Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Infrastructure Funding topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Shasta supervisors approve $1.1M from jail fund for South County EOC/storage; Plummer votes no
Summary
The board approved using $1.1 million from the jail infrastructure fund to complete a South County emergency operations/storage project, with Sheriff Johnson committing to repay roughly $100,000 a year; Supervisor Plummer opposed, citing risk to future corrections campus funding. Vote: 4–1.
The Shasta County Board of Supervisors on Dec. 16 approved a plan to use about $1.1 million from the county's jail infrastructure fund to complete a South County emergency operations and storage project, a move the sheriff says will reduce off‑site lease costs and return money to the fund over time.
Sheriff Johnson told the board the purchase and build‑out will eliminate a roughly $100,000 annual lease payment and that his office will repay the county by redirecting that lease savings into a capital repayment over the next decade. County staff said the contract award is roughly $3.1 million with about 10% contingency, meaning the contingency could be about $300,000.
“I am paying it back,” Johnson said during discussion, describing the transaction as an internal borrowing that would be repaid from department savings and annual budget transfers. County budget staff confirmed repayment would be implemented via annual transfers and by adjusting the sheriff’s general‑fund ask during future budget cycles.
Supervisor Plummer argued the decision sets a precedent for drawing down a fund set aside for jail infrastructure and pressed for a faster repayment schedule — proposing a five‑year payback rather than ten — to avoid constraining resources for the planned corrections and rehabilitation campus. “My concern is that we will start to drain those funds, which are already insufficient,” Plummer said.
Supervisor Long and other board members said the project improves security and saves money compared with the current leased space, which lacks adequate security for stored equipment. Long noted the county has set aside funds for alternative custody and that part of the larger EOC effort was planned to use a mix of ARPA and other one‑time funds.
The board took a roll‑call vote and approved the contract and funding plan 4–1, with Plummer dissenting. The board directed staff to formalize repayment language in budget documents as part of the implementation and to return with any required budget adjustments.
Next steps: staff will finalize the contract and the county’s capital‑fund transfers; the board directed the CAO’s office to reflect the repayment plan in upcoming budgets.
