[{"_1":2,"_123":-5,"_124":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87,99,111],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6057723,"mediaKeyId","3300144-c12949c91fca52bf996b31f933966022","parentId",3300144,"title","Shasta supervisors send letters opposing AB 470 and SB 16, support package of election and other bills","audioSeconds",784,"startMs",7265000,"endMs",8049000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3300144-c12949c91fca52bf996b31f933966022&start=7265&end=8049","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3300144-c12949c91fca52bf996b31f933966022/thumbnail_7265000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6057723/Shasta-County/California/Shasta-supervisors-send-letters-opposing-AB-470-and-SB-16-support-package-of-election-and-other-bills","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6057723-2b4fc31e3719ce42277021853baaff0b/orig.mp4?Expires=1770848808&Signature=dnnac5xMIRe9YK1URhwWKreksJSWOlArrkVnIK7Q1uVd2mkw8FAiYzbZdvPMAQoVx5IiNP23TL~2nvtXnlbmZaOkYGXmHL7KNF9QmlX~abC8Vnml~LLYc6FE7hlJx8~gubCh9ZGePRf7h5-IHPMosy6VY5I2knUBOx0zFXLNPKPSV3edCpHNkQ92KyYFhGHtn3~KhiXuJ4QqvYQJv00~-8~w14SOV5VAGeg6UpCnuOs2FTfZkAd95yPw1A39dGPTtXfTfAYl1LgSiM-mMNPDZm04OjutNbyDfOH9mh4J-esWTaD38NH0hFgcgIzCQkX72tonGIeHeiDlVvC2ZCWW4A__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Shasta County, CA","date","2025-03-25T00:00:00Z","article","The Board of Supervisors voted unanimously on March 25 to send a set of letters taking positions on multiple state bills. Stephanie Blankenship, chief deputy clerk of the board, briefed the board on the package and explained an earlier agenda attachment had been reverted to an older version and corrected copies were provided.

Blankenship summarized the positions staff recommended: a letter of opposition to Assembly Bill 470 (telecommunications carrier‑of‑last‑resort/abandonment issues), and to Senate Bill 16, which staff described as potentially requiring counties to fund 50% of certain city shelter costs for jurisdictions above a population threshold. She also presented letters of support for SB405–SB408, a package described in staff materials as strengthening local control over elections and voter rolls, as well as for SB496 (vehicle‑fleet emissions flexibility) and for a proposed corrections and rehabilitation campus expansion that would enable the county to expand an alternative custody program.

Supervisor Long spoke at length about the likely operational impacts of the election bills, including staffing and facility needs if timelines were shortened; he also summarized local election workload and drop‑box/mail‑in voting statistics provided by the registrar/recorder’s office. “If 406 passes and 407 shortens the timeline, they’d be required to hire 50 more personnel… they would have to work double shifts and they would have to, they don't currently have sufficient space,” Long said, citing the office’s estimates.

After public comment and board discussion about unfunded state mandates and operational costs, Supervisor Plummer moved to approve the staff‑recommended letters as a package; Supervisor Kallstrom seconded. The motion passed 5‑0.

The board noted some of the bills (particularly election‑related measures) carry state reimbursement questions: staff said certain state‑mandated reimbursement claims are subject to a state claim process and that the state has not always promptly paid prior claims, creating local budget exposure. The board directed staff to pursue the letters as written and to continue monitoring potential fiscal impacts.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Board of Supervisors 03/25/2025","oneSentenceSummary","The Shasta County Board of Supervisors voted 5‑0 to send letters opposing AB 470 and SB 16 and to express support for a set of election bills (SB405–SB408), SB496 (fleet rules) and expansion of a corrections and rehabilitation campus.","taxTitle","Shasta County, California","taxId",4210,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6057728,"Board directs staff to issue RFP for community engagement to shape strategic plan",2640,8087000,10727000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3300144-c12949c91fca52bf996b31f933966022&start=8087&end=10727","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3300144-c12949c91fca52bf996b31f933966022/thumbnail_8087000.jpg","/articles/6057728/Shasta-County/California/Board-directs-staff-to-issue-RFP-for-community-engagement-to-shape-strategic-plan","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6057728-e6e55a5930dac6b571f1de773c6f63fb/orig.mp4?Expires=1770848808&Signature=SVFwav~oSFmTdj3kdjdm3n-f7hkXBWmTOMbg3abcCt0nrbqxyS11awz9stbjuB~rYJdKjWhOGcnw1CruxEUQKWOMlS8XJIfMMwYJrWLs5cGQv-hvyUjNlJMbaGSQPpY4kJdQ5N8Sxl2Jy0Rp-1fvVjyHkSRLpLuAkvXOUn3il~ZRXVjlxE~V9V67rJ8irbVBYJKZ7oCZiotP~eHv-4q~tCgT~D4Syq~c9MXivTJ5YJ9K-aVzYTgPa~7HaG4d-1ntzveKIaBWo2bNcdefLsojzUt6rjmccFYGyktU5aahgHCprjnlYkDQC739XhYf6xEj0KzjH8V~MCYDQ921x-MB8A__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Shasta County Board of Supervisors directed staff on March 25 to draft and return an RFP to solicit a consultant to lead community engagement for a countywide strategic plan. Amber Bertain, deputy county executive officer, told the board the committee reviewed other counties’ strategic plans and recommended a third‑party facilitator for community engagement and objective synthesis.

“We agreed that hiring a consultant to assist with, at a minimum, the process to gather information would be very helpful,” Bertain said, describing the ad hoc committee’s work. The committee presented examples of plans from San Bernardino, San Mateo, Contra Costa, Imperial and Alpine counties as models for measurable goals, timelines and community surveys.

Supervisors Long and Plummer, who served on the ad hoc committee, said a consultant would bring objectivity, additional capacity and expertise in broad public outreach. Long emphasized the need for a usable plan limited in scope — roughly three to five primary goals with measurable sub‑goals — so the plan becomes a working document rather than a multi‑hundred‑page shelf report.

Committee materials included a high‑level cost estimate for a full strategic‑planning effort of about $150,000. Board members narrowed the immediate request to the community‑engagement phase to reduce cost and accelerate outreach. Supervisor Plummer moved that staff return with a proposed RFP for community engagement and that the board bring the contract back for approval; the motion was seconded and passed 5‑0.

Under the approved direction, staff will draft an RFP focused on outreach and visioning (surveys, public workshops, stakeholder interviews) and present it to the board for approval before issuing it. Supervisors said they will expect the selected consultant to present objective, quantified community priorities and recommendations that can be translated into measurable county goals and tied to departmental work and the budget process.

Board members emphasized the importance of inclusive outreach beyond frequent meeting attendees and said they expect staff and the ad hoc committee to shape the RFP so it captures broad community input. Bertain told the board that the ad hoc committee and staff will work with the supervising board members on vendor evaluation and that the board will approve any contract award.","After an ad hoc committee update, supervisors approved asking staff to issue an RFP limited to community engagement for a countywide strategic plan and to return with the proposed RFP for board review.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6057733,"Shasta County supervisors say housing targets lag; approve staff follow-up and request general‑plan proposal",3125,2923000,6048000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3300144-c12949c91fca52bf996b31f933966022&start=2923&end=6048","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3300144-c12949c91fca52bf996b31f933966022/thumbnail_2923000.jpg","/articles/6057733/Shasta-County/California/Shasta-County-supervisors-say-housing-targets-lag-approve-staff-follow-up-and-request-generalplan-proposal","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6057733-e22b6a2d33924964d2052d7d1cdde9b2/orig.mp4?Expires=1770848808&Signature=ZlPzpe3XNaf6fg7RjEPVSeRJC92BkX5eW7q8hc82M6q23nWkFxVoLLh8PrKSY2JRii1iSdkgtwGkPm0jvJwIKqNHxGutigkK09VHPm61D~rDgM5eSlYD3T~0KFUONLEww2CD8vbAkZH~c3ft1hoy9e3o8kB69iSuyU81BvFJln9bpcpYlMdS3IDk5vAnI~T4mK1w88PxQ8wMSfnLmZZxaR-lGz83ZX2jzSIpMKRmQt9HjGWxnrCqD-yoS1zZ4aqPnURBOBJqiX0WJSQY9QggWf26r5LJNXHIKdbNnYZ8khtrOvr0mrThpBa-D5Wj1p-hd7iXdl-UyYG70p~OFWi9PA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Supervisor Plummer told the Board of Supervisors on March 25 that the county is not on track to meet state Regional Housing Needs Allocation targets for the current planning cycle and urged further action. “We do not appear to be on track to hit our targets with the state,” Supervisor Plummer said during discussion on the county’s housing element annual progress report.

The county’s planning staff confirmed the shortfall applies to the unincorporated area only and that recent building-permit activity has declined from 2022 levels. Resource Management staff said the county has a surplus of single‑family moderate‑income units but needs more multi‑family and extremely low‑income units to meet RHNA requirements. Public staff presentations cited several causes including slow rebuilds in fire‑affected areas, rising construction costs, high interest rates and difficulties obtaining fire insurance in wildland‑urban interface areas.

Adam Fiesler of Resource Management noted that some larger projects, like the Boerne Commons development, account for steep projected increases in the county’s plan but added that those projects alone will not close the gap. “We would need some major catch ups, quite a few Boerne Commons‑type projects,” Fiesler said, describing where the staff report shows the most significant unit additions.

Supervisors discussed policy tools to accelerate housing: updating accessory dwelling unit (ADU) rules to conform with the state ADU handbook, reducing certain setback and parking requirements that limit density, and rezoning targeted parcels—particularly near sewer and water infrastructure—to allow multifamily development. Staff said ADU law is changing frequently and that an updated county ADU ordinance will be required to align with state guidance.

Board members also reviewed post‑fire rebuild data. Planning staff reported that of roughly 817 dwelling units lost in the Carr Fire and other incidents, about 386 had been rebuilt—below 50%—and many burned lots remain vacant or have become code‑enforcement cases. Supervisors said this complicates efforts to meet RHNA targets because replacement housing has not progressed as quickly as anticipated.

Supervisor Plummer moved to approve item C20 and to direct staff to prepare a proposal to update the county’s general plan; the motion was seconded and carried 5‑0. The motion asks staff to return with scope and cost information for a general‑plan update so the board can consider next steps in a future meeting. The board noted that a comprehensive general‑plan update would be multi‑year and likely require significant staff time or outside contracting to complete.

Supervisor Long, who sponsored a related motion earlier in the meeting, said he would like the update process to include measurable department goals so future budget decisions can be tied to clear priorities. “If we want something that’s going to be an enduring document that is going to guide the direction of the board for the next 4 to 5 years, that’s very significant,” Long said.

The board and staff also discussed housing funding and development readiness: many projects that could increase multifamily capacity require a mix of grants, tax incentives and local approvals, and several supervisors urged streamlining permitting to reduce barriers for developers. For now, staff will return with a general‑plan proposal and cost estimate for the board’s consideration.","The Shasta County Board of Supervisors heard that unincorporated county housing production is behind state RHNA targets, approved a staff recommendation on the 2024 housing element annual progress report (item C20) and asked staff to return with a proposal to update the general plan.",{"_33":100,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":101,"_41":102,"_43":103,"_45":104,"_47":105,"_49":106,"_51":107,"_53":108,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":109,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":110,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6057716,"Supervisors direct CCP and JJCC to continue public‑safety work; public voices concern about staffing for DA and public defenders",76,1568000,1644000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3300144-c12949c91fca52bf996b31f933966022&start=1568&end=1644","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3300144-c12949c91fca52bf996b31f933966022/thumbnail_1568000.jpg","/articles/6057716/Shasta-County/California/Supervisors-direct-CCP-and-JJCC-to-continue-publicsafety-work-public-voices-concern-about-staffing-for-DA-and-public-defenders","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6057716-19b6aefa3fac49f3744ed8048c704e8f/orig.mp4?Expires=1770848808&Signature=evrLRPVQugylXqTdh3hLpwzOIvPEfXj2u1wGznK0U2qY~klcYt4Sg7siRivc9pSOJShxZSJJpWy8fzw1fKeUuml8v5fxBlvpizwf35Nfjp8PKUE3myakFkdTrhJ8ONgE9FjlJ6m8G5hwYr3-Fl2y~Y16ilRO21Xh0kpzXOa5L9gOOtt7smR1E04Bq11ux0IEczGclHacYCXuYFek4E61KxfcPQqqWbx~QYIIdrISucXVs~yLT3XXxUjo26aHnHgi5xktt7~5HOBbZGLOvySjTytZAlXwpSclcfKN19BFJ1HKAkVtbVT3eybDN5AbSNsTZqlCiD4nUjZVgGipqSjDxw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Supervisor Long moved and the board approved returning the public‑safety discussion to standing committees for continued work and reporting. “I would like to make a motion that staff bring back discussion on the public safety topic we talked about last night and possibly, kind of assigning this to CCP … and JJCC … and report back to our board,” Long said, describing the intent to create ongoing oversight and six‑month updates from those bodies. The motion was seconded and approved by a 5‑0 vote.

The motion followed a March 24 public safety meeting (referenced by multiple supervisors) that included presentations from local law‑enforcement and justice agencies. Several public commenters at the March 25 meeting urged the board to address staffing shortages in prosecution and defense offices. Deputy district attorneys Brian Ziegler and David Stewart both told the board their offices face statewide recruitment pressures and heavy workloads; Ziegler said salary differences are a key factor in retention: “The simple math is that we need more attorneys and to get more attorneys we need a competitive wage,” he said.

Members of the public and other speakers described consequences of limited staffing, increased workloads, and the work created by recent legislative changes (for example, SB 1437 and Proposition 57 were cited by a commenter as increasing post‑conviction workloads). Several speakers urged that the board prioritize retention and recruitment funding for both the district attorney and public defender offices.

Supervisor Long’s motion asked CCP and JJCC to continue the public‑safety narrative, prepare six‑month updates and return findings to the board; the board approved the request 5‑0. The board did not adopt an immediate funding package on March 25, but several supervisors and public speakers called for budgetary attention to recruitment, retention and workload relief for justice system offices.","Following a countywide public safety discussion, the board voted to ask the Community Corrections Partnership (CCP) and Juvenile Justice Coordinating Council (JJCC) to continue the work and report back in six months; public commenters and county prosecutors urged higher pay and staffing for DA and public defender offices.",{"_33":112,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":113,"_41":114,"_43":115,"_45":116,"_47":117,"_49":118,"_51":119,"_53":120,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":121,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":122,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6057719,"County executive urges opposition to AB 690, saying it would raise public defender costs",83,384000,467000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3300144-c12949c91fca52bf996b31f933966022&start=384&end=467","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3300144-c12949c91fca52bf996b31f933966022/thumbnail_384000.jpg","/articles/6057719/Shasta-County/California/County-executive-urges-opposition-to-AB-690-saying-it-would-raise-public-defender-costs","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6057719-cb271ad67d9d75a00384805b9477d8d4/orig.mp4?Expires=1770848808&Signature=Z1MElQILK16H7LciJtn0H8m2s8hFuO2RKZ2Q2ccJkI5beME8IO85rNIUHoRC1eS5pL8q1MmRz7rkBm5dE-4vmNCNZJQvVeU78nyQiZjkTAPLNvrDQeQ~M-LKHH7wKd~vrmSidWsMcXaYCGACGXcNQ-C3hTTPpy~Xgi7odJaCwj5fI6y5tYgFGNLzY19N20FSBo7QoV0APgJJblVIjOMnpGM7JzXnTpqd1yI2ZixaO-nAmN-GW8K5U28QJNYGn-NEm46pj4PC3bVQnLuJcnQLZ3l2QOOttpn5dnPlDWZMCp6jTta~QJIlh~xF-pVGcE0wPE8XVOIjndzSk2E1mLZ3Pg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Dave Rickert, Shasta County’s chief executive officer, used his regular report to alert the board to Assembly Bill 690 and to request the board oppose the measure. “This bill would make it illegal to enter a flat fee or per case compensation contract for services,” Rickert said.

Rickert told supervisors the bill would require counties to fund a broad range of services through public defender contracts, including support staff, technology, ancillary legal services, immigration support, paralegals, social workers, mitigation specialists, experts and investigators. “This bill would significantly increase the cost of funding the public defender's office without significantly benefiting the mission of the public defender,” he said.

Rickert also said the bill would allow a contractor to seek contract modification if the contract failed to provide those additional services, and that the requirement could push counties into providing services beyond traditional legal defense and into areas where private defense attorneys also operate. He recommended the board consider opposing the measure and said he would bring a formal letter back for the board’s consideration.

No formal board action on AB 690 was recorded in the meeting minutes for March 25; Rickert said he would bring a letter back to the board for consideration.","County Executive Officer Dave Rickert urged the board to oppose Assembly Bill 690, saying the measure would ban flat‑fee or per‑case public defender contracts and require counties to fund many non‑legal support services, increasing local costs.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Shasta supervisors send letters opposing AB 470 and SB 16, support package of election and other bills

Board directs staff to issue RFP for community engagement to shape strategic plan

Shasta County supervisors say housing targets lag; approve staff follow-up and request general‑plan proposal

Supervisors direct CCP and JJCC to continue public‑safety work; public voices concern about staffing for DA and public defenders

County executive urges opposition to AB 690, saying it would raise public defender costs