Thumbnail photo by Paul Critz
Among the items discussed at Tuesday’s Del Norte County Board of Supervisors meeting:
• Secure Rural Schools: Supervisors reaffirmed their support for a century-old program that brought nearly $1.4 million to Del Norte County in 2023.
Acting on information from District 1 Supervisor Darrin Short, the Board authorized a support letter for the Secure Rural Schools Act to U.S. senators Adam Schiff and Alex Padilla and Congressman Jared Huffman.
Short told his colleagues that he had heard that House Speaker Mike Johnson wanted to bring the SRS reauthorization legislation “to the floor” of Congress. He said he hopes to see action on that potential reauthorization.
“SRS is a reimbursement for public lands that are held by the federal government in our community,” he said. “It is a promise, but it is something that has to be approved regularly.”
Short and his colleagues, especially District 3 Supervisor Chris Howard, have been lobbying hard for the Secure Rural Schools program though Congress didn’t include it in the budget it approved in March.
After Tuesday’s meeting, Short told Redwood Voice Community News that the information he shared regarding the House Speaker’s potential desire to rehash Secure Rural Schools came from a legislative conference held by the California State Association of Counties in Sacramento last month. He said he was “completely running off that piece of information.”
Del Norte received about $1.4 million in SRS dollars in 2023, according to the Board’s letter. About half goes toward the county’s roads division and the other half is allocated to Del Norte County Unified School District.
Another pot of SRS funding is used for projects on federal lands pertaining to land-use planning, wildfire resiliency efforts, search and rescue operations and emergency response. This funding is indispensable, the Board of Supervisors said in its letter, pointing out that nearly 80 percent of Del Norte County land is managed by either the U.S. Forest Service or the National Park Service.
“The Secure Rural Schools program is not a handout; it is a matter of federal equity and justice, reflecting a bipartisan recognition that counties like Del Norte were asked to give up local control of vast resources in return for the promise of ongoing federal support,” the Board’s letter states. “That promise must be honored.”
In April, after Congress didn’t reauthorize the SRS program, Del Norte County Unified School District Superintendent Jeff Harris urged residents to let their elected representatives know where they stand on that program. But he told Redwood Voice that the district had learned not to count on that money for operational expenses.
• Stepping Along the Salary Schedule: Supervisors allowed department heads to hire two child support specialists, a housing case worker and a veterans service representative at a more advanced step in the salary schedule than is usual.
This decision enables the Director of Child Support Services to hire one child support specialist — an individual who has a Bachelor’s degree in a “public-policy related field” — at Step C instead of Step A and a second child support specialist who comes with years of experience at Step B instead of Step A.
Health and Human Services Director Ranell Brown will also be able to hire a housing case worker at Step C instead of Step A. And the County Administrative Officer can hire a new veterans service representative at Step C rather than Step A.
On Tuesday, Del Norte County Employees Association SEIU 1021 President Norma Williams took issue with the Board’s decision to hire at a greater step in the salary schedule than Step A.
“It goes to show and prove, once again, that you are still not competitive when it comes to hiring,” she said. “That’s the reason why department heads are having to put [the item] on the consent agenda.”
Williams had raised concerns about previous decisions from the Board to allow department heads to hire at a greater step on the salary schedule than Step A. On Tuesday, she pointed out that despite negotiating a wage increase with the union recently, the Board’s similar action shows that the wages the county is offering aren’t competitive enough.
“Determine for yourselves what is it that you want to offer people who apply here, a job or a career?” she said. If it’s a job, you’re going to have that revolving door constantly and items on the consent agenda are going to constantly be there.”
County departments are also going to continue to have trouble recruiting employees if the county’s salaries aren’t competitive enough, Williams said.
Supervisors on Tuesday also allowed County Counsel Jacqueline Roberts to progress in the salary schedule, going from A-1 Step E, or $6,124.65 biweekly, to A-1 Step F, or $6,430.88 biweekly.
• Maintenance Contract With City: District 2 Supervisor Valerie Starkey voted with her colleagues to approve a $75,000 invoice to Crescent City for maintaining its wastewater system within County Service Area No. 1.
But she urged County Engineer Jonathan Olson and other staff to work on an updated contract with the city, pointing out that a nearly 45-year-old agreement between the two agencies had expired back in 2019.
“My concern is we should never be working out of contract,” Starkey said. “It puts liability on the city and it puts liability on us.”
The county’s agreement with the city to maintain its wastewater system within the Bertsch-Oceanview area and Northcrest area outside city limits dates back to 1980. The agreement’s terms are tied to the indebtedness the CSA incurred due to a bond sale used to construct the wastewater collection system. Those bonds were paid in full on Jan. 1, 2017 for the Bertsch-Oceanview area and on July 2, 2018 for the Northcrest area.
In October 2024, the auditor’s office notified county staff that the CSA’s agreement with Crescent City had expired while processing a $11,340 invoice for services rendered in fiscal year 2023-24. County staff began discussing the terms of a new agreement with Crescent City staff at that time.
Since then, two more invoices were received totaling roughly $33,877. As a result, since the county administrative manual sets a $20,000 limit on one-time purchases, the Board of Supervisors had to approve the $33,877 purchase order to cover those invoices.
According to Olson’s staff report, the request to the Board for a new $75,000 purchase order is due to the delay in getting a new contract in place.
Starkey on Tuesday called on Olson and other department directors to have a system in place for tracking when contracts are on the verge of expiring.
“It’s not as if the city has not been doing the work and we’re still paying them,” she said. “The city is doing the work and invoices are coming in and they’re detailed. We’re paying for a good service, but I want to make it clear that we should always work under contract.”
