Shasta Supervisors Pass Resolution In Support Of Carrying Guns In Government Buildings.
Board members also agreed to finalize a recent decision to suspend impact fees and voted to transfer over $4 million in housing funds to the City of Redding, as required by the state agency that granted the funds.
Community members who attended the January 23 Board of Supervisor’s meeting held a variety of signs. Most were related to whether Board Chair, Kevin Crye, should be recalled. Photo by Annelise Pierce.
The county chamber was packed Tuesday, January 23, for a routine board meeting that included impact fees, gun rights and housing funds. Many community members carried signs in the board chambers, most related to the recall of Kevin Crye, which will be on the ballot, March 5.
Board members voted to issue a resolution in opposition to Senate Bill 2 (SB 2), a California law that went into effect on January 1, 2024, and among other things prohibits licensed gun holders from bringing firearms to so-called “sensitive places,” including government buildings, parks, playgrounds, stadiums, arenas, casinos, medical facilities, churches, banks, anywhere liquor is sold, and on public transportation.
The law is opposed by many across the state, because it significantly restricts the rights of Californians to carry legally concealed weapons from place to place during their day. Portions of the “sensitive spaces” aspect of SB 2 have already been halted under a legal injunction that was upheld by the courts on January 6.
But according to reporting from the L.A. Times, Attorney General Rob Bonta’s office has said that restrictions on carrying concealed weapons in schools, courthouses, jails, airports, polling places and government buildings remain in effect.
A section of the staff report included in the board’s agenda in support of the Supervisors resolution opposing SB 2.
Supervisor Patrick Jones told the public and his fellow board members that passing a local resolution would make it legal for Shasta County residents to carry concealed guns in “sensitive spaces” including government buildings, despite SB 2.
That’s a theory that’s unlikely to be looked on favorably by the courts. A county resolution is only a statement of future intent, not a law, according to the California Association of Cities, a nonprofit that provides support to counties across the state. And counties do not have the power to make local laws that contradict those of the state.
A section of the Board’s resolution opposing SB 2.
During discussion on the item, supervisors specifically quibbled over the right to carry guns in government buildings, including the actual board chambers. Supervisor Mary Rickert expressed concern about workplace safety and employee retention and asked whether her fellow supervisors had considered the impact of this decision on county employees and labor contracts.
In response, County Counsel Gretchen Stuhr emphasized that the board’s new resolution opposing SB 2 doesn’t change a current county policy that specifically prohibits county employees from bringing weapons to their workplace.
“This does not put any restrictions on our current policy,” Stuhr said, “which specifically prohibits the county employees from having weapons in their workspaces. That has not changed at this point and will take more work and work with unions to change.”
Jones said he intends to bring that employee workplace violence policy back to the board, saying the county “can’t have a resolution that contradicts a county work policy,” and emphasized to the public that Shasta County Sheriff Michael Johnson has already said he won’t enforce SB 2 within the county.
What Johnson has actually told the public, is that he opposes the new law on constitutional grounds, supports ongoing legal efforts to oppose it, and that he and his department will “use our discretion to not expend our time and our efforts to address such needless and unconstitutional legislation.”
Board Finalizes Suspension of Impact Fees
Crye, Jones and Supervisor Chris Kelstrom also voted to finalize their decision at the last meeting to suspend the county’s developmental impact fees.
In response to concerns from fellow supervisors Tim Garman and Mary Rickert as well as many members of the public, Crye said he stands by his decision to suspend the fees, despite pushback, calling the fees an unjust tax, and a form of socialism. Revenue from the county’s impact fees, Crye continued, is analogous to “stolen bread.” And “eating sandwiches” made from stolen bread, or revenue, Crye continued, is unjustified.
Under California’s Mitigation Fee Act, impact fees must have a reasonable connection to the costs associated with new development, in order to be considered a fee and not a tax. Crye has repeatedly argued that Shasta County’s fees are unreasonably high. He has not been open to Garman and Rickert’s suggestion that the fees should be reduced rather than suspended.
The board’s decision on impact fees suspends their collection indefinitely and will become final in thirty days. The county’s revenue from impact fees has totaled $8.7 million since 2008 and was anticipated to provide revenue of over $700,000 during this fiscal year.
Transfer of State Housing Funds
Board members also agreed to transfer more than $4 million in state housing funds to the City of Redding. The funds were being held by the county on behalf of the NorCal Continuum of Care, a collaboration of seven Northstate counties that applies for and distributes state housing funds.
The board’s decision was prompted by a January 10 letter from the California Interagency Council on Homelessness (Cal ICH) to the the county’s Health and Human Services Agency (HHSA). That letter outlined a series of concerns with how the county had handled the state funds for the CoC, including a lack of adequate reporting on the funds use and ongoing delays in transferring the funds to the NorCal CoC’s new administrative entity, the City of Redding.
In the letter, Cal ICH told the county’s Health and Human Services Agency (HHSA) that they must transfer the funds to Redding by February 9 or face the possible loss of millions more in housing dollars that have been awarded to the county over recent years.
In response to concerns from Supervisor Mary Rickert on whether the funds would be transferred in time to meet the state’s demand, Assistant HHSA Director Christy Coleman spoke briefly to the board, saying that staff were working hard to meet the state’s urgent timeline for transfer of the funds.
“We haven’t been holding up the funds,” Coleman said, indicating that the county had been working hard since August to facilitate a transfer of funds. “We haven’t been holding up the process.”
HHSA received the funds for transfer more than a year ago. The other six NorCal CoC counties’ portion of the funds should have been distributed, not this summer or fall but close to a year ago, shortly after the funds were received from the state. The City of Redding has said it will facilitate a speedy transfer of the funds to the other counties and local nonprofits as soon as the money is received.
Do you have a correction to this story? You can submit it here. Do you have information to share? Email us: editor@shastascout.org
Author
Comments (12)
Comments are closed.
Related Articles
Decision on city financing for the Ironman competition tabled by Redding City Council
The council’s decision followed a tense discussion on financial spending. The item will be brought back into discussion on Feb. 17. An Ironman official says he’s not concerned about the delay.
Shasta man had illicit marijuana grow and underground bunker in addition to illegal weapons, CHP says
A press release from the California Highway Patrol alleges that Michael Kamfort was operating an illegal grow when he was arrested on weapons charges, including manufacturing a “ghost gun,” on Tuesday in Anderson.
Supervisor Kevin Crye responds after arrest of Shasta man on felony gun charges
Community member Michael Kamfolt is facing charges including alleged illegal possession of a machine gun. Crye released a video yesterday referring to him as a friend and saying he had no prior knowledge of the circumstances related to the arrest.
This is exactly the kind of thing that makes me pray one of their wacko, heavily armed, fringe Right, militia member constituents takes up their offer and joins a meeting just to open fire on those who passed this nonsense.
I think we can expect a serious letter from the CA Attorney General Bonta on the so-called resolution to allow open carrying in Shasta County; if not a down right lawsuit being filed by several county employees. I would say that the sheriff needs to think twice about his statement, he is under the control of the CA Atty General as well.
SB 2, the author Senator Portantino and his 20+ co-authors are watching Shasta County as well. Our own Senator Brian Dahle voted against SB2, endangering his constituents. Again, Shasta Co. is in the State of CA and its constitution, not the State of Jefferson and it’s wild-wild west, make believe silliness.
R – 4 is illegal. Not only does the J.C.K. Cartel think Shasta Co. is their personal piggy bank, but they think Shasta Co. is their personal Dogwood T.V. show. Help Mr. Wizard!
Michael Johnson will not enforce any 2A laws coming from the State which, as usual, are 💯 unconstitutional …. Not to mention, Idont think those with concealed Carry permits give one shit about the states obvious unconstitutional laws! Read the Constitution about this!
In the county’s financial records, where have these funds been held all this time? Why was it not distributed to the other counties in a timely manner? Who is the person responsible for distributing the funds? Has any of it been spent by the county for any purpose?
Thanks for your questions. It’s been very difficult to obtain information about these funds. Shasta Scout requested information many months ago and was told it would cost us thousands of dollars to receive them. We worked with the First Amendment Coalition to file a legal demand which is still in process. It’s unclear why the funds were not distributed in a timely manner. Health and Human Services Director Laura Burch was responsible for distributing the funds. We do not know whether the county had spent any of the funds for purposes not allowed by the grant because we’ve been unable to receive clear reporting on the money via records request. The state had the same problem. See our full coverage here. https://shastascout.org/state-agency-warns-shasta-county/
I don’t know of any county employee who is going to feel comfortable knowing that we are sitting ducks if the public is allowed to carry guns nor will they feel comfortable knowing coworkers are carrying guns. It would be so nice if this BOS had common sense but we all know that’s not going to happen. Why hasn’t anyone contacted the state demanding an audit of the housing funds? I’m sure the State would find a lot of answers and not all of them would be legal.
A couple of quick points –
1. loosening the gun restriction would mean that employees working in a government building could not carry firearms but disgruntled folks coming to “complain” would be free to do so. That sounds like the Supervisors just put a lot of folks at risk for no good reason.
2. Having a fee for new development which reflects the added costs of such development is the exact opposite of socialism – spreading such a cost as the Board just voted to do is called “socializing the cost” for that reason.
3. Why is there any reason to “work hard” to transfer funds that were received over a year ago and were supposed to have been transferred at that time? No, don’t tell me – the county actually spent funds that were not theirs. But that should not be a problem for a County that just voted not to collect $700,000 of funds needed for its own expansion of infrastructure. The County must be flush with cash – or something else – to have such glaring inconsistencies made public.
Stephen, with regards to your third point, it’s not as simple as just writing a check or taking a vote.
Can you help us understand what makes this process complicated? Transferring funds to sub recipients is a routine part of county business.
Agree! If it takes that long to write a simple check or authorize an interbank transfer, we need to investigate. She says they have been trying since August? Are they required to get Patrick Jones to sign off (even though he is no longer BOS chair? Weird!!
Scott, I’m sure that there are certainly protocols that need to be followed. But do you know what they are? Or are you just assuming that because it’s the County one should expect complexity and long delays in getting things done? Don’t we want government that is responsive and builds trust?
So, since you raise the issue that it’s a necessary delay, can you provide (or point us to) the financial guidelines the County is following to ensure the integrity of the funds it received. Can you point out the steps that are difficult (and time consuming) to implement in order to transfer the funds and explain why? I’m sure the Scout would love to be able to report that the County is doing a great job.
But even before going there, can you tell me why, when the County determined that it was not going to continue to be the CoC, that the County did not, at that time, place all funds given to the County to distribute to others, in its role as the CoC, into an escrow account to be handed over to the new CoC? (Actually, I believe the County would have been better served to have placed funds it received for others immediately into an escrow, if it determined that it was not appropriate to distribute them to the intended recipients soon after receiving them. [Which of course raises yet another unanswered question as to who withheld the funds from immediate distribution to the grant recipients in the first place, and why.] I don’t believe that’s asking too much in the way of fiduciary responsibilities for handling grants.
Perhaps, if the County’s financial processes were more transparent to the public it serves and included measures to ensure no comingling of grants funds for other purposes, then both the length of time to make the transfer and the ability of the County to demonstrate it is acting properly would be easy to do. And the Scout reporting would be commending them as being accountable to the citizens they serve (as well as those who entrusted them funds)!
It’s really that simple.