Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Avenal Litigation Fire Protection topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents and county fire marshal press board as supervisors move into closed session on Avenal litigation
Summary
At a special Kings County Board of Supervisors meeting, residents urged support for Kings County Fire and denied official endorsements of a recall in Avenal; the county fire marshal asked the board for clear enforcement direction before the board convened closed session on anticipated litigation (City of Avenal v. County of Kings).
At a special meeting called in 2026, the Kings County Board of Supervisors moved into closed session to confer with legal counsel about anticipated litigation in City of Avenal v. County of Kings, a matter counsel said falls under Government Code section 54956.9. Before entering closed session, several residents and the Kings County fire marshal addressed the board.
Ginger Wallace, a resident of Avenal, said she has been working with neighbors on a recall effort but emphasized that "at no time has anybody from the board of supervisors, Richard Valle, or anybody from Kings County Fire or their families endorsed our recall." Wallace urged the board to ensure continued professional fire protection for Avenal residents.
Veronica Gary, who said she has lived in Avenal for more than 55 years, thanked the board for its efforts and appealed to supervisors to "remember there's 13,000 people that do respect and value Kings County Fire and the years and years of service they have given our community." Gary said she regretted disrespect shown to the new fire chief at earlier meetings and asked the board to seek a constructive resolution.
John Wilson, who identified himself as the Kings County fire marshal and said he is in his second month on the job, told the board his "number one goal is safety." Wilson said he has taken over a building-safety project inherited from the city and described himself as the boots on the ground ensuring structures are safe before occupancy. He asked the board for explicit direction on enforcement: if the county determines a building is unsafe but it is still used, "what am I supposed to do?" He requested clarity on when and how enforcement should occur.
County counsel informed the board there was a single closed-session item: conference with legal counsel regarding significant exposure to litigation, listing one case by name. The chair said counsel did not anticipate a report out of closed session that evening, and the board then adjourned to closed session.
No formal motions, votes, or public decisions were recorded in the open meeting. The closed session concerns litigation and is exempt from public discussion; the public comments focused on community support for the county fire department and a request by the fire marshal for direction on enforcement of life-safety findings.
