Shasta County Board to Weigh $1.9 Million in Opioid Funds for Youth Behavioral Health Campus, Appoint Vaccine Skeptic to Public Health Board

The Shasta County Board of Supervisors meets Tuesday for its regular session, with a packed agenda that includes a $1.92 million opioid settlement funding request for a youth behavioral health campus in Anderson, a controversial board appointment to the county's Public Health Advisory Board, a public hearing on a contested solar energy project in the Battle Creek area, and a new round of appointments to the Assessment Appeals Board.

The opioid funds item is sponsored by Board Chairman Kevin Crye — the same supervisor who led the 3-2 vote in October 2025 to block the county's letter of support for the True North Behavioral Health Campus, a $206 million project that was subsequently rejected by the state. The behavioral health campus now before the board is a separate project operated by the Family Dynamics Resource Center, which secured $24.7 million in state Behavioral Health Continuum Infrastructure Program funding in March 2026 and is now seeking county opioid dollars as required matching funds.

Here is a look at the major items on the agenda.

OPIOID SETTLEMENT FUNDS FOR PATHWAYS TO LEADERSHIP CAMPUS (R3)

The single largest financial decision before the board Tuesday is Item R3, which asks supervisors to commit up to $1,920,506 from the county's opioid litigation settlement funds to serve as matching money for the Family Dynamics Resource Center's Pathways to Leadership Campus Expansion project in Anderson.

The Family Dynamics Resource Center, a nonprofit behavioral health organization, was conditionally awarded $24.7 million in state Behavioral Health Continuum Infrastructure Program (BHCIP) Round 2 funding through the California Department of Health Care Services. The project would create an integrated behavioral health campus designed to stabilize youth in crisis while building pathways toward recovery and independence, providing four levels of care including residential stabilization, intensive outpatient services, and transitional programming for young people experiencing mental health and substance use challenges.

To draw down the state BHCIP funds, the organization must secure $2,470,506 in matching contributions. According to the staff report, Family Dynamics had originally identified other funds to serve as the full match, but the value assigned to a donated property came in lower than anticipated — accounting for only $550,000 of the required match. The organization is also pursuing contributions from other entities, and the staff report notes that any additional match secured would reduce the amount ultimately required from the county.

There is a critical condition attached to the county's participation: before any county funds can be released, the Anderson City Council must approve the project by a favorable majority vote, as the campus will be built within Anderson city limits.

The item requires a 4/5 vote and carries no general fund impact — all funds would come from the county's opioid litigation settlement account, which holds just over $14 million and is projected to receive an additional $24.2 million in annual installments through fiscal year 2038-39.

The item is sponsored by Supervisor Crye, who represents District 1. The contrast with the True North episode is notable and recent. On March 12 — just 12 days before Tuesday's meeting — the California Department of Health Care Services announced that the True North Behavioral Health Campus, a $216 million project spearheaded by the nonprofit Arch Collaborative and Signature Healthcare Services, had been denied state BHCIP Round 2 funding. Reporting by Shasta Scout attributed the denial in part to a late push by Crye and HHSA Director Christy Coleman, who led the 3-2 board vote to send a letter of opposition to the project just before the state application deadline. True North would have required no county funding.

Public records obtained through the California Public Records Act shed additional light on how that opposition developed. On Oct. 21, 2025 — three days before the BOS vote — Coleman emailed County Executive Officer David Rickert and Supervisor Crye directly, attaching a corrective action notice from Orange County related to a behavioral health facility operated by Signature Healthcare, the company backing True North. The email warned that Orange County had moved to remove Signature's LPS designation after documented deficiencies. Rickert replied the same day, praising Coleman for "demonstrating why it is critical that we thoroughly vet organizations looking to partner with Shasta County." The email was not sent to the full board. Three days later, Crye led the 3-2 vote to oppose True North.

What followed complicates the narrative further. On Nov. 26, 2025 — approximately five weeks after the vote — Coleman issued a public press release reversing her position. In it, she stated that her Oct. 24 presentation opposing True North "reflected only partial information" and that, having received additional details, she was now "confident this project aligns with the best interests of Shasta County." That reversal came too late to change the course of the state application, and the project was denied funding in March 2026.

Family Dynamics, by contrast, did succeed in BHCIP Round 2 — securing $24.7 million from the same program — and is now asking the county to contribute $1.92 million in opioid settlement dollars as required matching funds, with the item brought forward by Crye himself. The records do not show any similar opposition research circulated against Family Dynamics before Tuesday's vote.

The board meeting includes a presentation from Family Dynamics Resource Center before any vote is taken.

AUTHUR GORMAN APPOINTMENT TO PUBLIC HEALTH ADVISORY BOARD (C1)

On the consent calendar, but far from routine, is Item C1, which would appoint Authur Gorman to the Shasta County Public Health Advisory Board as the District 3 representative, serving the remainder of a three-year term through March 31, 2028.

Gorman is a registered nurse and Shasta County Office of Education board member elected in November 2022 to Trustee Area 2. He serves as Treasurer of the Shasta County chapter of Moms for Liberty and is a member of the Shasta County Republican Central Committee — a body that, as of March 2026, includes allies of multiple current county officials and has endorsed Crye, Supervisor Chris Kelstrom, and Registrar of Voters Clint Curtis in the upcoming June primary. He has been one of the most prominent anti-vaccine mandate voices in Shasta County, helping lead a school walkout in 2021 against COVID-19 vaccine requirements for health care workers and students. During the 2022 campaign, he ran on a platform emphasizing parental rights and opposition to vaccine mandates.

His tenure on the county Board of Education has not been without controversy. In 2023, Gorman faced a formal censure proceeding before the Shasta County Office of Education board after posting a meme on social media that was described by a transgender parent as having transphobic content. The board ultimately declined to censure him.

The Public Health Advisory Board advises the county's Health and Human Services Agency on public health policy, programs, and priorities. Appointing a vocal vaccine skeptic to that body is likely to raise questions from public health advocates and health care professionals in the county, particularly given that Shasta County has historically struggled with below-average childhood vaccination rates and has seen public health officials previously push back against misinformation campaigns. The item is placed on the consent calendar and would normally be approved without separate discussion unless a board member or member of the public requests it be pulled.

SOLAR PROJECT HEARING: BATTLE CREEK ALLIANCE APPEAL (R5)

The board will conduct a public hearing on Item R5, a contested appeal of a Planning Commission decision to approve a private solar energy facility in the Battle Creek area.

The project, known as RCPA Solar 14, LLC, seeks a use permit to construct, operate, and maintain a 3-megawatt solar energy production facility on approximately 25 acres — roughly 7 percent of a 376-acre parcel — on Battle Creek Bottom Road. The Planning Commission approved the use permit and adopted a Mitigated Negative Declaration under the California Environmental Quality Act earlier this year.

The Battle Creek Alliance, along with other appellants, filed an appeal challenging the Planning Commission's decision. The board is being asked to deny the appeal, affirm the CEQA determination, and affirm the commission's findings and approval of the use permit. The item carries no general fund impact and requires only a simple majority vote, but public hearings on contested land use decisions typically draw comments from neighboring landowners, environmental groups, and project supporters alike.

ASSESSMENT APPEALS BOARD APPOINTMENTS (R4)

Item R4 asks the board to fill two vacancies on the Assessment Appeals Board — the body that hears property tax assessment disputes from county residents — and appoint four alternates.

Six applicants are under consideration: Josh Barker, Josh Divine, Nick Kerley, Ken Miller, Ken Murray, and Kurt Swanson. The board will hear a presentation on the AAB's role and responsibilities before making the appointments. Two of the six applicants will be seated as full members, with one filling the remainder of a term through September 7, 2026, and the other serving through September 4, 2028. The remaining four applicants would be appointed as alternates on similar staggered terms.

CONSENT CALENDAR HIGHLIGHTS

The consent calendar includes 16 items expected to be routine. Several are worth noting.

C3 — Housing disaster recovery funds: The board would approve a budget amendment increasing appropriations and revenue by $3,760,457 in the CDBG Administration and Rehabilitation budget for a Community Development Block Grant-Disaster Recovery Multifamily Housing Program funding agreement. No general fund impact.

C4 — Faithworks permanent housing: Supervisors would ratify a retroactive agreement with Faithworks Community Coalition, Inc. for the development and construction of a 14-unit permanent housing complex in an amount not to exceed $1,000,000, funded by restricted HHAP (Homeless Housing, Assistance, and Prevention) fund balance. No general fund impact.

C6 — CDBG application authority: The board would authorize the HHSA director to sign and submit a Community Development Block Grant application in the amount of $3,600,000 to the California Department of Housing and Community Development, along with any related award agreements.

C9 — Agricultural office remodel: The board would award a construction contract to Gifford Construction, Inc. for the Agricultural Office Remodel and Building Addition at 1265 Redwood Blvd, in the amount of $1,960,000. The project carries a general fund impact and requires a 4/5 vote for the associated budget amendments.

C11 — EV charging stations ordinance: The board would enact a previously introduced ordinance adding a new chapter to the Shasta County Code governing permitting for electric vehicle charging stations, as required under California state law.

C12 — DEA marijuana investigation agreement: The board would ratify a revenue agreement with the Drug Enforcement Administration for the Sheriff's Office Marijuana Investigation Team and authorize the Sheriff to sign related documents and amendments.

C16 — Personnel travel rules: The board would adopt a resolution amending Chapter 20 of the Shasta County Personnel Rules governing travel and other expenses charged to the county.

CLOSED SESSION

The board will recess to closed session for approximately 50 minutes to discuss three active litigation matters under Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(1).

The cases are: River Ranch Neighborhood Association v. City of Redding et al., Shasta County Superior Court, Case No. 210023; Fredrick James Phillips and Heather Lunn Phillips v. County of Shasta, Shasta County Superior Court, Case No. 25CV-0208680; and Christopher Leeper v. County of Shasta et al., United States Eastern District of California, Case No. 2:25-CV-WBS-DMC. Any reportable action from the closed session will be disclosed in open session at the conclusion of the meeting.

And that's the agenda preview.