Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the County Budget topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board approves budget amendments but defers $450,000 for pending litigation briefing
Summary
The board approved a series of budget amendments at its Jan. 14 meeting while deferring a $450,000 forward legal-authority allocation tied to two lawsuits. Supervisor Long requested a closed-session briefing for new supervisors before the board votes on the additional funds.
Get email alerts on the County Budget topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Shasta County Board of Supervisors approved a package of budget amendments on Jan. 14 that included covering prior legal invoices and other departmental adjustments, but the board deferred authority to allocate an additional approximately $450,000 for projected future legal costs related to two ongoing lawsuits until after a closed-session briefing for the full board.
Supervisor Long pulled the consent item for discussion and said the item included past legal expenses already incurred (about $550,000 referenced for prior work) and a projected additional $450,000 for future litigation costs tied to two lawsuits: litigation involving the Fountain Wind project and a separate matter brought by the California Land Stewardship Council. Long said the board’s three newly elected supervisors had not yet received a briefing on those cases and asked for a closed-session update before authorizing the additional funds. Amber Taine, deputy county executive officer, told the board the $450,000 had not yet been incurred and that delaying approval would not prevent the county from meeting existing obligations while the board reviewed the cases.
The board approved the remainder of the budget amendments with the $450,000 held back for follow-up. Supervisors agreed to schedule a closed-session briefing on the lawsuits at the Jan. 28 meeting and to bring the $450,000 appropriation back for potential approval on a subsequent agenda (discussed for the Feb. 4 meeting). The board’s final vote on the consent calendar (with the exception) was recorded as unanimous.
Public commenters addressed the litigation and urged transparency; supervisors said they wanted more information before committing additional funds.
