Agenda Preview 5-27-2025 Board of Supervisors Meeting (Article Edition)

This week, I wanted to try something a little different, there’s a lot happening, and I needed the time to tackle everything I wanted to cover. So instead of the usual video, here’s a written version of the Shasta County Board of Supervisors agenda preview for the May 27, 2025 meeting.

The agenda includes a presentation on a proposed medical school, new strategic planning efforts, and a vote to repeal the county’s Elections Commission. The consent calendar features a pair of legislative letters, one supporting a fire safety bill, the other opposing a housing transparency measure, along with over $4 million in opioid settlement funding for youth programs.

Note: This board meeting will take place at 4488 Red Bluff Street in Shasta Lake, starting at 9:00 am.

R1 – Employee of the Month Recognition

The Board will begin by recognizing Patricia “Patti” Divine, a Senior Social Worker with the Health and Human Services Agency, as Shasta County’s Employee of the Month for May 2025.

R2 – CEO Update and Legislative Discussion

Next, County Executive Officer David Rickert will provide an update on countywide issues. The Board will also consider actions related to state and federal legislation aligned with Shasta County’s legislative platform. No vote is scheduled, but this section typically includes supervisor reports and general updates.

R3 – Medical School and Residency Proposal

Supervisors Crye and Plummer are sponsoring a presentation by Chriss Street on the feasibility of establishing a medical school and residency program in Shasta County. The Board may provide direction to staff following the presentation.

Chriss Street has no formal experience in healthcare development or medical education. His prior public finance record includes a $7 million federal court judgment for breach of fiduciary duty, and he currently serves as Vice President of the New California secession movement.

In February, the County awarded him a $40,000 consulting contract without a competitive bidding process. That decision, and Street’s growing influence in shaping county policy, was the focus of Episode 38 of The North State Breakdown, which explored his financial history, political affiliations, and the implications of bringing figures like Street into public roles with little accountability.

Although the Board will enter closed session to discuss multiple legal matters, none appear to directly involve Street. Still, his role as a public advisor remains a source of scrutiny and concern.

Whether this medical school proposal turns into a meaningful investment or simply offers another stage for Street’s political platform remains an open question.

Consent Calendar

• C1: Approves $4 million in contracts for youth substance use prevention services, funded through the opioid settlement.

  
  

• C2: Updates the list of county officials authorized to sign disaster assistance documents with CalOES and FEMA.

  
  

• C3: Renews a lease agreement for office space at 1313 Yuba Street in Redding.

  
  

• C4: Transfers $825,000 from reserves to the Miscellaneous General Budget to support unspecified needs.

Technology and Fiscal Systems:

• C5: Approves software service agreement for the Assessor-Recorder’s office with Megabyte Property Tax Systems.

  
  

• C6: Renews a software subscription for lease and subscription-based asset reporting used by the Auditor-Controller.

Legislative Position Letters:

C7 – Legislative Position Letters: AB 303 and SB 681

The Board will approve two letters, one in support and one in opposition, as part of its legislative advocacy:

• Support for AB 303, the Battery Energy Safety & Accountability Act.

  This bill seeks to improve fire safety and transparency in battery energy storage systems, especially those placed near residential or wildfire-prone areas. It includes requirements for risk assessments and emergency protocols.

  
  

• Opposition to SB 681, a housing regulation bill.

  SB 681 aims to increase fee transparency in rental housing by restricting landlords from charging separate, itemized fees for services like air conditioning, wastewater, and trash. Instead, it encourages landlords to bundle these costs into the rent to avoid misleading advertising or “hidden” charges after a tenant moves in.

  
  

The letter of opposition drafted by the Board frames SB 681 as a bill that would force landlords to be less transparent, claiming it would require them to “bury” costs inside base rent. However, this framing is misleading.

The actual purpose of SB 681 is to prevent landlords from advertising deceptively low rents while tacking on unavoidable “fees” once a lease is signed. By standardizing what must be included in advertised rent, the bill helps renters compare housing options fairly and protects against bait-and-switch pricing models.

The claim that SB 681 reduces transparency appears disingenuous. In fact, the bill enhances transparency for tenants, especially low-income residents, by ensuring total monthly housing costs are presented upfront.

 Health and Human Services:

• C8 & C9: Approves mental health services contracts, including one with UC Davis for psychological evaluations.

  
  

• C10: Declares June 2025 as “Elder Abuse Awareness Month” in Shasta County.

Infrastructure and Emergency Services:

• C11–C15: Includes engineering services, emergency generator purchases, water and sewer infrastructure funding, and emergency repairs to the Breslauer Campus sewer line.

  
  

• C16: Updates the County’s fleet policy, including telematics provisions.

  
  

• C17: Awards a $583,000 contract to Iron Mountain General Engineering for septage cleanout services.

  
  

Sheriff’s Office and Jail Programs:

• C18: Renews an agreement with the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation for inmate fire camp training.

• C19: Authorizes purchases to support behavioral treatment and incentives within the Jail-Based Competency Treatment program.

Regular Calendar, Continued

R4 – Ordinance to Repeal the Elections Commission

The Board will consider repealing Chapter 2.07 of the Shasta County Code, which would formally dissolve the Elections Commission. Established in late 2023, the commission was intended to serve as a citizen oversight body for election-related matters, with each Supervisor nominating one commissioner.

In practice, however, the commission struggled to operate effectively. Several of its recommendations, including attempts to change ballot design and mandate voter ID, were determined to be outside the scope of county authority under California law. Meetings were suspended in early 2025, and the commission has sat idle since then, with three of the five seats currently vacant.

Curtis, who was recently appointed to oversee elections, has been embraced by many of the same political groups that once demanded aggressive reforms, including hand counts, voter roll purges, and the elimination of electronic machines.

In that context, the repeal may reflect a broader political calculus. If Curtis is seen as the embodiment of the reform movement’s goals, the county may view the Elections Commission as a now-redundant watchdog, one that could generate conflict or legal exposure without delivering tangible value. The move could be framed as both a cost-saving measure and a shift toward centralized control under a Registrar widely accepted by the same activists who previously demanded outside oversight.

Still, for some, the commission’s repeal signals a narrowing of public input and another step in consolidating power under a board majority that has already redrawn the boundaries of local election policy.

I’ll miss the action live, I’ll be at the Shasta County Courthouse covering the ongoing case filed by Laura Hobbs, a former District 2 candidate who, alongside fellow plaintiff Dan Ladd, is alleging multiple violations by the Shasta County Elections Office during the November 2024 election. The case includes claims of illegal procedures, violations of public observation laws, and potential election security issues. Though the case has experienced delays, including one due to flooding at the courthouse, it is now moving forward, and its proceedings may carry broader implications for election practices and transparency in the county.

R5 – Presentation on Alcohol and Other Drug Services

The Board will receive a presentation from the Shasta County Health Officer outlining current alcohol and drug treatment services in the county. The presentation is expected to include funding sources, program utilization rates, and legislative impacts on service delivery. While no action is scheduled, the item may help inform future decisions related to behavioral health policy, opioid settlement allocations, or grant applications.

R6 – Strategic Planning: Community Engagement and Opinion Research

The County Administrative Office is asking the Board to approve a Request for Proposals (RFP) to solicit a contractor for community engagement and public opinion research. The goal is to gather resident input to help shape a countywide strategic plan. If approved, this item would begin the formal process of developing a long-term vision for Shasta County services, priorities, and budget alignment. The RFP is expected to include surveys, town halls, or interviews to ensure broad public participation.

R7 – Legal Secretary Job Class Proposal

The District Attorney’s Office is requesting the creation of alternately staffed Legal Secretary I/II classifications. This change would allow the department more flexibility in hiring and promotions by enabling the use of a tiered structure based on qualifications and experience. This type of staffing model is commonly used in government offices to retain institutional knowledge while offering advancement opportunities.

R8 – Jail Healthcare Presentation by WellPath

Supervisor Crye is sponsoring a presentation from WellPath, the private healthcare provider contracted to deliver inmate medical services in the Shasta County Jail. The presentation may include performance metrics, service updates, and patient outcomes. Given recent public concern over the quality of jail healthcare statewide, this item could serve as a public accountability moment for the contractor, though no vote is scheduled.

R9 – Opioid Trends Report from the Shasta Substance Use Coalition

Supervisor Plummer is sponsoring a presentation from the Shasta Substance Use Coalition focusing on opioid overdose trends in Shasta County. The coalition is expected to present current data, including mortality rates, treatment access, and prevention efforts. This presentation coincides with growing concern statewide over fentanyl and synthetic opioid deaths and could influence future discussions on resource allocation and harm reduction strategies.

R10 – Public Hearing: Vacation of Easement on Tamarack Avenue

The Board will conduct a public hearing to consider vacating a public easement located on a portion of Tamarack Avenue in the Burney area. Staff has determined that the easement is not necessary for current or future public use. If approved, the resolution would formally abandon the easement for road and utility purposes while preserving rights for any existing utilities. This action is a common part of property management when older easements are no longer relevant to infrastructure needs.

R11 – Public Hearing: Vacation of Relinquished Access Rights on Bear Mountain Road

A second public hearing will consider whether previously relinquished access rights along Bear Mountain Road (County Road No. 5H04) are still needed. Staff recommends vacating these rights as no longer necessary for public use. Like R10, this is a technical land use matter, intended to resolve outdated legal encumbrances on private property while ensuring utility and public access concerns are addressed.

R12 – Closed Session: Existing Litigation

The Board will recess to a closed session to discuss three ongoing lawsuits involving the County. These include:

• Rood v. Lockwood, et al. – A federal civil rights case.

• Littlefield, et al. v. County of Shasta – Recently filed litigation in federal court.

• Gorder v. David J. Rickert, County of Shasta, et al. – A local civil case filed in Shasta County Superior Court.

  
  

These meetings shape the future of public services, elections, land use, and transparency in Shasta County. Whether you support or question the direction of the Board, your voice matters. You can attend in person, submit written comments, or email the Board directly at ShastaCountyBOS@ShastaCounty.gov.

Make time to show up, because decisions are being made either way.

And that’s the Agenda Preview.