Agenda Preview 6-23-2025 Board of Supervisors Meeting (Article Edition)

The Shasta County Board of Supervisors will meet on Tuesday, June 24, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. at the County Administration Center at 1450 court street. The agenda includes the adoption of the final county budget for fiscal year 2025–26, multiple high-dollar behavioral health contracts, and continued legal negotiations behind closed doors.

R1: CEO and Supervisor Reports

The meeting will begin with updates from County Executive Officer David Rickert and each supervisor. These reports often include legislative updates, department news, and constituent concerns. While no formal vote is scheduled, the content of these remarks can help forecast the direction of future county initiatives.

R2: Recognition of Interagency Support

The Board will present certificates of recognition to Jessaca Lugo, City Manager of Shasta Lake, and Charity Tatlow, City Clerk of Shasta Lake, along with the City of Redding. The recognition is for their cooperation and willingness to provide access to city chambers during periods when the County’s own meeting space was unavailable or being transitioned.

R3: Adoption of the Final Budget for Fiscal Year 2025–26

The Board will vote to adopt the final county budget for the 2025–26 fiscal year. This includes approving the overall budget structure, committed fund balances, staffing allocations, salary schedules, and updated job classifications. These actions follow public hearings held June 10 through June 12.

One issue raised during the hearings was staffing within the County Counsel’s office. County Counsel Joseph Larmour reported ongoing recruitment difficulties, noting that a vacant attorney position is currently being filled by a legal secretary. While the move helps keep operations running, it reflects a broader challenge in maintaining adequate legal staffing.

Department heads also described continued delays in contract processing, particularly within Health and Human Services. Although new case management tools are being implemented, multiple agencies still report the need to approve contracts retroactively, which complicates planning and service delivery.

Staff also discussed the impact of meeting frequency and duration on county operations. While regular engagement is part of governance, the increasing length of meetings has affected staff workload and administrative efficiency.

The Registrar of Voters, newly appointed in May, is expected to return with a budget appeal later this week. Given the recent leadership transition and the demands of maintaining election operations, additional adjustments may be considered.

The final vote will formalize the county’s priorities for the coming fiscal year. While the framework is largely set, department leaders have signaled areas where resources and staffing remain concerns.

R4: Amendment to Chair’s Appointments and Liaison Assignments

The Board will consider a revision to the 2025 liaison assignments, proposed by Chair Kevin Crye. The amendment would designate Supervisor Chris Kelstrom as the alternate representative to the Rural County Representatives of California, the Golden State Connect Authority, and the Golden State Finance Authority.

These organizations focus on rural advocacy, broadband development, and financing support for county-level projects. Alternates attend meetings when the primary representative is unavailable and may influence regional coordination on infrastructure, funding, and policy.

No other changes to liaison roles are being proposed at this time.

R5: General Fund Loan to Cover Social Services Deficit

The Board will vote on a General Fund loan of up to $5 million to cover a negative year-end cash balance in the Social Services Fund. The loan will accrue interest at the Treasurer’s pool rate and must be repaid by October 31, 2025.

This type of loan is a temporary tool to bridge delays in state and federal reimbursements. In this case, a $4 million reduction in realignment funding due to a prior-year reporting error and a late $2.1 million Medi-Cal administration payment contributed to the fund’s shortfall. As of mid-June, the fund’s balance had dropped to under $300,000, with monthly expenditures exceeding revenues by nearly $900,000.

While the Board is being asked to authorize the loan, the reality is that it has little choice. Most of the programs supported by the Social Services Fund are state-mandated entitlements, such as cash aid and child welfare services. The County is legally required to continue these payments, even when reimbursements are delayed. Not doing so could result in penalties or a loss of compliance standing.

The loan is limited to $5 million, down from an earlier $10.5 million ceiling requested in April. The reduced amount reflects better-than-expected cash flow since that time, but the issue underscores the ongoing volatility in funding cycles that counties must manage to maintain basic public services.

Consent Calendar Highlights

The Consent Calendar includes routine items typically approved in a single motion. However, several items stand out due to their financial scale or public interest:

C6: Approves a $2 million renewal agreement with Aloha Psychiatry, Inc. for telepsychiatry services. This contract supports behavioral health access, particularly in rural or underserved areas where in-person psychiatric care remains limited.

C8: Increases the contract with Crestwood Behavioral Health, Inc. by $2.4 million for residential mental health treatment. These services provide critical inpatient support for individuals with severe mental illness who cannot be treated in community-based settings.

C9: Renews a $2.5 million agreement with Crest Home for the Elderly for residential care facility services. This funding supports long-term housing and supervision for older adults requiring a higher level of care.

C10: Approves a revenue agreement with the California Department of Housing and Community Development to utilize Homeless Housing, Assistance and Prevention Program funds. The funds will support interim housing, outreach, and coordination efforts under round five of the HHAP program.

C15: Authorizes multiple General Fund loan extensions totaling $4.25 million to cover negative cash balances in special district and utility administration funds. The largest portion, $3.6 million, will go to the Cottonwood Sewer Administration Fund.

C17: Adopts a new Salary Resolution to bring county classifications into alignment with Senate Bill 525. The changes are effective June 29, 2025, and may reflect new wage floor requirements for certain classifications.

There are no proclamations on this agenda, and most other items are routine or administrative, such as surplus property declarations, software renewals, and amendments to ongoing service agreements.

Closed Session

The Board will recess into closed session to discuss two sets of issues: labor negotiations and ongoing litigation.

R6: Labor Negotiations

The Board will meet with its negotiators to discuss labor contracts covering four employee groups, including the Deputy Sheriffs Association and United Public Employees of California. These sessions typically involve salary, benefits, and working conditions. No public vote is expected, though any agreements reached may return in future meetings for formal approval.

R7: Existing Litigation

The Board will meet in closed session to discuss two active lawsuits:

• Derrick Wilson v. Tom Dodson et al. (Shasta County Superior Court Case 204346)

• California Land Stewardship Council LLC v. County of Shasta and its Board of Supervisors (Case 24CV-0204669)

  
  

The second case stems from a Public Records Act lawsuit filed by the California Land Stewardship Council. The group sought documents related to a 2023 agreement between the County and the Redding Rancheria. The court ultimately ruled in favor of the County, finding that it conducted a reasonable search, acted in good faith, and complied with disclosure requirements.

While the County has described the lawsuit as an attempt to undermine staff and politicize transparency efforts, the ruling does not necessarily resolve lingering questions about what information was requested, how comprehensive the disclosures were, or whether key documents may have been missed or withheld. Legal standards for “reasonable search” and “good faith” are subjective and often deferential to agencies unless compelling evidence suggests records were improperly concealed or deleted.

Any reportable action from this session will be disclosed after the Board reconvenes in open session.

Though the agenda may seem limited, the Board is poised to cement a county budget totaling over $700 million, locking in spending priorities and staffing levels for the year ahead. These meetings are where decisions are made that affect public safety, housing, infrastructure, and governance across Shasta County.

Residents are encouraged to attend in person, speak during public comment, and contact their supervisors to express their views.

And that’s the Agenda Preview.