Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Transportation Infrastructure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Publisher accuses county of failing on SR‑4 Murphy’s median; senator’s office representative disputes account
Summary
During public comment Christopher Butner alleged supervisors were notified years ago about a Caltrans median in Murphy’s and accused the county of obfuscation; a representative speaking for State Senator Marie Alvarado Gill’s office disputed that account and said the town hall showed the senator working with Caltrans to seek removal.
Christopher Butner, publisher of calaveras2026election.com, used a public‑comment slot at the Nov. 4 Board meeting to restate a previously presented, fact‑checked account of the state Route 4 concrete median in Murphy’s. Butner alleged multiple supervisors and staff had been notified in 2024 and earlier about the project and accused county leadership of deflecting blame to Caltrans rather than acknowledging what he called “internal breakdowns” in communication and process.
Butner told the board that notifications were sent by county counsel and the interim public works director in June and September 2024 and pressed supervisors to commit to transparency and an accounting of who knew what and when. He criticized the county’s public stance before a town hall with State Senator Marie Alvarado Gill, saying the county had portrayed itself as a victim rather than owning procedural failures.
A representative from Senator Alvarado Gill’s office spoke during public comment to correct what they described as a misimpression. The representative said the senator’s town hall on Oct. 14 showed her interest in having the median removed, that she has been working directly with Caltrans District 10 leadership and local emergency services, and that Caltrans had led the project and raised evacuation concerns. That speaker said the town‑hall discussion did not support Butner’s characterization that the county deliberately misled the senator.
No formal investigation or motion was recorded during the meeting; the exchange remained a public‑comment confrontation. Board members acknowledged both comments and did not take further action that day.
