Shasta County board sends letters on election, telecoms and housing bills; package passes 5–0

The Shasta County Board of Supervisors voted unanimously March 25 to send a package of letters to state lawmakers expressing opposition to two bills and support for several others, citing potential costs and operational impacts on county services.

The board directed staff to send letters of opposition to Assembly Bill 470 (corrected agenda version AB 4 70) and Senate Bill 16. Chief Deputy Clerk Stephanie Blankenship said the AB 4 70 letter had been reprinted after an agenda‑management system error and made available to the public. Blankenship also described SB 16 as an “intent bill” that, in its current form, could require counties to cover 50% of certain city housing project costs.

Supervisor Alan Long, who led discussion of the election‑related package, warned some election bills could impose staffing and timeline demands on the Registrar of Voters. He said two potential changes — forcing ballots to be received by election day and shortening certification from 30 to 10 days — could require “50 more personnel” and new space to handle election processing, citing input from the assistant ROV. Long added that postcards to update voter rolls could cost roughly $100,000 to mail, and that the state’s reimbursement for mandated claims has lagged in past years.

After public comment from residents and election stakeholders, Supervisor Kallstrom moved to approve the package. The board’s roll‑call vote adopted letters of opposition for AB 470 and SB 16 and letters of support for SB 405–408 (election measures to restore local control and tighten rolls), SB 496 (state fleet/emissions flexibility) and for the proposed corrections and rehabilitation campus to expand the county’s alternative custody program. The motion passed 5–0.

Board members stressed the board’s concern that some state proposals are unfunded mandates. Supervisor Plummer said it would benefit the county to include language in letters noting the local fiscal consequences of these bills and “ask that funding come along with the mandates.”

What happens next: the letters will be transmitted to the specified state legislators and agencies. The board did not adopt local changes or enact policy; the action records only the county’s formal positions to state lawmakers.

Vote at a glance: package approved by roll call, 5–0.

Speakers quoted: “This letter also was, as I announced earlier, corrected,” Blankenship said of AB 4 70; Supervisor Long said some measures could force the county to hire dozens of people and incur large postage costs for voter‑roll updates.

The board moved immediately to other agenda items after the vote.