Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the State Legislation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Shasta supervisors send letters opposing AB 470 and SB 16, support package of election and other bills
Summary
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.
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.
