[R1 Adopt a resolution which recognizes Amber Keegan, Nutrition Assistant II with the Health and Human Services Agency, as Shasta County’s Employee of the Month for November 2026.]

NUTRITION ASSISTANT SECOND TO WITH THE HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY AT SHASTA COUNTY'S EMPLOYEE OF THE MONTH FOR NOVEMBER 2026.

SUPERVISOR LONG. THANK YOU CHAIR. I'M GOING TO READ THIS.

WHEREAS LET'S SEE HERE. I'LL JUST. OKAY.

YEAH. WHEREAS THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF SHASTA HAS ADOPTED THE SHASTA COUNTY EMPLOYEE RECOGNITION PROGRAM TO IDENTIFY EXCEPTIONAL EMPLOYEES WHO DESERVE TO BE RECOGNIZED AND HONORED FOR THEIR CONTRIBUTION TO COUNTY SERVICE.

AND WHEREAS SUCH RECOGNITION IS GIVEN TO EMPLOYEES MEETING THE CRITERIA OF THE PROGRAM, NAMELY EXCEPTIONAL CUSTOMER SERVICE, PROFESSIONALISM, HIGH ETHICAL STANDARDS, INITIATIVE, INNOVATION, TEAMWORK, PRODUCTIVITY, AND SERVICE AS A ROLE MODEL FOR OTHER PUBLIC EMPLOYEES. AND WHEREAS, THE SHASTA COUNTY EMPLOYEE RECOGNITION COMMITTEE HAS CONSIDERED ALL CURRENT NOMINATIONS FOR THE SHASTA COUNTY EMPLOYEE OF THE MONTH.

AND WHEREAS, THE EMPLOYEE RECOGNITION COMMITTEE RECOMMENDS AMBER KEEGAN, NUTRITION ASSISTANT TWO IN THE SHASTA COUNTY HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY, BE SELECTED AS EMPLOYEE OF THE MONTH FOR NOVEMBER 2026.

AND WHEREAS, AMBER KEEGAN, NUTRITION ASSISTANT TWO IN THE SHASTA COUNTY HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY.

MEETS ALL ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS PROVIDED IN CHAPTER 36 OF THE PERSONNEL RULES.

EMPLOYEE RECOGNITION PROGRAM AND HAS DEMONSTRATED THAT SHE CONSISTENTLY EXEMPLIFIES THE BEST QUALITIES IN PUBLIC SERVICE.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT AMBER KEEGAN, NUTRITION ASSISTANT TO.

WITH THE HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY, IS HEREBY NAMED SHASTA COUNTY EMPLOYEE OF THE MONTH FOR NOVEMBER 2026.

APRIL. SIX. CAN YOU COME FORWARD TO MAKE THE PRESENTATION? GOOD MORNING. IS THAT WORKING? GOOD MORNING. GOOD MORNING.

HI, I'M APRIL. I'M THE CURRENT PUBLIC HEALTH OR SHASTA COUNTY DIRECTOR.

AND I'M HERE EXCITED TO TALK ABOUT AMBER KEEGAN AND THE GREAT THING SHE HAS DONE.

SO THANK YOU, BOARD. MEMBERS. AMBER IS A TREMENDOUS ASSET TO THE SHASTA COUNTY PROGRAM.

SHE USES HER WEALTH OF KNOWLEDGE IN WICK DAILY TO ENCOURAGE, EDUCATE, AND SUPPORT FAMILIES.

SHE TALKS WITH FAMILIES ONE ON ONE UPLIFTING AND HEARTWARMING WAY TO ENCOURAGE THEM AND GET THEM TO TALK ABOUT THEIR FAMILIES.

WICK IS THE SPECIAL SUPPLEMENTAL NUTRITION PROGRAM FOR WOMEN, INFANTS AND CHILDREN, FUNDED BY THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, FUNDED THROUGH THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH.

AND IN OUR PROGRAM, WE SERVE MOMS AND CHILDREN AND BABIES CHILDREN UP TO THE AGE OF FIVE, PROVIDING THEM RESOURCES, REFERRALS, AND FOOD BENEFITS, AND NUTRITION EDUCATION.

AMBER DAILY IS SCREENING MOMS AND BABIES AND CHILDREN AROUND THEIR NUTRITION AND THEIR HEALTH, MAKING SURE THEY'RE GROWING HEALTHFULLY AND GROWING HEALTHY FAMILIES AND BABIES IN SHASTA COUNTY.

BECAUSE AMBER IS EXCEPTIONAL IN OUR COMPUTER BASED DATABASE, THE WICK WISE PROGRAM.

SHE'S BEEN ASKED TO PARTICIPATE ON THE STATES WICK WISE COMMITTEE.

SHE IS ONE OF TWO FRONTLINE STAFF ON THAT COMMITTEE AT THE STATE LEVEL, AND HER INPUT IS VALUABLE.

I JUST SPOKE WITH THE STATE LAST WEEK ABOUT HER, AND THEY REALLY APPRECIATE HER INPUT BECAUSE SHE IS USING THE PROGRAM DAILY.

SHE ENSURES ALL PARTICIPANTS WHO WALK THROUGH THE DOOR GET ALL THE RESOURCES THEY NEED.

SHE IS PRIMARILY BASED IN THE ANDERSON COMMUNITY AND SERVES THOSE FAMILIES AND CONNECTS THEM WITH RESOURCES DAILY.

IN SHASTA COUNTY, WHICH SERVES ABOUT 4620 PARTICIPANTS EVERY MONTH.

WE'RE REACHING ABOUT 98% OF THAT CASELOAD. AND NOT ONLY ARE WE PROVIDING NUTRITION EDUCATION, AMBER PROVIDES A TON OF BREASTFEEDING SUPPORT TO MAKE SURE MOMS AND BABIES HAVE THE THE VERY BEST HEALTHY START.

SO CONGRATULATIONS, AMBER. CHAIR, I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION THAT WE ADOPT THIS RESOLUTION RECOGNIZING AMBER AS EMPLOYEE OF THE MONTH.

ALL RIGHT. I WILL SECOND. ALL RIGHT. MOTION MADE BY SUPERVISOR LONG.

SECONDED BY SUPERVISOR PLUMMER. DO WE HAVE ANY PUBLIC COMMENT ON THIS ITEM? WE DO NOT. CHAIR. OKAY. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? AYE. PASSES FIVE ZERO. DID YOU WANT TO SPEAK?

[00:10:02]

YOU DON'T HAVE TO. IT'S NOT MANDATORY, BUT WE WOULD LOVE TO HEAR FROM YOU.

I JUST WANTED TO THANK YOU GUYS FOR THE KUDOS AND FOR THE RECOGNITION OF THE WORK PROGRAM.

SOMEBODY ASKED ME RECENTLY WHAT I WISHED WAS UNDERSTOOD ABOUT MY JOB, AND THAT QUESTION KIND OF STUCK WITH ME.

AND I RECENTLY ENROLLED A YOUNG MOTHER. SHE WAS 18, 19 YEARS OLD.

AND AS I ENROLLED HER, HER MOTHER WAS THERE WITH HER, HER, THE GRANDMOTHER.

AND SHE KIND OF LAUGHED AND SHE SAID, REMEMBER WHEN I WOULD WALK WITH YOU TO THE WICK AND PICK UP OUR CHECKS? AND I THOUGHT, THAT'S KIND OF A COOL THING. FOR 50 YEARS, WICK HAS BEEN WHERE MOTHERS HAVE TAKEN THEIR BABIES FOR 50 YEARS.

WE HAVE HELPED MOTHERS LEARN HOW TO FEED THEIR BABIES AND LEARN HOW TO RAISE THEIR CHILDREN.

AND IT'S A REALLY IT'S A REALLY AWESOME THING TO BE A PART OF.

AND I THANK YOU FOR YOUR SUPPORT OF THE WICK PROGRAM, BECAUSE IT ALSO SUPPORTS THE MOTHERS AND THE CHILDREN AND THE BABIES OF SHASTA COUNTY.

SO THANK YOU ALL. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, AMBER.

AND I THINK SUPERVISOR LONG. HE HAS SOME GOODIES FOR YOU.

AND THEN WE'LL TAKE A PICTURE. WELL CONGRATULATIONS.

WELL DESERVED. AND THAT'S MOST IMPRESSIVE THAT YOU HAVE A VOICE AT THE STATE LEVEL ADVOCATING.

AND I JUST THINK THAT'S WONDERFUL. THANK YOU.

SO WE HAVE SOME GIFTS FOR YOU. AND I WILL ALSO PRESENT YOU WITH THIS EMPLOYEE OF THE MONTH FOR AMBER KEEGAN, NUTRITION ASSISTANT TWO AND CONGRATULATIONS ON THAT.

AND SO WE'VE GOT A FEW THINGS HERE. GIFTS FROM VARIOUS DEPARTMENTS IN THE COUNTY EMPLOYEE OF THE MONTH TUMBLER CUP. OH, WOW. OKAY. AN AMAZON $30 AMAZON GIFT CERTIFICATE DONATED BY THE DEPARTMENT HEAD FORUM, A $20 DUTCH BROTHERS GIFT CERTIFICATE DONATED BY THE SHERIFF'S ADMINISTRATION ADMINISTRATIVE ASSOCIATION.

A $35 READING PUBLIC MARKET GIFT CERTIFICATE DONATED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AND A $25 GIFT CERTIFICATE DONATED BY THE UNITED PUBLIC EMPLOYEES OF CALIFORNIA. UPEC GENERAL UNIT.

SO CONGRATULATIONS ON THAT. AND THANK YOU FOR STEPPING UP AND EXCELLING AT YOUR JOB.

THANK YOU SIR. OKAY. THANK YOU. I HAVE TRAINED YOU GUYS ALL. YOU CAN BRING THIS. STUFF.

ALL RIGHT. MOVING ON. WE'LL GO TO R TWO. INTRODUCE AND WAIVE THE READING OF THE ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS. AMENDING CHAPTERS 8.08 FROM THE FIRE HAZARD REGULATIONS AND.

[R2 Introduce and waive the reading of, “An Ordinance of the Board of Supervisors Amending Chapters 8.08 Fire Hazard Regulations, and 8.12 Fireworks of the Shasta County Code” and find the proposed ordinance is not subject to and exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for the reasons stated in the ordinance.]

8.12 FIREWORKS OF THE SHASTA COUNTY CODE, AND FIND.

THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE IS NOT SUBJECT TO AN. EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT FOR THE REASONS STATED IN THE ORDINANCE.

CHIEF O'HAIRE. GOOD MORNING CHAIR. MY NAME IS SEAN O'HARA.

[00:15:03]

OBVIOUSLY WE'VE BEEN WORKING THROUGH THIS A COUPLE OF YEARS NOW.

WE DIDN'T WANT TO HAVE OUR OTHER ORDINANCE AND THIS ONE COME AT YOU AT THE SAME TIME.

SO I'VE TALKED TO MOST OF YOU ABOUT THIS FOR THE LAST COUPLE OF YEARS.

AND BASICALLY WHAT IT DOES IS REMOVES THE MISDEMEANOR AND ALLOWS US TO GO TO AN INFRACTION AND UP TO A MISDEMEANOR.

SO THOSE ARE KEY WORDS BECAUSE IT'S UP TO A MISDEMEANOR AND OR ANYTHING ELSE.

PREVIOUSLY, THOSE THOSE THINGS HAVE GOTTEN TO THE POINT WHERE IT WAS ONLY A MISDEMEANOR.

AND THE LAST THING WE WANT TO DO IS ANYTHING THAT IS ARRESTING SOMEBODY WHEN THEY'RE TRYING TO DO THE BEST THAT THEY CAN POSSIBLY DO.

IF WE HAVE AN ABILITY TO GIVE THEM AN INFRACTION, IF AT ALL POSSIBLE.

SO I'LL OPEN IT UP TO ANY QUESTIONS. YEAH. JUST SO THE PUBLIC UNDERSTANDS, LIKE, IF ANY, ANY CASE OF, YOU KNOW, A FRIEND OF MINE DOWN IN COTTONWOOD FIRE GOT A LITTLE OUT OF CONTROL. HE WAS BURNING. IT WAS A BURN DAY, EVERYTHING ELSE. BUT HE GOT A LITTLE OUT OF CONTROL. SO YOU KNOW, HE WAS ACCEPTED RESPONSIBILITY, BUT HE COULDN'T JUST GET A TICKET.

IT HAD TO GO THROUGH THE COURT SYSTEM AND THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE. AND WE ALL KNOW THAT THERE IS A LOGJAM THERE. SO ANYWAYS, THANK YOU FOR DOING THIS. THIS IS FANTASTIC. SO IT FREES UP A LOT OF STUFF.

ANY BOARD DISCUSSION? DO WE HAVE ANY PUBLIC COMMENT ON THIS ITEM? WE DO. CHAIR WE HAVE ONE REQUEST TO SPEAK. SHASTA COUNTY. WATCHDOG.

OKAY. SHASTA COUNTY WATCHDOG. WHAT I KNOW WAS THAT THE FIRE ORDINANCE.

OKAY. SHE PASSES. OKAY. IF THERE'S NO BOARD DISCUSSION, I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO APPROVE.

MOTION MADE BY SUPERVISOR CRYE. SECOND. SECOND BY SUPERVISOR LONG.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? AYE. PASSES FIVE ZERO. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

SEAN GOING TO MISS YOU, BUDDY. THANKS, MATT. ALL RIGHT, MOVING ON TO R THREE.

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

RECEIVE AN UPDATE FROM THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER ON COUNTY ISSUES, AND CONSIDER ACTION AND SPECIFIC LEGISLATION RELATED TO SHASTA COUNTY LEGISLATIVE PLATFORM AND RECEIVE SUPERVISOR'S REPORTS ON COUNTY WIDE ISSUES.

CEO RICKERT. GOOD MORNING, CHAIRMAN KELSTROM AND MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS.

DAVE RICKARD, COUNTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER REPORTING.

LESLIE MORGAN, SHASTA COUNTY ASSESSOR RECORDER WOULD LIKE TO ANNOUNCE THAT THE FINAL DATE FOR FILING THE ASSESSMENT APPEAL APPLICATION IS NOVEMBER 30TH.

MISS MORGAN STRESSES THAT PROPERTY TAX OWNERS MAY REQUEST AN INFORMAL REVIEW OF TAXABLE VALUE BY HER OFFICE AT ANY TIME.

HOWEVER, THE FORMAL APPLICATION HEARING BEFORE THE SHASTA COUNTY ASSESSMENT APPEALS BOARD MUST BE FILED BETWEEN JULY 2ND AND NOVEMBER 30TH.

IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT TAXABLE VALUE OR YOUR PROPERTY, CONTACT HER OFFICE BY CALLING 530225 3600 OR BY COMING TO ROOM 208 A AT THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE CENTER.

THIS CONCLUDES MY REPORT. THANK YOU. CEO RICKERT.

LET'S START WITH SUPERVISOR PLUMMER. GOOD MORNING EVERYONE.

GOOD TO SEE YOU. A FEW UPDATES FOR YOU AND A FEW MOTIONS TO BRING BEFORE THE BOARD FOR FUTURE CONSIDERATION.

SO THE FIRST IS AROUND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT. AND THIS IS SOMETHING I'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT FOR A FEW MONTHS HERE. AND THE IDEA IS THAT IF WE AS A COMMUNITY SAY, WE'RE GOING TO DOUBLE DOWN ON A PARTICULAR INDUSTRY CLUSTER, THEY CALL IT, WHICH IS LIKE A KIND OF A GROUPING OF INDUSTRIES THAT WE CAN DEVELOP A PROACTIVE STRATEGY AROUND GROWING, THAT WE CAN ATTRACT BUSINESSES AND ENTREPRENEURS WHO ARE OPERATING IN THAT SPACE.

AND SO I'VE BEEN WORKING WITH THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION AND REBECCA BAER THERE OVER THE LAST FEW MONTHS TO SAY, WHAT IF? WHAT DOES IT LOOK LIKE FOR US TO DOUBLE DOWN ON TIMBER AND WOOD PRODUCTS? WE HAD A CONVENING OF INDUSTRY LEADERS, LOCAL INDUSTRY LEADERS ON THE OCTOBER 19TH, AND THERE WAS INTEREST FROM THAT GROUP IN KIND OF MOVING FORWARD, LOOKING AT LOCAL POLICIES AS WELL AS STATE POLICIES AND OTHER ACTIONS THAT WE COULD DO TO HELP THAT INDUSTRY CONTINUE TO GROW AND BE STRONG IN SHASTA COUNTY AND ATTRACT MORE EMPLOYMENT. AND SO AS A FIRST STEP, AND THIS WAS ACTUALLY SOMETHING THAT SOME OF THE INDUSTRY LEADERS IN THE GROUP ASKED THAT WE DO WAS TO BRING A RESOLUTION BEFORE THE BOARD TO SAY, THIS IS A FOCUS FOR US.

WE WANT TO BE KNOWN FOR TIMBER AND WOOD PRODUCTS, EVEN MORE SO THAN WE CURRENTLY ARE, AND WE'RE GOING TO WORK WITH THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION TO SEE THAT INDUSTRY GROW OVER THE NEXT FEW YEARS.

AND SO MY MOTION WOULD BE I'LL MAKE A MOTION THAT WE BRING BACK A RESOLUTION FOR FUTURE CONSIDERATION BEFORE THE BOARD TO TAKE ACTION ON IT THAT WOULD SAY THAT WE ARE GOING TO FOCUS ON TIMBER AND WOOD PRODUCTS AS A KEY INDUSTRY FOR SHASTA COUNTY AND WORK WITH THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION TO GROW THAT. AND ON TIMING I KNOW THAT REBECCA IS GOING TO BE OUT FOR A LITTLE BIT OVER THE NEXT FEW MONTHS.

SO I THINK THIS WILL HAVE TO COME OUT IN THE NEW YEAR.

SO THAT WOULD BE MY MOTION. YEAH, I, I THINK I'LL LET REBECCA BEAR TAKE CARE OF THAT.

[00:20:02]

BUT SO I DON'T SEE A SECOND. ALL RIGHT. DO YOU HAVE MORE SUPERVISOR.

PLUMMER. YES. THE SO A FEW MONTHS AGO, I MET WITH THE FOLKS UP IN LAKEHEAD AND THERE WAS CONCERN AROUND THE ANTLERS BOAT RAMP AND AS WELL AS SUGARLOAF MARINA AND THE LAKES THAT ARE CAUSED BY SOME OF THE BIGGER BOATS THERE. AND SO WE WERE LOOKING AT AND, YOU KNOW, BROUGHT BEFORE THIS BOARD A, THE POTENTIAL FOR FUTURE ACTION TO CONSIDER A NO WAKE ZONE.

WE'VE HAD SOME ADDITIONAL CONVERSATIONS WITH OUR SHERIFF'S BOATING SAFETY DEPARTMENT AS WELL AS WITH OUR ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE AND THEN MORE RECENTLY WITH THE US FOREST SERVICE AND HAVE WE'VE, WE'VE BASICALLY, AT THIS POINT, WHILE WE WANT TO ENSURE THE SAFETY OF THOSE MARINAS, WE WANT TO BE CAREFUL NOT TO BE OVERLY RESTRICTIVE IN TERMS OF CREATING A NUMBER OF NO WAKE ZONES ACROSS THE LAKE THAT WOULD MAKE IT, YOU KNOW, HARDER TO NAVIGATE AND TO ENJOY THE LAKE.

AND SO AT THIS POINT, WHAT WE'RE GOING TO TRY FIRST IS WORKING WITH THE US FOREST SERVICE TO BASICALLY ADD SOME BOYS AROUND THOSE AREAS AND MAKE THEM MORE VISIBLE. SO IN ORDER TO ENSURE OR INCREASE SAFETY AROUND THOSE TWO RAMPS AND AS WELL AS ADD SOME NEW SIGNAGE THERE THAT WILL MAKE THAT CLEAR TO BOATERS AS WELL AS THOSE WHO ARE, SAY, ON THOSE RAMPS.

OF, YOU KNOW, TAKING CAUTION THERE. SO THAT IS KIND OF OUR NEXT STEP.

SO WORKING WITH THE US FOREST SERVICE TO, TO TAKE THAT ACTION THERE AND WE'LL SEE HOW THAT GOES.

AND IF THERE'S STILL ISSUES, AND I WILL SAY THAT THERE HAVEN'T BEEN PUBLIC SAFETY ACCIDENTS AT THIS POINT RELATED TO THOSE.

SO BUT IF THAT WERE TO BECOME A CHALLENGE, WE CAN REEVALUATE IT, BUT THAT WILL BE KIND OF OUR NEXT STEP THERE.

AND THEN THE, I DID WANT THE BOARD TO, AND THIS WILL BE MY FINAL ITEM TO REEVALUATE.

YOU KNOW, IN GOING INTO JULY, WE MADE A FEW CHANGES AROUND PUBLIC COMMENT.

AND THAT WAS BECAUSE STATE LAW REQUIRED US TO ALLOW FOR VIRTUAL PARTICIPATION.

AND OUR CONCERN AT THE TIME WAS THAT THERE WAS GOING TO BE A LARGE NUMBER OF PEOPLE CALLING IN FROM ALL OVER.

AND SO WE MADE A NUMBER OF RESTRICTIONS ON PUBLIC COMMENT THAT I DON'T.

AND THOSE CONCERNS. AND IT WAS A NEW MODEL. AND WE WERE, YOU KNOW, TRYING IT OUT AND WE SAID WE WOULD REEVALUATE IT.

AND I THINK NOW THAT WE HAVE ABOUT FIVE MONTHS BEHIND US AND WE'VE SEEN THAT IT HASN'T BECOME A PROBLEM, I DO THINK WE SHOULD REEVALUATE IT. AND IN TWO PARTICULAR WAYS.

SO THE FIRST IS THAT WE CURRENTLY HAVE CAPS OF 20 MINUTES ON REGULAR AGENDA ITEM, 30 MINUTES ON PUBLIC COMMENT, THOUGH, AS YOU'VE SEEN, AND I THINK THESE WERE THE RIGHT COURSE OF ACTION, IS KELSTROM HAS EXTENDED THOSE WHENEVER WE GO PAST THEM.

SO IN SOME SENSE IT'S WHAT'S THE POINT OF HAVING THOSE.

AND SO I THINK WE SHOULD DO AWAY WITH THOSE CAPS ON TERMS OF THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF TIME LIMIT.

AND I ALSO THINK GOING BACK TO WHERE WE HAD BEFORE, WHERE YOU HAD THREE MINUTES, IF THERE WAS LESS THAN TEN SPEAKERS AND THEN TWO MINUTES IF THERE'S MORE THAN TEN SPEAKERS WILL ALLOW FOR MORE ROBUST ENGAGEMENT FROM THE PUBLIC WHEN WHILE STILL MANAGING THE TIME OF THE MEETING.

AND SO I WOULD MAKE A MOTION THAT WE BRING BACK A CHANGE TO THAT POLICY TO REMOVE THE CAPS ON TOTAL PUBLIC COMMENT.

TIME TO SAY THREE MINUTES IF THERE'S LESS THAN TEN, TWO MINUTES, IF THERE'S MORE THAN TEN SPEAKERS.

AND AS IT RELATES TO VIRTUAL VERSUS IN PERSON, THAT WE WOULD JUST TAKE ALL THE IN PERSON TO MAKE IT SIMPLE.

AND THEN ONCE THAT'S DONE, SINCE THERE'S NO CAPS MOVED TO VIRTUAL, THE FIRST PART IS WE'RE GOING TO DO A COUPLE COUPLE QUESTIONS FOR YOU, MATT. GO AHEAD. DO YOU HAVE ARE YOU GUYS THE FIRST PART? CURRENTLY, WE HAVE CAPS THAT LIMIT THE AMOUNT OF TIME.

NO, RIGHT NOW THE CURRENT POLICY IS THAT IT'S TWO MINUTES.

SO I THINK BASED ON WHAT'S ABOUT TO HAPPEN HERE, IT'S BETTER TO BRING THIS BACK AS A DISCUSSION ITEM AND THEN WE CAN WORK FROM THERE.

I'LL SECOND. WELL, HE HASN'T CHANGED HIS MOTION.

WELL, IF WE SO GIVEN THE SECOND, I MIGHT MOVE FORWARD WITH THAT IF WE'RE GOOD TO HAVE THAT DISCUSSION AS PART OF THE ABILITY TO TAKE ACTION ON IT AT THAT TIME AS WELL.

I'M OKAY WITH BRINGING IT BACK AS A DISCUSSION ITEM, BUT I WOULD REALLY RATHER HAVE THIS COME FROM THE CLERK OF THE BOARD'S OFFICE.

I DON'T KNOW IF YOU DID YOU WORK WITH STEPHANIE AND SEE IF THERE'S ANY RULES THAT STILL APPLY THAT SHE NEEDS TO AGAIN.

YEAH, WE CAN DO IT AS I'LL AMEND THE MOTION TO MAKE IT A DISCUSSION ITEM ON A FUTURE AGENDA.

CORRECT. OKAY. OKAY. YOU AMEND YOUR SECOND. I'LL SECOND THAT.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? AYE. ANY OPPOSED? PASSES FIVE ZERO.

SUPERVISOR. CRYE. ALL RIGHT. I HAD THE AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION MEETING LAST WEEK.

WE'RE GOING TO DO ANOTHER SPECIAL MEETING. AND STEPHANIE, DO YOU KNOW IF THAT WAS SET OR NOT? DID THEY WIND UP SETTING THAT. DID YOU SEE THAT COME

[00:25:02]

THROUGH? I'M NOT SURE. I BELIEVE THERE'S THREE DATES THAT THE CLERK OF THAT COMMISSION IS WORKING ON, BUT I DON'T KNOW IF ONE'S BEEN SET. ONE OF THE REASONS IT WAS PUSHED WAS BECAUSE IF WE DON'T, IF WE DON'T MAKE A VOTE, IT ACTUALLY DEFAULTS TO THE PLAN FROM THE 80S, AND I'VE BEEN ON THIS COMMISSION FOR ALL FOUR YEARS, CHAIRED IT FOR THREE, AND WE'RE STILL WORKING OFF A PLAN FROM THE EARLY 80S.

SO I KNOW IF YOU'RE INTERESTED IN THE AIRPORT OR LEARNING MORE ABOUT WHY IT'S MAYBE IN THE STATE IT'S IN FOR SO MANY YEARS, I WOULD ENCOURAGE YOU TO COME TO THIS MEETING IN NOVEMBER. CITY OF REDDING WASN'T AT THE MEETING LAST THIS LAST ONE.

SO THAT'S WHY WE PUSHED IT. ROCKY HERON, IF YOU'RE FAMILIAR WITH HIM, HE'S AN INDIVIDUAL, A FORMER DEA AGENT THAT'S BEEN WORKING IN THE COMMUNITY WITH SKOKIE.

SO I'M WORKING WITH THE BOARD PRESIDENT, MICHAEL DIESEL, AS WELL AS ARTHUR AUTHOR, ABOUT MAYBE WORKING WITH SKOKIE ON KEEPING HIM HERE. IT IS ONE OF THE MOST EFFECTIVE PROGRAMS. SKOKIE IS ACTUALLY RUN IN THERE, IN MY ESTIMATION, IN TERMS OF DRUG PREVENTION, EDUCATION HAS THE MOST ENGAGEMENT ACROSS ALL THE DISTRICTS IN OUR COUNTY.

SO I'LL BE BRINGING SOMETHING BACK, PROBABLY THIS NEXT MEETING AS IT RELATES TO OPIOID DOLLARS.

JUST WAITING FOR SOME MORE NUMBERS FROM THE SAN DIEGO OFFICE OF EDUCATION.

WITH CONCERNED WHAT ROCKY'S DONE DOWN THERE. AND I'LL GIVE MIKE FREEMAN AND ALL THE STAFF AT SKOKIE A LOT OF CREDIT.

ROCKY HAS SAID THAT THIS IS BY FAR THE MOST ENGAGED COUNTY OF THE 58 IN THE STATE.

SO ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE'RE REALLY LOOKING AT, IF YOU'RE FAMILIAR WITH WHAT HE DOES, HE COMES IN SCHOOLS, BUS KIDS IN TO DIFFERENT LOCATIONS. IT'S MOSTLY SEVENTH AND EIGHTH GRADERS.

BUT I THINK THERE'S A, I MEAN, NOT I THINK THERE'S A DISCONNECT BETWEEN WHEN A SPEAKER LEAVES AND THEN THE FOLLOW UP ON SCHOOL SITES AND SCHOOL SITES ARE ABSOLUTELY TAPPED. AND I THINK HAVING A LIAISON THAT'S WORKING WITH ROCKY AS WELL AS WITH SCOHY INTO THE SCHOOLS, I THINK IS CRITICAL. AND SO LIKE I SAID, I'LL BE BRINGING SOMETHING BACK WITH THAT.

I'M ACTUALLY WORKING WITH SUPERVISOR ELECT REZNOR AS WELL ON THIS BECAUSE I THINK THIS IS SOMETHING THAT'S REALLY IMPORTANT AS IT RELATES TO OUR KIDS AND HOW WE INVEST MONEY AND NOT SEEING THAT OPIOID MONEY SPENT ON PEOPLE, GROUPS THAT ARE ALREADY BEING SERVED BY TENS OF MILLIONS, HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS, NOT JUST LOCALLY, BUT THROUGHOUT THE STATE.

ONE THING I WANT TO BRING UP, AND I WANT PEOPLE TO KIND OF WRITE THIS DOWN AND TAKE A LOOK AT THIS. IF YOU LOOK AT OUR FIRE CONTRACT NOW, AGAIN, THAT'S COMING TO A HEAD IN 2029. BUT IF YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT A CONTRACT IS RIGHT NOW, SHASTA COUNTY IS UNDER A LEGACY CONTRACT.

AND UNDER A LEGACY CONTRACT, WE ACTUALLY GET A SCREAMING DEAL WITH CAL FIRE.

IF WE EVER VOID THAT LEGACY CONTRACT, THEN IT WOULD GO BACK OUT TO WHAT WOULD BE LIKE FAIR MARKET PRICE FOR CAL FIRE SERVICES.

SO THE MORE TIME THAT'S SPENT LOOKING AT VOLUNTEERS OR COLLABORATIONS, THAT'S ALL WELL AND GOOD, BUT I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THIS IS LIKE RECORDED AND ON RECORD, BECAUSE I'M GOING TO BRING THIS BACK UP IN A YEAR OR TWO YEARS.

THREE YEARS. THERE IS ONLY ONE PATH FORWARD WITH CAL FIRE AND THE COUNTY.

AND SO NOW IT'S MEMORIALIZED IN VIDEO BECAUSE IF ANYBODY UNDERSTANDS THE ACTUAL MATHEMATICS OF IT, WE ARE GETTING A SCREAMING DEAL WITH WHAT WE HAVE WITH CAL FIRE UNDER OUR LEGACY CONTRACT.

SO AND THEN THE LAST THING I WANT TO SAY IS TWO, TWO THINGS THE STRATEGIC PLAN.

AGAIN, WE HAVE FIVE ITEMS ON THAT STRATEGIC PLAN THAT WAS SPENT A YEAR AND A HALF DOING, NOT HEARING A WHOLE LOT AS IT PERTAINS TO STRATEGIC PLAN.

AND AGAIN, WHAT'S THE POINT OF SETTING A STRATEGIC PLAN IF YOU DON'T CHART A COURSE TOWARDS THAT? AND LAST BUT NOT LEAST, THANK YOU TO THE VOTERS WHO OVERWHELMINGLY SUPPORTED E AND F.

THOSE ARE, I THINK, FANTASTIC ADDITIONS TO OUR ALREADY SOLID CHARTER.

AND SO FOR THOSE THAT GOT OUT AND VOTED, THANK YOU.

THANK YOU CHAIR. THANK YOU. SUPERVISOR. CRYE.

SUPERVISOR. HARMON. SORRY. I THOUGHT YOU WERE GOING NEXT.

GOOD MORNING. WE HAD A MEETING WITH I HAD A MEETING WITH.

IT'S ALWAYS INTERESTING TO WATCH PEOPLE DO WHAT THEY DO BEST, AND I AND I MET WITH WEIGHTS AND MEASURES WHILE THEY WERE CERTIFYING TRUCK SCALES AND WATCHING THEM, WHICH IS ONE OF OUR SERVICES THAT SHASTA COUNTY PROVIDES AND WATCHING THEM DO WHAT THEY DO.

AND I APPRECIATE WHAT THEY DO. AND I JUST WANTED TO GIVE A LITTLE SHOUT OUT TO THEM. THEN I HAD A MEETING WITH OUR CEO, MR. RICKERT. AND AND SAME THING THERE. AND I DON'T KNOW IF I DIDN'T REALIZE THIS, BUT I DON'T KNOW IF THE REST OF THE BOARD MEMBERS

[00:30:07]

REALIZE THIS, BUT I THINK DAVE MAY BE ONE OF THE ONLY CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS IN THE CEO POSITION IN THE COUNTY IN CALIFORNIA. IS THAT TRUE, DAVE? I WOULD HAVE TO CHECK THAT.

OKAY. WELL, ANYWAY, I APPRECIATE WHAT YOU DO FOR US.

APPRECIATE THE TIME THAT YOU YOU TAKE WITH ME TO KEEP ME SCHOOLED UP ON WHAT'S GOING ON.

AND THEN I WANT TO SAY, LAST NIGHT I WAS AT A SHASTA COUNTY FARM BUREAU MEETING IN PALO CEDRO, AND JOHN INGRAM WAS THERE, AND THEN NED COE WAS THERE WHO WAS A SUPERVISOR FROM MODOC COUNTY.

AND THEY WERE, THEY'RE BOTH GOING TO A MEETING.

I THINK THAT MEETING IS IN BUTTE COUNTY TODAY.

WITH MEETING WITH MEGAN, WHO'S THE RECENT NEW DIRECTOR FOR FISH AND GAME FOR THE STATE.

AND I WAS A LITTLE PERTURBED. WHY THEY. AND THEY'RE GOING TO ASK THEM BECAUSE WE GOT WE HAD A MEETING SET UP FOR YESTERDAY YESTERDAY, AND THEY CANCELED THAT ONE. AND THEN THEY SET THIS UP AND THEY ALL KNOW WE.

I WAS A LITTLE FRUSTRATED WITH THAT BECAUSE THEY ALL KNOW WE HAVE SUPERVISOR MEETINGS ON TUESDAY.

SO AND THEN THEY DIDN'T SET IT UP. IT'S IT'S AT 1:00.

BUT THEY DIDN'T SET UP A ZOOM MEETING ON IT. BUT ANYWAY, I'LL WE HAVE PEOPLE THERE.

SO JOHN WILL. JOHN WILL REPRESENT US. AND IN THE.

THE WOLF MEETINGS ARE, ARE, ARE IMPORTANT TO US.

AND JUST A LITTLE NOTE HOW OUT OF CONTROL THE THE THE ISSUE IS, IS SISKIYOU COUNTY IS GOING TO BE ON THE FRONT COVER OF NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC, COVERING THE IMPACTS OF WHAT THE WOLVES HAVE DONE TO RANCHERS IN SISKIYOU COUNTY.

BUT SISKIYOU COUNTY IS KIND OF KIND OF BEEN IN THE LEAD AROUND HERE, BUT THEY'RE NOT THE ONLY ONES.

SHASTA COUNTY, ALL OF THE LASSEN, MODOC, ALL THE NORTHERN COUNTIES.

BUT WITH THAT, I'LL PASS IT ON TO SUPERVISOR.

THANK YOU. SUPERVISOR HARMON SUPERVISOR LONG. THANK YOU CHAIR.

WELCOME, EVERYONE. SO PER THE DIRECTION OF THE BOARD LAST TIME I CONTACTED HARMONY COMMUNITIES WHICH OWNS BOTH THE BIXBY AND RIVER RANCH MOBILE HOME PARKS.

ONE IS IN MY DISTRICT AND ONE IS IN SUPERVISOR KELSTROM DISTRICT AND WE'VE BEEN WORKING TO FIGURE OUT THIS SITUATION.

SO I'M HAPPY TO REPORT THAT HARMONY HAS THAT WE'VE MADE GOOD PROGRESS AND HARMONY HAS AGREED TO SUSPEND FOR THREE MONTHS UNTIL MARCH 1ST. THEY ARE NOT GOING TO IMPOSE THAT $300, WHICH WAS CAUSING A KIND OF A CRISIS, WHICH WAS THE $300 RENT INCREASE AND THEN THE $300 CREDIT.

SO I TAKE THAT AS A VERY POSITIVE STEP. WE WILL CONTINUE NEGOTIATIONS, AND I LOOK FORWARD TO THOSE CONTINUED NEGOTIATIONS UNTIL WE CAN GET THIS RESOLVED TO PROTECT THE INTERESTS OF EVERYONE INVOLVED.

AND I THINK THAT'S THAT'S A GREAT IDEA. I HAVE ALSO CONTACTED HEATHER HARDWICK'S OFFICE BECAUSE IT APPEARS THAT AB 1482 INCLUDES A LOOPHOLE THAT MAY NOT PROTECT MOBILE HOME RENTERS VERSUS OTHER APARTMENTS AND MULTIFAMILY AND SOME OF THOSE THINGS. SO I'VE ASKED HER TO LOOK INTO THAT AS WELL.

SO ANYWAY, I LOOK FORWARD TO CONTINUED NEGOTIATIONS IN THAT AREA, AND WE WILL KEEP YOU POSTED OF THAT PROGRESS.

I MET WITH CEO RICKERT TO DISCUSS ALL THE ISSUES FACING SHASTA COUNTY.

THAT WAS A VERY PRODUCTIVE MEETING. AND THEN ALONG THE LINES OF MY FIRST COMMENT, I WENT DOWN TO RED BLUFF AND MET WITH SUPERVISOR GREG JONES, WHO ENACTED THEIR RENT STABILIZATION ORDINANCE DOWN THERE.

AND I JUST PICKED HIS BRAIN. AND WE, WE SPENT A LOT OF TIME DISCUSSING THE INS AND OUTS OF THAT, THE ORDINANCE THAT THEY PASSED. BASICALLY THE SAME DAY THAT HE MADE THE PRESENTATION TO OUR BOARD.

SO I GUESS IN THAT, IN THAT AREA WE WILL KEEP EVERYONE UPDATED AS TO THE PROGRESS OF THOSE DISCUSSIONS.

AND THAT CONCLUDES MY REPORT. HEY, GREAT JOB MAN ON THE $300 GETTING KICKED.

YEAH. THAT'S GOOD. GOOD STUFF. THANK YOU, SUPERVISOR LONG.

ALL RIGHT. ON THE 28TH, I WENT TO AN EMERGENCY ANDERSON COTTONWOOD IRRIGATION DISTRICT MEETING IN ANDERSON.

THEY THREW IT TOGETHER. 24 HOUR NOTICE. I'LL GET TO MORE OF THAT AT THE END OF MY BOARD REPORT.

[00:35:02]

AND THEN THAT NIGHT, I ALSO CALLED OUT BINGO NUMBERS IN SHINGLETOWN WILL BE THE LAST ONE FOR THE WINTER. ON THE 30TH, I ATTENDED THE COTTONWOOD SOUP KITCHEN. IT'S A GOOD EVENT DOWN IN COTTONWOOD. RAISES MONEY FOR THE COMMUNITY CENTER IS ABOUT 1215 OF US MAKE GIANT KETTLES OF SOUP AND THEN EVERYBODY $5. YOU GET TO SAMPLE THE SOUP AND JUDGE WHO'S THE BEST ONE.

AND SO IT'S ALWAYS A FUN EVENT. AND THEN ON THE FIRST, I WENT TO THE ANDERSON SENIOR CENTER BREAKFAST AND THE SIXTH I HAD A GENDER REVIEW FOLLOWED BY LAW LIBRARY MEETING AND, YOU KNOW, HAPPY RETIREMENT TO LAURA.

SHE'S BEEN DOING THE LAW LIBRARIAN POSITION FOR ABOUT 18 YEARS AND SHE'S GOING TO RETIRE.

SO AND THEN THAT NIGHT, I HAD A SOCIAL OUT IN MANDAN AT INDIAN PEAK WINERY.

THE SEVENTH, I DID THE WEST VALLEY CHILI FEED AND AUCTION AND I SOLD EVERY ITEM EXCEPT FOR A 1978 FIRE TRUCK.

SO IF ANYBODY'S IN WANTS A FIRE TRUCK, THEY HAVE ONE FOR SALE AT THE WEST VALLEY VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT.

AND THEN I ATTENDED THE COTTONWOOD LIONS CLUB BREAKFAST ON THE EIGHTH.

SO BACK TO THE CITY MEETING. SO I CALLED AN EMERGENCY MEETING.

SO AND THEY WANT TO ASSESS EVERY PROPERTY IN THE ANDERSON COTTONWOOD IRRIGATION DISTRICT.

SO WHETHER YOU USE THE WATER OR NOT, WHETHER YOU USE CITY WATER, WHETHER YOU LIVE IN AN APARTMENT.

THEY WANT TO ASSESS EVERY PROPERTY DOWN THERE.

NOW, IN THEIR DEFENSE, THEY'RE ONE OF THE ONLY WATER DISTRICTS THAT DO NOT HAVE AN ASSESSMENT WITHIN THEIR DISTRICT.

SO THE ONLY WAY THEY'RE GOING TO CONTINUE ON IS TO RAISE THE RATES OF THE WATER USERS.

SO THIS IS GOING TO AFFECT EVERYBODY THAT LIVES IN THE DISTRICT, INCLUDING MYSELF.

I DON'T USE A CITY WATER YET. IT'LL PROBABLY COST ME ABOUT $120 A YEAR IF THIS ASSESSMENT GOES THROUGH.

THERE WAS ONE LADY THERE AT THE MEETING THAT APPARENTLY SHE MUST LIVE ON A COUPLE HUNDRED ACRES, AND SHE SAID HER MORTGAGE WILL GO UP $300 A MONTH IF THEY DO THIS ASSESSMENT.

SO THERE'S A MEETING ON THE THURSDAY, THE 12TH ACID REGULAR MEETING AT 6:00 IN ANDERSON.

AND I WOULD ENCOURAGE EVERYBODY THAT LIVES IN THE ACID DISTRICT TO GO AHEAD AND GO TO THAT MEETING, BECAUSE IT'S GOING TO AFFECT EVERYBODY, WHETHER YOU USE THE WATER OR NOT. SO ANYWAYS, AND THAT CONCLUDES MY REPORT.

IT STARTS OUT AT 1864, AN ACRE AND GOES UP TO ALMOST $21 AN ACRE.

AND WITHIN FIVE YEARS. SO EVERY YEAR IT GOES UP.

AND AGAIN, THAT'S EVERY SINGLE PROPERTY. SO IT DOESN'T MATTER IF YOU USE THE WATER OR NOT. ALL RIGHT.

MOVING ON. PUBLIC COMMENT. DO WE HAVE ANY PUBLIC COMMENT?

[PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD - OPEN TIME]

WE DO. CHAIR WE HAVE 13 SPEAKERS. OKAY. OKAY.

FIRST UP AND I GUESS I SHOULD ANNOUNCE TO YOU THAT THEY'RE ALL IN PERSON SPEAKERS.

SO FIRST UP, STEVE KHAN FOLLOWED BY KATHY BOGLE, LAURA HOBBS, THEN LARRY S IF I CALLED YOUR NAME, PLEASE GET IN QUEUE.

MORNING BOARD PUBLIC ON THE ISSUE OF THE COMMENT TIME AND HAVING.

IF THERE'S MORE THAN TEN SPEAKERS LIMITED TO ONLY TWO MINUTES, I DON'T REALLY AGREE WITH THAT.

I THINK THAT NUMBER SHOULD BE INCREASED TO PROBABLY 30.

THAT WOULD ONLY BE 90 MINUTES. IT'S NOT LIKE WE HAVE.

UNLESS IT WAS PREMEDITATED BY SOME CHAIRMAN, IT'S NOT LIKE WE HAVE SEVERAL ISSUES TO WHERE WE'RE MAXED OUT ON THE NUMBER OF SPEAKERS.

GENERALLY. IT'S ONE ISSUE. AND THE REASON THERE ARE SO MANY SPEAKERS IS BECAUSE THE PUBLIC IS NOW JOINING, BECAUSE THE PUBLIC IS CONCERNED. AND SO THOSE ARE THE PEOPLE YOU SHOULD BE HEARING FROM.

AND I THINK CUTTING THEM SHORT IS INCORRECT. ON THE OTHER THINGS, I AGREE WE SHOULD HAVE THE TIME LIMITATIONS ELIMINATED EVEN IF WE HAD 20 SPEAKERS, WE'RE ONLY TALKING ABOUT AN HOUR. AND I THINK THAT WITH THE TIME THAT YOU GUYS HAVE BEEN SPENDING AT THESE MEETINGS LATELY, THAT'S NOT UNREASONABLE TO ASK, OR EVEN AN HOUR AND A HALF TO LISTEN TO THE PUBLIC.

NOT ALL OF THEM ARE GOING TO SPEAK FOR THREE MINUTES. SO THAT TIME ELEMENT IS REALLY NOT COMPLETELY ACCURATE.

I'M ENCOURAGED BY THE ELECTION RESULTS AND I THINK WE'RE GOING TO SEE SOME AMAZING CHANGES.

THAT WAS ONE OF MY SUBJECTS I WAS GOING TO SAY RIGHT OFF THE BAT. AND THE OTHER THING IS, IS THAT I HOPE THAT THE IMPACT FEES ARE REESTABLISHED SO THAT NO LONGER DO THE DO THE TAXPAYERS OF SHASTA COUNTY HAVE TO PICK UP THOSE FEES THAT WILL AGAIN, BE PUT ON THE SHOULDERS OF THE DEVELOPER AND THE DEVELOPMENT? I I THINK THAT WE'RE GOING TO ALSO START DEVELOPING CONFIDENCE IN THE STAFF TO WHERE THEY AREN'T WORRIED ABOUT HAVING A SITUATION WHERE THEY DISAGREE WITH THE SUPERVISOR OR OR DON'T CARRY OUT THEIR EVERY WILL THAT THEY WILL BE FIRED.

I THINK WE CAN GET BACK TO A SITUATION WHERE WE CAN START ATTRACTING QUALIFIED PEOPLE.

SO I'M VERY ENCOURAGED AND I'M EXCITED, AND I THINK WE'RE GOING TO.

CUT OFF. NEXT UP, CATHY, FOLLOWED BY LAURA HOBBS, THEN LARRY S IF I CALLED YOUR NAME, PLEASE GET IN QUEUE.

[00:40:06]

GOOD MORNING, CHAIR AND SUPERVISORS. MY NAME IS KATHY BOARD.

WATER DOES ONE THING. IT RUNS DOWNHILL UNTIL SOMETHING STOPS.

AT ABOUT 275 ACRES. DRAIN INTO THE HENDERSON DITCH.

THAT'S THE CITY'S OWN COUNT FROM 2017. NONE OF IT STARTS IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD ON THE PUBLIC STORM DRAIN MAP, MOST OF THIS DITCH, FROM THE TOP DOWN TO HENDERSON ROAD IS LISTED AS CITY OR COUNTY.

THE LAST TWO PIECES BEFORE THE RIVER ARE LISTED AS PRIVATE.

PRIVATE ONLY MEANS THE CITY DOESN'T KNOW WHO OWNS IT.

BUT IN MAY, YOUR OWN ASSESSOR'S OFFICE ANSWERED A PUBLIC RECORDS REQUEST ABOUT THOSE TWO PIECES.

QUOTE. THERE ARE NO APNS ASSOCIATED WITH THESE SECTIONS.

THEREFORE, THERE IS NO OWNERSHIP. THERE ARE NO TAX RECORDS EITHER.

SO HOW CAN A DITCH THAT DRAINS 275 ACRES LISTED AS CITY AND COUNTY AT THE TOP END ON LAND YOUR ASSESSOR SAYS HAS NO OWNER.

THE COUNTY WAS THERE BEFORE IN APRIL OF 63. THE RECORD SEARCHLIGHT REPORTED A COUNTY CREW OF 20 MEN STACKING 500 SANDBAGS IN A RUPTURED DITCH ALONG HENDERSON ROAD THAT OCTOBER. YOUR DISTRICT ATTORNEY WARNED THAT THE DITCH MUST BE ADEQUATE FOR ANY FORESEEABLE RUNOFF, AND IN 1968, THE COUNTY SURVEYED A REALIGNMENT OF THIS DITCH, STARTING AT THE RIVER, AND TOOK A DEED FOR IT.

A DITCH IS ONLY AS GOOD AS ITS OUTLET. THAT OUTLET IS BADLY ERODED.

IF IT ISN'T ADDRESSED, THE FAMILIES AT THE END OF THE DITCH WILL PAY THE PRICE.

SO I'M ASKING FOR THREE THINGS. PLEASE HELP PULL TITLE ON THOSE TWO PIECES FROM HENDERSON ROAD TO THE RIVER.

SEND SOMEONE TO INSPECT THE SEVERE EROSION THAT'S GOING ON DOWN THERE.

THAT IS LITERALLY LESS THAN FIVE FEET IN SOME HOUSES.

AND IT'S A 25 FOOT RAVINE, NOT A DITCH. AND THIRD, THE C.C.C.

WAS THERE IN 2021. AND TRY TO FIND OUT WHO ORDERED THAT.

THANK YOU. NEXT UP, LAURA HOBBS, FOLLOWED BY LARRY S DON DUCKETT, THEN SHASTA COUNTY WATCHDOG.

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

BOARD. I'M HERE TO SPEAK ABOUT THE COURT CASES THAT WERE HEARD YESTERDAY.

JUDGE HANNAH HAD PROMISED US THAT WE WOULD GET TO ARGUE OUR CASE BASED ON THE MERITS THAT DID NOT HAPPEN FOR MEASURE B, UNFORTUNATELY, HE SIDED WITH THE STATE AND THE THE.

BASICALLY, WE DIDN'T HAVE A CHANCE. WE DIDN'T HAVE OUR DAY IN COURT.

SO HOPEFULLY IT WILL BE APPEALED. IF INDIVIDUALS WANT TO CONTRIBUTE, GO TO VOTE FOR B.COM.

AND HE PAIRED THAT UP WITH THE KATSUKI CASE, WHICH, YOU KNOW, JANE DOE LOST HER LAWSUIT.

JENNIFER KATSUKI AND IN ANY CASE, WHERE AN INDIVIDUAL BRINGS A SUIT AND LOSES THEY'RE HELD RESPONSIBLE FOR THOSE ATTORNEY FEES.

BUT WHAT THE JUDGE DID WAS ACTUALLY, I THINK COMPLETELY WRONG IS THAT HE SAID, WELL, YOU KNOW, BECAUSE OF THIS SEPARATE CASE BEING THE MEASURE B CASE AFTER THE ELECTION, HE PAIRED IT TOGETHER AND BASICALLY LET JENNIFER KATSUKI OFF THE HOOK.

AND WHAT I SAW THE COUNTY DO IN THAT CASE IS THEY WENT AGAINST YOUR ORDERS.

JOSEPH LARMORE WAS INSTRUCTED NOT TO TAKE A POSITION EITHER FOR OR AGAINST BY YOU GUYS.

AND THIS WAS PUT FORTH BY THE PUBLIC IN FRONT OF THE PUBLIC.

WELL, HE CHANGED IT UP IN THE COURTROOM YESTERDAY, AND HE ACTUALLY TOOK A POSITION WHICH IS OPPOSITE FROM WHAT YOU INSTRUCTED HIM TO DO.

HE TOOK A POSITION THAT THAT THE ATTORNEY FEES REQUEST SHOULD BE DENIED.

THAT'S WRONG. I HOPE THAT YOU GUYS WILL TELL ME WHETHER OR NOT YOU AUTHORIZED THAT, BECAUSE I DON'T THINK YOU DID AS FAR AS I KNOW.

AND ALSO, I JUST WANT TO SAY THAT, YOU KNOW, THE WHOLE THING, I'M PROBABLY GOING TO RUN OUT OF TIME, BUT BASICALLY THE WHOLE THING AGAINST CLINT CURTIS IS A SCAM.

MONICA FUGITT REPORT WAS A COMPLETE SCAM. AND I'LL TELL YOU MORE NEXT TIME.

THANKS. NEXT UP, LARRY S, FOLLOWED BY DON DUCKETT, SHASTA COUNTY WATCHDOG, THEN NICK GARDNER.

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

I HAVE JUST A FEW BULLET POINTS I WANT TO TOUCH ON BRIEFLY THIS MORNING.

FIRST OF ALL, WE HAD A NICE, FREE AND FAIR ELECTION.

ALL OF THE VOTES THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN COUNTED WILL BE COUNTED.

ALL THE VOTES THAT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN COUNTED WON'T BE COUNTED, AND WE'LL HAVE AN ACCURATE TABULATION.

I ALSO WANT TO THANK DONALD TRUMP FOR MAKING IT POSSIBLE FOR OUR DISTRICT TO NOW HAVE A DEMOCRAT AS A REPRESENTATIVE TO U.S.

CONGRESS. THANK YOU, MR. TRUMP. THE TRIUMVIRATE HAS FINALLY BEEN BROKEN IN THIS BOARD FINAL PILLAR

[00:45:03]

OF MAGA IS GOING TO BE LEAVING IN JANUARY. SO I REALLY THINK A SENSE OF NORMALCY MIGHT BE ABLE TO RETURN TO THIS BOARD KIND OF NORMALCY THAT I REMEMBERED YEARS AGO GROWING UP IN THIS COUNTY.

SECOND BULLET POINT, PATRICK JONES. GUN RANGE IS NOT A DEAD ISSUE.

DESPITE THE LIVES THAT HE MIGHT TELL US. HE EATS, BREATHES IN DREAMS ABOUT THAT GUN RANGE.

AND I DON'T THINK SHASTA COUNTY WANTS A GUN RANGE THAT IS GOING TO BECOME A CLUBHOUSE AND A TRAINING GROUND FOR UNLAWFUL MILITIAS, AND THAT'S ALL THAT IT ACCOUNTS AMOUNTS TO.

SECOND POINT IS THIS WITH PATRICK JONES HAVING GONE OFF THE BOARD, SOME OF MY SUSPICIONS WERE RELIEVED.

NOW, WITH MR. KELSTROM LEAVING THE BOARD, MY SUSPICION WILL BE RELIEVED.

AND THAT HAS TO DO WITH THE FACT THAT MR. KELSTROM BELIEVES THAT IT'S UNLAWFUL TO REQUIRE HIM TO HAVE A CONCEALED WEAPONS PERMIT, AND THAT HE CARRIES A CONCEALED WEAPON WITHOUT A PERMIT.

MY SUSPICION HAS ALWAYS BEEN THAT HE MIGHT BE CARRYING THAT WEAPON IN THE BOARD.

NEXT UP, DON DUCKETT, FOLLOWED BY SHASTA COUNTY WATCHDOG NICK GARDNER.

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

BOARD. SUPERVISOR. I'M SORRY. SUPERVISOR. PLUMMER.

THANK YOU FOR BRINGING BACK THE PUBLIC COMMENT.

TIME FOR DISCUSSION AT A FUTURE AGENDA. AND JUST BY THE WAY, THAT DOES FALL IN LINE WITH THE STRATEGIC PLAN, I BELIEVE NUMBER FIVE WAS COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT AND PUBLIC TRUST AND GIVING THE PUBLIC OPPORTUNITIES TO INTERACT WITH THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT.

SO THANK YOU FOR AT LEAST MAKING AN ATTEMPT TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THE STRATEGIC PLAN.

AND SPEAKING OF THE STRATEGIC PLAN, I WOULD LIKE THE BOARD TO REEVALUATE THAT.

I BELIEVE THAT FISCAL STABILITY SHOULD BE THE NUMBER ONE PRIORITY BECAUSE WITHOUT FISCAL STABILITY, NONE OF THOSE OTHER PRIORITIES OR OBJECTIVES CAN BE ACHIEVED.

THE ORIGINAL PLAN LACKED ANY KIND OF FUNDING DETAILS ON HOW YOU WOULD ACHIEVE ANY OF THOSE FIVE OBJECTIVES, SO I WOULD LIKE THE BOARD TO CONSIDER REEVALUATING THAT PLAN IN JANUARY.

THANK YOU. NEXT UP, SHASTA COUNTY WATCHDOG, FOLLOWED BY NICK GARDNER, MARGARET CANTRELL, THEN ALEX.

IF I CALLED YOUR NAME, PLEASE GET IN QUEUE. WAY TO GO, CHRIS.

I'M GLAD YOU'RE OUT. I'M GLAD THE VOTERS VOTED YOU OUT BECAUSE YOU WENT AGAINST THE CONSTITUTION THAT YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO STAND.

YOU DARN LIAR. YOU GOT ON THE SEAT AND YOU TURN AROUND AND BACKSTAB THE PEOPLE.

WAY TO GO! THANK GOODNESS. THANK GOODNESS THE PEOPLE VOTED YOU OUT.

THANK YOU GUYS. THANK YOU. YOU KNOW, FIRST THING I WANT TO SAY IS THAT THANK GOODNESS.

ALSO YOU'RE GOING TO GO OUT NEXT COURT BECAUSE YOU KNOW WHAT, I GOT A COUPLE PAPERS REGARDING MY COMPLAINT REGARDING YOU AND LESLIE.

ACTUALLY READING. HAVING HER READ YOUR EMAILS.

A CONFIDENTIAL GOVERNMENT EMAILS. DID YOU KNOW THAT THAT'S A FEDERAL CRIME? SO THERE'S AN INVESTIGATION OPEN ON THAT. SO.

WAY TO GO, CORKY. YOU'RE NEXT. WE'RE NOT GOING TO HAVE PEOPLE WHO ACTUALLY TAKE THE SEAT AND TAKE MONEY FROM THE PEOPLE AND VOTE 59% FOR RAISES.

HERE WE HAVE TO FIGHT TOOTH AND NAIL TO GET UP HERE AND GET YOU GUYS TO DO WHAT YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO DO TO REPRESENT THE PEOPLE.

YOU DON'T. YOU BETRAY THE PEOPLE. THANK GOODNESS FOR DONALD TRUMP.

HE BETRAYED THE PEOPLE. LOOK AT WHAT HAPPENED, RIGHT? SO JUST SO YOU KNOW, GIVE YOU AN UPDATE REGARDING THE MOBILE HOME PARK.

THEY ACTUALLY FILED MULTIPLE COMPLAINTS BECAUSE THERE'S MULTIPLE CITIZENS ACTUALLY WHO LIVE, LIVE IN THESE MOBILE HOME PARKS. THEY HAVEN'T RECEIVED THEIR TITLE ONCE.

THEY'RE SEVEN, THREE, FOUR YEARS, TWO YEARS MULTIPLE HAVE NOT RECEIVED THEIR THEIR TITLE TO THEIR HOME.

SO I ACTUALLY FILED A FORMAL COMPLAINT WITH MULTIPLE AGENCIES AND THEY DID OPEN AN INVESTIGATION.

SO THAT'S ON WORKS. THANK GOODNESS THAT PEOPLE CARE BESIDES US.

WE HAVE TO FIGHT FOR OURSELVES BECAUSE WE CAN'T COME TO YOU BECAUSE YOU DRAG YOUR FEET TO DO THE FOR THE PEOPLE.

SO I'M TELLING YOU RIGHT NOW, IT'S NOT GOING TO STOP.

AND YOU KNOW, WE'RE NOT GOING TO STOP FIGHTING BECAUSE I KNOW THAT OTHER PEOPLE ARE GOING TO COME AFTER LONG AND PLUMMER.

SO AS LONG AS WE'RE HERE AND I'M HERE, WE'RE GOING TO FIGHT.

NEXT UP, NICK GARDNER, FOLLOWED BY MARGARET CANTRELL, ALEX, THEN JEFF GORDON.

IF I CALLED YOUR NAME, PLEASE GET IN QUEUE. NICK, COME ON UP. GARDNER SHOULDN'T EVEN BE HERE BECAUSE HE JEOPARDIZED OUR SAFETY.

[00:50:09]

I WANTED TO TALK TO YOU ABOUT THE FLOCK CAMERAS.

I'VE GOT FIVE FIVE WORD QUESTIONS WHICH SHOULD ANSWER WHETHER WE WANT TO CONTINUE THAT CONTRACT OR NOT.

DO YOU TRUST THE GOVERNMENT? I'LL GIVE YOU THREE EXAMPLES.

WHY WE CAN'T TRUST THE GOVERNMENT. ONE IS THE FICF FEDERAL INCOME CONTRIBUTION ACT, ALSO KNOWN AS SOCIAL SECURITY, THAT WENT INTO A TRUST FUND AND IT WAS SUPPOSED TO STAY THERE.

IF IT HAD STAYED THERE, IT WOULD BE SOLVENT NOW.

LYNDON BAINES JOHNSON TOOK IT OUT OF THE TRUST FUND AND PUT IT IN THE GENERAL FUND TO FINANCE HIS WAR IN VIETNAM.

SO THAT'S WHY IT'S NOT SOLVENT TODAY. THAT WASN'T SUPPOSED TO HAPPEN.

THE CALIFORNIA LOTTERY, THEY TOLD US THAT MONEY WAS GOING TO GO TO THE SCHOOLS, AND THE SCHOOLS WERE GOING TO BE FLUSH WITH MONEY.

THEN WHEN IT PASSED, THEY SNUCK AROUND AND TOOK AWAY THE FINANCING THAT THEY WERE GIVING IT AND REPLACED IT WITH THE LOTTERY MONEY.

THE VOTE BY COUNT POLICY THAT WE PASSED HERE IN SHASTA COUNTY VOTE BY HAND COUNT.

WE PASSED THAT THE NEXT DAY OR THE NEXT FEW DAYS.

THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA PASSED A LAW THAT UNLESS THERE'S MORE THAN LESS THAN 10,000 PEOPLE IN A COUNTY, YOU HAVE TO USE MACHINES. YOU CAN'T VOTE BY HAND.

SO, YOU KNOW, CAN YOU TRUST THE GOVERNMENT? I DON'T THINK WE CAN.

I CAN SEE THE SHERIFF'S POSITION. I HOPE HE CAN SEE MINE AS FAR AS TRUSTING THE GOVERNMENT GOES.

THANK YOU. HAVE A GOOD DAY. NEXT UP, MARGARET CANTRELL, FOLLOWED BY ALEX, JEFF GORDON, THEN KRYSTAL.

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

THE FOUNDING FATHERS SPENT YEARS WRITING A CONSTITUTION GUARANTEEING US GOD GIVEN FREEDOM FROM GOVERNMENT OVERREACH.

IT WAS WRITTEN SO THAT IT COULD PLAINLY BE UNDERSTOOD THAT THE PEOPLE ARE THE RULERS.

IT IS THE PEOPLE'S CONTRACT WITH THEIR GOVERNMENT.

ANOTHER WAY YOU COULD SAY THAT IS THE GOVERNMENT HAS HIRED BY THE PEOPLE AND MUST MEET THEIR STANDARDS.

IF YOU BREAK THEIR STANDARDS, WHICH ARE PLAINLY PUT FORTH IN THE CONSTITUTION AND THE BILL OF RIGHTS, THERE WILL BE CONSEQUENCES. LIES ARE MEANT TO DECEIVE.

FRAUDS ARE LIES WITH LEGAL CONSEQUENCES. YOU ALL CLAIM TO BE CHRISTIANS, WHICH MEANS YOU SHOULD BE INTIMATELY AWARE OF THE LAWS PUT FORTH IN GOD'S HANDBOOK FOR BEHAVIOR, THE BIBLE. LEVITICUS 517 SAYS THAT EVEN IF SOMEONE SINS WITHOUT KNOWING IT, THEY ARE STILL GUILTY AND MUST BEAR THEIR INIQUITY.

IGNORANCE. IGNORANCE DOES NOT ABSOLVE ONE FROM GUILT OR THE NEED FOR ATONEMENT, WHICH IS MAKING THINGS RIGHT WITH GOD.

THE STORY OF ANANIAS AND SAPPHIRA FOUND IN ACTS FIVE, RECOUNTS HOW THE COUPLE SOLD A PIECE OF PROPERTY PROPERTY, BUT DECEITFULLY WITHHELD PART OF THE PROCEEDS WHILE CLAIMING TO DONATE THE ENTIRE AMOUNT TO THE EARLY CHURCH, WITH WHOM THEY HAD A CONTRACT TO SHARE ALL THEIR BELONGINGS, SHARE AND SHARE ALIKE.

THEY DIED AT THE HAND OF GOD. THE ONLY PEOPLE EXPLICITLY STATED IN THE BIBLE AS HAVING BEEN KILLED BY GOD.

ACTIONS HAVE CONSEQUENCES. THE MORAL OF THIS STORY IS GOD WILL GET YOU FOR LYING FASTER THAN ANYTHING.

NEXT UP, ALEX, FOLLOWED BY JEFF GORDON, CRYSTAL, THEN RALPH BARCLAY.

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

LAST TIME I TALKED ABOUT VETTING FOR PEOPLE COMING TO OUR COUNTRY.

NOW I'M ASKING YOU TO STAND UP AND START THINKING ABOUT WHAT YOU'RE DOING.

THEY COME INTO THE COUNTRY, THEY BREAK THE LAWS.

AND NOW THERE'S TWO COLORS OF LAW. DOESN'T MATTER HOW YOU SHADE IT.

THAT'S THE WAY IT IS. YOU GOT TO WATCH OUT WHEN YOU'RE GOING TO THE GROCERY STORE.

NOT ONLY FROM THE GROCERS OR THE MONEY, BUT THE PEOPLE.

THEY'RE NEEDING THE FOOD. WE HAVE A LOT OF PROBLEMS. NUMBER ONE, THE LIES TOLD BY THE NEWS. THEY'RE USING IT AS A STEPPING STONE. NOW, I DON'T KNOW ABOUT THE COUNTY HERE AND THE PEOPLE HERE, BUT I KNOW THAT THEY HAVE SOME TYPE OF APP OR SOMETHING WITH SPECTRUM.

[00:55:02]

OKAY. AND LET ME TELL YOU, BETWEEN SPECTRUM AND THE ELECTRIC COMPANY, REUPGE.

YOU DON'T REALLY HAVE MUCH LEFT IN YOUR WALLET.

AND WHEN THEY ASK YOU TO UPGRADE WHEN YOU GO TO A RESTAURANT OR A FAST FOOD PLACE.

OH, DO YOU WANT TO UPGRADE THAT? IT WAS ONLY 1304.

UPGRADE IT TO WHAT, 14? JUST WE'LL JUST MAKE IT AN EVEN THING.

IT'S NOT EVEN A NICKEL ANYMORE. THEY'RE GOING STRAIGHT ON UP AND THEY'RE SAYING IT'S FOR THE CHILDREN IN THE SCHOOLS.

YOU HAVE AN ORIENTATION PROBLEM WITH THE SCHOOLS AND RIGHT NOW THE TEACHERS NEED YOUR HELP.

NEXT UP, JEFF GORDON, CRYSTAL, RALPH BARCLAY, THEN DAVID HALLIGAN.

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

I JUST WANTED TO OFFER A FEW PERSPECTIVES ON THE RECENT ELECTION.

YOU KNOW, THINKING BACK, IT'S BEEN ABOUT FOUR YEARS SINCE WE'VE HAD A FAIRLY RIGHT WING EXTREMIST GROUP IN THE COUNTY TRYING TO MAKE THE COUNTY THE TIP OF THE SPEAR FOR A FAR RIGHT EXTREMIST VIEWPOINT, AND STARTING WITH THE RED, WHITE AND BLUEPRINT.

AND IF YOU LOOK AT IT CONSISTENTLY SINCE THEN THAT THAT VIEW HAS BEEN REJECTED.

SUPERVISOR JONES IS GONE. SUPERVISOR CRYE IS GONE.

ROV CURTIS IS GONE. SUPERVISOR KELSTROM IS GONE.

THIS HAS BEEN A FULL SCALE REPUDIATION OF THE POLITICS AND THE POLICY OF DIVISIVENESS, IDEOLOGICAL PURITY, AND A DISREGARD FOR THE FOCUS ON LOCAL ISSUES.

AND I WANT TO THANK MATT AND ALAN, PARTICULARLY, FOR BASICALLY WALKING THE HIGH GROUND AND SETTING THE AGENDA TO FOCUS ON ISSUES THAT ARE IMPORTANT TO THE LOCAL CITIZENRY, AND NOT TRYING TO FIGHT THESE IDEOLOGICAL BATTLES THAT HAVE BEEN SET FORTH BY MAGA.

AND SPECIFICALLY THINK OF ALL THE TIME AND THE EFFORT WE'VE WASTED ON ELECTIONS OVER THE LAST FOUR YEARS.

AN ABSOLUTE DEBACLE AND A WASTE OF TIME. AND WE HAVE SUPERVISOR CRYE SUPERVISOR KELSTROM AND SUPERVISOR HARMON AND SUPERVISOR JONES TO THANK FOR THAT. LOOK WHO WE ENDED UP WITH.

CLINT CURTIS. YOU THINK THIS HAS BEEN A SOMETHING THAT THE REST OF THE COUNTRY AND THE REST OF THE STATE IS GOING TO FOLLOW? NO, THAT ISN'T GOING TO HAPPEN. WE ARE A BLACK EYE, AND MR. CURTIS IS THE TIP OF THE BLACK EYE. AND IT'S GOING TO TAKE US A WHILE TO GET AWAY FROM THAT NEGATIVE IMPRESSION.

AND I'M LOOKING FORWARD TO SUPERVISOR GALLAGHER AND SUPERVISOR ELECT REZNOR COMING ON BOARD.

THANK YOU. NEXT UP, CRYSTAL, FOLLOWED BY RALPH BARKLEY, THEN DAVID HALLIGAN.

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

MYSPACE, LIKE OTHERS, HAS WENT FROM 450 TO PROPOSE 921 IN DECEMBER, WHICH HAS OCCURRED WITHIN THE SAME YEAR.

IMAGINE OWNING YOUR HOME, BELIEVING YOU FINALLY HAD A SMALL SENSE OF SECURITY AND CERTAINTY FOR YOURSELF AND YOUR FAMILY, ONLY TO FIND YOURSELF STRUGGLING TO AFFORD THE LAND UNDERNEATH IT.

WE ARE NOW HEARING ABOUT A 90 DAY AGREEMENT OR PAUSE INVOLVING HARMONY.

BUT WHY WERE US MOBILE HOME OWNERS OR OUR REPRESENTATIVES NOT INVOLVED OR INCLUDED WITH THIS AGREEMENT? HOW CAN AGREEMENT AGREEMENT AFFECTING OUR HOMES AND FUTURES BE NEGOTIATED WITHOUT OUR PARTICIPATION? AND MORE IMPORTANTLY, WHAT HAPPENS ON DAY 91? WE NEED WRITTEN PROTECTIONS DURING THIS PAUSE.

TRANSPARENCY AND A REAL COMMITMENT TO A PERMANENT RENT STABILIZATION.

THIS ISSUE IS BIGGER THAN ONE PARK, ONE PROPERTY OWNER, OR ONE RENT INCREASE.

IT AFFECTS MOBILE HOME HOMEOWNERS THROUGHOUT SHASTA COUNTY. I WANT TO ADDRESS THE WORD VALUE.

WHEN WE TALK ABOUT PROTECTING CALIFORNIA'S PROPERTY VALUES AND HOW PASSING A RENT STABILIZATION ORDINANCE WOULD CAUSE CALIFORNIA TO DECREASE IN VALUE.

WHOSE VALUE ARE WE TALKING ABOUT? WHAT ABOUT THE VALUE OF OUR HOMES? OUR ABILITY TO HAVE THE COMFORT OF SECURITY AND STABILITY WITHIN THE COMMUNITIES WE BUILT? IS THE SENSE OF SECURITY A PRIVILEGE TO FEW SENIORS, FAMILIES AND PEOPLE ON FIXED INCOMES ARE FACING IMPOSSIBLE CHOICES.

THE DEPTH OF WORRIES AND UNCERTAINTY, OF THE THOUGHT OF BEING FORCED.

NOT LIVING IN MY TINY HOME, BUT MY TINY CAR WITH MY SON IS BEYOND HAUNTING AND NO ONE DESERVES THAT.

THIS ISN'T JUST ABOUT HARMONY COMMUNITIES, IT IS ABOUT PROTECTING MOBILE HOME HOMEOWNERS ACROSS OUR COUNTY, REGARDLESS OF WHO OWNS THEIR PARK. I WANT TO NOT JUST BREATHE.

I WANT AND SHOULD HAVE THE PRIVILEGE TO LIVE MY LIFE.

THANK YOU. NEXT UP, RALPH BARKLEY, FOLLOWED BY DAVID HALLIGAN.

GOOD MORNING. FIRST OFF, YOU ARE NOT HONORING OUR VETERANS.

TOMORROW IS VETERANS DAY AND TODAY IS THE MARINE CORPS 251ST BIRTHDAY.

HAPPY BIRTHDAY, MARINES. NUMBER TWO. I LIVE ON RIVERLAND DRIVE.

[01:00:07]

THERE'S ONE WAY IN AND ONE WAY OUT. I TALKED TO THE FIRE MARSHAL FROM CAL FIRE TODAY WHILE HE WAS HERE.

AND WE NEED AN EGRESS AT THE SOUTH END OF RIVERLAND, BECAUSE THERE'S ABOUT 2000 PEOPLE THAT ARE GOING TO GO UP AND SMOKE.

IF WE CAN'T GET OUT NOW, IT'S UP TO EACH ONE OF YOU TO MAKE SURE THAT HAPPENS.

AND IT IS YOUR JOB TO DO THAT BECAUSE WE, THE PEOPLE WANT THIS TO HAPPEN AND THIS IS A GOVERNMENT OF THE PEOPLE, BY THE PEOPLE AND FOR THE PEOPLE, AND YOU REPRESENT US.

GET IT DONE. THANK YOU. NEXT UP, DAVID HALLIGAN AND CHAIR.

THIS WILL BE OUR LAST SPEAKER. GOOD MORNING. BOARD.

I'M SPEAKING UP HERE TODAY TO SAY WHAT A LOT OF PEOPLE IN THIS COUNTY ARE THINKING, AND I CALL IT FOLLOW THE VOTES.

MANY OF US HAVE HAD TO SIT HERE MEETING AFTER MEETING, LISTENING TO THE SAME LOUD VOICES CLAIM THEY REPRESENT THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE IN SHASTA COUNTY, BUT THEY DON'T. AND IF YOU ACTUALLY LOOK AT THE REAL DATA, NOT THE GUT, MR. CRYE REAL DATA FROM THE BALLOT BOX, THE PICTURE IS COMPLETELY DIFFERENT.

IF YOU WANT TO KNOW WHAT THE REGULAR HARD WORKING FAMILIES AROUND HERE ACTUALLY WANT TO JUST LOOK AT HOW THINGS PLAYED OUT.

IT STARTED OUT IN 2024 WITH THE VOTERS, DECIDED THEY WERE DONE WITH PATRICK JONES AND ELECTED MR. PLUMMER AND MR. LONG. THEN WE GOT THE JUNE OF THIS YEAR.

THE VOTERS CAME OUT EVEN STRONGER AND REJECTED THE DIVIDER SUPERVISOR KEVIN CRYE FOR MISS RESSNER AND OUSTED REGISTRAR OF VOTER CLINT CURTIS FOR MISS FRANCESCA.

AND THEN JUST LAST WEEK IN THE NOVEMBER ELECTION, WE SAW THE EXACT SAME THING HAPPEN WITH SUPERVISOR CHRIS KELSTROM AS HE WENT DOWN IN FLAMES TO MR. GALLAGHER. THIS IS FOR MAJOR REJECTIONS OF THE CHAOS, THE DIVISION AND THE STATUS QUO FROM 2024.

UP TO RIGHT NOW, THE TAXPAYER AND FAMILIES IN THIS COUNTY HAVE BEEN SENDING A CRYSTAL CLEAR MESSAGE.

WE WANT A STABLE, SENSIBLE LOCAL GOVERNMENT THAT ACTUALLY DOES ITS JOB.

MOVING ON. THE POLITICAL GROUND HAS SHIFTED HERE, AND IT'S NOT BECAUSE OF BACKROOM POLITICS AND SUPERVISOR'S OWN POLITICAL PRIORITIES AND AGENDAS. IT'S BECAUSE EVERY DAY PEOPLE REPUBLICANS, DEMOCRATS AND INDEPENDENTS SHOWED UP TO VOTE IN SHASTA COUNTY ON NOVEMBER 3RD AND SHOUTED FROM THEIR ROOFTOPS, AND THE BALLOT BOXES MAKE SHASTA COUNTY NORMAL AGAIN.

THAT WAS OUR LAST SPEAKER, MISS BLANKENSHIP. DO WE HAVE ANY ITEMS THAT WERE PULLED FROM CONSENT?

[CONSENT CALENDAR]

WE DO NOT. OKAY. WELL, I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO APPROVE.

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

I'LL SECOND. MOTION MADE BY SUPERVISOR PLUMMER. SECONDED BY SUPERVISOR LONG. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? AYE.

ANY OPPOSED? PASSES FIVE ZERO. ALL RIGHT. MOVING ON TO R FOUR.

[R4 Take the following actions: (1) Discuss the provisions of U.S. Senate Bill S.5653 the Bipartisan American Affordability and Jobs Act of 2026; and (2) direct staff to write and send a letter of support for the legislation, and designate authority to the County Executive Officer, or their written designee, to submit future letters on the Board’s behalf so long as changes do not substantially alter its intent or affect the Board’s position (Sponsored by Supervisor Plummer).]

TAKE THE FOLLOWING ACTIONS. DISCUSS THE PROVISIONS OF U.S. SENATE BILL S 5653, THE BIPARTISAN AMERICAN AFFORDABILITY AND JOBS ACT OF 2026, AND DIRECT STAFF TO WRITE AND SEND A LETTER OF SUPPORT FOR THE LEGISLATION AND DESIGNATE AUTHORITY TO THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE OFFICE OR DESIGNEE.

SUPERVISOR. PLUMMER. THIS IS YOUR ITEM, SO I'LL LET YOU TAKE IT FROM THERE. SURE.

SO THIS FIRST CAME ONTO MY RADAR THROUGH A NEWSLETTER FROM THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES, WHICH WAS URGING COUNTIES TO CONTACT THEIR SENATORS TO SUPPORT THIS.

THIS WOULD STREAMLINE PERMITTING FOR INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS, WHICH HAS BEEN SOMETHING THAT I'VE TALKED ABOUT QUITE A BIT IN TERMS OF THE NEED TO ADVANCE OUR INFRASTRUCTURE, INCREASE THE CAPACITY.

AND WHEN I SAY INFRASTRUCTURE, TALKING ABOUT WATER PROJECTS, WASTEWATER, ETC., AND SO THIS WOULD DO A NUMBER OF THINGS.

IT WOULD SHORTEN THE AND STREAMLINE THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS TO MAKE IT EASIER TO GET THROUGH THAT PROCESS, WHICH WE KNOW IS PARTICULARLY CUMBERSOME. AND IT WOULD ALSO DO ENCOURAGE AND MAKE IT EASIER FOR CERTAIN ENERGY PROJECTS LIKE HYDROPOWER AND GEOTHERMAL TO COME ONLINE.

AND SO THIS IS SOMETHING THAT I THINK WILL IS IN KEEPING WITH WHAT WE'VE TALKED ABOUT IN TERMS OF TRYING TO MAKE IT EASIER TO BUILD IN SHASTA COUNTY AND EASIER TO BRING NECESSARY INFRASTRUCTURE ON TO SUPPORT OUR RESIDENTS.

I KNOW WHEN THIS WAS BROUGHT UP, WHENEVER THAT WAS A FEW MEETINGS AGO, THERE WAS SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT DATA CENTERS.

THIS WOULD ADD A NUMBER OF PROTECTIONS AROUND DATA CENTERS.

AND SO IT WOULD BASICALLY AND I'LL JUST GO THROUGH THIS QUICKLY HERE, BUT FOR ANY DATA CENTER THAT'S 20MW OR MORE, THEY WOULD HAVE TO IT WOULD PREVENT THEM, OTHER ELECTRICITY CUSTOMERS FROM SUBSIDIZING ADDITIONAL COSTS.

IT WOULD REQUIRE THE UTILITY TO INCLUDE, YOU KNOW, TO COVER THEIR COSTS THAT THEY WILL ADD TO THE SYSTEM, INCLUDING THINGS MORE THAN JUST THE TRANSMISSION LINES.

THEY WILL HAVE TO PROVIDE FINANCIAL ASSURANCES THAT THEY CAN COVER THAT EVEN IF THEY STOP OPERATING THE DATA CENTER.

[01:05:04]

BUT THEY'VE, YOU KNOW, THERE'S BEEN INVESTMENTS IN THE INFRASTRUCTURE.

IT WILL ALSO ALLOW STATES TO CHARGE DATA CENTERS MORE THAN THEIR OTHER CUSTOMERS.

AND SO IT COULD REDUCE RATES FOR OTHER CUSTOMERS.

AND IT WILL ALLOW STATES, THEY CAN ALSO REQUIRE DATA CENTERS TO BRING THEIR OWN POWER GENERATION.

SO, AND THEN THE LAST THING IT WOULD. REQUIRE THEM TO REPORT ELECTRICITY, ELECTRICITY CONSUMPTION.

SO THAT WOULD ALSO INCREASE ACCOUNTABILITY. THE LAST THING I'LL SAY ON THIS IS THAT THERE WAS A VOTE YESTERDAY IN THE US SENATE, AND THAT WAS, I BELIEVE, 74 TO 23 WITH ALL REPUBLICANS BUT ONE WHO VOTED ON IT VOTING FOR THIS.

AND THAT IS NOT A VOTE OF PASSAGE, BUT IT VOTES TO MOVE IT FORWARD IN AN EXPEDITED WAY.

SO WITH THAT, I WOULD MAKE A MOTION THAT WE DIRECT STAFF TO SEND A LETTER OF SUPPORT FOR THIS SECOND.

OKAY. SUPERVISOR PLUMMER MADE A MOTION SECONDED BY SUPERVISOR.

CRYE. PERSONALLY, WHEN I READ THIS, I MEAN IT SEEMS TO BE MAYBE NOT PAVING THE WAY, BUT IT SEEMS TO BE SETTING UP GUIDELINES FOR DATA CENTERS.

A LOT OF IT HAD TO CONCERN WITH DATA CENTERS, AND I'VE HAD PLENTY OF CONSTITUENTS MAKE IT VERY CLEAR TO ME THAT THEY ARE NOT IN SUPPORT OF DATA CENTERS IN ANY WAY, SHAPE OR FORM. I ACTUALLY WOULD LIKE US TO PUT UP ROADBLOCKS FOR DATA CENTERS SO I WON'T BE SUPPORTING THIS LETTER.

DO WE HAVE ANY PUBLIC COMMENT ON THIS ITEM? YES, WE HAVE ONE SPEAKER.

OKAY. JUST TO JUST TO SHARE ONE COMMENT IN REACTION TO THAT.

THE CURRENTLY, IF YOU LOOK AT SHASTA COUNTY'S ORDINANCES, THERE IS NOTHING THAT IS SPECIFIC TO DATA CENTERS.

AND SO THIS WOULD ACTUALLY, AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL CREATE A NUMBER OF RESTRICTIONS THAT WOULD PROTECT FROM DATA CENTERS COMING INTO A COMMUNITY AND HARMING THE COMMUNITY. SO THIS WOULD ADD PROTECTIONS TO OUR RESIDENTS VERSUS THE OPPOSITE.

THANK YOU. OKAY, FIRST UP, JEFF GORDON. JUST A COUPLE OF PERSPECTIVES.

I WAS TO THINK ABOUT WITHOUT REGARD TO THE THE DETAILS OR THE SUBSTANCE OF THIS.

I THINK WE'RE STARTING TO SEE A LOT OF LETTERS GOING OUT TO THE FEDS.

AND I'M THINKING ABOUT THE SAVE ACT. THERE WERE LETTERS THAT WENT TO THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE ASKING THEM TO LOOK INTO AUDIT LOGS AND OVERSPRAY ISSUES.

THIS TAKES UP TIME. I ASSUME STAFF HAS TO BECOME FAMILIAR WITH THE BILL, HAS TO WRITE A LETTER.

OTHER BOARD MEMBERS HAVE TO LEARN ABOUT WHAT'S IN THE BILL.

JUST THE SAVE ACT INVOLVED A LOT OF ANALYSIS.

A THOUGHT IS MAYBE. MAYBE NOBODY REALLY CARES WHAT SHASTA COUNTY THINKS AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL REGARDING THIS.

SO I WOULD JUST OFFER THE PERSPECTIVE THAT MAYBE THE BOARD WANTS TO REIN IN THE IDEA OF SENDING A LOT OF LETTERS TO THE FEDS ABOUT ALL THESE LEGISLATIVE ITEMS THAT COME UP BECAUSE THERE'S GOING TO BE A LOT OF THEM. AND IT MAY, IT MAY BE WORTH MORE TIME THAN, THAN WHAT'S ACTUALLY ACHIEVED OUT OF IT. THANK YOU, SUPERVISOR LONG.

THANK YOU CHAIR. AND I AGREE A LITTLE BIT WITH THE COMMENTS THAT WERE JUST MADE.

THIS IS THIS IS DIFFICULT FOR ME BECAUSE I'VE HAD TO TRY TO GET ON TOP OF THE PROTECTIONS THAT SUPERVISOR PLUMMER MENTIONED, WHICH WOULD ACTUALLY MAKE IT MORE DIFFICULT AND PUT THE ENTIRE COST ONTO AN AI DATA CENTER OR WHATEVER, IF THAT WERE TO BE PROJECTED. BUT AND SO I THINK THAT ACTUALLY PROTECTS A LITTLE BIT BY ASSIGNING THOSE COSTS TO THE MATTER I NEED IS FAR LESS RESTRICTIVE THAN SEQUA.

BUT STILL, IT'S VERY DIFFICULT TO WORK WITH. AND SOME OF THE NEPA CONSIDERATIONS SLOW THIS DOWN THE PROCESS FOR INFRASTRUCTURE TYPE PROJECTS. SO I APPRECIATE THAT FACT.

I ALSO APPRECIATE PROPER ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN BECAUSE I THINK THE ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES, WHETHER IT BE POLLUTION AND NOISE AND ALL THOSE KINDS OF THINGS ARE VALID CONSTRAINTS.

SO IT KIND OF LEFT ME REALLY TORN. I'VE REACHED OUT TO SENATOR HEATHER HARDWICK'S OR ASSEMBLYMAN ASSEMBLYWOMAN HEATHER HARDWICK'S OFFICE TO GET AN OPINION AS TO WHETHER THEY SUPPORT IT.

I HAVE NOT HEARD BACK YET, BUT THAT WAS A LAST MINUTE REQUEST.

AND CSAC AND CRC, FROM WHAT I CAN FIND THEY HAVE NOT WEIGHED IN, WHETHER PRO OR AGAINST.

AND IT SOUNDS LIKE NACCHO THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES HAS PUBLICLY ENDORSED THIS AND IS SEEKING TO

[01:10:06]

GO FORWARD WITH IT. SO AT THIS POINT, GIVEN ALL THE CONSIDERATIONS THAT I HAVE PUT INTO THIS, AND I JUST DON'T FEEL COMFORTABLE MAKING A DECISION AT THIS POINT.

SO I WILL BE ABSTAINING FROM, FROM THIS VOTE.

BECAUSE I JUST DON'T HAVE ENOUGH INFORMATION THAT I FEEL COMFORTABLE THAT THE ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS WOULD BE OUTWEIGHED BY THE STREAMLINED PROCESS.

SO THANK YOU. SUPERVISOR. CRYE. SEE YOU. RICKERT.

WOULD YOU, WOULD YOU WEIGH IN ON THIS? SPECIFICALLY ON THE BILL, OR GENERALLY ON WHY IT'S IMPORTANT FOR THE COUNTY TO ADVOCATE ON BEHALF OF OUR CONSTITUENTS. JUST JUST ON THE BILL. I MEAN, I THINK THAT THE SPEAKER IS NOT SO.

SO IT DOESN'T MATTER LIKE WHAT HE SAYS, I THINK SUPERVISOR WHEN IT COMES, BECAUSE THAT'S THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT ABOUT THE FIVE PEOPLE BEING UP HERE. FIVE PEOPLE BEING UP HERE, YOU SHOULD BE ENGAGED. I MEAN, I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY LETTERS YOU BROUGHT, BUT WE HAVEN'T VOTED FOR ALL OF THEM.

BUT THIS ONE'S A GOOD ONE. GO AHEAD. DAVE. YEAH, I THINK SUPERVISOR PLUMMER HIT THE MAIN POINTS WITH THIS.

IT'S IMPORTANT THAT WE HAVE A FRAMEWORK WITH WHICH TO WORK, ESPECIALLY WITH DATA CENTERS, SO WE CAN PROACTIVELY ADDRESS THAT ISSUE BEFORE IT ENDS UP ON OUR DESK.

I THINK THAT'S VERY IMPORTANT. THERE ARE A NUMBER OF SAFEGUARDS AND PROTECTIONS THAT I THINK WILL BE PUT IN PLACE.

THIS IS A BIPARTISAN BILL. THIS IS SOMETHING WE HAD ON OUR LEGISLATIVE RADAR, AND I'VE HAD DISCUSSIONS WITH SUPERVISOR PLUMMER ON THIS.

I THINK THIS IS A GOOD BILL. YEAH. YEAH. YOU GOOD? SUPERVISOR. CRYE. YEAH. ALL RIGHT. AND LIKE I SAY, SAID, I, MY MY SAME THOUGHTS ARE THIS.

I'VE HAD A LOT OF PEOPLE REACH OUT TO ME WITH DATA CENTERS ABSOLUTELY OPPOSING THEM.

AND I REALLY, I UNDERSTAND THAT IT CHANGES SO THAT THEY HAVE TO HAVE THEIR OWN POWER AND I, AND THAT'S, I'M PERFECTLY FINE WITH THAT, BUT I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S REALLY NECESSARY FOR THE COUNTY TO SEND A LETTER. SOUNDS LIKE YOU JUST WENT THROUGH THE SENATE. YOU SAID SO.

I'M GOING TO BE VOTING NO. BUT WE CAN TAKE A ROLL CALL VOTE STARTING WITH SUPERVISOR.

PLUMMER. OKAY. SUPERVISOR. PLUMMER. YES. SUPERVISOR.

CRYE. YES. SUPERVISOR. KELSTROM. NO. SUPERVISOR.

HARMON. YES. AND SUPERVISOR LONG ABSTAIN. ALL RIGHT.

IT PASSES 3 TO 1 WITH ONE ABSTENTION. ALL RIGHT.

MOVING ON TO R FOUR. DISCUSSING. CONSIDER DIRECTING STAFF TO ISSUE A REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS FOR THE ALLOCATION OF $1.5 MILLION IN OPIOID SETTLEMENT FUNDS,

[R5 Discuss and consider directing staff to issue a Request for Proposals (RFP) for the allocation of $1,500,000 in Opioid Settlement Funds and appointing an Ad Hoc Committee to review and evaluate applications received in response to the RFP (Sponsored by Supervisor Plummer).]

AND APPOINTING AN AD HOC COMMITTEE TO REVIEW AND EVALUATE APPLICATIONS RECEIVED IN RESPONSE TO THE RFP.

MISS BURTON ALL RIGHT. GOOD MORNING, CHAIR KELSTROM, MEMBERS OF THE BOARD, DEPUTY COUNTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER.

ON AUGUST 11TH, THE BOARD DIRECTED STAFF TO AGENDIZE A DISCUSSION ABOUT A POTENTIAL RFP FOR ALLOCATION OF UP TO $1.5 MILLION IN OPIOID SETTLEMENT FUNDS AND THE FORMATION OF AN AD HOC COMMITTEE TO REVIEW RFP RESPONSES. THE DISCUSSION ITEM APPEARED AS REQUESTED ON THE SEPTEMBER 29TH AGENDA.

CONSIDERING NEW AND ONGOING INFORMATION ABOUT THE FINANCIAL STATUS IN HHC, SUPERVISOR PLUMMER MADE A MOTION WHICH WAS APPROVED BY A FOUR ONE VOTE OF THE BOARD TO POSTPONE THIS ITEM TO THE FIRST WEEK IN NOVEMBER.

HHC PROVIDED THE BOARD WITH A FINANCIAL UPDATE ON THE SOCIAL SERVICES FUND IN OCTOBER AND REPORTED BOTH THE NEED FOR CONTINUATION OF THE GENERAL FUND LOAN AND SUBSTANTIAL ADDITIONAL USE OF FUND BALANCE IN FISCAL YEAR 2526.

STAFF HAVE IDENTIFIED OPPORTUNITIES TO USE SOME OF THE OPIOID FUNDS IN THE ALCOHOL AND DRUG BUDGET IN FISCAL YEAR 2627, FREEING UP DISCRETIONARY REVENUE FUNDS TO BE USED ELSEWHERE IN THE AGENCY.

THIS REQUEST WILL COME TO THE BOARD AT A LATER DATE FOR CONSIDERATION.

CURRENT PROJECTIONS FOR THE OPIOID FUND BALANCE IS 9.2 MILLION AT THE END OF 2627, FACTORING IN ALREADY BOARD APPROVED PROJECTS.

SOME OF THESE PROJECTS ARE ONGOING AND WILL CONTINUE TO DRAW DOWN THE FUND BALANCE.

THERE ARE ALSO ADDITIONAL SETTLEMENTS PENDING, WITH ONE RECENT EXPECTED TO PRODUCE A ONE TIME PAYMENT OF ABOUT $117,000 FOR SHASTA COUNTY. SHOULD THE BOARD DECIDE TO MOVE FORWARD WITH AN RFP, A REVIEW PANEL WOULD NEED TO BE SELECTED.

ALTHOUGH THE INITIAL MOTION INCLUDED APPOINTING AN AD HOC COMMITTEE OF THE BOARD, SUBSEQUENT INPUT FROM STAFF SUGGESTS THAT BEST PRACTICES FOR COMPETITIVE PROCUREMENT SEPARATE THE DUTIES OF THOSE RESPONSIBLE FOR REVIEWING APPLICATIONS FROM THOSE ULTIMATELY APPROVING THE CONTRACTS.

AS A RESULT, THE RECOMMENDATION IS TO APPOINT THREE COUNTY STAFF TO REVIEW AND SELECT APPLICANTS FOR CONTRACT AWARD.

THESE CONTRACTS WILL BE BROUGHT TO THE BOARD FOR APPROVAL. INCLUDED IN THE STAFF REPORT ARE RECOMMENDATIONS SUBMITTED BY SUPERVISOR PLUMMER FOR INDIVIDUALS TO SIT ON THE REVIEW COMMITTEE. THESE RECOMMENDATIONS INCLUDE MYSELF, THE CHIEF PROBATION OFFICER AND THE HHC BRANCH DIRECTOR RESPONSIBLE FOR THE BEHAVIORAL HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES BRANCH. THAT CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION.

I'LL DEFER TO SUPERVISOR PLUMMER FOR ANY ADDITIONAL COMMENTS AND BE AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS THE BOARD MAY HAVE FOR ME. THANK YOU, MISS BURTON.

DO WE HAVE PUBLIC COMMENT ON THIS ITEM? WE DO.

CHAIR, WE HAVE TWO SPEAKERS. OKAY. WOULD YOU GUYS MIND IF WE GET PUBLIC COMMENT FIRST? ALL RIGHT. OKAY.

FIRST UP, DON DUCKETT, FOLLOWED BY SHASTA COUNTY WATCHDOG.

GOOD MORNING AGAIN. BOARD. SO I HAVE A LOT OF EXPERTISE AND HAVE ACTUALLY WRITTEN RFPS FOR SHASTA COUNTY.

[01:15:09]

AND I CONSIDER MYSELF A STAKEHOLDER IN TERMS OF HOW WE SPEND THE OPIOID DOLLARS.

BASED ON MY FAMILY MEMBER THAT WE ALMOST LOST, I HAVE A LOT OF INSIGHT ON WHAT PROGRAMS AND AND APPROACHES WORK AND WHICH ONES DON'T.

THE STAFF REPORT WAS VAGUE IN TERMS OF WHAT THE RFP ITSELF WOULD BE ABOUT.

AND AND I THINK WE SHOULD ENCOURAGE VENDORS TO BE CREATIVE.

BUT AT THE SAME TIME, BEFORE WE ASK A PROVIDER TO TELL US HOW THEY'RE GOING TO SPEND $1.5 MILLION, WE NEED TO FIRST IDENTIFY A PROBLEM AND STATE WHAT OUR OBJECTIVES ARE IN THE RFP.

SO I'M HOPING THAT ANY RFP THAT'S PRODUCED WILL WILL CONTAIN THAT.

IS IT IS IT FOR TREATMENT? IS IT FOR PREVENTION? IS IT FOR RECOVERY ALL THREE. BUT I THINK THAT THE RFP NEEDS TO REALLY STATE WHAT OUR PRIORITIES ARE AND.

SUPERVISOR PLUMMER. I LOVE A LOT OF WHAT YOU BRING TO THIS BOARD, BUT I WILL SAY THAT IN TERMS OF APPOINTING SPECIFIC INDIVIDUALS, I SEE THAT AS MEDDLING. I DON'T SEE IT AS THE BOARD'S ROLE TO MEDDLE IN ADMINISTRATIVE STAFFING DECISIONS.

YOU SHOULD SIMPLY DIRECT YOUR CEO TO FOLLOW PROCUREMENT PRACTICES.

IF YOU DON'T HAVE TRUST IN YOUR CEO TO DO THAT, THAT'S A DIFFERENT CONVERSATION.

BUT I THINK THAT THE BOARD SHOULD STAY OUT OF STAFFING.

THANK YOU. NEXT UP, SHASTA COUNTY WATCHDOG AND CHAIR, THIS WILL BE OUR LAST SPEAKER.

YOUR ROLE IS TO MAKE SURE THAT EVERYTHING YOU DO, THAT YOU MAKE SURE YOU OVERSEE THAT THE MONEY IS NOT OVERSPENT, IT'S NOT GOING TO THE WRONG PEOPLE. SO IF YOU DON'T PAY ATTENTION, THEN IT'S YOUR FAULT.

SO REGARDLESS IF YOU APPOINT SOMEBODY OR YOU TELL YOU ALLOW THE STAFF TO BE IN CONTROL, THEN IT'S STILL YOUR FAULT.

SO I RECOMMEND THAT YOU MAKE SURE I GUESS I'M NOT TALKING TO THE THREE BECAUSE THEY'RE, YOU KNOW, KEVIN AND CHRIS, YOU'RE GOING TO BE OUT. THANK GOODNESS FOR THAT.

BUT ANYWAYS, MR. LONG AND PLUMMER, YOU NEED TO BE VERY CAUTIOUS REGARDING THE FUNDING BECAUSE LIKE I SAID, I'VE BEEN WORKING ON THIS IN MY RESEARCH IN THE NUMBERS AND THE GUIDELINES ARE NOT FALLING INTO THE GUIDELINES.

SO THEREFORE THERE'S A POSSIBILITY THAT THE MONEY'S BEEN MISUSED.

THAT MEANS IF YOU'RE THEY'RE MISUSING IT, THAT COULD CONSIDER FRAUD.

SO IF YOU NEED TO GO FURTHER INTO REALLY LOOKING INTO THIS, YOU NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT YOU HAVE SOMEBODY TO LOOK AT THE, THE MONEY AND HOW IT'S CREATED THE CONTRACT OR WHATEVER, BECAUSE THAT'S THE PROBLEM.

WE HAVE SO MANY PEOPLE ALWAYS TWEAKING THE LAW TO BE ABLE TO GET AROUND THE LOOPHOLES THAT THEY COULD GET THE MONEY.

AS WE KNOW, KEVIN CRYE ACTUALLY SITS ON SOME OF THE COMMITTEES WHO ACTUALLY BRINGS FORWARD TO MAKE SURE THAT SOME OF THE MONEY GOES TO WHERE HE SITS.

SO HE HAS CONTROL TO BE ABLE TO PROVIDE THOSE.

THE FUNDING TO HIS ORGANIZATIONS AND HE COULD MANIPULATE WHERE THE MONEY GOES.

SO I KNOW, KEVIN, YOU YOU COULD SIT THERE AND LAUGH ALL YOU WANT AND SIT LIKE A WORM, YOU KNOW, AND THINK IT'S FUNNY, BUT IT'S NOT FUNNY BECAUSE YOU'RE SPENDING TAXPAYERS MONEY.

BUT YOU KNOW WHAT'S NICE? AND WE'RE GOING TO LAUGH ON THE WAY WHEN YOU'RE OUT THE DOOR.

THAT'S GOING TO BE NICE AND FUNNY. SUPERVISOR.

PLUMMER. YES. THANK YOU. SO A FEW THINGS I WANTED TO MENTION RELATED TO THIS.

FIRST, I THINK WE HAVE DONE A NUMBER OF GOOD THINGS IN TERMS OF THE CURRENT ALLOCATION OF OUR OPIOID SETTLEMENT FUNDS, AND WE HAVE DISTRIBUTED THEM PRETTY WIDELY ACROSS, YOU KNOW, FROM PREVENTION TO TREATMENT INCLUDING, YOU KNOW, A LARGE INVESTMENT IN CORE, WHICH WAS YOUTH SUBSTANCE USE PREVENTION.

A LARGE INVESTMENT WITH THE GOOD NEWS RESCUE MISSION AND BRINGING 75 BEDS, ADULT RESIDENTIAL TREATMENT BEDS ONLINE, WHICH I'M HOPEFUL WILL HAPPEN IN THE BE OPEN IN THE NEXT YEAR OR SO.

I FORGET THE EXACT TIMING. SO WE HAVE DONE A VARIETY OF THINGS THAT I THINK HAVE MADE GOOD PROGRESS.

THIS AND THE REASON I BROUGHT THIS FORWARD AND THE REASON I THINK WE SHOULD MOVE IN THIS DIRECTION IS BECAUSE OVER THE LAST TWO YEARS, I HAVE HEARD A LOT FROM THOSE ON, YOU KNOW, ON THE GROUND WHO ARE IN THIS SPACE, WHETHER THAT BE PART OF THE SHASTA SUBSTANCE USE COALITION OR OTHER ORGANIZATIONS SAYING, HOW DO I HOW DO I GET ACCESS TO THE OPIOID DOLLARS? HOW DO I APPLY FOR IT? HOW DO I, YOU KNOW, WE'RE DOING THIS INTERESTING PROJECT.

AND UP UNTIL NOW, I'VE KIND OF HAD TO SAY, WELL, I GUESS YOU COULD ASK A SUPERVISOR, RIGHT?

[01:20:02]

AND I THINK THERE SHOULD BE A MORE FORMAL PROCESS WHERE THERE IS A COMPETITIVE PROCUREMENT PROCESS.

AND SO THAT IS WHAT THIS IS INTENDED TO ACHIEVE IN TERMS OF THE PRIORITIZATION, THE, I DON'T THINK WE'RE IN A POSITION AS BOARD MEMBERS TO PICK.

THIS IS WHAT EXACTLY IT SHOULD GO TO. INSTEAD, I THINK WE SHOULD SAY, WELL, IT SHOULD BE SCHEDULE E, WHICH IS THE ALLOWABLE USES DETERMINED BY THE STATE AND SOMETHING THAT MISS BURTON REVIEWS EVERY TIME THERE IS A REQUEST AND HAS CURRENTLY.

SO JUST IN CASE ANYBODY'S WONDERING ABOUT WHETHER WE'RE FOLLOWING THE REQUIREMENTS, WE ARE.

AND THEN I THINK ALSO, AND THIS IS MY PERSPECTIVE HAS BEEN.

AND I KNOW PEOPLE HAVE SAID, WELL, YOU HAVE YOU SHOULD BE FUNDING TREATMENT. YOU SHOULD BE FUNDING TREATMENT. WELL, MOST OF THE TIME, TREATMENT HAS ALREADY RECURRING REVENUE STREAMS THAT PAY FOR IT. AND I THINK THIS MONEY SHOULD BE USED PRIMARILY FOR ONE TIME OR START UP COSTS OR SITUATIONS WHERE THERE IS NOT RECURRING REVENUE TO PAY FOR IT.

AND SO THAT WOULD BE, YOU KNOW, HOW I WOULD THINK ABOUT PRIORITIZING IT.

TWO OTHER THINGS THAT I WOULD JUST OFFER IS IN TERMS OF THE COMMITTEE, I THINK THE ORIGINAL IDEA, AS MISS BURTON MENTIONED, WAS THAT THERE WOULD BE A 1 OR 2 BOARD MEMBERS ON THAT COMMITTEE.

AND THEN AFTER HEARING PURCHASING ADVICE I WOULD SAY IN TERMS OF NOT INCLUDING A SUPERVISOR ON A COMMITTEE THAT THEN RECOMMENDS SOMETHING TO THE FULL BOARD WE HAD DISCUSSION ABOUT, OKAY, WELL, WHO WOULD BE ON THAT? AND I DON'T HAVE A VERY STRONG OPINION. I REACHED OUT TO TRACY NEAL AND ASKED WHO FROM HER DEPARTMENT OR IF SHE WOULD LIKE TO BE ON IT AND REACHED OUT TO, TO CHRISTY COLEMAN ABOUT THAT, ABOUT, YOU KNOW, WHO SHOULD BE ON IT.

AND SO THAT WAS WHAT YOU SEE HERE IS THE PRODUCT OF THOSE CONVERSATIONS.

THE LAST THING I'LL SAY IS THAT WHILE CERTAINLY AND WE'VE TALKED A LOT ABOUT IT AT THIS LEVEL, THERE IS A A FINANCIAL NEED WITHIN HHS AND SOMETHING THAT WILL COME BACK TO US AT A LATER DATE IN TERMS OF WHAT THAT REQUEST WOULD BE AND HOW THAT TRANSFER WOULD ACTUALLY WORK. MY THOUGHT IS THAT WE SHOULD STILL MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS, SEE WHAT COMES THROUGH, WHAT RESPONSE THERE IS, AND THEN COMPARE THAT TO THE POTENTIAL USE WHEN WE SEE THAT WITHIN EACH ASSAY AS ANOTHER ALTERNATIVE THERE AS WAYS TO ALLOCATE THOSE FUNDS.

SO I'LL LEAVE IT AT THAT FOR FOR DISCUSSION FOR NOW.

SUPERVISOR CRYE IS HE DID HE MAKE A MOTION ON THIS ONE? YOU WANT TO MAKE A MOTION ON IT? SURE I WILL.

I WAS GOING TO JUST ALLOW DISCUSSION BEFORE, BUT I WILL MAKE A MOTION TO DIRECT STAFF TO ISSUE A REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL.

AND I KNOW YOU SAID IT'S NOT AN AD HOC IN TERMS OF THE WORDING THERE.

IS THAT WHAT WOULD BE YOUR RECOMMENDATION ON ON THE WAY TO DO THAT, OR SHOULD WE JUST ALLOW IT TO HAPPEN? KIND OF. I WOULD JUST SAY SELECT INDIVIDUALS FOR THE REVIEW COMMITTEE TO INCLUDE AND THEN LISTENING.

OKAY. AND AND HAVE A REVIEW COMMITTEE OF AARON BURTON, TRACY NEIL AND CINDY LANE TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS. I WILL SECOND FOR THE POINT.

WELL, IT'S JUST NOT CALLED THAT. I DIDN'T HEAR. OH, YES.

YEAH. INSTEAD OF THE AD HOC. SO THIS THIS WOULD REPLACE THAT SINCE IT DOESN'T HAVE A BOARD MEMBER.

I GUESS IT'S NOT TECHNICALLY CALLED AN AD HOC. I WILL SECOND, FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE DISCUSSION BECAUSE I HAVE A NUMBER OF QUESTIONS.

SUPERVISOR. CRYE. I'LL I'LL LET ALAN ASK US QUESTIONS.

MAYBE I'LL JUMP IN LINE BEHIND HIM. GO AHEAD.

SUPERVISOR. THANK YOU. SUPERVISOR. CRYE. AARON, DON'T GO TOO FAR.

SO AND I'M GOING TO ASK THIS QUESTION FOR CEO RICKERT AS WELL IS STAFF.

GENERALLY YOU GUYS ARE THE SUBJECT MATTER EXPERTS.

WE SITTING ON THE BOARD ARE NOT IS, IS STAFF GENERALLY IN FAVOR OF THIS? AND PART OF THE QUESTIONS THAT I WOULD LIKE ANSWERED IS WE HAVE, I THINK YOU SAID 9 MILLION LEFT IN OPIOID FUNDS AND WE'RE GOING TO BE GETTING MORE OPIOID FUNDS PERIODICALLY. SO DO THESE TWO THINGS NECESSARILY CONFLICT.

SO IF WE DEALT WITH THE 1.5, WOULD THAT CONFLICT WITH ANYTHING THAT THE COUNTY MIGHT BE DOING WITH INTERNAL USES OF OPIOID SETTLEMENT? AND WOULD THAT CREATE A CONFLICT? OKAY. SO A COUPLE OF THINGS. I WOULD SAY THAT STAFF GENERALLY SUPPORT GOING OUT TO AN RFP WHEN WE'RE LOOKING FOR SERVICES.

IT'S THE WAY TO ENSURE THAT WE'RE GETTING THE BEST SERVICES, THE BEST, YOU KNOW, BANG FOR OUR BUCK.

AND IN THIS CASE, IT WOULD SHOW US WHAT'S AVAILABLE AND WHAT PEOPLE WANT TO PROPOSE.

AND EVERYBODY WOULD BE ON THE SAME PLAYING FIELD.

SO IT IS A GOOD PRACTICE GENERALLY SPEAKING. THE 9.2 MILLION THAT WE'RE PROJECTING TO HAVE AFTER THE END OF THE FISCAL YEAR IN RELATION TO THE 1.5,

[01:25:02]

IT WOULDN'T CONFLICT WITH WHAT WE HAVE ALREADY DISTRIBUTED IN RELATION TO ADDITIONAL FUNDS COMING IN.

WE KNOW THAT THERE ARE A COUPLE OUT THERE PENDING COUPLE SETTLEMENTS.

I DON'T KNOW WHEN THOSE SETTLEMENTS WILL MATERIALIZE OR WHAT THEY'LL LOOK LIKE.

WE DO HAVE ONE ADDITIONAL THAT WAS ABOUT 117,000 THAT WE WERE JUST NOTICED OF.

SO I MEAN, I DON'T THINK THERE'S NOT THERE'S, I DON'T HAVE HEARTBURN ABOUT THIS PARTICULAR IDEA.

OKAY. AND WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT THE COMMENT THAT WAS NARROWING DOWN THE FOCUS OF THE RFP? WE HEARD A SPEAKER TALK ABOUT THAT. SO FOR ME, I WOULD I WOULD DISAGREE WITH THAT.

I THINK WE SHOULD OPEN IT UP TO HAVE HAVE DIFFERENT AGENCIES APPLY FOR ITEMS THAT FALL WITHIN THE SCHEDULE.

E IN MY OPINION, I WOULD APPLY A HEAVIER WEIGHT TO THOSE THAT FALL WITHIN THE HIGH IMPACT ABATEMENT AREAS BECAUSE WE HAVE TO SPEND 50% ON THOSE AREAS.

I THINK THE PEOPLE THAT HAVE IDEAS ABOUT WHAT SERVICES ARE THAT ARE NEEDED IN THIS SPACE ARE THE PEOPLE IN THE COMMUNITY.

THEY'RE NOT NECESSARILY THE PEOPLE THAT ARE IN THIS ROOM.

AND SO I THINK PUTTING SOMETHING OUT THERE WILL TELL US WHAT IDEAS PEOPLE HAVE.

AND THE RFP PROCESS WILL GIVE US A WAY TO FAIRLY EVALUATE THOSE, THOSE APPLICATIONS AND MAKE SURE THAT EVERYBODY IS GETTING KIND OF AN EQUITABLE REVIEW. AND THEN THOSE CONTRACTS WOULD COME BACK TO THE BOARD FOR ULTIMATE APPROVAL.

SO THAT WOULD BE KIND OF WHERE THE BOARD WOULD BE MAKING DECISIONS ABOUT IF THEY DO INDEED WANT TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THOSE IDEAS.

OKAY. AND THIS, THIS COMMITTEE, WOULD IT TRY TO ADDRESS ALL THE ISSUES FOR OPIOIDS? SO PREVENTION BEING ONE CATEGORY AND ANOTHER CATEGORY MIGHT BE PEOPLE THAT ARE AFFLICTED CURRENTLY.

AND THEN IT MIGHT BE PREVENTATIVE, YOU KNOW, PREVENTATIVE.

I ALREADY SAID THAT. BUT, YOU KNOW, WOULD IT WOULD IT ADDRESS THE FULL SPECTRUM OR HOW WOULD THAT SHAKE OUT? OR WOULD THAT JUST BE BASED ON THE RFP AND WHAT THEY COME BACK.

I THINK IT WOULD JUST BE BASED ON THE RESPONSES TO THE RFP.

I WOULD HESITATE TO SAY WE'RE GOING TO FOCUS ON ALL OF THESE SPECIFIC AREA BECAUSE, I MEAN, ALTHOUGH 1.5 MILLION SOUNDS LIKE A LOT IN SOME SPACES, IT'S NOT NECESSARILY WHEN YOU'RE DISTRIBUTING IT FOR PROGRAMS, RIGHT? IF WE HAD FIVE DIFFERENT PROGRAMS, $300,000 ISN'T GOING TO REALLY GO THAT FAR.

WE MAY GET A GREAT PROPOSAL THAT, YOU KNOW, WILL TAKE $1 MILLION, AND IT IS EVIDENCE BASED AND IT HAS, YOU KNOW, THEY HAVE EXPERIENCE AND THEY HAVE A GOOD FINANCIAL PLAN.

AND SO FOR ME, THAT'S ALL PART OF THE RFP PROCESS, RIGHT? WE SEE WHAT PEOPLE SUBMIT. WE WOULDN'T NECESSARILY HAVE, IN MY OPINION, PRIORITIES AS FAR AS WHERE WE'RE DIRECTING THE MONEY.

EXCEPT FOR HIGH IMPACT ABATEMENT AREAS WOULD BE A PREFERENCE.

AND THEN OBVIOUSLY ALL OF THEM WOULD HAVE TO FALL WITHIN SCHEDULE E, WE WOULDN'T EVEN CONSIDER ANYTHING ELSE.

SURE. TO BE ELIGIBLE. OKAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, ERIN AND CEO RICKERT, CAN YOU CAN YOU WEIGH IN ON THIS ALSO AND WHETHER THERE WOULD BE A CONFLICT BETWEEN OTHER INTERNAL NEEDS FOR SOME OF THE OPIOIDS VERSUS THIS 1.5 MILLION? I DO LIKE THE IDEA OF STANDARDIZING THE PROCESS OF REVIEW TO MAKE SURE THAT IT'S NOT BIASED.

SO I THINK I THINK WE'RE ON THE RIGHT PATH. BUT I'M JUST CURIOUS, YOUR TAKE.

MY, MY CONCERN, ESPECIALLY WITH HHS FUNDING ISSUES AND THE FACT THAT WE CAN COVER ITEMS THAT WE COULD REALLOCATE REALIGNMENT AND OUR FINANCIAL POSITION WITH HHS, I WOULD HOPE THAT WE WOULD PRIORITIZE THAT FIRST BEFORE WE ALLOCATE FUNDS OUT TO OTHER ORGANIZATIONS.

AND WHAT I UNDERSTOOD, AARON TO SAY WAS THAT THOSE TWO DON'T NECESSARILY CONFLICT, AND THEY DON'T NECESSARILY NEED TO BE ADDRESSED SEPARATELY. IS THAT IS THAT YOUR TAKE? I THINK IT WOULD BE VALUABLE TO FIND OUT WHAT THE NEEDS ARE OF THE COMMUNITY AND ALLOW PEOPLE TO MAKE THOSE REQUESTS.

MY ADVICE TO THE BOARD WOULD BE TO PRIORITIZE AND LOOK AT WHAT HHS ALSO PUTS FORTH AS A PROPOSAL TO HELP MEET THEIR FUNDING CONCERNS.

COULD COULD THAT BE DONE SIMULTANEOUS TO THE RFP PROCESS? I BELIEVE SO. OKAY. THANK YOU. YOU GOOD. SUPERVISOR.

SUPERVISOR. CRYE. SUPERVISOR. PLUMMER. ONE.

SORRY. ONE THING PER WHAT AARON SAID. I WOULD LIKE TO AMEND MY MOTION TO INCLUDE THAT THERE WOULD BE HEAVIER WAITING FOR THE HIGH ABATEMENT STRATEGIES, GIVEN THAT REQUIREMENT THAT WE SPEND 50% FOR THAT.

WOULD YOU BE OKAY WITH THAT AS A SECOND? YES.

[01:30:01]

I'LL SECOND THAT. OKAY. AND THEN THE OTHER THING, AND I THINK AARON KIND OF ALLUDED TO THIS AND AARON, CORRECT ME IF I MISSPEAK, BUT THE BECAUSE JUST BECAUSE WE'RE DOING IT FOR 1.5 MILLION DOESN'T MEAN THAT WE BY DEFINITION, HAVE TO GIVE OUT 1.5. IF SOMEBODY COMES IN WITH A $250,000 PROPOSAL, AND WE THINK THAT'S GREAT AND WE DON'T LIKE ANY OF THE OTHER ONES, IT COULD THERE COULD BE WE COULD JUST DISTRIBUTE 250,000, FOR EXAMPLE.

YES. SO THAT'S CORRECT. SO WE WOULD WE WOULD INCLUDE IN THE RFP, WE WOULD AWARD UP TO A TOTAL OF $1.5 MILLION.

THAT'S AN UP TO WE CAN CHOOSE TO NOT AWARD ALL OF THEM.

ALL OF THOSE CONTRACTS WOULD COME BACK TO THE BOARD FOR APPROVAL.

SO THE BOARD WOULD ULTIMATELY BE ABLE TO SAY, YOU KNOW, YES, NO, IF WE DIDN'T HAVE ENOUGH RESPONSIVE RFP OR THEY DIDN'T RANK HIGH ENOUGH, WE COULD AWARD LESS THAN 1.5. I CAN'T IMAGINE THAT THAT WILL BE THE CASE.

I IMAGINE WE'LL GET AT LEAST 1.5 MILLION. BUT ALL OF THOSE WOULD COME BACK TO THE BOARD FOR APPROVAL AND THE BOARD COULD SAY YES OR NO.

AND IN THE MEANTIME, HHS A CAN COME TO THE BOARD WITH AREAS THAT THEY SEE NEEDS THAT THEY CAN MEET WITHIN THEIR AGENCY.

AND THAT WOULD HAPPEN BEFORE THE RFP WOULD COME BACK.

THANK YOU. SUPERVISOR. YOU DON'T SERIOUSLY THINK SOMEONE'S GOING TO COME BACK WITH LESS THAN 1.5, DO YOU? WELL, I THINK I THINK I'VE HEARD A NUMBER OF PROJECTS, FOR EXAMPLE, THAT ARE, YOU KNOW, WOULD BE A GOOD FIT FOR THIS THAT I DON'T SEE COSTING 1.5 MILLION.

THESE NON-PROFITS WILL JACK IT UP TO THAT BECAUSE BECAUSE LIKE GOING BACK TO YOUR VERY FIRST STATEMENT WHEN YOU SAID, PEOPLE ASK YOU AND I QUOTE, HOW DO I GET ACCESS TO IT? MEANING THE OPIATE? I MEAN, PEOPLE ACTUALLY ASK YOU THAT, HOW DO I GET ACCESS? WELL, WHICH MAKES SENSE. IF YOU'RE DOING A PROJECT IN THIS SPACE AND YOU DON'T HAVE FUNDING FOR IT, YOU'RE LOOKING FOR THAT FUNDING. AND THIS IS ONE OF THE BIGGEST POTS OF MONEY FOR THIS SPACE.

SO. WELL, YEAH, I, I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IN TERMS OF MATCHING THE NUMBER? I DO THINK THAT THERE WILL BE ORGANIZATIONS THAT ARE SMALLER AND PROJECTS THAT ARE SMALLER THAT WON'T JACK IT UP TO 1.5 BECAUSE IT WOULDN'T MAKE ANY SENSE.

WE HAD, I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY WE HAD. HOW MANY DO WE HAVE, AARON. LIKE 30. WE HAD A BUNCH, RIGHT? YEAH. I LIKE EVERYTHING SHORT OF LIKE BALLOON ANIMALS AND STUFF.

YEAH. SO MY I'M REALLY CURIOUS. SUPERVISOR LONG, YOU TALKED ABOUT SUBJECT MATTER EXPERTS.

WHAT WERE YOU TALKING ABOUT? I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND THAT BECAUSE, LIKE, BECAUSE THE FIVE PEOPLE UP HERE.

RIGHT. LIKE ARE THE ONES THAT. I MEAN, I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY BECAUSE THIS THIS WILL COME BACK RIGHT IN THE NEXT TWO YEARS FOR YOU.

YOU'LL BE UP HERE AND YOU GUYS BY A 3/5 VOTE WILL.

I MEAN, YOU'RE THE, YOU'RE THE SUBJECT MATTER EXPERT ON HOW THIS SHOULD BE SPENT, RIGHT? WELL, NO, I DON'T AGREE WITH THAT. OKAY. WELL, BUT BUT IN TERMS OF BECAUSE BEFORE CEO RICKERT WAS HERE, WE HAD ARPA MONEY AND WE BLEW THROUGH THAT MONEY BECAUSE OF SUPER BECAUSE THE SUBJECT MATTER EXPERTS STAFF, RIGHT? JUST COMPLETELY BLEW THROUGH IT. NOW, I THINK I THINK THE IMPORTANT THING HERE TO CONSIDER IS THAT THIS ISN'T ONE PERSON MAKING ALL THE DECISIONS. IT'S GOING TO BE A COLLABORATIVE EFFORT AMONG THOSE THAT ARE VERY VERSED IN ALL THE OPIOID FUNCTIONS AND PROGRAMS AND THE MINUTIA DOWN IN THE WEEDS. I WAS A POLICE OFFICER, AND OF COURSE, I DEALT WITH OPIOID ABUSE AND SUBSTANCE ABUSE.

SO I HAVE A STREET LEVEL UNDERSTANDING OF DRUGS.

YEAH. BUT THAT I DON'T CONSIDER THAT MAKING ME A SUBJECT MATTER EXPERT ON THE AWARD OF OPIOID FUNDS AND ALL THE ORGANIZATIONS AND THE INS AND OUTS OF EACH ONE OF THESE ORGANIZATIONS TO WHERE THEY'RE WORTHY OF THE CAUSE.

AND I THINK THAT'S THE BEAUTY OF THIS PROPOSAL WILL BE THAT IT'S AN INDEPENDENT REVIEW OF A LOT OF KIND OF A BRAIN TRUST.

I'M JUST ENCOURAGING YOU TO LIKE TO BE THE EXPERT IN THAT.

SO THAT WAY YOU YOU'LL YOUR VOTE ISN'T BECAUSE YOU'LL LOOK INTO IT FROM A LAW ENFORCEMENT STANDPOINT.

YOU'LL LOOK YOU'LL LOOK INTO IT. SURE, SURE. BUT I DON'T NECESSARILY SEE THE ENTIRE OTHER 360.

SO I'VE GOT THE COP MENTALITY, BUT I DON'T NECESSARILY HAVE THE HHS AND OPIOID ABUSE AND WHAT WORKS AND WHAT DOESN'T, AND LONG TERM TREATMENT PROGRAMS AND THOSE KINDS OF THINGS.

I THINK THAT'S WHERE WE HAVE THE BENEFIT AND THE VALUE OF HAVING AN INDEPENDENT COMMITTEE.

AND IT'S NOT GOING TO BE JUST ONE PERSON'S DECISION. IT WILL BE MULTIPLE DECISIONS TO SAY, THIS IS THIS IS WORTHY OF THIS INVESTMENT, BECAUSE THESE THESE DOLLARS ARE VERY PRECIOUS AND THEY NEED TO BE AWARDED CORRECTLY.

AND WE'VE PROTECTED THEM. I MEAN, I MEAN, SOME COUNTIES HAVE JUST BLOWN THROUGH THERE.

RIGHT, RIGHT. AND MUCH LIKE OUR ARPA MONEY AND DAVE RICKERT, LIKE, I MEAN, YOU'D AGREE, RIGHT? OUR ARPA MONEY WAS JUST SQUANDERED. I MEAN, THAT'S MAYBE THAT'S MAYBE A STRONG STANCE, BUT I WOULD JUST TO ANSWER THAT INDIRECTLY IN THAT I WOULD ONLY USE ONE TIME MONEY FOR NONRECURRING EVENTS AND JUST LEAVE IT AT THAT.

[01:35:04]

OKAY. SO OUR ARPA. I MEAN, I'M JUST SAYING, LIKE THE OPIOID MONEY INVESTED, RIGHT? CAN REALLY BE, YOU KNOW, CAN MAKE A HUGE DIFFERENCE.

SO I HAVE ONE QUESTION. THIS IS FOR COUNSEL LARMER.

COUNSEL LARMER. IF IN SUPPORTING THIS, RIGHT.

OTHER ITEMS CAN STILL COME BEFORE THIS BOARD, RIGHT.

SO IF THERE, IF THERE IS A RFP OUT I CAN STILL BRING SOMETHING BACK OR ANYBODY ON THIS BOARD COULD STILL BRING SOMETHING BACK OUTSIDE OF THAT RFP. CORRECT. WELL, TO THE EXTENT THAT THE RFP INVITES PEOPLE TO COME FOR A CERTAIN POT OF MONEY, YOU DEFINITELY COULDN'T WITHDRAW THE THE 1.5 FROM FROM THAT RFP.

NOW, IF THE RFP COMES BACK AND YOU DON'T APPROVE ANY OF THOSE ITEMS, ESSENTIALLY THAT'S YOUR OPTION.

BUT WHILE YOU HAVE THE RFP OUT THERE AND PEOPLE ARE EXTENDING THIS BOARD HAS LIKE THIS BOARD, THERE'S NO, THERE'S NOTHING SAYING THAT LIKE THE NEXT BOARD, THE NEXT BOARD, JANUARY 1ST COULD BRING SOMETHING FORWARD AND THEY COULD SPEND ALL THE MONEY IN THE FIRST TWO WEEKS IF THEY WANTED, IF IT WAS ALLOCATED PROPERLY.

AND IT MEETS ALL THE CRITERIA THAT, YOU KNOW, LEGALLY, IF IF A CONTRACT WERE PUT ON THE AGENDA TO BE FUNDED BY THOSE MONIES, IT WOULDN'T BE PREVENTED BASED ON THE RFP BEING OUT.

CORRECT. OKAY. DID YOU HAVE SOMETHING YOU WANT TO ASK HER? NO, I JUST WANTED TO RESPOND TO TO THAT QUESTION.

NOT FROM A LEGAL STANDPOINT, BUT, I MEAN, MY ENCOURAGEMENT WOULD BE, AND I KNOW YOU MENTIONED THE ROCKY PROJECT, IS THAT RATHER THAN CREATING A SEPARATE PROCESS FOR THAT ENCOURAGE, I DON'T KNOW IF IT WOULD BE SCARY OR ROCKY HIMSELF OR WHOEVER, WHOEVER'S RESPONSIBLE TO APPLY, BECAUSE I THINK PART OF THE HOPE IS THAT THIS CREATES A FORMAL PROCESS FOR ANYBODY WHO'S INTERESTED TO COME INTO THE MIX AND BE CONSIDERED. WHEN I DO BUSINESS, I DON'T HELP.

I'M VERY CALCULATED. I'M VERY STRATEGIC. I MEAN, MIKE FREEMAN, I'VE SAID IT.

I'M NOT A HUGE FAN OF SKOWY, BUT ROCKY DID SHOW ME DATA OF OTHER COUNTIES.

AND I WILL SAY IN THIS PARTICULAR PROGRAM, MIKE FREEMAN AND MAYBE NOT JUST MIKE FREEMAN PERSONALLY, BUT BUT SCOTT IS DOING A GOOD JOB IN THIS. I MEAN, JACOB, I'M NOT I CAN'T TALK TO YOU ABOUT IT, BUT JACOB FROM YOUR TEAM IS WORKING ON IT, ISN'T HE? JACOB GARCIA? YEAH, I KNOW HE'S BEEN INVOLVED IN CONVERSATIONS ABOUT I CAN'T I'M NOT GOING TO TALK TO YOU ABOUT IT BECAUSE I'LL TALK TO ANOTHER SUPERVISOR, BUT I KNOW WHAT THE SCOHY BOARD BEING SUPPORTIVE OF IT BECAUSE WE'VE WORKED ON IT FOR A COUPLE OF MONTHS.

SO I WANT TO JUST MAKE SURE THIS IS COMPLETELY OUTSIDE OF THAT.

SO, I MEAN, I'M ALL FOR BUT AGAIN, LIKE YOU'RE GOING TO DO THE WORK.

SO LIKE, I'M NOT PERSONALLY FOR ME. MATT. LIKE I'M NOT ANYTHING THAT COMES BEFORE THIS BOARD FUTURE, NOT LIKE YOU'RE GOING TO DO THAT. THE DIFFERENCE IS, IS WHO ELSE IS DOING THAT? YOU KNOW, YOU GET. SUPERVISOR. CRYE. SO, SO. COUNSEL LARMER.

BECAUSE I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH THE RFP COMING BACK. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT, THAT IT'S I, WE CAN STILL BRING SOMETHING BACK OUTSIDE OF THAT.

SO I WOULD SAY PROCEDURALLY, IT'S, IT'S GENERALLY BEST THAT THEY COME THROUGH THE PROCESS, BUT LEGALLY, IT DOESN'T PREVENT YOU FROM ENTERING INTO ANOTHER CONTRACT THAT HASN'T COME THROUGH THAT PROCESS.

DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? WELL, SO THEN I'M GOING TO VOTE NO SOLELY BECAUSE I DON'T WANT TO MURKY THAT UP, THEN SUPERVISOR ALONE. THANK YOU, CHAIR, AND I APPRECIATE THIS CONVERSATION TREMENDOUSLY.

I, I THINK IT'S VERY IMPORTANT THAT WE HAVE OPIOID DOLLARS AND THAT WE DO OUR BEST AS A BOARD TO GET THOSE TO WORK IN OUR COMMUNITY AS QUICK AS POSSIBLE. QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE, BECAUSE IT'S GOING TO SAVE LIVES.

AND SO I THINK ANY AVENUE, AND THIS IS ONE AVENUE FOR UP TO 1,000,005, AND WE'VE GOT THE INTERNAL USES.

AND, YOU KNOW, I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM AS LONG AS IT WAS DONE RESPONSIBLY SPENDING ALL THIS MONEY QUICKLY, BECAUSE THAT'S THE CHALLENGE, RIGHT, IS TO MAKE SURE THAT IT IS APPROPRIATE AND WILL ACTUALLY DO GOOD TO OUR COMMUNITY.

BUT WE THIS IS NOT SOMETHING THAT WE WANT TO HOARD MONEY.

THERE'S NO PURPOSE IN THAT. IT'S JUST DEVELOPING MECHANISMS TO APPROPRIATELY DELIVER THE FUNDS RESPONSIBLY.

AND WE HAVE A FIDUCIARY RESPONSIBILITY TO PROTECT THESE FUNDS BECAUSE THEY'RE SUPER IMPORTANT.

AND SO I THINK THAT'S THAT'S MY TAKE ON ALL THIS.

AND THIS IS ONE PROCESS THAT'S A PARALLEL PROCESS.

WE'RE GOING TO HAVE THE COUNTY LOOKING AT THE INTERNAL PROCESS.

AND AS LONG AS WE'RE RESPONSIBLE AND WE'RE MAKING GOOD AWARDS, LET'S GET THIS MONEY TO USE BECAUSE IT SAVES LIVES.

SO THAT THAT'S I DON'T THINK THEY'RE, THEY'RE MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE ITEMS.

[01:40:03]

SO YOU'RE GOING TO BE ON THIS COMMITTEE AND TRACEY NEALE PROPOSAL AND CHIEF NEALE AND THEN SOMEBODY FROM HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, CINDY LANE WHO'S THE BRANCH DIRECTOR OF THE BEHAVIORAL.

SO BECAUSE OF THAT, BECAUSE OF THE PEOPLE THAT ARE ON THIS COMMITTEE, I'LL BE VOTING FOR IT. SUPERVISOR HARMON CAN I CAN I CLARIFY SOMETHING JUST REAL QUICK, ANY PROJECT THAT WERE TO COME BACK FOR USING OPIOID MONEY WOULD ALSO COME WITH A BUDGET AMENDMENT.

SO IT WOULD BE REQUIRE A 4/5 VOTE. OKAY. THANK YOU.

WE WENT BACK UP AGAIN. SO ANY PROJECT THAT COMES BACK USING THE OPIOID FUNDS IN THE MIDDLE OF A FISCAL YEAR WOULD REQUIRE A 4/5 VOTE, BECAUSE WE WOULD NEED A BUDGET AMENDMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THAT. HEY, JOE.

OPIOIDS. THAT'S NOT IN THE BUDGET. SO IT'S SO THE BUDGET WAS BUILT ON THE PROJECTS THAT THE BOARD HAS ALREADY APPROVED.

AND SO ALL OF THE MONEY THAT IS CURRENTLY IN THE 430 BUDGET AND THE OPIOID LITIGATION BUDGET IS SPOKEN FOR IN PROJECTS THAT HAVE ALREADY BEEN APPROVED BY THE BOARD.

SO ANY ADDITIONAL PROJECTS COMING FORWARD WOULD COME FORWARD WITH A BUDGET AMENDMENT, SO THAT WE HAVE ENOUGH AUTHORITY TO COVER ALL OF THE APPROVED PROJECTS.

AND BUDGET AMENDMENT REQUIRES 4/5. SUPERVISOR HARMON.

SO JUST FOR CLARIFICATION, I THINK YOU JUST CLARIFIED THAT.

IT HAS TO. WHEN RFPS COME IN, YOU'RE GOING TO REVIEW WITH YOUR COMMITTEE, AND THEN IT HAS TO COME BACK TO THE BOARD FOR APPROVAL.

SO THIS. YEAH. SO FOR THAT REASON, I'M GOING TO VOTE YES.

YEAH. ALL RIGHT. WELL HOLD ON. WELL, NO, I MEAN WE CAN TALK ABOUT IT PUBLICLY BECAUSE I HELPED ME OUT.

I HOPE YOU UNDERSTAND THAT. SO IF THE PAYMENT HAS TO BE MADE PRIOR TO THE FISCAL YEAR FOR THE PROJECT, THEN IT WOULD TAKE A BUDGET AMENDMENT. A CONTRACT CAN BE ENTERED INTO WHERE THE CONTRACT START DATE IS AT A LATER TIME.

AND THE BUDGET CAN THE FUNDING CAN COME FROM THE BUDGET AT A DIFFERENT TIME.

BUT IF IT COMES FISCAL YEAR, THAT MONEY HAS ALREADY BEEN BUDGETED BY THE BOARD.

OKAY. ALL RIGHT. BECAUSE I THOUGHT THE OPIOID OUTSIDE OF THAT I THOUGHT NO, IT'S 4/5.

YES. SO JUNE WOULD BE JUNE WOULD BE A 3/5 VOTE.

IF YOU PUT IT INTO THE NEXT BUDGET IT WOULD BE A 3/5 VOTE.

GOT IT. ALL RIGHT. LET'S CALL FOR I THINK WE BEAT THIS UP ENOUGH. LET'S CALL FOR A ROLL CALL. SO WHEN'S IT COMING BACK? WHEN'S IT COMING BACK? WHAT? WHEN DO YOU WANT THIS BACK? WELL, I THINK THEY'RE GOING TO ISSUE THE RFP.

THEN THERE'S, WHAT, 30 TO 60 DAYS? USUALLY IT'S OPEN FOR.

THIS WILL BE THE NEXT YEAR. YES. YEAH. YEAH. BY THE TIME THIS GOVERNMENT ROLL CALL.

SUPERVISOR. PLUMMER. SUPERVISOR. PLUMMER. YES.

SUPERVISOR. CRYE. NO. SUPERVISOR. KELSTROM. YES.

SUPERVISOR. HARMON. YES. AND SUPERVISOR. LONG? YES. ALL RIGHT. PASSES 4 TO 1. THANK YOU, MISS BURTON.

ALL RIGHT. MOVING ON TO R SIX. TAKE THE FOLLOWING ACTIONS. RATIFY THE PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR SIGNATURE TO THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT WITH CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES BOARD. THE

[R6 Take the following actions: (1) Ratify the Public Works Director’s signature to the settlement agreement with California Air Resources Board in the amount of $417,000 for methane emissions violations at West Central Landfill; and (2) approve budget amendments which increase: (a) revenue by $417,000 in the Solid Waste Disposal Admin Budget (BU B07); and (b) appropriations by $417,000 in the WCL Replace and Improve Admin Budget (BU B06), offset by use of retained earnings.]

AMOUNT OF $417,000 FOR METHANE EMISSIONS VIOLATIONS AT WEST CENTRAL LANDFILL AND APPROVED BUDGET AMENDMENTS, WHICH INCREASE REVENUE. ET-CETERA. MR. HEATH, DIRECTOR HEATH I SHOULD SAY RESOURCE MANAGER, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR. HEATH. YES, GOOD MORNING, CHAIR KELSTROM MEMBERS OF THE BOARD.

JOHN HEATH, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR THE ITEM BEFORE YOU TODAY CONCERNS RATIFICATION OF A SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT THAT THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS NEGOTIATED WITH CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES BOARD, AKA CARB OVER EMISSIONS VIOLATIONS AT WEST CENTRAL LANDFILL, WHICH OCCURRED IN 2025. I'M GOING TO GO OVER THE DETAILS OF THE EMISSIONS VIOLATIONS, TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE SETTLEMENT AND THEN ASK FOR YOU TO RATIFY THE AGREEMENT.

IF YOU DO RATIFY THE AGREEMENT, IT WOULD REQUIRE A BUDGET AMENDMENT TO PAY IN ORDER TO ALLOCATE THE FUNDS FOR PAYMENT OF THE THE PENALTY.

WITH THAT, I'M GOING TO START WITH MY POWERPOINT PRESENTATION.

I'M GOING TO LET YOU KNOW THERE'S A COUPLE OF SLIDES IN HERE. I THINK I'M GOING TO SKIP SLIDES TWO AND THREE, WHICH ARE GRAPHICS TO KIND OF ILLUSTRATE HOW EMISSIONS OCCUR AT OCCUR AND ARE CONTROLLED AT THE LANDFILL. IF THE BOARD WOULD LIKE, I CAN LOOK BACK AT THE END TO PROVIDE THAT DETAIL.

SO FIRST OF ALL, GIVE YOU SOME BACKGROUND ON THE LANDFILL.

IT'S OWNED BY THE COUNTY, BUT IT IS JOINTLY OPERATED BY THE CITY OF REDDING AND SHASTA COUNTY.

ACTUAL OPERATIONS, DAY TO DAY OPERATIONS AT THE LANDFILL ARE PROVIDED BY THE CITY OF REDDING.

ENGINEERING AND PERMITTING ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE OR ARE PROVIDED BY THE COUNTY.

THE GOVERNANCE OF THE FACILITY IS HANDLED BY A THREE MEMBER SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL COMMITTEE.

THAT COMMITTEE IS COMPRISED OF THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER, THE CITY CITY OF REDDING, CITY MANAGER, AND ALTERNATINGLY, THE CITY MANAGER FOR EITHER ANDERSON OR SHASTA LAKE.

THE LANDFILL RECEIVES ABOUT 165,000 TONS OF WASTE A YEAR.