North State Breakdown Shasta County BOS Agenda Preview for December 10, 2024

Transcript:

Welcome to the North State Breakdown with Benjamin Nowain.

Today, I'd like to discuss the agenda for the upcoming Shasta County Board of Supervisors meeting on December 10, 2024.

This meeting is significant for several reasons. It’s one of only two meetings scheduled for December and marks the final month of Supervisor Patrick Jones’ tenure as representative for District 4.

With a whopping 18 regular items and 32 consent items on the docket, including issues surrounding elections, public safety, mental health, and economic priorities, this meeting will likely generate considerable public interest and debate, particularly regarding elections.

Let’s break down the agenda's key items.

R3: Funding for United Airlines Flights

Supervisor Chris Kelstrom has sponsored this item, proposing an allocation of $100,000 to the city of Redding to secure eastbound flights with United Airlines.

This initiative has been a long-standing priority for Kelstrom, but its practicality remains questionable. The underlying issue is that Redding's market is too small to sustain these flights, with most residents opting to travel out of Sacramento.

This funding would be a one-time allocation, raising concerns about the long-term viability of such efforts. Past attempts to retain these flights have fallen through, and it seems there’s a significant need for a sustainable solution rather than a stopgap measure.

R4: Tourism and Marketing Contract

This agenda item involves awarding a contract for tourism marketing. Ultimately, the selected vendor ended up being the Redding Chamber of Commerce, but notably in the running was the Shasta County Chamber of Commerce.

During public comment at a recent meeting, Chamber founder Nigel Skeet defended the organization against criticism, stating:

Rickert responded by raising concerns about transparency and potential conflicts of interest:

This exchange underscores the broader debate surrounding the tourism marketing contract. Proponents argue that countywide tourism initiatives are necessary to boost economic growth and support small businesses, while critics question the legitimacy of the chamber’s operation and whether public funds are being distributed equitably.

Rickert's pointed remarks highlight a fundamental issue: Should county contracts benefit a small group of well-connected individuals, or should they serve the broader public interest?

R5: Election Audit Log Timestamp Issues

This item involves a letter to the Department of Justice, sponsored by Supervisor Patrick Jones, requesting clarification on audit log discrepancies from the March 2024 presidential primary election.

At the December 2 event at the Redding Library, members of the New California State Group raised concerns about timestamp anomalies and alleged overcounts in voter registration and ballot distribution.

These allegations fuel New California State’s broader push for hand-count audits, despite Registrar of Voters Tom Toller consistently refuting these claims and reaffirming the integrity of the election process.

Adding to this, Board Chair Kevin Crye, in his December 9 remarks, stated:

This sentiment, while seemingly neutral, aligns closely with narratives from election denial groups, amplifying skepticism over minor administrative issues. Critics argue that sponsorship of such letters serves not to resolve genuine issues but to legitimize unfounded claims, further eroding trust in the electoral process.

R6: Ballot Overspray Issue

This second letter, also sponsored by Jones, addresses ink overspray issues during the November 2024 general election.

While this technical issue is tied to the Hart InterCivic voting machines introduced by the Board majority—including Jones and Crye—it has become the focal point for New California State activists, who claim it represents broader election mismanagement.

Critics argue that Crye and Jones are less focused on addressing real technical issues and more intent on weaponizing these minor flaws to perpetuate a narrative of election fraud. This approach risks diverting county resources away from meaningful governance.

R7: Declaration of Election Results

This item involves declaring nominations, measures, and persons elected based on certified results of the November 5, 2024, presidential general election.

During his December 9 comments, Crye stated that this is merely a procedural step and emphasized:

R7: Declaration of Election Results 

The rejection of Measures P and Q adds significant political context here. Both measures were authored and championed by Crye.

• Measure Q proposed expanding the Board’s power to appoint midterm replacements for elected officials.

  
  

• Measure P sought to alter eminent domain rules to benefit private economic use.

Both measures were defeated on Election Day, with Measure Q losing by a wide margin and Measure P narrowly failing. This signals a broader rebuke of Crye’s leadership and agenda.

Supervisor Mary Rickert opposed Measure Q, warning that it would give the Board too much power, while opponents of Measure P raised concerns about prioritizing private interests over public welfare.

R18: Support for Redding Rancheria Detox and Recovery Center

Supervisor Kevin Crye has sponsored a letter supporting the Redding Rancheria Detox and Recovery Center's application for Bond and Behavioral Health Continuum Infrastructure Program (BHCIP) funding.

This proposed facility aims to address a critical gap in Shasta County’s behavioral health infrastructure by offering medically assisted detox, counseling, and substance use treatment. It would also help reduce the burden on emergency services and law enforcement.

While the project is undoubtedly a vital addition to the county, Crye’s involvement invites scrutiny given his history of mixing personal business interests with official duties. Ensuring transparency and equitable management of this initiative will be key to maintaining public trust.

Despite these concerns, approving this letter is a necessary step to secure funding for a much-needed community resource.

Notable Consent Calendar Items

C15: Childcare Bridge Program Agreement

This item involves renewing an agreement with the Shasta County Office of Education (SCOE) for the Childcare Bridge Program. However, it includes a controversial amendment requiring Board approval for any budget changes exceeding 10%.

This shift gives the Board majority—Crye, Jones, and Kelstrom—greater control over SCOE operations.

Supervisor Crye’s past interactions with SCOE have been contentious. In August 2024, Crye used a meeting with SCOE Superintendent Mike Freeman, which was supposed to focus on the Community Connect program, to pitch his Ascend program, a personal business venture. Freeman expressed discomfort with the timing and optics of this proposal, further raising concerns about Crye’s influence over SCOE decisions.

The Childcare Bridge Program Agreement represents more than a simple contract renewal. It underscores the growing tension between the Shasta County Board of Supervisors and SCOE. Programs like Community Connect, which directly impact foster children and families dealing with Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACEs), could be at risk due to political interference.

C26: Public Facilities Impact Fees

This item reviews the status of Public Facility Impact Fees, which are used to fund infrastructure projects like roads, schools, and public safety facilities. These fees are collected from developers to ensure that as the community grows, essential infrastructure keeps pace with demand.

However, recent years have seen a push to reduce or eliminate these fees under the premise of encouraging economic growth and development.

Critics argue that these reductions come at a significant cost to the county’s long-term infrastructure needs. Without adequate funding, the burden of maintaining or expanding essential services often shifts to taxpayers, creating a hidden subsidy for developers. Additionally, fee reductions can result in deferred or incomplete projects, worsening problems like traffic congestion, school overcrowding, and inadequate emergency services.

C29: Salary Adjustments for Minimum Wage Compliance

This item involves a resolution to increase salary ranges for various job classifications in compliance with 2025 minimum wage laws.

While this adjustment is legally mandated and necessary to support workers facing rising costs of living, it highlights a broader issue. The county has struggled to maintain competitive compensation while managing limited financial resources.

Closed Session Items

The Board will enter closed session for up to three and a half hours to address several sensitive topics, including labor negotiations, real property negotiations, anticipated and existing litigation, and a performance evaluation.

Let’s break down the closed session agenda.

R12: Labor Negotiations

This item involves discussions with labor representatives over wages, benefits, and working conditions for county employees.

As Shasta County faces ongoing budgetary constraints, these negotiations are critical for maintaining essential services and workforce morale. Given the county’s history of labor disputes and dissatisfaction over compensation, the outcome of these talks could have significant implications for employees and taxpayers alike.

R13 and R14: Property Negotiations

These items involve two properties located at 1245 West Street and 1257 West Street in Redding.

The Board is likely to discuss potential uses for these properties, which could include public projects or community services. With increasing demand for housing and community facilities, the public will want to know if these properties are being leveraged for long-term growth and stability.

R15: Anticipated Litigation

This item focuses on potential legal disputes the county may face. While the specific details remain confidential, the Board’s legal challenges often stem from controversial policies or decisions.

Anticipated litigation could signal new areas of legal or financial exposure for the county, warranting close public scrutiny once details emerge.

R16: Existing Litigation

This closed session item addresses multiple ongoing lawsuits involving the county, including:

• Bustamante v. County of Shasta et al.

• County of Shasta et al. v. California Energy Commission.

• Robinson v. County of Shasta et al.

• Kropholler v. County of Shasta et al.

• Lucero v. Toller et al.

  
  

These cases cover a wide range of legal challenges, from employment disputes to allegations involving state energy regulations and potential misconduct. Each case carries significant financial and reputational stakes for the county.

R17: CEO Performance Evaluation

The Board will evaluate the performance of County Executive Officer David Rickert, a role critical to implementing the Board’s policies and managing day-to-day operations.

This evaluation could signal growing tensions with county leadership, particularly as the CEO has had to navigate fallout from controversial decisions made by the Board majority. The results of this evaluation could have serious implications for the county’s administrative stability.

How to Participate

If you’d like to make your voice heard, it is imperative that you watch online or attend the meeting in person at 1450 Court Street at 9 a.m. You can also email the Board of Supervisors with your comments and concerns.

I say it frequently, but it can’t be overstated: Participation is essential to ensure transparency and accountability in the county’s governance.

And that’s the agenda preview.