Skip to main content
File #: 25-1088    Version: 1 Name:
Type: Action Item Status: Agenda Ready
File created: 10/31/2025 In control: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
On agenda: 11/4/2025 Final action:
Title: Consideration of Funding Request for $50,000 Under BU 1892 Pursuant to Board Direction on September 23, 2025
Sponsors: Administrative Office, County Counsel
Date Ver.Action ByActionResultAction DetailsMeeting DetailsVideo
No records to display.
Memorandum


Date: November 4, 2025

To: The Honorable Lake County Board of Supervisors

From: Susan Parker, County Administrative Officer
Lloyd C. Guintivano, County Counsel

Subject: Consideration of Funding Request for $50,000 Under BU 1892 Pursuant to Board Direction on September 23, 2025

Executive Summary:

On September 23, 2025, your Board was informed of a funding request in the amount of $50,000 for One Team One Dream. Your Board then pulled this budget item for discussion regarding the County of Lake's budget for Fiscal Year 2025/2026 pending further review from staff on whether approval of this funding is a gift of public funds in violation of the California Constitution.

Cal. Const., art. XVI, ? 6 states that the "Legislature shall have no power to give or to lend, or to authorize the giving or lending, of the credit of the State, or of any county, city and county, city, township or other political corporation or subdivision of the State now existing, or that may be hereafter established, in aid of or to any person, association, or corporation, whether municipal or otherwise, or to pledge the credit thereof, in any manner whatever, for the payment of the liabilities of any individual, association, municipal or other corporation whatever; nor shall it have power to make any gift or authorize the making of any gift, of any public money or thing of value to any individual, municipal or other corporation whatever."

However, expenditures or disbursements made for a "public purpose" are not considered a gift of public funds. County of Alameda v. Janssen (1940) 16 Cal 2d 276, 281; Redevelopment Agency of San Pablo v. Shepard (1977, Cal App 1st Dist) 75 Cal. App 3d 453; Schettler v. County of Santa Clara (1977, Cal App 1st Dist) 74 Cal App 3d 990. The public purpose exception is liberally construed, and a "[d]etermination of public purpose is primarily a matter for the Legislature and will not be disturbed as long as it has a re...

Click here for full text