THIS GOING TO AFFECT THIS KIND OF PROGRAMS? BECAUSE WE KNOW THAT A LOT OF PEOPLE ARE GOING TO BE LOSING THEIR MEDI-CAL AND THEIR BENEFITS.

IT'S UNDER THE BEAUTIFUL BILL THAT PEOPLE DON'T LOOK UNDER THE SMALL PRINT.

AND SO I'M JUST WONDERING. I MEAN, WE'RE WE'RE BRINGING IN A LOT OF GOOD THINGS FORWARD.

BUT DO WE ARE WE LOOKING AT HOW WHAT IT'S GOING TO HAVE AN IMPACT WHEN IT DOES HIT, YOU KNOW, ALL THESE BILLS PASSING, YOU KNOW, IN NOVEMBER.

SO THAT'S MY CONCERN BECAUSE PEOPLE ARE GOING TO BE WHAT A LOT A LOT OF THEM ARE GOING TO BE WITHOUT MEDI-CAL OR MEDICARE OR WHATEVER TO ABLE TO ABLE TO ATTEND OR HAVE THIS, YOU KNOW, TO GET THE SERVICE FOR THE MENTAL HEALTH.

SO THAT'S MY CONCERN REGARDING THIS PROGRAM. THAT'S ALL THAT WAS OUR ONLY.

SPEAKER. CHAIR. OKAY. MOVING ON TO R SIX. THAT WAS A NO VOTE ITEM.

[R6 Take the following actions: (1) Receive a presentation from the Health and Human Services Agency (“HHSA”) regarding: (a) the state of HHSA’s Social Services Administration Budget (BU 501); (b) outcomes of cost-saving measures implemented in preceding months; and (c) additional cost-saving measures for the Board’s consideration; (2) approve retroactive use of additional Social Services Fund (0140) balance reserves in FY 2025-26 in the amount of $6,078,761; (3) approve budget amendments which: (a) decrease appropriations by $190,796 and increase revenue in the amount of $150,000 in the Welfare and Cash Aid Payments Budget (BU 541) offset by an increase in HHSA 1991/2011 State Realignment fund balance; (b) increase appropriations by $1,080,155 in the Public Health Budget (BU 411); (c) increase revenue by $1,080,155 in BU 501 for the 10% realignment transfer; and (d) increase appropriations by $150,000 in the General Revenue and Transfers Budget (BU 100) offset by use of unassigned general purpose fund balance; (4) provide direction to HHSA on future actions to mitigate ongoing financial issues within the Social Services Fund (0140); and (5) approve a General Fund loan extension, in accordance with Government Code Section 25214.4(b), to be repaid by June 30, 2027, along with interest at the Treasurer‘s pool rate, within the Social Services Fund.]

SO TAKE THE FOLLOWING ACTIONS AND ALL RIGHT. WE'LL INSTEAD OF ME READING ALL THIS I'LL JUST LET YOU DO THE PRESENTATION.

YEAH. GIVE ME JUST ONE MOMENT IF YOU WOULDN'T MIND. I COULD READ IT ALL IN STAHL IF YOU WANT.

SORRY. RUNNING SLOWER. AND THANK YOU, BAILEY, FOR THE PRESENTATION.

OKAY. GO AHEAD. ALL RIGHT. GOOD AFTERNOON. CHAIR.

KELSTROM. MEMBERS OF THE BOARD. AARON WATTS, BRANCH DIRECTOR, HHSA ADMINISTRATION.

I'M HERE TODAY WITH AGENCY COLEMAN. AND TODAY WE ARE GOING TO PROVIDE AN UPDATE ON THE SOCIAL SERVICES FUND, INCLUDING AN OVERVIEW OF FISCAL YEAR 2026. CURRENT STATUS OF FUND BALANCE FUNDING UPDATES AND PLANS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2027 FOR BOARD CONSIDERATION. TODAY, WE ARE SEEKING BOARD APPROVAL OR DIRECTION ON THE FOLLOWING ITEMS. FIRST, RETROACTIVE APPROVAL FOR THE ADDITIONAL USE OF FUND BALANCE IN SOCIAL SERVICES.

ADMINISTRATION. BUDGET. BUDGET UNIT 501 IN FISCAL YEAR 2026, AND THE AMOUNT OF $761 APPROVE A BUDGET AMENDMENT REDUCING THE WELFARE AND CASH AID PAYMENTS BUDGET BUDGET BUDGET UNIT 541 AND THE AMOUNT OF $190,796 DUE TO OVERAGE IN FISCAL YEAR 2026. APPROVE A BUDGET AMENDMENT TO INCREASE THE GENERAL FUND CONTRIBUTION TO THE WELFARE AND CASH AID PAYMENTS BUDGET BUDGET UNIT 541 IN THE AMOUNT OF $150,000 FOR FISCAL YEAR 2027 DUE TO GENERAL FUND SAVINGS REALIZED DURING FISCAL YEAR 2026. AND I JUST WANT TO NOTE A CORRECTION ON THE SLIDE HERE.

IT SAYS WE ARE GOING TO INCREASE THE GENERAL FUND CONTRIBUTION IN BUDGET UNIT 501.

IT'S ACTUALLY BUDGET UNIT 541 APPROVE A BUDGET AMENDMENT TO ALLOW FOR A 10% REALIGNMENT TRANSFER FROM THE PUBLIC HEALTH BUDGET BUDGET UNIT 411 TO THE SOCIAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION BUDGET BUDGET UNIT 501 IN FISCAL YEAR 27.

OOPS. SORRY. PROVIDE BOARD BOARD DIRECTION ON ADDITIONAL COST SAVING MEASURES AND EXTEND THE GENERAL FUND LOAN TO SOCIAL SERVICES FUND THROUGH FEBRUARY 28TH, 2027. IN FISCAL YEAR 2026, HHSA UNDERWENT EXTENSIVE COST SAVING EFFORTS, WHICH RESULTED IN SIGNIFICANT SAVINGS COMPARED TO FISCAL YEAR 2025.

[03:45:03]

SALARIES AND BENEFITS HAD SAVINGS OF APPROXIMATELY $500,000.

IT'S IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT THIS ALSO INCLUDED A COST OF LIVING INCREASE.

MID-YEAR SERVICES AND SUPPLIES HAD SAVINGS OF $1.7 MILLION.

OTHER CHARGES, INCLUDING SUPPORT AND CARE COSTS, HAD SAVINGS OF $650,000, AND CAPITAL ASSETS HAD SAVINGS OF $1.6 MILLION OVER THE COURSE OF THE LAST FISCAL YEAR, HHC MONITORED MONTHLY TRANSACTIONS FOR EXPENDITURES WITHIN ALL BUDGET UNITS AND SOCIAL SERVICES.

AVERAGE MONTHLY SAVINGS FOR THE ENTIRE FISCAL YEAR WAS $480,000 PER MONTH, AND SAVINGS FROM OCTOBER 2025 THROUGH JUNE 2026 WAS JUST OVER $1 MILLION PER MONTH ON AVERAGE. WITHIN APPROPRIATIONS.

THERE ARE ALSO INTERFUND TRANSFERS, ALSO REFERRED TO AS COST SIDES, WHICH REDUCED THE OVERALL COST FOR THE BUDGET UNITS WHERE THEY ARE APPLIED IN THE SOCIAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION BUDGET. THE INTERFUND TRANSFER WAS REDUCED BY ABOUT $1.4 MILLION IN FISCAL YEAR 2026, COMPARED TO FISCAL YEAR 2025, AND IN THE HHS ADMINISTRATION BUDGET BUDGET UNIT 502, THE INTERFUND TRANSFER WAS REDUCED BY ABOUT $2 MILLION IN FISCAL YEAR 2026, WHICH ULTIMATELY EQUATES TO SAVINGS FOR OTHER AREAS OF THE AGENCY, INCLUDING SOCIAL SERVICES, BUT NEVERTHELESS ULTIMATELY IMPACTS NET SAVINGS.

REVENUE DID NOT MATERIALIZE AS ANTICIPATED, AND THIS IS PARTICULARLY EVIDENT IN STATE CALWORKS REVENUE, WHICH ENDED 20% BELOW PROJECTIONS. FEDERAL WELFARE TO WORK, WHICH ENDED 22% BELOW PROJECTIONS.

STATE FOOD STAMPS, WHICH ENDED 11% BELOW PROJECTIONS.

AND FEDERAL MEDI-CAL, WHICH ENDED 14% BELOW PROJECTIONS.

WE PRIMARILY SAW REVENUE DEFICITS RELATED TO THE ADMINISTRATION OF PROGRAMS WITHIN THE ECONOMIC MOBILITY BRANCH, WHICH IS DIRECTLY TIED TO POSITIONS THAT WERE HELD VACANT.

SO WHY WERE PROJECTIONS OFF WHEN COMPLETING PROJECTIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2026? WITH THE SUPPORT OF OUR CONSULTANT, WE FOLLOWED THE HISTORICAL PRACTICE OF PROJECTING REVENUE AND EXPENDITURES BASED PRIMARILY ON PRIOR YEAR ACTUALS, TYPICALLY A 3 TO 5 YEAR AVERAGE WITH CONSIDERATION FOR CHANGES IN ALLOCATIONS, WHILE KEEPING IN MIND THAT COST SAVING EFFORTS WOULD HAVE AN IMPACT ON OUR ABILITY TO DRAW DOWN REVENUE IN FISCAL YEAR 2025, OUR PROJECTIONS AND SOCIAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION BUDGET INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVENUE WERE ONLY AROUND $200,000 OFF USING THIS METHODOLOGY COMPARED TO FISCAL YEAR 2026, IN WHICH INTERGOVERNMENTAL PROJECTIONS WERE OFF BY NEARLY $8 MILLION.

HISTORICAL DATA, THROUGH THE LENS OF WHAT WE WERE TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH WAS LIMITED. THERE WERE LIMITED FACTORS TO EVALUATE IN RELATION TO THE SIGNIFICANT FINANCIAL ISSUES.

HSSA HAS CONTINUED TO FACE. WE KNEW THESE EFFORTS WOULD IMPACT REVENUE, BUT HAD NO DATA TO BUILD OFF TO ACCURATELY DETERMINE BY INDIVIDUAL REVENUE SOURCE.

ADDITIONALLY, IT'S IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT MANY SOCIAL SERVICES ALLOCATIONS ARE PAID ON A REIMBURSEMENT BASIS.

AS A REMINDER, WE STARTED SEEING SIGNIFICANT SAVINGS BEGINNING ABOUT OCTOBER 2025 AND CONTINUED TO SEE SAVINGS THROUGH THE REMAINDER OF THE YEAR.

ULTIMATELY BEGINNING TO SEE AN IMPACT ON REVENUE TOWARDS THE END OF THE FISCAL YEAR.

IN ADDITION TO HOLDING POSITIONS VACANT WITHIN SOCIAL SERVICES AND ACROSS HHS, THERE ARE ALSO DIFFICULT TO FILL POSITIONS, WHICH MEANT REDUCED STAFF CODING TIME TO CERTAIN AREAS.

THUS, WE DID NOT FULLY DRAW DOWN ALLOCATIONS AS OF OUR MOST RECENT ROSTER.

THERE ARE CURRENTLY 110 VACANCIES WITHIN THE 501 BUDGET UNIT, WHICH INCLUDES A TOTAL OF 528 POSITIONS.

THIS EQUATES TO ABOUT 21% VACANCY RATE IN THE ELIGIBILITY.

SPECIALIST CLASSIFICATION. THERE ARE 198 FTE WITH 39 VACANCIES OR VACANCY RATE OF 20%.

THESE FTE VACANCIES ARE DIRECTLY RELATED TO MANY OF THE ALLOCATIONS IN THE COUNTY EXPENSE CLAIM OR CEC THAT WERE NOT FULLY USED.

FOR EXAMPLE, THE ALLOCATION FOR CALFRESH WAS $6.4 MILLION, AND OUR ACTUAL DRAW AGAINST THIS ALLOCATION WAS 5.9 5.9 MILLION.

CALWORKS SINGLE ALLOCATION WAS 9.4 MILLION, AND ACTUAL DRAW AGAINST THIS ALLOCATION WAS $9 MILLION.

MEDI-CAL ADMIN ALLOCATION WAS 12.9 MILLION, AND THE ACTUAL DRAW AGAINST THIS ALLOCATION WAS 12.1 MILLION.

THERE ARE ALSO A NUMBER OF AREAS WHERE WE WERE OVERSPENT, WHICH RESULTED IN A GREATER COUNTY COST.

THIS LEAVES ABOUT $1.7 MILLION IN REVENUE ALLOCATIONS ON THE TABLE BETWEEN THESE THREE ALLOCATIONS.

AREAS WHERE WE WHERE THERE WAS OVERSPENDING INCLUDE CHILD WELFARE SERVICES, ADULT PROTECTIVE SERVICES AND NIH, WHICH RESULTED IN A MORE SUBSTANTIAL COUNTY SHERIFF COST.

OTHER SOCIAL SERVICES PROGRAM PROGRAMS THAT HAVE A COUNTY ONLY SHARE OF COST ARE GENERAL ASSISTANCE AND PUBLIC GUARDIAN, BOTH OF WHICH CAME IN UNDER BUDGET, RESULTING IN A DECREASE IN GENERAL FUND COSTS OF ABOUT $300,000.

THIS RESULTED IN THE ADDITIONAL USE OF SOCIAL SERVICES FUND BALANCE IN THE AMOUNT OF $6,078,761 FOR FISCAL YEAR 2026, AND LEAVES THE REMAINING FUND BALANCE IN SOCIAL SERVICES OF ABOUT $4.3 MILLION.

[03:50:06]

SOME GOOD NEWS IS THAT THERE IS ADDITIONAL STATE FUNDING AVAILABLE FOR COUNTIES IN BOTH MEDI-CAL ADMINISTRATION AND CALFRESH, WHICH HHS TENDS TO LEVERAGE IN THE CURRENT AND NEXT FISCAL YEAR.

SO THIS SLIDE GOES THROUGH THE AMENDMENTS THAT WERE MADE OVER THE COURSE OF FISCAL YEAR 2026.

IN JUNE 2025, THE BOARD ADOPTED THE RECOMMENDED COUNTY BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2026, WHICH INCLUDED A NET COUNTY COST OF $9.2 MILLION IN THE SOCIAL SERVICES FUND. IN OCTOBER 2025, THE BOARD DIRECTED HHS TO REDUCE COSTS IN SOCIAL SERVICES BY ABOUT $1 MILLION PER MONTH AND AT THE SAME TIME APPROVED AN ADDITIONAL 10% REALIGNMENT TRANSFER FROM PUBLIC HEALTH TO SOCIAL SERVICES IN THE AMOUNT OF $1.1 MILLION.

IN DECEMBER 2025, A BUDGET AMENDMENT TO REDUCE APPROPRIATIONS BY $6.46 MILLION IN THE SOCIAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION BUDGET WAS APPROVED IN FEBRUARY 2026. ALONG WITH OTHER MID-YEAR BUDGET AMENDMENTS.

THE SOCIAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION BUDGET WAS REDUCED BY ANOTHER $3.1 MILLION, AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVENUE WAS REDUCED BY $4.5 MILLION.

IN JUNE 2026, A YEAR IN BUDGET AMENDMENT WAS APPROVED, WHICH INCREASED APPROPRIATIONS BY $1.3 MILLION IN INCREASED REVENUE BY $1.6 MILLION IN THE SOCIAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION BUDGET.

OVERALL, THESE BUDGET AMENDMENTS RESULTED IN A DECREASE IN NET COUNTY COST IN THE AMOUNT OF $6.5 MILLION.

ULTIMATELY, BUDGETED REVENUE SHOULD HAVE BEEN REDUCED FURTHER DURING FISCAL YEAR 2026.

NOW, I'M GOING TO PASS IT ON TO CHRISTY COLEMAN TO DISCUSS UPCOMING PLANS.

THANK YOU AARON. WELCOME, CHRISTY. SAVING EFFORTS HAVE BEEN APPLIED IN BROAD STROKES ACROSS THE AGENCY, ALLOWING US TO SAVE AN OPERATIONAL COST WHILE CREATING OPPORTUNITIES TO SHIFT FUNDING SOURCES WHERE ALLOWABLE.

THE VOLUNTARY TIME OFF WITHOUT PAY PROGRAM HAS RECEIVED OVER 120 REQUESTS AND HAS.

AND AS OF PAY PERIOD, EIGHT ACTUAL SAVINGS HAS BEEN $151,000.

SALARIES AND OVERTIME WERE REDUCED, AND WE SAVED ABOUT $563,000.

HOWEVER, HEALTH INSURANCE RAISED BY $683,000.

COST PLAN CHARGES AND INTERNAL SERVICE PLAN CHARGES RAISED BY $680,000 COMPARED TO FISCAL YEAR 25.

OVERALL COSTS. SO WE DON'T HAVE CONTROL OVER. IN THE 501 BUDGET INCREASED BY $1,598,000 COMPARED TO FISCAL YEAR 25.

SO WHAT'S NEXT IN FISCAL YEAR 27? OUR FOCUS WILL BE ON RAMPING UP IN AREAS WHERE WE CAN LEVERAGE SOLID REVENUE SOURCES, INCLUDING THOSE WITH ADDITIONAL COMMITTED STATE FUNDING. FOR EXAMPLE, MEDI-CAL AND CALFRESH.

THE ECONOMIC MOBILITY BRANCH IS CURRENTLY WORKING TO ONBOARD AND TRAIN STAFF EXCLUSIVELY IN MEDI-CAL AND CALFRESH TO BETTER LEVERAGE THE ADDITIONAL COMMITTED IN STATE BUDGET THROUGH THE NEXT FISCAL YEAR. WITH BOARD DIRECTION, WE WILL SHIFT AWAY FROM THE BROAD STROKE SAVING EFFORTS WHILE CONTINUING TO BE MINDFUL OF SPENDING AND FOCUS ON A MORE TARGETED APPROACH TO LEVERAGE AVAILABLE NEW FUNDING OPPORTUNITIES WHILE REDUCING A NON-MANDATED AREAS THAT CARRY SIGNIFICANT COUNTY SHERIFF COSTS. WE ARE CURRENTLY WORKING INTERNALLY TO IDENTIFY AREAS THAT BEST FIT THIS CRITERIA, AND ARE CONSIDERING AREAS THAT WILL HAVE THE LEAST AMOUNT OF IMPACT ON HHSA CLIENTS.

WE ARE. WE ARE ALSO WORKING WITH A CONSULTANT ON THE ASSISTANCE CLAIM ANALYSIS, AND ARE LOOKING FOR AREAS TO BETTER MAXIMIZE REVENUE ON THE DIRECT SERVICES SIDE OF SOCIAL SERVICES. OUR HOPE IS THAT WE CAN BETTER LEVERAGE REIMBURSEMENT.

WE HAVE BEEN SYSTEMATICALLY GOING THROUGH EACH PROGRAM AND HAVE BEEN DELIBERATE WITH OUR COST SAVING DECISIONS.

TO DATE, WE HAVE AVOIDED MAKING ANY CHANGES THAT WOULD SIGNIFICANTLY REDUCE OR ELIMINATE SPECIFIC PROGRAMS. AS WE CONTINUE TO LOOK FOR OPERATIONAL EFFICIENCIES, WE ASK FOR THE BOARD'S INPUT FOR NEXT STEPS, FOR EVALUATING PROGRAMS WITH THE INTENT OF POTENTIALLY REDUCING OR ELIMINATING SPECIFIC PROGRAMS, AND RECOMMEND THE FOLLOWING CRITERIA. NON-MANDATED PROGRAMS. AMOUNT OF GENERAL FUND OR REALIGNMENT BEING USED.

PERCENT OF REQUIRED MATCH VERSUS ACTUAL MATCH WHERE WE HAVE A REQUIRED MATCH BUT HAVE MADE A GREATER INVESTMENT IN COUNTY DOLLARS WITHOUT THE ABILITY TO LEVERAGE ADDITIONAL FUNDS.

IN THESE SCENARIOS, WE COULD REDUCE COSTS IN THE PROGRAM, BUT MAINTAIN THE PROGRAM AND FUNDING COMMUNITY BENEFIT, INCLUDING THE NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS ENGAGED IN THE PROGRAM.

PREVENTION AND SAVINGS, AS WELL AS THE RESULT OF THE PROGRAM.

AN EXAMPLE WOULD BE A NON ENDING, A NON MANDATED PROGRAM THAT MAY CREATE AN INCREASED NEED IN A MANDATED PROGRAM AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR CONSOLIDATION. IN CLOSING, TODAY WE ARE REQUESTING THAT

[03:55:02]

THE BOARD APPROVE AN EXTENSION TO THE GENERAL FUND LOAN, APPROVE THE ADDITIONAL USE OF SOCIAL SERVICES FUND BALANCE IN FISCAL YEAR 26.

APPROVED BUDGET AMENDMENTS AND BUDGET UNITS 105 01541 AND 411 AND PROVIDE DIRECTION FOR ADDITIONAL COST SAVING EFFORTS TO BE IMPLEMENTED BY HHSA.

SINCE WE BEGAN SHARING THESE FINANCIAL CONCERNS EARLY LAST YEAR.

WE HAVE CONTINUED TO EMPHASIZE THE NEED TO BALANCE HIGH IMPACT COST SAVING EFFORTS WHILE MINIMIZING THE IMPACT ON STAFF AND PROGRAMS WITH A MEASURED RESPONSE.

THANK YOU. AND WE'RE AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS. ALL RIGHT.

THANK YOU, MISS COLEMAN. DO WE HAVE ANY PUBLIC COMMENT ON THIS ITEM? ONE MOMENT CHAIR. DID YOU SAY PASS, DOLORES? OKAY.

OKAY. THEN WE JUST HAVE ONE OTHER SPEAKER, MIKE JAMES.

NOT SEEING MIKE HERE. WE HAVE NO SPEAKERS. ALL RIGHT.

IS THERE ANY BOARD DISCUSSION? SUPERVISOR. PLUMMER.

YES. THANK YOU, AARON AND CHRISTIE. THE ONE QUESTION I KNOW WE'VE GONE BACK AND FORTH ON THIS A LOT. SO I THINK I'M I PRETTY MUCH UNDERSTAND, BUT THE NET COUNTY COSTS.

SO THE ONE SLIDE WITH THE LET'S SEE WHAT SIDE THAT WAS WHERE IT SHOWED.

OH, THE, THE TIMELINE SLIDE. YEAH. THE SO ON JUNE 25TH, THE ADOPTED BUDGET INCLUDED A NET COUNTY COST OF 9.2 MILLION IN SOCIAL SERVICES FUND. THE WHEN. NOW WITH THESE ADJUSTMENTS AND KIND OF SEEING WHERE WE CAME IN, IF IF WE LOOK AT THAT FISCAL YEAR, WHAT WILL BE KIND OF OUR TOTAL AGGREGATE NET COUNTY COSTS, YOU MEAN WITH OUR ACTUALS? SO IN. 541 OUR ACTUALS ENDED THE YEAR AT $5.2 MILLION NET COUNTY COST IN 501 $3.7 MILLION AND 48,000 IN 502. OKAY. SO THAT'S THE SO IF YOU ADD THOSE UP, THAT IS PRETTY CLOSE TO THE 9.2 IT IS.

YEAH, IT'S LIKE 200, 250,000 LESS THEN BECAUSE I THINK YOU SAID AND IN YOUR THE EMAILS WE WERE TALKING ABOUT, LIKE, WHERE IS THE STARTING POINT FOR THE FUND BALANCE? AND I THINK WE HAD PROJECTED IN LAST LAST YEAR'S APPROVED BUDGET THAT THAT WOULD BE 7 MILLION, I THINK WE EXPECTED TO END LAST YEAR OR THE ADOPTED BUDGET, IT WAS ABOUT ENDING LAST YEAR WOULD HAVE BEEN ABOUT 12 MILLION.

AND THEN THIS YEAR IT WOULD HAVE END, PUT US AT ABOUT 7 MILLION AT THE END OF FISCAL YEAR 2027, BECAUSE WE PROJECTED REVENUE TO COME IN A LOT HIGHER THAN IT DID.

AND SO AND THEN YOU SAID THAT NOW IT'S LOOKING LIKE OUR STARTING POINT FOR THIS FISCAL YEAR WILL BE 4.3.3 FOR THIS FISCAL YEAR.

YES. SO I GUESS THAT'S WHERE I'M A LITTLE CONFUSED, BECAUSE IF THE NET COUNTY COST IS BASICALLY ROUGHLY THE SAME AS WE BUDGETED, THEN THE WHY IS OUR FUND BALANCE STARTING LOWER THAN IT WAS IN THE BUDGET.

I DON'T KNOW IF THAT MAKES SENSE IN TERMS OF THE WORDING OF IT, BUT IT DOES.

I THINK WHAT WHAT WE WERE LOOKING AT IN THE BUDGET PRESENTATION WAS STRICTLY PROJECTIONS.

SO OUR PROJECTIONS, TOTAL NET COUNTY COSTS AND SOCIAL SERVICES WAS ONLY ABOUT $858,000.

BECAUSE THE REVENUE DIDN'T MATERIALIZE, WE ENDED UP KIND OF BREAKING EVEN WITH WHERE OUR BUDGET ENDED UP OR OUR ADOPTED BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2026 WAS APPROVED. OKAY. AND THEN THE SO IF WE'RE STARTING THIS YEAR WITH 4.3 SAVINGS, I'LL JUST ADD ON TO THAT.

WE HAD SAVINGS IN OUR EXPENDITURES, BUT OUR REVENUE NOT MATERIALIZING REALLY OFFSET THAT, RIGHT? IT KIND OF IT BASICALLY NETTED IT OUT. RIGHT.

AND THEN SO STARTING THIS YEAR AT 4.3, AND THEN WE HAD BUDGETED SPENDING OR DRAWING DOWN 4.5 FOR THIS FISCAL YEAR FROM THAT FUND BALANCE, WHICH IS.

THAT WOULD TAKE US TO NEGATIVE TWO 200,000. SO THAT'S WHERE THE PUBLIC HEALTH TRANSFER IS, THAT OF THE ONE POINT SOMETHING MILLION. SO WE HAD A SECOND.

WE HAD TWO REALIGNMENT TRANSFERS FROM PUBLIC HEALTH LAST YEAR. TODAY WE'RE ASKING FOR THE APPROVAL FOR JUST 110%.

WE MIGHT END UP COMING BACK LATER THIS FISCAL YEAR TO REQUEST A SECOND 10% TRANSFER.

THERE'S SOME ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS THAT GO ALONG WITH THAT IN TERMS OF CASELOAD SIZES. AND SO THAT MEANS SO WE'RE STARTING AT 4.3.

WE'RE PLANNING TO WHICH MAY OR MAY NOT MATERIALIZE.

WE'RE PLANNING TO DRAW DOWN THE 4.5 WHICH IF WE DIDN'T DO ANYTHING THAT WOULD TAKE US TO -200,000.

WE'RE TRANSFERRING 1.1 OR $1 MILLION FROM PUBLIC HEALTH.

[04:00:04]

SO THAT MEANS IF WE DON'T DO ANYTHING ELSE AND IT GOES EXACTLY AS BUDGETED, WE'D FINISH THE YEAR WITH 800,000 LEFT IN THE SOCIAL SERVICES FUND BALANCE. I'D HAVE TO RUN THE NUMBERS ON THAT, BUT IT WOULD BE CLOSE TO THAT.

OKAY. AND THE PUBLIC HEALTH FUND BALANCE. I WAS JUST LOOKING AT THIS TO SEE KIND OF LIKE WHAT THE IMPLICATIONS, BECAUSE I KNOW WE'VE DRAWN DOWN IN THE PAST ON THAT. WE'VE DONE THIS TRANSFER.

I THINK LAST YEAR, WAS IT JUST MENTAL HEALTH THAT WE DID? THE TRANSFER LAST YEAR WAS JUST PUBLIC HEALTH, JUST PUBLIC HEALTH AND THEN THE MENTAL HEALTH TRANSFER. I WANT TO SAY 2 OR 3 FISCAL YEARS.

OKAY. AND THEN OUR PUBLIC HEALTH FUND BALANCE WILL BE.

I WAS JUST LOOKING AT THE BUDGET AGAIN, THE I THINK WE HAD BUDGETED ENDING THIS YEAR AT 5 MILLION, BUT IT CAME IN HIGHER WITH THE ACTUAL. SO IT'S MORE LIKE 6 MILLION.

SO WE'D BE DOWN TO 5 MILLION OR SO WITH THIS ADDITIONAL DRAW.

OKAY. AND THEN THE OTHER THING THAT WE'VE TALKED ABOUT, AND YOU SHARED THOSE SPREADSHEETS, WHICH WERE SUPER HELPFUL, WAS THE AREAS WHERE WE'VE UNDER DRAWN, MEANING THE ALLOCATION WAS MORE THAN WE ACTUALLY EXPENDED.

SO WE KIND OF LEFT MONEY ON THE TABLE. ON THE TABLE, IN A SENSE.

AND THEN THE AND THAT MY ESTIMATE ON THAT WAS AROUND 8 MILLION TOTAL.

LIKE IF WE WERE TO ABLE, WHICH ISN'T NECESSARILY FEASIBLE, BUT IF, IF WE WERE ABLE TO CAPTURE ALL OF THAT ALLOCATION, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN 8 MILLION MORE ON THE REVENUE SIDE. IS THAT.

YEAH. AND THEN THERE WOULD BE COSTS ASSOCIATED, RIGHT, STAFFING COSTS TO DRAW THAT REVENUE DOWN.

BUT THAT'S, YOU KNOW, THAT'S KIND OF THE POINT THAT I WANTED TO MAKE IS LIKE, THERE'S SOME PRETTY HEAVY HITTERS LIKE CAL WORKS AND CAL FRESH MEDI-CAL.

WHERE WE DID LEAVE REVENUE ON THE TABLE AND THE YOU'VE MENTIONED, AND I THINK, CHRISTY, YOU MENTIONED THIS IN YOUR PRESENTATION ABOUT HR ONE THAT IS IT THAT WE'RE PLANNING TO RECEIVE.

IS IT 7 TO 8 MILLION MORE IN TOTAL? IS THAT THAT'S ON TOP OF WHAT WE HAVE IN THE CURRENT BUDGET? YEAH THAT'S CORRECT. AND SO FOR THOSE AREAS LIKE CALFRESH AND MEDI-CAL IN PARTICULAR, WHICH I KNOW ARE LIKE A 94% UTILIZATION.

WE WOULD WE'RE GOING, WE'D HAVE TO EXPAND IN WHICH WE, WE IMAGINE THE WORKLOAD WILL GO UP BECAUSE WE'RE DOING TWICE A YEAR VERIFICATION.

IS THAT SO? OR DO WE SEE A PATHWAY TO DRAWING DOWN THAT FULL ALLOCATION THAT WITH THIS ADDITIONAL FUNDING COMING IN? YES. SO WE'RE TRYING TO HIRE ELIGIBILITY SPECIALISTS.

THEY'VE BEEN DOING RECRUITMENTS AND HAVE CLASSES THAT HAVE BEEN GOING.

RECRUITMENT HAS BEEN MORE. MISS COLEMAN, SORRY, WE CAN'T HEAR YOU.

CAN YOU JUST. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I DON'T KNOW HOW THAT HAPPENED.

SORRY. RECRUITMENT HAS BEEN MORE CHALLENGING THAN WHAT WE HAD EXPECTED.

AND SO IT'S BEEN CHALLENGING TO HAVE A BIGGER CLASS THAN WHAT WE HAVE WANTED.

BUT THEY ARE DOING SOME DIFFERENT THINGS TO TRY TO GET ELIGIBILITY SPECIALISTS IN THE DOOR AND HIRED.

AND WE'RE ALSO TRYING TO DO SOME LIKE PROMOTIONS INTERNALLY TO GET OUT TO THE COMMUNITY TO, FOR HR ONE. AND SO ONE THING THAT WE ARE DOING IS WE'RE WORKING WITH THE FQHCS TO POTENTIALLY HAVE STAFF IN THE FQHCS TO TAKE MEDI-CAL APPLICATIONS TO MAKE SURE PEOPLE ARE KEEPING THEIR MEDI-CAL, BECAUSE THAT'S A BIG THING, RIGHT? AND SO WE'RE DOING SOME DIFFERENT THINGS TO TRY TO HAVE STAFF TO SPEND ON THE MONEY WISELY, BUT TO MAKE SURE WE'RE DOING IT, YOU KNOW, IN THE MEDI-CAL CALFRESH WORLD WHERE WE ACTUALLY HAVE THE FUNDING TO DO IT AND NOT DOING IT IN THE AREAS THAT WE DON'T HAVE THE FUNDING.

AND IN TERMS OF THE BECAUSE WE HAVE SOME AREAS WHERE WE SPENT MORE THAN OUR ALLOCATION, WHICH LIKE WE TALKED ABOUT CHILD WELFARE, THAT'S ALWAYS GOING TO BE THE CASE BECAUSE THE FEDERAL ALLOCATION IS SUPER SMALL RELATIVE TO THE COST OF PROVIDING THOSE SERVICES.

BUT WHEN IT COMES TO, LET'S SAY, ELIGIBILITY WORKERS OR SOCIAL WORKERS, IS IT THAT THEY ARE HIRED AND TRAINED ON ONE SPECIFIC PROGRAM? AND THEN THEY ONLY DO THAT BECAUSE I'M KIND OF CURIOUS, LIKE IF WE'RE IF WE'RE SPENDING MORE ON SOME AREAS AND, AND TOO LITTLE IN A SENSE ON OTHER AREAS, ARE WE OR IS IT ARE WE ABLE TO MOVE PEOPLE AROUND? OR IS IT YOU COME IN AND THIS IS YOUR ONE AREA AND THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE ABLE TO DO.

SO ELIGIBILITY WORKERS, THEY WOULD COME IN AND THEY'D GET TRAINED ON ON ALL OF THE PROGRAMS. AND SO THEY COULD WORK ALL OF THE PROGRAMS. SO WE'RE REALLY KIND OF FOCUSING ON TRAINING ON JUST THE AREAS THAT WE HAVE FUNDING RIGHT NOW.

AND SO WE'RE DOING THINGS A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT THAN WHAT WE HAVE DONE IN THE PAST, JUST BECAUSE WE HAVE TO DO THINGS DIFFERENT RIGHT NOW.

AND SO WHEN WE HAVE CLASSES THAT CAN COME IN, WE'RE, WE'RE REALLY FOCUSING ON THE MEDI-CAL AND CALFRESH WORLD TO GET THEM TRAINED AND KIND OF OUT ON THE FLOOR TO SERVE, TO SERVE THE CLIENTS AND HELP WITH WHAT WE NEED.

RECRUITMENT HAS BEEN CHALLENGING. THAT'S THE PROBLEM.

AND SO WHEN WE HAVE PEOPLE THAT ARE, THAT ARE IN AND WORKING AND CODING THEIR TIME AND WE HAVE OURS, THAT'S WHERE WE ARE ABLE TO DRAW DOWN THE FUNDING.

AND SO THAT'S WHERE WE CAN THEN CAPTURE ALL THE REVENUE THAT'S FOR THE ELIGIBILITY SPECIALIST.

SO THAT'S FOR YOUR CALFRESH, THAT'S FOR YOUR MEDI-CAL SOCIAL WORKERS AND CHILD WELFARE.

THAT'S THAT'S DIFFERENT. THE SOCIAL WORKERS AND APS, THOSE ARE DIFFERENT THAN THE CHILD WELFARE SOCIAL WORKERS.

[04:05:06]

AND SO THOSE SOCIAL WORKERS DON'T MIX AND MATCH ACROSS PROGRAMS THERE.

THEY DO NOT. OKAY. THERE ARE DIFFERENT REQUIREMENTS TO CHILD WELFARE VERSUS APS.

AND THEN IN TERMS OF BECAUSE I KNOW YOU TALKED ABOUT WHICH EVALUATING PROGRAMS AND ONE OF THE THINGS THAT YOU AND I HAVE TALKED ABOUT IS, YOU KNOW, WHERE ARE THERE FEDERAL AND OR STATE LIKE COMPLIANCE BENCHMARKS IN TERMS OF, SAY PROCESSING AN APPLICATION FOR MEDI-CAL OR CALFRESH WITHIN A CERTAIN PERIOD OF TIME. MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THAT'S SOMETHING THAT YOU'RE, YOU'RE CURRENTLY LOOKING INTO, BUT WE IN TERMS OF WHETHER WE'RE LIKE EXCEEDING THOSE BENCHMARKS NOW OR WE'RE, YOU KNOW, UNDERPERFORMING THOSE.

DO YOU HAVE KIND OF AN APPROXIMATE SENSE OF, OF WHERE WE STAND RELATIVE TO THAT? YEAH. SO I TALKED TO JOHN YESTERDAY. AND SO CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, JOHN, BUT I BELIEVE CALFRESH WE'RE AT 99% MEDI-CAL, WE'RE AT 90%. AND SO WE'RE NOT EXCEEDING THE 100%.

WE'RE WITHIN OUR BENCHMARKS. MEDI-CAL, WE'RE SUPPOSED TO BE AT 90.

AND SO WE'RE WE'RE WITHIN THAT TIME FRAME, RIGHT? 90. RIGHT. OKAY. 90. I WAS RIGHT ON THAT. SO I WANT TO MAKE SURE I'M SAYING WHAT I WAS CORRECT.

AND SO WE'RE WITHIN OUR BENCHMARKS OF WHERE WE'RE SUPPOSED TO BE.

WE'RE NOT EXCEEDING 100%, BUT WE ARE MAKING SURE WE'RE DOING WHAT WE NEED TO DO TO STAY WITHIN THE COMPLIANCE OF THE PROGRAMS. OKAY. I HAVE AND FOR THE BOARD, I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S OTHER, I DON'T SEE ANYONE IN QUEUE.

I HAVE KIND OF A THOUGHT ON A. OKAY, THEN. YEAH.

I'LL DEFER TO, TO LET OTHERS ASK SOME QUESTIONS.

AND THEN I HAVE A THOUGHT ON A PATH FORWARD. SUPERVISOR LONG THANK YOU CHAIR THANK YOU FOR THE PRESENTATION FOR THE UPDATES.

I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT A FEW THINGS. AND ONE OF THE THINGS YOU AND I HAVE JUST DISCUSSED WAS THE INTERNAL SERVICES AND KEEPING THOSE FULLY STAFFED, AND THEREFORE THAT THOSE ARE COSTS THAT YOU CAN'T CONTROL IN THIS BUDGET PICTURE.

SO CAN YOU ELABORATE ON THAT JUST A BIT AND, AND WHERE WE COULD GO AND HOW THAT WOULD LOOK, BECAUSE THAT'S THAT'S ACROSS THE BOARD, ALL INTERNAL DEPARTMENTS.

SO YEAH, THAT'S CORRECT. SO WE DO HAVE INTERNAL COSTS THAT, YOU KNOW, WE ARE BUDGETED FOR EVERY SINGLE YEAR THAT WE DON'T HAVE CONTROL OVER.

AND SO THAT IS SOMETHING THAT, YOU KNOW, WOULD BE VERY HELPFUL TO BE ABLE TO HAVE CONVERSATIONS, TO SAY HOW MUCH WE ACTUALLY CAN SPEND ON, ON DIFFERENT DEPARTMENTS.

AND SO THAT GOES ACROSS THE COUNTY. AND SO IF WE ARE ABLE TO CONTROL OUR COSTS IN DIFFERENT WAYS, THAT WILL BRING OUR COSTS DOWN. AND SO, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE DONE SOME ANALYSIS AND COSTS HAVE INCREASED QUITE A BIT OVER THE YEARS.

AND SO I DO THINK, YOU KNOW, THAT'S A BIGGER COUNTY CONVERSATION THAT, YOU KNOW, I KEEP SAYING WE NEED TO HAVE. IS THIS A COUNTY CONVERSATION? IT'S NOT JUST AN HSA A CONVERSATION, BUT IT'S A LARGER COUNTY CONVERSATION THAT NEEDS TO HAPPEN.

AND SO WE'VE BEEN HAVING THOSE CONVERSATIONS WITH THE CEO'S OFFICE TO SAY, WHAT, WHAT CAN WE DO? YOU KNOW, HOW CAN WE DO THIS? LIKE WHAT NEEDS TO CHANGE? BECAUSE IF WE CAN'T CONTROL THEM AS OURSELVES, AS HHSA, YOU KNOW, SOMETHING HAS TO HAPPEN, RIGHT? THOSE ARE, YOU KNOW, THERE'S DIFFERENT DEPARTMENTS THAT ARE INTERNAL DEPARTMENTS AND COST PLAN CHARGES THAT JUST CONTINUE TO INCREASE.

WHEREAS WE ARE CONTINUING TO CUT. WE'VE CUT BUILDINGS AND WE'VE WE HAVEN'T HIRED STAFF.

AND SO THAT SHOULD THEN DEFINITELY EQUATE TO INTERNAL DEPARTMENTS NOT HAVING AS MUCH WORK AS WELL.

GOT IT. OKAY. I THINK THAT I THINK THAT'S AN IMPORTANT POINT OF CLARIFICATION JUST TO GET THAT OUT THERE.

AND THEN ONE OF THE OTHER POINTS THAT YOU MADE WAS REGULAR SALARY SAVINGS.

563 AND HEALTH INSURANCE INCREASED BY 683,000.

SO IT'S GOING. AND THEN YOU'VE GOT INTERNAL SERVICES, WHICH KEEPS GOING UP AND ALL ALL THE FACTORS.

SO IT'S IT'S NOT SURPRISING THE THE MATH ON THESE EQUATIONS.

AND, AND YOU AND I TALKED A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE $8 MILLION THAT SUPERVISOR PLUMMER WAS REFERRING TO. AND, AND WAS THAT DUE TO. AND I'M NOT SURE I UNDERSTAND THIS COMPLETELY, BUT WAS THAT DUE TO STAFFING SHORTAGES BASED ON ALL THE HARD FREEZES THAT WE'VE HAD, AND THEREFORE THEY WEREN'T GETTING BILLED PROPERLY AND GETTING THAT REVENUE INTO OUR ACCOUNTS? YEAH. SO WE, YOU KNOW, WE DID OUR, OUR BROAD STROKES APPROACH OF WE NEEDED TO DO COST REDUCTIONS, RIGHT? SO WE DID OUR COST REDUCTIONS ACROSS THE AGENCY.

WE REALLY NEEDED TO REDUCE COSTS EVERYWHERE AND GET COSTS DOWN BECAUSE THEY WERE, THEY WERE TOO LARGE.

RIGHT? SO WE NEEDED TO DO KIND OF A BROAD STROKE OF GET EVERYTHING DOWN TO REALLY SEE WHERE WE'RE AT.

AND SO IN DOING THAT, WE DID THE HARD HIRING FREEZE TO MAKE SURE WE'RE WE'RE HOLDING STAFFING TO SEE WHAT WE NEEDED TO DO, TO SEE WHAT KIND OF STAFFING WE ACTUALLY NEEDED PER AREA FOR EACH AREA TO KIND OF EVALUATE, OKAY, WHERE ARE WE AT IN DOING THAT? WHAT HAPPENED WAS WE KNEW THERE WAS A POTENTIAL THAT WE WEREN'T GOING TO GET ALL THE REVENUE THAT WE WERE INITIALLY GETTING.

[04:10:03]

AND SO THAT'S WHAT HAPPENED IS WE WEREN'T GETTING WE WEREN'T ABLE TO DRAW DOWN ALL THE REVENUE BECAUSE WE DIDN'T HAVE THE STAFF HOURS THAT WERE GOING IN TO DRAW DOWN ALL THE REVENUE BECAUSE WE HAD THE HIRING FREEZE GOING ON.

OKAY. AND ARE WE BEING STRATEGIC GOING FORWARD TO MAKE SURE THAT THOSE POSITIONS ARE FILLED WHERE OTHER POSITIONS MAY NOT BE? AND I KNOW WE'VE TALKED ABOUT ELIGIBILITY SPECIALISTS AND THE DIFFICULTY RECRUITING THAT.

YES. SO THAT'S THE THAT'S OUR WHAT WE'RE CALLING THE TARGETED APPROACH BECAUSE WE HAVE.

THAT'S OUR MEDI-CAL AND CALFRESH. SO THOSE ARE OUR TWO BIG AREAS THAT WE DID NOT DRAW DOWN ALL OF OUR FUNDING.

AND SO THOSE ARE THE TWO AREAS WHERE WE HAVE FUNDING. AND WE'RE DOING A TARGETED APPROACH THIS YEAR TO MAKE SURE WE'RE HIRING ELIGIBILITY SPECIALISTS AND WE'RE TRAINING THEM IN THOSE AREAS. SO THEY'RE WORKING IN THOSE AREAS.

THEY'RE CODING THEIR TIME TO THOSE AREAS, AND WE'RE ABLE TO THEN DRAW DOWN THE FUNDING IN THOSE AREAS.

GOT IT. AND ANOTHER THING, EVEN THOUGH YOU'RE ASKING FOR THE 10 MILLION.

CORRECT. THAT'S THIS IS ALL POINT IN TIME MEASUREMENTS, RIGHT.

SO SO IT COULD BE I DON'T KNOW WHAT IT'S EVER GOTTEN UP TO, BUT THEN RIGHT NOW IT'S ABOUT 3.2.

CORRECT. YEAH. THAT'S WHAT IT WAS AS OF YESTERDAY. I DID NOT CHECK IT THIS MORNING. BUT YEAH, AS OF YESTERDAY IT WAS 3.2.

AND SO IT WASN'T 10 MILLION AS OF AS OF YESTERDAY.

BUT YES, IT WAS ALL POINT IN TIME. YOU KNOW, IT'S JUST KIND OF IT EBBS AND FLOWS ON A DAILY BASIS, A DAILY CASH FLOW. AND SO IT KIND OF DEPENDS ON WHAT, YOU KNOW, WHAT REVENUE WE GET IN, WHAT TRANSACTIONS WE HAVE GOING OUT.

AND IT'S NOT, THIS IS NOT AN OVERNIGHT, YOU KNOW, FIX.

AS WE'VE BEEN SAYING, THIS IS A, THIS IS A LONGER PROCESS THAT WE HAVE, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE TO FIX WHAT'S GOING ON.

AND SO WE DID, YOU KNOW, THE BIG COST SAVING EFFORTS.

NOW WE NEED TO DO THE TARGETED APPROACH TO MAKE SURE WE'RE GETTING ALL THE REVENUE FOR THOSE PARTICULAR AREAS. AFTER WE GOT THE ALL THE COSTS THAT WERE REALLY HIGH DOWN TO WHERE THEY REALLY NEEDED TO BE. AND DO YOU HAVE AN ESTIMATE OF THE RANGE WHERE THAT 10 MILLION, WHAT IS THE MOST.

WE'VE BEEN INTO IT WITH SOCIAL SERVICES SHORTFALLS BASED ON CASH FLOW SITUATIONS? WELL, I DO KNOW THAT WHEN WE DID THE IHS MOU, IT DOES GET REALLY HIGH BECAUSE THAT'S A THAT'S CLOSE TO A WHAT IS IT? EIGHT. $9 MILLION PAYMENT AT ONCE. YES. AND SO WHEN THAT PAYMENT WENT OUT, WE DEFINITELY PROBABLY HIT THAT $10 MILLION MARK WHEN THAT PAYMENT WENT OUT.

AND THEN WE GET REVENUE BACK IN. BUT THAT THAT IHS MOE WHEN IT GOES OUT, THAT'S A ONE TIME BIG LUMP SUM.

IS THAT THE ONE IN MARCH? YES. OKAY. OKAY. YEP.

AND SO THAT'S A BIG ONE. SO THAT'S WHEN THAT I REMEMBER WE TOOK A REAL HIT IN MARCH.

THAT'S WHEN THAT IHS CAME IN. YEAH. OKAY. THE OTHER THING THAT WE'RE DOING WITH THIS TARGETED APPROACH TO IS I'VE CHANGED HOW WE'RE LOOKING AT OUR HOURS.

AND SO WE USED TO ONLY LOOK AT HOURS QUARTERLY.

WE'RE NOW LOOKING AT THEM MONTHLY. AND SO WE LOOK AT THE HOURS REPORT TO SEE HOW THE HOURS ARE ACTUALLY TRACKING MONTHLY TO.

BE ABLE TO ADJUST THE TIME FOR STAFF MONTHLY INSTEAD OF ONLY ADJUSTING IT QUARTERLY.

OKAY. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. SUPERVISOR PLUMMER.

AND THEN I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION. YES. AND THAT'S WHERE I'M GOING TO GO WITH IT IN TERMS OF A MOTION.

THE AND BEFORE KIND OF STATING IT SPECIFICALLY.

THE FIRST I WANT TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT CHRISTY AND AARON HAVE DONE A LOT OF WORK.

I MEAN, AARON'S BEEN SENDING ME VERY DETAILED SPREADSHEETS THAT HAVE TAKEN A WHILE TO TRY TO UNDERSTAND.

BUT, AND SO THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF EFFORT LOOKING INTO THIS GOING BACK A YEAR AND A HALF.

YOU KNOW, AND I'D SAY UNFORTUNATELY, LIKE WHEN WE JUST LOOK AT THE FINANCIAL PICTURE WHERE WE ARE TODAY COMPARED TO A YEAR AGO, WE'RE PRETTY MUCH IN THE SAME SPOT. DESPITE THE EFFORTS AROUND COST SAVINGS, I MEAN, OUR FUND BALANCE ACTUALLY IS WEAKER.

AND WE'RE LOOKING AT YOU KNOW, WITH THE REVENUES NOT MATERIALIZING.

AND AND I THINK ALSO, YOU KNOW, IN TERMS OF THE REVENUES NOT MATERIALIZING, THOUGH, THE PROJECTIONS, AS AARON HAS SHARED WITH ME WERE WAY DIFFERENT.

AND I WOULD SAY FURTHER OFF, IF WE LOOK BACK TO 2024, IT WAS KIND OF A SIMILAR THING HAPPEN IN TERMS OF WE THOUGHT REVENUES WERE GOING TO MATERIALIZE. THEY DIDN'T. AND THEN WE HAD TO MAKE A BIG ADJUSTMENT AFTER THE FACT.

AND SO I THINK AT THIS POINT, AND WOULD LOVE BECAUSE I'VE TALKED WITH SEE A RECORD ABOUT THIS BRIEFLY INPUT FROM CEO RICKERT, BUT THAT IT WOULD BE HELPFUL TO HIRE AN OUTSIDE AGENCY TO COME IN AND SAY, LET'S DO A COMPREHENSIVE REPORT AND SPECIFICALLY LOOK AT FIVE THINGS. AND SOME OF THOSE ARE THE THINGS WE'VE MENTIONED, BUT ONE IS THE AREAS WHERE WE DID NOT REALIZE THE FULL REVENUE THAT IS ALLOCATED TO US.

OKAY. WHAT'S THE PLAN THERE FOR THE AREAS WHERE WE OVERSPENT? WHERE ARE THERE ADDITIONAL OPPORTUNITIES FOR COST REDUCTIONS? THE MENTION AROUND PROGRAM EVALUATIONS, WHERE CAN WE YOU KNOW, WHERE ARE THERE MAYBE PROGRAMS THAT COULD BE REDUCED IN SERVICE AND WHERE DO WE SHIFT THERE? AND THEN WHAT IS A ROADMAP TO REMOVING TO, TO ENDING THIS LOAN?

[04:15:07]

BECAUSE ULTIMATELY, AND I DO WANT TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT OTHER COUNTIES ARE FACING SIMILAR CHALLENGES AND OR ARE CONTRIBUTING MUCH MORE FROM THEIR GENERAL FUND TO SOCIAL SERVICES.

BUT AT THE SAME TIME, I THINK ALL OF US WANT TO SEE US NOT HAVE A GENERAL FUND LOAN TO SOCIAL SERVICES.

SO THAT'S KIND OF INITIAL THOUGHT, BUT CEO RICKERT WOULD WELCOME YOUR PERSPECTIVE ON IT TO.

SPEAK, MR. CHAIRMAN. OF COURSE, I DID HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO MEET WITH SUPERVISOR PLUMMER TO HAVE SOME DISCUSSIONS ON THIS.

THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF TIME, EFFORT AND WORK BY STAFFING THIS.

I REALLY WANT TO APPLAUD THE WORK THAT AARON WARD AND CHRISTIE COLEMAN HAVE DONE THIS FAR.

SOME OF THE CHALLENGES WE'RE HAVING IS THESE ISSUES ARE VERY COMPLEX AS FAR AS HOW THESE PROGRAMS INTERRELATE TO WHERE IF YOU CUT ONE PROGRAM, IT IMPACTS ANOTHER. AND THE GOAL IS NOT TO CUT AREAS THAT IS GOING TO INADVERTENTLY CAUSE MORE ADDITIONAL EXPENSE ON OUR PROGRAMS. AND FOR A MULTITUDE OF REASONS, I THINK THERE'S SOME VALUE IN LOOKING AT POTENTIAL CONSULTANT TO LOOK AT THIS AS AN OVERALL BIG PICTURE AND NOT JUST HHS.

THERE ARE SOME INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS THAT IMPACT THEIR BUDGET TO WHICH WE ARE ALREADY LOOKING AT ON OUR END.

SO IT'S NOT JUST HHSA, IT'S ACROSS THE BOARD WITH THE COUNTY.

I THINK THE MOST COMPELLING THING THAT THE BOARD IS AWARE OF IS WITH FIRE.

THERE ARE CERTAIN AREAS OF THE COUNTY WE HAVE TO TAKE A HARD LOOK AT, BECAUSE LONG TERM, WE HAVE SOME SYSTEMIC ISSUES WE HAVE TO ADDRESS NOW.

SO THE LONG AND SHORT OF IT IS, I THINK THERE'S SOME VALUE IN LOOKING AT THIS, AND I WOULD RECOMMEND GOING FORWARD BRINGING FORWARD A CONSULTANT.

I THINK THE ONE QUESTION WE HAVE, BECAUSE HHSA IS SO STRESSED WITH THEIR BUDGET THAT THAT BE PAID FOR OUT OF THE GENERAL FUND, NOT OUT OF BEHAVIORAL HEALTH OR HHS. A IF WE DO SO.

SO I WOULD MAKE A MOTION THAT WE ISSUE AN RFP FOR A CON, AN OUTSIDE CONSULTING GROUP TO OVER THE FIRST QUARTER OF NEXT CALENDAR YEAR TO PROVIDE A COMPREHENSIVE REPORT ON WHERE WE CAN INCREASE REVENUE, REDUCE OVERSPENDING, EVALUATE OUR PROGRAMS, AND A ROADMAP TO ENDING THE GENERAL FUND LOAN.

AND THAT'S GOING TO BE PAID OUT OF THE GENERAL FUND. SO LET ME JUST CLARIFY SO YOU CAN BRING BACK AN ITEM TO ISSUE AN RFP.

WHAT YOU HAVE ON HERE TODAY IS TO APPROVE A BUDGET AMENDMENT WITH ALL OF THE THINGS HERE.

SO YOU CAN DO TWO ACTIONS. ONE IS IF YOU DON'T WANT TO TAKE ANY ACTION ON THAT, YOU DON'T HAVE TO.

BUT THE THE ITEM FOR AN RFP WOULD BE TO BRING IT BACK.

YES. THANK YOU. SO I WOULD APPROVE THE ITEMS THAT ARE IN ON THE AGENDA AND BRING BACK AN ITEM TO AROUND ISSUING THIS RFP. I WILL SECOND THAT. SUPERVISOR CRYE. YOU WERE IN CUE JUST OUT OF CURIOSITY, JUST OUT OF CURIOSITY. SUPERVISOR PLUMMER. DO YOU HAVE A DOLLAR AMOUNT THAT YOU'RE THINKING ABOUT? I DON'T.

I'D LIKE TO SEE. AND NOT THAT I WOULD. I'D LIKE TO SEE KIND OF WHAT COMES IN FIRST, BECAUSE I THINK WE WANT A GROUP OR A PERSON WHO IS VERY FAMILIAR WITH THE COMPLEXITIES OF THIS, WHO IS, YOU KNOW, EVALUATING THIS EITHER AT THE STATE LEVEL OR AT THE COUNTY ACROSS MANY COUNTIES AND HAS DONE THIS TYPE OF WORK BEFORE.

AND SO I WOULDN'T WANT TO KIND OF ARTIFICIALLY SUPPRESS IT AND THEN NOT GET SOMEONE WITH THE APPROPRIATE EXPERIENCE, BECAUSE I THINK WE'VE DONE A LOT OF LOOK, I MEAN, I'VE SPENT A LOT OF TIME WITH AARON AND CHRISTI AND DAVE AND TRYING TO FIGURE OUT, YOU KNOW WHAT? BUT I THINK HAVING AND I KNOW THERE'S BEEN CONSULTANTS WORKING WITH THE TEAM, BUT HAVING AN OUTSIDE GROUP DO A COMPREHENSIVE LOOK AND HAVE A SPECIFIC DELIVERABLE THAT THEY PRESENT TO THE BOARD AND THE PUBLIC WOULD BE VALUABLE.

SO DID YOU HAVE I'M JUST JUST FOR MY EDIFICATION.

BUT DID YOU YOU SAID THAT OUR COUNTY, WHICH IS TRUE.

I WOULDN'T KNOW THE NUMBER, BUT WE ARE ONE OF THOSE COUNTIES THAT ARE IN WAY BETTER SHAPE, ESPECIALLY THE RURAL COUNTIES IN THIS SITUATION, THAN THE REST OF THE STATE.

CORRECT. I COULDN'T SAY THAT DEFINITIVELY. I DON'T HAVE KIND OF COMPREHENSIVE DATA ON.

BUT YOUR STATEMENT THAT YOU DID SAY, THOUGH, THAT WE'RE DOING FAR BETTER.

WHAT I DID SAY WAS THAT I DON'T WANT TO MISQUOTE YOU.

I WANT TO KNOW EXACTLY. YEAH, YEAH. WHAT I, WHAT I SAID IS I WAS ACKNOWLEDGING THAT OTHER COUNTIES ARE FACING SIMILAR CHALLENGES.

I CAN'T SAY THAT WE ARE BETTER OR WORSE OFF, BUT YOU DID SAY THAT WE'RE DOING BETTER THAN MANY OF THOSE COUNTIES THAT YOU SAW.

I DON'T BELIEVE I ACTUALLY SAID THAT. OKAY. SO WELL, CHRISTIE, SO IN, IN LIKE PRODUCT OR PRODUCT, A LOT OF COUNTIES AND CITIES THAT I ACTUALLY DID A SEARCH TO SEE KIND OF, YOU KNOW, WHAT COUNTIES AND CITIES WERE DOING.

AND THERE'S A LOT OF COUNTIES AND CITIES WHO HAVE DONE A LOT OF CUTS THROUGHOUT THE COUNTY,

[04:20:03]

NOT JUST HHSA AND A LOT OF GENERAL FUND CUTS LIKE SANTA CLARA COUNTY REDUCED POSITIONS BY 655, YOLO COUNTY, REDUCED POSITIONS BY 151. STANISLAUS.

THERE'S A LOT OF COUNTIES THAT ARE DOING IT COUNTYWIDE, NOT JUST HHSA AND ITS CITIES AS WELL.

AND SO IF YOU ACTUALLY JUST DO A SEARCH, YOU WILL FIND THAT WE ARE NOT THE ONLY COUNTY THAT THIS IS HAPPENING TO.

HHSAS IS UP AND DOWN THE STATE ARE HAVING THIS PROBLEM, INCLUDING NAPA.

AND SO IT'S HAPPENING EVERYWHERE. AND THIS IS SOMETHING THAT, YOU KNOW, IS NOT GOING TO BE SOLVED BY HIRING ANOTHER CONSULTANT.

WE ARE HAPPY TO WORK WITH THE CONSULTANT. WE DON'T WE DON'T WANT TO BECAUSE I WANT TO FINISH THIS BEFORE YOU GET INTO THAT, BECAUSE AARON BURTON AND AARON WATTS HAVE WORKED ON THIS BALLPARK, HOW MANY HOURS, LIKE A PERCENTAGE OF YOUR TIME? THIS HAS BEEN OUR LIFE FOR THE PAST YEAR. YEAH.

SO BUT I, YOU KNOW, I WOULD INVITE YOU TO LOOK AT KIND OF WHAT THE OTHER COUNTIES ARE DOING.

AND WE HAVE TALKED TO THE OTHER COUNTIES TOO.

YEAH. I MEAN, SO, WELL, AND I, I HAVE, I HAVE A HARD TIME WITH PUTTING IT OUT FOR RFP.

YOU'RE NOT EVEN CUTE. I'M CUTE. I KNOW WELL, I'M SO I HAVE A HARD TIME WITH THE RFP.

I MEAN, YOU WERE JUST CONCERNED ABOUT TAKING $90,000 OUT OF THE GENERAL FUND FOR A MUCH NEEDED VEHICLE THAT THE SHERIFF NEEDED, WHICH WAS A TEMPORARY SITUATION. AND NOW WE'RE GOING TO TAKE MONEY OUT OF THE GENERAL FUND TO STUDY WHAT THEY'VE BEEN DOING FOR, I MEAN, WELL, AND I WOULD MAKE TWO POINTS ON THAT.

ONE IS THE RETURN ON INVESTMENT WE'RE, YOU KNOW, ABOUT TO BE NEGATIVE ON OUR SOCIAL SERVICES FUND BALANCE.

WE'RE GETTING CLOSE ON MENTAL HEALTH, PUBLIC HEALTH. IF WE DRAIN ALL THREE OF THOSE, THAT ULTIMATELY COMES OUT OF THE GENERAL FUND, AND WE'RE TALKING TO THE TUNE OF, YOU KNOW, 15 TO 30 MILLION A YEAR THAT WE WOULD THEN HAVE TO SUBSIDIZE IF THOSE ALL THREE FUND BALANCES.

SO IF WE COULD SPEND 50,000 OR WHATEVER NUMBER ON A CONSULTANT AND SAVE 30 MILLION A YEAR, THAT'S A HUGE DIFFERENCE. AND SO THAT'S WHERE I WOULD BE WILLING TO SPEND IT.

THE SECOND POINT IS THAT YOU KNOW, WHILE, YOU KNOW, I APPRECIATE THE EFFORTS OF THE TEAM HERE, WE DON'T HAVE CURRENTLY A ROADMAP OUT OF THIS.

WE HAVEN'T BEEN ABLE TO IDENTIFY A PATHWAY. WE THOUGHT WE HAD, YOU KNOW, SOME GOOD PROGRESS LAST YEAR, BUT THEN IT ENDED UP IN SOME SENSE BACKFIRING AND ENDING UP PUTTING US RIGHT WHERE WE ARE AGAIN THIS YEAR.

AND SO THAT'S WHERE I'M LIKE, OKAY, THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF EFFORT.

I APPLAUD THAT EFFORT. BUT WE, I FEEL LIKE AT THIS POINT, WE NEED KIND OF AN OUTSIDE GROUP THAT'S RESPONSIBLE FOR A VERY SPECIFIC DELIVERABLE TO COME AND SAY, HERE'S YOUR PATH OUT OF HERE. IN ORDER TO HAVE DIRECTION, I DON'T LIKE TAKING MONEY OUT OF THE GENERAL FUND.

SO. SUPERVISOR CRYE CHRISTIE SO JUST INDULGE ME.

SO LIKE WE HAVE TO DELIVER THESE SERVICES, WE HAVE TO DELIVER THE SERVICES.

AND I WOULD SUPPORT THE RFP IF WE CAN ADD THE INTERNAL SERVICE COSTS AND THE INTERNAL COUNTY DEPARTMENTS TO THE RFP FOR THE CONSULTANT TO, TO REVIEW AND ANALYZE THOSE AS WELL, BECAUSE THOSE ARE A VERY BIG COST TO US THAT CONTINUE TO INCREASE.

AND THE AMOUNT OF THOSE COUNTY DEPARTMENTS THAT HAVE INCREASED, IT'S VERY LARGE.

THAT'S FINE WITH ME. AND, YOU KNOW, AND SO BECAUSE WE DON'T PROVIDE A PRODUCT LIKE, YOU KNOW, LIKE IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR, YOU HAVE A PRODUCT OR SERVICE AND WE HAVE TO DO THIS.

WHEN NAPA AND THESE OTHER COUNTIES ARE ELIMINATING THESE JOBS, THEY'RE NOT PROVIDING THOSE SERVICES.

WELL, I DON'T KNOW IF THEY'RE PROVIDING SERVICES. I WOULD I WOULD SPECULATE, I WOULD SPECULATE THAT MANDATED WE HAVE TO PROVIDE SERVICES.

CORRECT. BUT THOSE OTHER COUNTIES, THOUGH I THINK I THINK THE.

AND ON THE ONE SLIDE, WHAT YOU WERE SUGGESTING IS THAT THERE ARE POTENTIALLY SOME ELEMENTS OF SERVICES THAT ARE NOT MANDATED, THAT ARE NOT IN SOCIAL SERVICES, AND ALSO THAT WE MIGHT BE PROVIDING A SERVICE AT A LEVEL THAT'S ABOVE THE THE COMPLIANCE MINIMUM, MEANING THAT WE COULD REDUCE THE LEVEL OF SERVICE WITHOUT CUTTING THAT SERVICE COMPLETELY.

AND SO I THINK THOSE ARE TWO THINGS THAT WARRANT FURTHER INVESTIGATION.

AS PART OF THIS EFFORT. ARE YOU GOOD? SUPERVISOR CRYE.

YOU HAVE MORE. I MEAN, IT'S SHOCKING TO ME, BUT THAT'S OKAY.

ALL RIGHT. SUPERVISOR LONG, THANK YOU, CHAIR, AND THANK YOU FOR BEING PART OF THIS CONVERSATION.

THIS IS A VERY IMPORTANT DISCUSSION. AND SO WHAT I'M HEARING IS CEO RICKERT IS OKAY WITH AN RFP FOR AN INDEPENDENT ASSESSMENT. WE'VE GOT TO GET TO THE BOTTOM OF THIS.

WE'VE GOT TO FIGURE THIS OUT, AND I APPRECIATE FULLY THAT OTHER COUNTIES ARE GOING THROUGH SIMILAR SITUATIONS, BUT WE NEED TO FIGURE OUR COUNTY OUT BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT WE'RE RESPONSIBLE TO OUR TAXPAYERS AND ANY HELP WE CAN GET TO GET TO THE BOTTOM OF THAT.

AND WE CAN PUT THIS OUT FOR AN RFP AND INCLUDE INTERNAL FUNDS AND INTERNAL SERVICES.

I THINK THAT NEEDS TO BE INCLUDED. YEAH, AND I THINK THAT'S A GREAT IDEA BECAUSE WE'RE LOOKING AT THE TOTALITY OF THE PICTURE AND TRYING TO FIGURE THIS OUT.

AND WE WILL SEE THE RFP THAT THEY COME BACK AND WE'LL WE'LL HAVE AN IDEA AND WE CAN APPROACH.

WE DON'T HAVE TO ACCEPT THEM. BUT IF THEY'RE COMING IN AT $500,000, WELL, THAT'S A DIFFERENT DISCUSSION.

[04:25:04]

THEN MAYBE COME IN AT 25,000. I DON'T KNOW. SO SO I DON'T SEE A PROBLEM WITH THIS.

IF CEO RICKETTS THINKS IT'S A GOOD IDEA AND STAFF THINKS IT'S A GOOD IDEA AND YOU WITH SOME MODIFICATIONS WOULD WOULD BE OKAY WITH THIS, THEN LET'S, LET'S PLAY THIS OUT AND LET'S FIND OUT WHAT THE TRUE COST IS WHEN WE GET THE RFP.

BUT I THINK IT'S A GREAT THING TO DO RIGHT NOW BECAUSE I THINK WE WE WE NEED SOME EYEBALLS ON HERE WITH PROFESSIONAL EXPERTISE.

NOT I'M NOT SAYING ANYTHING THAT WE HAVEN'T DONE THAT, BUT SOMETIMES AN OUTSIDE LOOK WILL HELP TRY TO FIGURE THINGS OUT.

SO YEAH, I WILL BE IN FAVOR OF THIS CEO RICKERT.

THANK YOU CHAIRMAN. AND I AGREE YOU RAISED SOME LEGITIMATE CONCERNS ABOUT COST, BUT I THINK IT'S AT LEAST WORTHWHILE TO DEVELOP THE RFP, SEE WHAT COMES BACK, AND THEN EVALUATE IT AT THAT TIME TO SAY, HEY, FOR $50,000, YOU CAN DELIVER X, Y, Z. THERE MIGHT BE SOME VALUE THERE. OR FOR $500,000, WE DON'T SEE THE VALUE OR WE SEE YOUR RECOMMENDATIONS.

WE LOOKED AT YOUR PAST WORK AND IT DOESN'T JUSTIFY THE COST AND WE CAN MOVE ON FROM THERE. BUT I THINK IT'S AT LEAST WORTH EXPLORING ALL OPTIONS.

AND I AGREE THE INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS ARE WORTH A LOOK.

ALSO. THANK YOU, CEO RICKERT SUPERVISOR CRYE.

YEAH, I MEAN, I JUST WANT TO I MEAN, I'M GOING TO VOTE TO SUPPORT GO AHEAD AND BRINGING SOMETHING BACK.

BUT SUPERVISOR LONG WHEN YOU ARTICULATE AND YOU SAY THAT IT'S NOT THAT THEY'RE NOT DOING A GOOD JOB, BUT LIKE IN BASEBALL, IF SOMEONE'S SUPPOSED TO HIT AND YOU PINCH HIT FOR HIM, IT'S LIKE A MANAGER SAYING, WELL, IT'S NOT THAT I DON'T THINK YOU'LL GET A HIT. I JUST THINK MAYBE THEY'LL HAVE A BETTER SHOT. AND THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT WE'RE SAYING. WE'RE SAYING YOU GUYS CLEARLY CAN'T GET THE JOB DONE, SO WE'RE GOING TO BRING SOMEBODY ELSE OUT.

LIKE WHEN WE'VE HIRED CONSULTANTS ON THIS BOARD, WHETHER IT BE FOR THE MEDICAL SCHOOL OR OTHER THINGS, IT'S BECAUSE THERE'S NOBODY ON THE STAFF THAT IS EQUIPPED IN THAT ENDEAVOR OR VERTICAL TO MAKE THAT DECISION.

THAT'S WHEN YOU BRING A CONSULTANT. I MEAN, IF WE HAVE TO BRING A CONSULTANT IN FOR THIS, I WOULD JUST SAY, THEN WHY DO WE HAVE A DEPUTY CEO OVER MONEY? WHY? AND THEN IF THE AUDITOR CONTROLLER IS NOT INVOLVED AND YOU GUYS CLEARLY AREN'T DOING IT, I MEAN, YOU GUYS ARE THE ARE YOU THE ONLY HHS DIRECTOR IN THE STATE? NO. RIGHT. THERE'S 57 OTHERS, RIGHT. WITH THE COUNTIES.

SO IF EVERYBODY IS HIRING A CONSULTANT, YOU'D SAY, OKAY, CLEARLY NOBODY CAN FIGURE IT OUT.

BUT WE'RE PART OF CSAC, WE'RE PART OF RCRC, WE'RE A PART OF ALL THESE ORGANIZATIONS THAT ARE THINK TANKS, AND YET WE'RE GOING TO GO SPEND MORE MONEY. SO I THINK THE MOST EXPENSIVE THING A PERSON CAN OWN IS A CLOSED MIND.

SO YEAH, LET'S BRING A CONSULTANT BACK. BUT I'M JUST GOING TO SAY RIGHT NOW FOR MY FELLOW BOARD MEMBERS, ANYBODY ELSE THAT'S GOING TO GO INTO THIS, I THINK IT'S A COMPLETE ABOMINATION TO BRING SOMEBODY ELSE IN WHEN THE WHOLE STATE'S WORKING ON THIS.

AND I DON'T THINK IT'S I DON'T THINK IT'S NECESSARY.

AND IF WE HAVE TO DO THAT, THEN WE HAVE TO REALLY QUESTION DO WE HAVE THE RIGHT PEOPLE IN THOSE SPOTS? AND I THINK WE DO. I THINK YOU GUYS ARE LEADING THIS AND GOING IN A GOOD DIRECTION.

CLEARLY, COMPARED TO THE OTHER COUNTIES IN SIMILAR SPOTS.

SUPERVISOR OKAY. PLEASE DO NOT ALLOW THAT CHARACTERIZATION OF MY MY SUPPORT FOR THIS TO MEAN ANYTHING ABOUT THE JOB YOU GUYS ARE DOING. PLEASE DON'T DON'T GO THERE.

I THINK IT'S SOMETIMES ALL HANDS ON DECK AND AN INDEPENDENT SITE SET OF SKILLED EYES THAT HAVE IT.

THEY MAY PICK UP SOME THINGS THAT WE HAVEN'T SEEN, AND WE CAN MOVE FORWARD WITH THAT.

AND I DON'T SEE A PROBLEM WITH GOING OUT FOR AN RFP.

AND THEN WE'LL FIGURE OUT AT THAT TIME, IT'S TOO EXPENSIVE.

WE CAN'T AFFORD THAT. OR, OH, THAT'S GOING TO BE A GOOD BANG FOR THE BUCK BASED ON THE DELIVERABLES.

SO I, I, BUT WE WORK WITH CONSULTANTS RIGHT NOW AND SO THAT WE HAVE NO PROBLEM WORKING WITH CONSULTANTS.

OKAY. OKAY. I JUST DID NOT WANT THAT CHARACTERIZATION OF MY THOUGHTS TO MEAN THAT YOU GUYS WERE NOT DOING YOUR JOB.

NO. WE HAVE CONSULTANTS THAT WE ARE. OKAY. OKAY.

THANK YOU. ON THIS. OH. ALL RIGHT. SUPERVISOR PLUMMER.

ARE YOU READY TO WRAP THIS UP? YES. OKAY. MOTION MADE BY SUPERVISOR PLUMMER.

SECONDED BY SUPERVISOR LONG. THIS IS TO APPROVE AS WRITTEN AND PUT AN RFP OUT FOR A CONSULTANT.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? NONE OPPOSED.

PASSES FIVE ZERO. ALL RIGHT. MOVING ON TO OUR. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. BOTH OF YOU AND YOUR WHOLE TEAM.

[R7 Approve a renewal employment agreement with Joseph Larmour, appointing him as County Counsel for a new four-year term commencing on October 27, 2026, and stating related terms and conditions of employment.]

OUR SEVEN APPROVE A RENEWAL AGREEMENT EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT WITH JOSEPH LARMOR, APPOINTING HIM AS COUNTY COUNSEL FOR A NEW FOUR YEAR TERM COMMENCING ON OCTOBER 27TH, 2026 AND 18. RELATED TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT.

SUPERVISOR DO WE HAVE ANY PUBLIC COMMENT FIRST? WE DO. CHAIR. WE HAVE NINE SPEAKERS. ACTUALLY, I'M SORRY, WE HAVE TEN SPEAKERS, ONE OVER THE PHONE.

ALL RIGHT. WHY DON'T WE GET TO OUR SPEAKERS FIRST AND WE'LL BRING IT BACK FOR BOARD DISCUSSION.

FIRST UP, STEVE CONN, FOLLOWED BY SHASTA COUNTY WATCHDOG BEV, THEN DAVID HALLIGAN.

IF I CALLED YOUR NAME, PLEASE GET IN QUEUE.

[04:30:19]

FIRST OF ALL, JOE LARMER CONTRACT PROBABLY SHOULDN'T EVEN BE ON THE AGENDA AGAIN.

IT APPEARS THIS MAY BE A ROSENBERG VIOLATION.

THE BOARD CHAIR SHOULDN'T BE PUTTING ON THE AGENDA SOMETHING THAT HAS ALREADY BEEN VOTED UPON WITH THE CURRENT CONTRACT.

LARMER WILL BE EMPLOYED UNTIL INTO 2029 UNLESS TERMINATED.

THERE'S NO NEED TO EXTEND THIS CONTRACT. THE NEW BOARD SHOULD HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO HIRE THE COUNTY COUNCIL THAT THEY DESIRE, NOT BE IN A POSITION OF GIVING A HUGE, UNPRECEDENTED SEVERANCE PACKAGE TO THE OUTGOING COUNTY COUNCIL IF THEY DECIDE THEY WANT A DIFFERENT COUNTY COUNCIL. AFTER ALL, HE IS SUPPOSED TO WORK TO SERVE THE CURRENT BOARD MEMBERS.

THE ONLY REASON I CAN SEE THAT KELSTROM AND CRYE WOULD BE DOING THIS RIGHT NOW IS TO BE ABLE TO GET INFORMATION FROM AND OR PERHAPS INFLUENCE THE CURRENT COUNTY COUNCILS DECISIONS. AFTER THE SUPERVISORS HAVE LEFT OFFICE, THAT BEING CRYE AND HOPEFULLY KELSTROM.

IN MY MIND, CLEARLY CORRUPTION. THERE IS NO OTHER REASON TO APPOINT RIGHT NOW.

NOT TO MENTION CRYE SHOULDN'T BE ABLE TO VOTE ON THIS ISSUE AT ALL BECAUSE HIS BUSINESS MANAGER'S BOYFRIEND IS A LAWYER.

HE SHOULD CONTINUE TO RECUSE HIMSELF AS HE DID IN THE PRIOR VOTE.

IS CRYE CREATING A SCENARIO TO GIVE LARIMER A HUGE BONUS OUT OF THE COUNTY'S POCKET IN ORDER TO SCORE POINTS WITH HIS BUSINESS MANAGER? SOUNDS LIKE IT TO ME. NEXT UP, SHASTA COUNTY WATCHDOG, FOLLOWED BY BEV DAVID HALLIGAN, THEN SHERIFF MICHAEL JOHNSON.

IF I CALLED YOUR NAME, PLEASE GET IN QUEUE. YOU WANT TO THROW MONEY AWAY? YOU WANT ANOTHER LAWSUIT? BECAUSE HERE'S WHAT COULD HAPPEN.

MR. LARIMER ACTUALLY HAS BEEN GIVING WRONG ADVICE ON CERTAIN THINGS, YOU KNOW, ON THIS CONTRACT.

DIDN'T HE DRAFT THE FIRST ONE HIMSELF AND BROUGHT IT TO THE BOARD AND YOU RUBBER STAMPED IT? I MEAN, COME ON. ARE YOU SERIOUS? CHRIS, HOW SMART ARE YOU? SHOW US HOW SMART YOU ARE. OR SHALL WE SAY HOW DUMB YOU ARE, BECAUSE SO FAR, YOU'VE MADE SO MANY STUPID MISTAKES BY BRINGING CLINT CURTIS.

NOW YOU WANT TO APPROVE ANOTHER CONTRACT FOR LARMER? DO YOU KNOW THAT ACTUALLY, IF YOU VIOLATE WILLFUL VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE 1090 CAN RESULT IN CRIMINAL PROSECUTION AND FINES, IMPRISONMENT? AND REGARDING SECTION 1090.

AND ALSO, DID YOU KNOW WHEN SOMEBODY VIOLATES THE LAW REGARDING A CONTRACT, IT COULD ACTUALLY BE A VOID.

IT ACTUALLY ALSO SAYS IN ADDITION THIS WAS FROM THE ATTORNEY GENERAL WEBSITE LAW.

IT SAYS IN ADDITION OF SUCH AN INDIVIDUAL IS FOREVER DISQUALIFIED FROM HOLDING OFFICE.

THAT MEANS IF CRYE BROUGHT THIS UP AND HE'S TRYING TO GIVE FAVORITISM FOR HIS BUDDY HERE, AND THAT IS YOU.

WHEN YOU GET CHARGED, HE WILL NEVER HOLD OFFICE.

AND THEN HIM. LORIMER WILL SHOULDN'T EVEN BE IN THE ROOM TO BE LISTENING TO THIS CONVERSATION OR GIVE LEGAL ADVICE, BECAUSE I ACTUALLY DID A RESEARCH REGARDING THE STATE BAR.

AND IT'S THIS COMPLAINT ACTUALLY IS READY TO GO.

AND THIS MORNING I ACTUALLY FILED CEASE AND DESIST ON YOU GUYS.

SO IF YOU MOVE FORWARD NOW, I HAVE LEGAL GROUNDS TO EVEN ENFORCE IT BY GOING TO THE HIGHEST AGENCY.

SO YOU GO AHEAD AND BREAK THE LAW. KEVIN CRYE YOU RECUSE YOURSELF BEFORE BECAUSE YOU HAD A CONFLICT.

NOW YOU'RE TRYING TO FORCE THE COUNCIL TO GO AHEAD AND VOTE FOR IT, KNOWING YOU'RE BREAKING THE LAW.

SO BUT THAT'S YOU, KEVIN, KNOWING. UNBELIEVABLE.

NEXT UP, BEV, FOLLOWED BY DAVID HALLIGAN, SHERIFF MICHAEL JOHNSON, THEN JIM BURNETT.

IF I CALLED YOUR NAME, PLEASE GET IN QUEUE. DO YOU REALLY WANT TO SIGN A FOUR YEAR CONTRACT? PUTTING HIM IN CHARGE OF YOUR FUTURE? AFTER WHAT WE WITNESSED WITH THE SHREDDING OF THE 2024 BALLOTS AND DOCUMENTATIONS.

IF YOU ARE LUCKY ENOUGH TO ESCAPE THE CONSEQUENCES OF HIS ACTIONS, DO YOU REALLY WANT TO BE UNDER A PERSON THAT HAS SELF APPOINTED HIMSELF TO THE POSITION OF BEING THE CAPTAIN OF THE SHIP YOU ARE ON? DO YOU WANT TO GO DOWN WITH HIS SHIP FOR FOUR MORE YEARS? HOW MUCH MORE IS HE GOING TO COST US BY MISLEADING YOU GUYS? THANK YOU. NEXT UP, DAVID HALLIGAN, FOLLOWED BY SHERIFF JOHNSON, JIM BURNETT, THEN ARNIE LIST.

I CALLED YOUR NAME. PLEASE GET IN QUEUE. GREAT JOB CHRIS, BURYING THIS FOR THE LAST ITEM OF THE DAY.

I URGE YOU, MR. HARMON, TO VOTE NO ON A NEW FOUR YEAR CONTRACT.

THE ONLY RESPONSIBLE PATH FORWARD IS TO LET THE INCOMING BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OBSERVE MR.

[04:35:03]

LAMMERS WORK AND MAKE THEIR OWN DECISION. MR. L'AMOUR IS ALREADY UNDER A STABLE CONTRACT THAT RUNS UNTIL MID 29.

THERE'S NO VACANCY CRISIS. LOCKING OUR TAXPAYERS INTO A BRAND NEW FOUR YEAR COMMITMENT RIGHT NOW IS ENTIRELY UNNECESSARY.

SO WHY THE RUSH? IT LOOKS LIKE AN INSIDE JOB.

MR. CRYE AND MR. KELSTROM ARE SCRAMBLING TO TAKE CARE OF THEIR BUDDY ON THE WAY OUT THE DOOR.

CORKY, YOU'RE THE SWING VOTE AGAIN, BUT YOU CAN GET ANOTHER BITE AT THE APPLE NEXT YEAR WITH THE NEW BOARD.

ON EXTENDING MR. LARMERS CONTRACT, LET'S LOOK AT WHAT HAPPENED AT THE LAST MEETING ON THE SUBJECT.

SUPERVISOR CRYE GOT HIS PANTIES IN A WAD, LASHED OUT AT OTHER SUPERVISORS, AND RECUSED HIMSELF.

IF THE CONTRACT WAS ACTUALLY GOOD FOR THE COUNTY.

MR. CRYE WOULDN'T HAVE THROWN A TANTRUM AND WALKED AWAY.

HE RECUSED HIMSELF BECAUSE HE KNEW IT SHOULDN'T BE.

HIS DECISION TO MAKE. THE PROPOSED 18 MONTH SEVERANCE PACKAGE IS A FINANCIAL POISON PILL.

IT FORCES SHASTA COUNTY TAXPAYERS TO FOOT A MASSIVE BUYOUT IF THE NEXT BOARD DECIDES TO GO IN A DIFFERENT DIRECTION.

EVEN MR. CRYE STATED THAT 18 MONTHS WAS EXCESSIVE AND SHOULD BE MAYBE SIX MONTHS.

HOLD ON, HOLD ON, HOLD ON. MR. CRYE, YOU'RE THE ONE THAT VOTED TO EXTEND HIS CONTRACT TO 18 MONTHS IN THE FIRST PLACE.

IS THAT CONVENIENT AMNESIA OR WHAT? IN THE NEXT FEW MONTHS, A NEWLY ELECTED BOARD TAKES OFFICE.

IT'S THEIR DUTY TO EVALUATE COUNTY COUNCIL AND DETERMINE THE FUTURE DIRECTION OF SHASTA COUNTY.

LET THE NEW BOARD. LET THE NEW BOARD IN JANUARY MAKE THE DECISION ON THE CONTRACT EXTENSION.

NEXT UP, SHERIFF JOHNSON, FOLLOWED BY JIM BURNETT, ARNIE LIST, ANTONIA, THEN JENNY.

IF I CALLED YOUR NAME, PLEASE GET IN QUEUE. CHAIR.

BOARD. THANKS FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK. I AM NOT HERE TO LEVERAGE AN OPINION ABOUT WHY THIS CONTRACT IS UP, OR THE POLITICS BEHIND WHY WE'RE HERE TODAY WITH IT.

IN FACT, AS A MATTER OF FACT, I REALLY DON'T CARE ABOUT THE POLITICS INVOLVED WITH THIS.

I AM HERE TO TELL YOU ABOUT. AS A DEPARTMENT HEAD FOR MY DEPARTMENT, I'M ONLY SPEAKING FOR THE SHASTA COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE.

WHAT JOE LARMER HAS MEANT TO US AND HIS STAFF.

JOE LARMER, I'D LIKE YOU TO TAKE A LOOK AT HIS PERFORMANCE, SET EVERYTHING ELSE ASIDE, AND VALUE HIM ON HIS PERFORMANCE AS AN EMPLOYEE.

HE HAS BEEN RESPONSIVE FOR US. HE HAS BEEN TIRELESSLY WORKING ABOVE AND BEYOND THE HOURS THAT A NORMAL COUNTY EMPLOYEE WOULD PUT IN. HE HAS SAVED US MONEY, GOT US OUT OF LITIGATION AND DONE A PHENOMENAL JOB.

I CAN'T SPEAK ENOUGH. MY UNDERSHERIFF AND I DISCUSSED THIS TOGETHER WHEN THIS CAME UP THE FIRST TIME ABOUT WHY THE CONTRACT WAS EVEN UP.

AND ONCE AGAIN, I DON'T EVEN WANT TO GET INTO THAT.

LET'S JUST TALK ABOUT THE MAN AND HOW ETHICAL HE IS AND, AND THE DECISIONS HE'S MAKING.

HE'S MAKING THEM FOR THE COUNTY, NOT FOR HIMSELF.

HE'S MAKING THEM FOR THE RIGHT REASONS. I HAVEN'T EVEN ALWAYS AGREED WITH SOME OF THE THINGS HE'S DONE AND GOT FRUSTRATED WITH HIM BECAUSE HE WOULDN'T DIVULGE SOME INFORMATION TO ME, BUT THAT'S BECAUSE HE TAKES HIS OATH OF OFFICE SO SERIOUSLY AND PROTECTS CONFIDENTIALITY AND DOES WHAT HE'S HIRED FOR.

SO I AM JUST HERE TO TELL YOU THAT THIS IS A A VERY GOOD WORKING RELATIONSHIP.

HE SERVES THE SHASTA COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE VERY WELL, AND I THINK IT WOULD BE A DISSERVICE TO LOSE HIM ULTIMATELY IN THE END.

NEXT UP, JIM BURNETT, FOLLOWED BY ARNIE LIST, ANTONIA, THEN JENNY.

IF I CALLED YOUR NAME, PLEASE GET IN QUEUE. NOT SEEING JIM BURNETT.

NEXT UP, ARNIE LIST. NOT SEEING ARNIE. ANTONIA, COME ON UP.

I DON'T KNOW WHAT HE WAS TALKING ABOUT. OKAY.

SO, KEVIN, YOU RECUSED YOURSELF FROM VOTING ON THE EXTENSION FOR JOE LARMER FOR FOUR YEARS.

FOUR YEARS. FOUR MORE YEARS. AND YOU ARE BRINGING IT UP AGAIN.

YOU PUT THIS ON THE AGENDA. WHAT DOES HE HAVE ON YOU? YOU ARE NOT GOING. YOU'RE NOT EVEN GOING TO BE HERE.

WHAT THE HECK? YOU NEED TO RECUSE YOURSELF AGAIN.

FOR THE PEOPLE HERE. AND DO WHAT'S RIGHT. YOU'RE GOING TO BE.

YOU ARE GOING TO BE BLAMED FOR THIS. WHAT THIS MAN IS DOING HERE.

THE SHREDDING OF THE 2024 PR DOCUMENT. PR DOCUMENTS THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN SAVED FOR FIVE YEARS HAVE BEEN DESTROYED BECAUSE OF HIM. HE WAS IN CONTROL. CHRIS, YOU ALLOWED JOE TO TAKE CONTROL AND HE IS TAKING AWAY YOUR VOTES.

YOU PROBABLY WON'T BE HERE NEXT YEAR. OKAY, SO I UNDERSTAND THAT HE HE'S BEEN A HELP IN THE FINANCE DEPARTMENT. OKAY. THAT'S WHERE HE SHOULD STAY.

[04:40:05]

BUT HE HAS OVERSTEPPED HIS BOUNDARIES. HE IS NOW THINKS THAT HE CAN CONTROL THE PEOPLE OF SHASTA COUNTY.

THAT NEEDS TO STOP. BOARD, YOU NEED TO TAKE YOUR POWER BACK.

THIS MAN HAS CONVINCED YOU THAT HE IS PROTECTING YOU FROM THE STATE.

THAT'S A BUNCH OF FEAR TACTIC. AND SO BOARD, I PRAY THAT YOU WILL SEARCH YOUR HEARTS AND YOUR CONSCIENCE AND NOT ALLOW THIS MAN TO CONTINUE FOR FOUR MORE YEARS.

THANK YOU. AT THIS POINT, WE WOULD SWITCH OVER TO THE PHONE LINE.

I AM GOING TO CALL AUTUMN AS JUST A COURTESY, BUT IT SHOWS THAT SHE'S NO LONGER CONNECTED AND EXITED AT 1239.

SO I'LL MOVE ON TO THE NEXT IN-PERSON SPEAKER, JENNY, COME ON UP.

HELLO AGAIN BOARD. I HAVE A FEW QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS ITEM.

FIRST OF ALL, SINCE THE COUNTY COUNCIL IS STILL WITHIN ITS CONTRACT BY QUITE A BIT, WHY ARE YOU EVEN CONTINUING TO UP HIS CONTRACT WITHOUT EVEN ALLOWING IT TO COME CLOSE TO LAPSING? SECOND, IF MR. CRYE RECUSED HIMSELF FROM VOTING ON THE CONTRACT BEFORE, WHY IS HE VOTING TO BRING IT BACK OR VOTING ON IT NOW? NEXT, WHY IS LAURA MOORE ALLOWED TO GIVE ADVICE ON COUNTY FUNDS THAT AFFECT HIM PERSONALLY? IT'S A VIOLATION OF THE ROSENBERG RULES OF ORDER TO VOTE ON SOMETHING THAT HAS BEEN BROUGHT BEFORE THE BOARD WITHIN SIX MONTHS.

WHEN THIS WAS BROUGHT UP, OUR COUNTY COUNCIL COMMITTED CONFLICT OF INTEREST BY WEIGHING IN.

LASTLY, THIS MAN WAS GIVEN CREDIT FOR ACTING COUNTY COUNCIL'S WORK, THEN ASKED HIM TO COMMIT CRIMES.

THEN THAT MAN QUIT. FINALLY, HE ADMITTED TO VIOLATING THE BROWN ACT WITHIN MY OWN CASE, ON THE STAND.

HOW IS ANY OF THIS A REASON TO UP HIS CONTRACT OR GIVE HIM ANY KIND OF RAISE? IT'S KIND OF RIDICULOUS. THANK YOU. AND THAT WAS OUR LAST SPEAKER.

ALL RIGHT. SUPERVISOR CRYE. I'LL GO. ALL RIGHT.

SO REALLY QUICK. THAT IS TRUE. I DID RECUSE MYSELF, AND I RECUSE MYSELF, AND I HAVE THE RIGHT TO CHANGE MY MIND.

AND SO I COULD GO ON AND ON ABOUT THE REASONS WHY.

BUT I'M NOT GOING TO DRAG THIS OUT. SO I'M GOING TO MAKE A MOTION THAT WE RENEW COUNSEL LARMER CONTRACT TO THE FOUR YEARS.

AND JUST SO THE PUBLIC OUT THERE UNDERSTANDS HE'S UNDER CONTRACT.

NOW. WE'RE JUST EXTENDING IT'S KIND OF A NORMAL PROCEDURE FOR EVALUATION.

DO YOU EXTEND IT ONE YEAR. SO I WILL SECOND THAT MOTION.

SUPERVISOR SUPERVISOR PLUMMER. YEAH. AND AND I SAID THIS LAST MEETING OR WHENEVER WE DISCUSSED THIS PREVIOUSLY, BUT WANTED TO REITERATE THREE BASIC THINGS.

ONE I THINK COUNTY COUNCIL IS DOING A GREAT JOB.

I BELIEVE I WAS THE ONE WHO MADE THE INITIAL MOTION TO GIVE EXCEED EXPECTATION IN THIS THIS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION, WHICH WE DISCLOSED. WE OPENED THAT FROM CLOSE, I THINK IN TERMS OF THESE CONTRACTS, WE, IF WE HAVE A FOUR YEAR CONTRACT, WE SHOULD REVIEW IT AT THE END OF YEAR THREE FOR THE NEXT.

WE SHOULDN'T WE SHOULDN'T MAKE THIS AN ANNUAL ACT.

AND THEN I ALSO THINK THAT THE SEVERANCE PACKAGE SHOULD BE MORE IN LINE WITH INDUSTRY STANDARD, WHICH IS AROUND 3 TO 6 MONTHS. SO I WILL CONTINUE TO SUPPORT THAT THOSE PRINCIPLES GOING FORWARD.

SUPERVISOR LONG DID YOU WANT, DID YOU WANT TO MAKE A MOTION AS TO REDUCING IN THIS NEXT CONTRACT, EVEN WITH THE EXTENSION REDUCING TO SIX MONTHS.

NO, I'M NOT PLANNING TO MAKE A MOTION. DID WE HAVE A SECOND? YEAH, I SECOND. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. YOU GOOD? SUPERVISOR SUPERVISOR ALL RIGHT.

CAN I GET A ROLL CALL? VOTE STARTING WITH SUPERVISOR PLUMMER.

SUPERVISOR PLUMMER. NO. SUPERVISOR CRYE. YES.

SUPERVISOR KELSTROM. YES. SUPERVISOR HARMON. YES.

AND SUPERVISOR LONG. NO. PASSES THREE. TWO. ALL RIGHT.

NOW WE ARE GOING TO RECESS THE BOARD CHAIR. KELSTROM.

YES, SIR. COULD I ASK COUNTY COUNSEL ABOUT THE LAST ITEM? BECAUSE THERE WAS CONFUSION THERE IN TERMS OF THE LOAN REPAYMENT DATE.

SO ON THE AGENDA, IT SAID JUNE 30TH ON THE SLIDE, IT SAID FEBRUARY 28TH IN TERMS OF WHAT IT WAS REQUESTING OF THE BOARD.

I WAS LOOKING AT THE SLIDE I ATTENDED INTENDED FOR THAT TO BE FEBRUARY 28TH, I THINK BECAUSE I JUST SAID APPROVE.

WHICH ITEM ARE YOU SPEAKING OF? HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES .R6.

YOU CAN MAKE A MOTION TO REOPEN THE ITEM. SO I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO REOPEN THAT ITEM, AND THEN I'D LIKE TO AMEND MY MOTION TO APPROVE AS IS, EXCEPT HAVE THE REPAID DATE BE FEBRUARY 28TH,

[04:45:07]

WHICH WAS ON THE SLIDES. VERSUS THE JUNE 30TH AS WELL AS ISSUE THE RFP AS IN THE PREVIOUS.

AND SO THAT WOULD ACTUALLY BE A MOTION TO RECONSIDER. SO THEY'D BE TWO SEPARATE THINGS.

SO MOTION TO REOPEN REOPENS ITEM. MOTION TO RECONSIDER.

A PERSON WHO IS WAS IN THE MAJORITY MAKES THE MOTION PERSON WHO WAS IN THE MAJORITY MAKES THE SECOND.

AND THEN YOU CAN TAKE THAT THROUGH. SO FIRST WE HAVE TO TAKE THE VOTE ON THE REOPENING.

OKAY. SO I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO REOPEN R6. ALL RIGHT.

I'LL SECOND. SECOND. ALL RIGHT. MOTION IS MADE BY SUPERVISOR PLUMMER.

SECOND BY SUPERVISOR LONG. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? AYE. I'M GOING TO BE OPPOSED. PASSES FOR ONE.

ALL RIGHT. NOW, CAN WE MOVE ON? I THINK NOW I CAN MAKE THE.

SO NOW I WILL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AS IS, EXCEPT FOR THE REPAID DATE TO BE FEBRUARY 28TH, 2027, AND TO ISSUE THE RFP FOR A CONSULTANT TO DO AN ANALYSIS OF UNDRAWN REVENUE OVER SPENT FUNDS MANDATED VERSUS UNMANDATED PROGRAMS AND CREATE A LOAN REPAYMENT ROADMAP AND REVIEW INTERNAL SERVICE FUND COSTS. AND. OH, GO AHEAD. CAN I RESPOND TO THAT? SO MY RECOLLECTION OF MY CONVERSATION WITH CHRISTY COLEMAN WAS THAT SHE WAS PROPOSING A FEBRUARY REPAYMENT DATE.

SO THAT WAS SO IT'S SO I WAS ON THE SLIDES, BUT THEN THE, THE ON THE AGENDA, IT SAID SOMETHING DIFFERENT.

SO THAT'S WHERE I GOT CONFUSED. CORRECT, CORRECT. BUT THAT WAS MY MY UNDERSTANDING.

AND SHE'S GONE. I LOOKED AROUND TO SEE IF SHE'S STILL HERE, BUT THAT WAS MY RECOLLECTION OF OUR CONVERSATION, WHICH WAS SHE SAID SHE WANTED IT TO BE A FEBRUARY WHEN THE NEW BOARD HAD THE CHANCE TO WEIGH IN AND FIGURE THIS OUT.

OKAY. DO WE HAVE A SECOND? SO IS THAT A SECOND? I'LL SECOND. ALL RIGHT. MOTION MADE BY SUPERVISOR PLUMMER.

SECONDED BY SUPERVISOR LONG. ALL. GO AHEAD. SO IS THAT IS THAT TRACKING? DID YOU. IS THAT TRACKING WITH WITH WHAT ALAN JUST SAID ON THE FEBRUARY VERSUS THE JUNE.

THEY WERE GOING TO REVIEW IT IN FEBRUARY. BUT I MEAN THE FISCAL YEAR ENDS IN JUNE. SO.

NO. EXACTLY. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT WAS OKAY AS LONG AS THAT'S WHAT CHRISTIE AND AARON HAD SAID.

ALL RIGHT. THAT'S ON THIS. YEAH. ALL RIGHT. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? AYE. I'LL GO AHEAD AND I THIS ONE TWO PASSES FIVE ZERO.

NOW, MAY WE MOVE ON? ALL RIGHT. YES. THANK YOU.

SO I'M GOING TO RECESS THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS HEARING. I'M GOING TO OPEN A PUBLIC HEARING TO ADOPT A RESOLUTION WHICH APPOINTS JOHN HEATH AS PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR AND ROAD

[R8 Conduct a public hearing and adopt a resolution which appoints John Heath as Public Works Director and Road Commissioner, effective October 28, 2026, and establishes Mr. Heath’s compensation at the E-step of the established salary range ($98.91 per hour/$17,144 per month) for the position of Public Works Director.]

COMMISSIONER, EFFECTIVE AUGUST 28TH, 2026, AND ESTABLISHES MR. HEATH'S COMPENSATION AT THE E STEP OF THE ESTABLISHED SALARY RANGE.

HAVE WE GOTTEN ALL CORRESPONDENCE ON THIS ITEM? MISS BLANKENSHIP? YES, CHAIR. OKAY. ALL RIGHT.

WELCOME, MONICA. AFTERNOON, CHAIR. KELSTROM. MONICA FUGITT, DIRECTOR OF SUPPORT SERVICES.

ITEM. BEFORE YOU REQUEST TO CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE QUALIFICATIONS OF JOHN HEATH TO SERVE AS THE ROAD COMMISSIONER.

HE HAS HELD THIS POSITION AS AN INTERIM APPOINTMENT FOR NEARING 180 DAYS.

PREVIOUSLY, AN APPOINTMENT WAS MADE NOT TO EXCEED 180 DAY TIME FRAME.

AND THE BOARD HAS GIVEN DIRECTION TO BRING THIS BACK.

SO I THE I WOULD CLARIFY THAT THE ROAD COMMISSIONER APPOINTMENT REQUIRES THE PUBLIC HEARING TO TAKE PLACE AND TO HEAR THE QUALIFICATIONS OF JOHN HEATH AS PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR.

HE HELD THE POSITION OF INTERIM PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR FOR THE LAST 180 DAYS.

PRIOR TO THAT, HE HELD THE POSITION OF ASSISTANT PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR, HAS BEEN A REGISTERED CIVIL ENGINEER SINCE 2007 AND A REGISTERED LAND SURVEYOR SINCE 2019.

HE HAS BEEN WITH SHASTA COUNTY SINCE 2000 AND HAS WORKED HIS WAY UP THE DEPARTMENT IN THE ROLES THAT HE HAS HELD UNTIL THIS INTERIM APPOINTMENT TODAY. THIS FOLLOWS A COMPETITIVE RECRUITMENT PROCESS FOR WHICH HE APPLIED AND WAS QUALIFIED AND CONSIDERED.

AND IF FOLLOWING THE HEARING, THE BOARD WISHES TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THE APPOINTMENT, THE RESOLUTION WOULD ADOPT HIS COMPENSATION AT THE E STEP OF THE SALARY RANGE.