Shasta County Public Health Officer Dr. James Mu
In an effort to scare up support for a proposed medical school, the Shasta County Board of Supervisors declared at last Tuesday’s board meeting that the county’s longstanding shortage of physicians constitutes a public health crisis . District 1 Supervisor and Board Chair Kevin Crye read the proclamation:
“Whereas the Shasta County Public Health Officer has declared that a significant shortage of physicians across numerous specialties, including primary care, internal medicine, psychiatry, gynecology, surgical, and medical specialties constitute a public health crisis in Shasta County, and whereas this shortage is already having adverse impacts on the community, including increased wait times for medical appointments, delays in referrals, unmanaged chronic conditions, and greater reliance on emergency departments for non-emergency care, and whereas rural and underserved areas within the county are disproportionately affected as geographic and financial barriers further limit access to timely medical service, and whereas Shasta County’s physician workforce is aging, and the rate at which new physicians are entering the local healthcare system is insufficient to meet current or future community needs, and whereas the long-term health and well-being of Shasta County residents is at risk unless immediate collaborative and strategic actions are taken to address this growing crisis, and whereas the Public Health Officer has called for coordinated efforts to prioritize physician recruitment and retention, expand clinical training opportunities, strengthen partnerships with hospitals and educational institutions, and pursue external funding opportunities, and now, therefore be it proclaimed that the Shasta County Board of Supervisors hereby recognizes the physician shortage as a public health crisis.”
That’s one long sentence designed to spook us about something that’s been ongoing for at least two decades; the shortage of physicians, especially in rural areas. One might expect Public Health Officer James Mu to present startling new physician workforce data to justify declaring a public health crisis at this late date. Nope. Other than links to general surveys on the topic at the bottom of the declaration he made last week, Dr. Mu presented no new data pertaining to Shasta County’s physician workforce.
That’s because this isn’t a public health crisis in the traditional sense. It’s a publicity stunt designed to scare up support for the medical school proposed by his colleague Dr. Paul Dhanuka, the Redding City Councilman. Neither physician is a stranger to publicity. Dr. Mu and Dr. Dhanuka joined 42 local doctors who publicly opposed COVID vaccine and mask mandates in early 2022. The vast majority of local physicians disagreed with them.
Chair Crye first approached Dr. Dhanuka about the medical school last fall. Earlier this year, Crye’s friend Chriss Street was granted $40,000 to conduct a feasibility study on the proposed medical school.
That plan ran into reality and District 4 Supervisor Matt Plummer at the May 27 board meeting. Street presented medical school estimates ranging from $55 million to $125 million up front for building, land, equipment and escrow costs. Plummer suggested a two-pronged strategy: explore the feasibility of a medical school while expanding local residency programs at the same time. He listed four hurdles that needed to be crossed before the county could entertain a multi-million dollar investment in a medical school.
· Nationally and locally, there’s a shortage of high quality students.
· Attracting faculty is difficult, and using local doctors for faculty pulls physicians out of service, exacerbating the shortage.
· Med school students must complete 10 clinical rotations per year, there may not be enough physicians in Shasta County willing to buy in.
· Med school students must complete seven core residencies, primary care, internal medicine, surgery, pediatrics, psychiatry, OB/GYN, Neurology. Shasta County’s hospitals and clinics only have two residencies, primary care and internal medicine.
Read Plummer’s deep dive into the med school issue. Plummer made a motion to change Street’s contract to address these points. It was on the verge of passing when Dr. Dhanuka approached the podium. He’s assembling an exploration committee of physicians and academics. He assured Plummer that they would overcome these hurdles.
“You’re absolutely right,” Dr. Dhanuka told Plummer. “We will do this work, it will be incumbent on the doctors to do that work.”
Get that in writing!
At Tuesday’s board meeting, Plummer said he was pleased that Dr. Dhanuka had taken up his two-pronged approach at a presentation the gastroenterologist made before the Shasta Health Assessment and Redesign Collaborative the previous Friday. Expanding the number of core residencies could increase the number of local physicians with or without a medical school.
After Dr. Mu’s presentation Tuesday, Plummer, noting that the COVID emergency had been too open-ended, asked Dr. Mu when an end to the public health crisis would be declared.
“Now, as far as when would this crisis be over, I would say easy access to the medical doctors,” Dr. Mu said. “For example, if you already have a doctor, if you need a routine visit, you should not take more than a week, two, three days, definitely not more than a week. To see a specialist, maybe within a couple weeks. I know in this county, that’s gonna be very difficult. So a more reasonable approach would be to see a new primary care doctor within three months; if you already have a doctor, to see them within two, three days, no more than a week. A specialist, reasonably three weeks to four weeks. So those are the kind of benchmarks.”
Dr. Mu noted that there hasn’t been a thorough study on Shasta County’s physician workforce for ten years. Presumably he’s referring to the 2016 study done by the Health Alliance of Northern California. According to the study, 10 years ago there were 424 physicians, including 126 primary care physicians, in Shasta County, population 180,000. That works out to one primary care physician for every 1,429 local residents. Currently, California’s ratio of primary care physicians per resident is 1463-1, according to the Robert Graham Center.
At the meeting Crye circulated some statistics apparently compiled by Street claiming that there are just 58 primary care physicians in Shasta County right now. Street does not cite the document the figure comes from, but claims the data is from Dignity Health’s Mercy Medical Center. At any rate, Crye ran with the number, which cranks the physician-resident ratio up to 3,107-1, claiming it’s further proof that everybody was doing everything wrong until he came along.
“And they said Shasta County had one provider for every 554 residents, this is in ’22,” Crye said. “Well, since we’ve dug into this and started to like turn over some tables, knock over some file cabinets, spread out the papers, we now realize Dignity has said, whoa, whoa, whoa, wait a minute. It’s actually Shasta County has one provider for every 3,107 residents. That’s pretty disturbing. I mean, is that just completely incompetence to misjudge it by that much?”
Note 1 and 2 list source document, 3 does not.
Shasta County Health and Human Services is conducting a patient survey on the physician issue due out by the end of the month. Seeking to track down the actual number of primary care and specialty care physicians in Shasta County, A News Café contacted Dignity Health/Mercy Medical Center, Shasta Regional Medical Center and Shasta Community Health Center. Stay tuned.
As far as Crye is concerned, you’re either with him or against him. He calls Plummer and District 2 Supervisor Allen Long’s dissecting of Street’s sketchy analysis “too much bureaucracy.”
“So to answer a public commenter, this isn’t some big collusion kind of thing,” Crye said. “And what’s really scary is the amount of people that wanna say, oh, I support it, but yet you cast doubt and try and instead of throw your weight and influence, expertise and abilities behind finding a way, you try and find every reason why we can’t do it, but then at the same breath say you’re supportive.”
Dr. Mu was slightly more diplomatic, agreeing with Plummer that it makes sense to start expanding residencies now.
“So I am, as many of you are, in support of having a medical school here,” Dr. Mu said. “But it is tough, it’s not that easy. If it’s easy, everybody would have built a medical school. It takes the whole community to make this possible. But that is a future plan. It’s gonna take years before we gather the fruit.”
The board voted 5-0 to declare a public health crisis due to the lack of physicians in Shasta County.
Here’s some low-hanging fruit the board can feast on if they really care about public health. CEO David Rickert loves writing letters and should write District 1 Rep. Doug LaMalfa immediately and tell him to vote no on Medicaid cuts and work requirements. There are 316,800 residents in District 1 and up to192,000 residents stand to lose access to Medi-Cal, California’s Medicaid plan if the planned cuts and work requirements are passed, according to the California Budget and Policy Center.
Stopping these cuts just might save more lives than a new medical school, in the short run, anyway.
Patrick Jones Can’t Stop Hating Shasta County DA Stephanie Bridgett
At Tuesday’s meeting, former District 4 Supervisor Patrick Jones sat in the back of the room, brooding over R8, a closed session item in which he hoped to resuscitate his longstanding vendetta against Shasta County District Attorney Stephanie Bridgett. The vendetta began in earnest after Bridgett bested Jones’ preferred candidate Erik Jensen in the 2022 primary election. At some point in 2023 Jones became aware of a whistleblower report filed against Bridgett by a former employee.
The investigation was conducted by the Bay Area law firm of John Beiers, cost $24,394 and was completed in August, 2023. The employee alleged that Bridgett had “engaged in unprofessional conduct towards” her “effectively creating a constructive discharge.” The employee also alleged that “ (a) DA Bridgett required, approved, or implicitly authorized her subordinates and others to work to on her campaign during regular County work hours; and (b) that DA Bridgett and her subordinates engaged in campaign-related activities during regular work hours; and (c) that DA Bridgett and her subordinates engaged in campaign-related activities on County premises.”
The allegations took place from February, 2022, when Jensen announced he was running against Bridgett, to June 2022, when Bridgett defeated Jensen by double digits in the June Primary.
The investigation found that the whistleblower was not credible and allegations 1, 2a and 2b were not sustained. The investigation did find Bridgett violated Rule 28 in the Shasta County personnel manual, a local policy which prohibits campaign activities on county premises, when over the course of five months she answered two dozen emails during the workday. The investigator characterized it as a minor violation:
“This investigator finds, based on a preponderance of the evidence, that DA Bridgett … engaged in election-related activities on County premises. That said, it is important to note that these activities were de minimus and clearly not an intentional effort to flout policy. This investigator finds … DA Bridgett to be honest witnesses who used reasonable efforts to follow the legal prohibitions on campaign activities.”
Shasta County DA Stephanie Bridgett.
Somehow, Jones became aware of the confidential report—that’s why he calls himself “Whistleblower No. 2”—and on April 30 last year the board voted 3-1 in closed session to waive attorney client privilege and release the whistleblower report to Shon Northam, a local defense attorney who sometimes represents Jones. Once the report was out, Jones attempted to use it to remove Shasta County Superior Court Judge Benjamin Hanna from overseeing the lawsuit Anderson and Millville Plains residents filed against Jones’ proposed gun range.
Hanna worked in the DA’s office during the campaign before he gained the bench; he was cleared of any wrongdoing. In Court, Jones claimed he was launching a new investigation and might have to question Hanna therefore Hanna had to recuse himself. Jones failed to have the judge removed and ultimately lost the gun range case. He now has to conduct a full environmental impact report on the gun range before proceeding.
At Tuesday’s meeting, Jones took yet another bite at the apple, which is fairly worm-ridden by now. While he hasn’t filed a lawsuit yet, Jones is apparently threatening to sue, claiming as Whistleblower 2 the county was obligated to re-investigate Bridgett after he “discovered” the first investigation. As usual, Jones proved to be a master of prevarication.
“I regret this item being on for R8, but I’ve exhausted all remedies,” Jones said in comment before closed session. “From January to June 2022, Shasta County District Attorney Stephanie Bridget and her subordinates used the office and her equipment to run her campaign.”
Not true, according to the investigation.
“A whistleblower came forward and stated that 80 to 90 percent of her time was campaigning on county premise and county equipment,” Jones said.
The investigation found that the whistleblower’s claims were not credible.
“Under the California Whistleblower Protection Act, this law, along with other relevant statutes, mandates that the employer take whistleblower complaints seriously and investigate them thoroughly, fairly, impartial, and promptly,” Jones said. “This did not happen, and that’s unfortunate, and that is why I’m here today. We have an action that has not been investigated thoroughly and properly.”
In fact, a timely, thorough independent outside investigation was conducted for the cost of $24,394. It found that Bridgett had used her own equipment to conduct campaign business on county property, but characterized it has a minor violation of a local rule, not a major infraction of state law.
Finally, Jones revealed his true motive: to convince the board to withdraw legal support from Bridgett should he actually file a case. (I’m guessing he’s bluffing.)
“My ask for you is that the exceptions for California Code 995 with immunity, there’s not absolute immunity with regards to the district attorney,” Jones said. “If she is performing her job within the scope of those duties, she has absolute immunity. This was not that case. Shasta County should not spend revenue on her to defend her if this goes to court, which it may, depending on the actions of this board. She was operating outside her scope, and you have no requirement to spend money to defend her.”
“She has to defend herself,” Jones insisted. “She has already admitted to fraud. So I regret having this at this point. This was not my intent. This is not about me. This is about holding Shasta County District Attorney Stephanie Bridget accountable.”
Not one of those six sentences is true.
“On R8, the board voted four-to-one with Crye’s dissenting vote to defend the claim, hire separate outside counsel for the district attorney in the county, and defend the claim, which was a four-one vote,” Shasta County Counsel Joseph Larmour said coming out of closed session.
“Okay, and I wanna articulate my dissension or no vote,” Crye said. “It wasn’t so much on the item of hiring outside counsel. I believe, as stated by Council Larmour in closed session, we are required to supply counsel for the district attorney in this instance, and I agree with the board’s direction of that. … The part I dissent on is how we’re handling this in terms of in closed session versus making this more public and giving people more access to the nearly three-year process this has undergone, which actually began before Supervisor Kelstrom and I were ever seated, or actually before any of us were ever seated.”
Good ole Kevin Crye, Mr. Transparency. Remember that time Jones, Crye and Kelstrom voted to write a letter to the state attorney general requesting the state appoint a special counsel to investigate Bridgett’s handling of the Zogg Fire lawsuit against PG&E in August 2023? Remember when the state attorney general wrote back exonerating Bridgett in January, 2024, only to have the letter quashed by Jones and perhaps Crye?
Bridgett discovered the letter when she asked the state AG about it in May, 2024. That’s the level of treachery we’re dealing with here. Watch your wallets, or you might wind up accidentally placing a down payment on a $60 million medical school.
SCOREBOARD
REGULAR CALENDAR
Board Matters
R1 Receive an update from the County Executive Officer on County issues and consider action on specific legislation related to Shasta County’s legislative platform and receive Supervisors’ reports on countywide issues.
No Additional General Fund Impact
No Vote
R2 Adopt a proclamation which recognizes a public health crisis due to the physician shortage in Shasta County (Sponsored by Supervisor Crye).
No Additional General Fund Impact
Simple Majority Vote
Score: 5-0.
R3 Receive a presentation from HHSA Behavioral Health and Social Services Branch Director on Children’s Services in Shasta County.
No General Fund Impact
No Vote
RABA Transit Manager John Andoh.
R4 Receive a presentation from the Redding Area Bus Authority (RABA) regarding the state of RABA (Sponsored by Supervisor Kelstrom).
No General Fund Impact
No Vote
Redding Area Bus Authority Transit Manager John Andoh made his annual presentation, you can catch up on everything that’s new at the excellent RABA website.
“We are increasing our budget to $12.3 million in the upcoming fiscal year, which is fully covered by state-federal grants,” Andoh said. “We are going to be having all the local transportation funds that the County of Shasta uses for public works projects to be available to the county. We’re not claiming any local transportation funds for two years in a row. … We just ended the last fiscal year at 503,000 passenger trips, and we continue to increase. So people are returning back to utilizing RABA based on the changes that we’ve made over the last couple of years.”
When Plummer noted that RABA will once again begin using LTFs, Local Transportation Funds, in 2028, Andoh explained that was due the changes in state law. Crye butt in to express his opposition to using LTFs for mass transit.
“Supervisor Plummer, just on the note of drawing down county funds or looking at our road funds, I am one vote, but I would tell you and Supervisor Kelstrom while we’re talking about this, it would be over, I will hold onto our county road funds like grim death because I am not in favor of giving our county’s road funds over that way,” said Mr. Transparency. “So I just want to make that very clear.”
Andoh straightened Crye right out.
“If I just may just preface that, just so everyone’s aware, that while it is our desire to use other alternative funding sources, I do have to preface under the state law that the local transportation fund is still transit first based on an unmet transit needs that’s reasonably meets process that is done by CERTA,” Andoh said. “If CERTA determines that there are no unmet transit needs that are reasonable to meet, then LTF could be used for streets and roads. However, if they make a finding that there is an unmet transit need that’s reasonable to meet, then that has to be paid for first out of LTF before the months can be allocated elsewhere.”
Touché! Mr. Andoh!
R5 Receive a presentation from the Chair of the Commission on Aging and consider providing direction to staff (Sponsored by Supervisor Crye).
Future General Fund Impact
Simple Majority Vote
Score: 5-0.
SCHEDULED HEARINGS
A court challenge to action taken by the Board of Supervisors on any project or decision may be limited to only those issues raised during the public hearing or in written correspondence delivered to the Board of Supervisors during, or prior to, the scheduled public hearing.
Public Works
R6 Conduct a public hearing and adopt a resolution which continues parcel charges for Fiscal Year 2025-26 to receive a portion of the revenue necessary for the operation, maintenance, and administration of Siskiyou County solid waste disposal facilities.
No General Fund Impact
Simple Majority Vote
Score: 5-0.
PRESENTATIONS
Burney resident John Doe protested Waste Management’s rising prices.
R7 Take the following actions on behalf of Burney Disposal, Inc. regarding adding new waste collection service charges and increasing existing service charges: (1) Conduct a public hearing; (2) direct the Clerk of the Board to tabulate written protests from property owners and tenants; and (3) in the absence of a majority protest, adopt a resolution which adopts the new service charges and procedures for future rate increases, determines that the services provided are necessary to maintain solid waste services within the County’s existing service area, and designates authority to the Public Works Director, or their designee, to take all actions necessary to implement the resolution.
Public Works Director Troy Bartolomei’s presentation of Waste Management’s new fee schedule for Burney didn’t sit well with Burney resident John Doe. As Bartolomei explained, Burney’s current rate of $39.61 per month for three 3 32-gallon garbage cans. That rate increases by 20 percent on July 1, to $49.51 for two 64-gallon cans, one for recycling (a first for Burney) and one for non-recycling. Rate increases down the road will boost the total to $66.
“Honestly, that was a whole load of horse crap that I’ve ever heard in my life,” Doe said after the presentation. “This whole proposal that Waste Management has put together for this board to accept is BS, okay? They want to be able to have free reign on the people of Burney to pick up their garbage at an increased rate. I pay $39.61. By the time they get done, it’s 66 bucks a month.”
Burney is in District 3, and District 3 Supervisor Corkey Harmon seemed genuinely upset about his constituent’s plight—apparently Doe is not yet 65 or he’d be eligible for the senior discount rate of $37. Harmon turned to County Counsel Larmour for advice.
“Aren’t we required to say yes to this because we’ve already got a contract?” Harmon asked.
“So this is a vote, and ultimately, whether it’s in compliance with the contract or not, that doesn’t prevent you from voting no,” Larmour said.
Apparently the flustered Harmon didn’t understand Larmour had just given him permission to vote “no.”
“I vote yes under protest!” Harmon said.
No General Fund Impact
Simple Majority Vote
Score: 5-0.
CLOSED SESSION
The Board of Supervisors will recess to a Closed Session to discuss the following item (estimated 1 hour 15 minutes):
R8 CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL – ANTICIPATED LITIGATION
(Government Code section 54956.9(d)(2)):
Significant Exposure to Litigation: One potential case.
The significant exposure to litigation arises from Patrick Jones.
SCORE: The Board voted 5-0 to hire outside counsel should Patrick Jones sue the county.
R9 CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL – EXISTING LITIGATION
(Government Code section 54956.9(d)(1)):
Name of Case: Jennifer Yuzon v. County of Shasta et al. (Shasta County Superior Court Case #207728)
SCORE: No reportable action was taken.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Items C1 and C4 were pulled from the calendar for discussion and ultimately passed on 5-0 votes. The remainder of the Consent Calendar also pass unanimously.
County Administrative Office
C1 Approve year-end budget amendments to better align projected budgets as follows: (a) decrease revenues in the Energy Retrofit Admin Budget (BU 806) in the amount of $380 offset by use of fund balance; (b) decrease appropriations and revenue in the Child Support Services (BU 228) in the amount of $800,000; (c) decrease appropriations and revenue in the Information Technology Budget (BU 925) in the amount of $835,000; (d) increase appropriations in the Opioid Settlement Budget (BU 430) in the amount of $100,000 offset by use of fund balance; (e) decrease appropriations in the amount of $39,667 and revenues in the amount of $396,671 in the Tobacco Settlement Budget (BU 174), offset by Reserves for Contingencies; (f) increase appropriations in the amount of $206,257 and revenues in the amount of $88,855 in the Sheriff’s Budget (BU 235), offset by Reserves for Contingencies; (g) decrease appropriations in the amount of $156,835 and revenues in the amount of $149,753 in the Boating Safety Budget Unit (BU 236); (h) decrease appropriations in the amount of $62,853 and increase revenues in the amount of $11,500 in the Sheriff Civil Unit Budget (BU 237); (i) decrease appropriations in the amount of $93,025 and increase revenues in the amount of $16,639 in the Jail Budget (BU 260); (j) decrease appropriations in the amount of $60,000 in the Burney Substation Budget (BU 261); (k) decrease appropriations in the amount of $76,500 in the Animal Control Budget (BU 297); (l) decrease appropriations in the amount of $13 in the Coroner Budget (BU 287); (m) increase appropriations and revenues in the amount of $200,000 in the Trial Courts Budget (BU 201); (n) adjust appropriations between object levels and decrease revenues in the amount of $30,000, offset by use of AB109 fund balance in the Public Defender Budget (BU 207); (o) increase appropriations in the amount of $1,197,456, offset by use of 1991/2011 Realignment fund balance, in the Mental Health Budget (BU 410); (p) decrease appropriations in the amount of $1 and revenue in the amount of $400,534, offset by use of 1991/2011 Realignment fund balance, in the Alcohol and Drug Programs Budget (BU 422); (q) decrease appropriations in the amount of $1 and revenue in the amount of $26,996, offset by use of 1991/2011 Realignment fund balance, in the Perinatal Budget (BU 425); (r) decrease appropriations in the amount of $17 in the Public Health budget (BU 411); (s) increase appropriations in the amount of $3,200 and decrease revenues in the amount of $23,374, offset by the use of General Purpose fund balance, in the Shasta County Health Care Budget (BU 412); (t) increase appropriations in the amount of $162,658, offset by the use of General Purpose fund balance, in the California Children’s Services Budget (BU 417); (u) increase appropriations in the amount of $1,235,728, offset by use of 1991/2011 Realignment fund balance, in the Social Services Budget (BU 501); (v) increase appropriations in the amount of $100,000, offset by Reserves for Contingencies in the General Assistance Budget (BU 542); (w) increase appropriations in the amount of $18,000 and revenues in the amount of $588,000 in the CDBG Admin/Rehab Budget (BU 596); (x) decrease appropriations in the amount of 700,000 in the WCL Replace and Improve Admin Budget (BU 00206); (y) decrease appropriations in the amount of $1,250,000 and revenue in the amount of $700,000, in the Solid Waste Disposal Admin Budget (BU 00207); (z) decrease expenditures in the amount of $830,000 and revenues in the amount of $474,888 in the Transit Fund Budget (BU 00210); (aa) decrease appropriations in the amount of $1,410,000 and revenue in the amount of $1,372,000 in the CSA #3 Castella Water Admin Budget (BU 00374); (ab) decrease appropriations in the amount of $1,007,225 and revenues in the amount of $1,170,000, offset by use of retained earnings, in the CSA #2 Sugarloaf Water Admin Budget (BU 00375); (ac) increase revenues in the amount of $4,513 in the CSA #6 Jones Valley Water Admin Budget (BU 00377); (ad) decrease appropriations in the amount of $10,000 and increase revenues in the amount of $25,000 in the CSA #8 Palo Cedro Sewer Admin Budget (BU 00378); (ae) decrease appropriations in the amount of $941,722 and revenues in the amount of $1,085,000, offset by use of Retained Earnings, in the CSA #17 Cottonwood Sewer Admin Budget (BU 00387); (af) decrease appropriations in the amount of $10,000 and revenues in the amount of $3,000 in the CSA #23 Crag View Water Admin (BU 00396); (ag) decrease appropriations in the amount of $676,475 and increase revenue in the amount of $56,055 in the County PRD Admin Budget (BU 00699); (ah) decrease appropriations in the amount of $272,000 in the Fleet Management Budget (BU 940); (ai) decrease appropriations and revenues in the amount of $786,500 in the Fall River Mills Airport Budget (BU 00200); (aj) decrease appropriations in the amount of $11,050,000 and revenue in the amount of $16,206,495, offset by the use of fund balance, in the Roads Budget (BU 301); (ak) decrease appropriations in the amount of $549,565 and revenues in the amount of $854,565, offset by use of retained earnings, in the Facilities Management Admin Budget (BU 955); (al) adjust appropriations within the District Attorney Budget (BU 227) to move $163,347 from Salaries & Benefits to Services and Supplies; (am) decrease appropriations in the amount of $563,013 and increase revenues in the amount of $2,000,000 in the General Revenue and Transfers Budget (BU 100); and (an) increase appropriations in the amount of $2,316,219 in the Reserves for Contingencies Budget (BU 900).
General Fund Savings
4/5 Vote
C2 Ratify the County Executive Officer’s signature to the agreement with EIP Holdings II, LLC, for leased space on South Fork Mountain for operation of radio repeater equipment.
No Additional General Fund Impact
Simple Majority Vote
Agricultural Commissioner/Sealer of Weights and Measures
C3 Approve a renewal agreement with U.S. Department of Agriculture Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service – Wildlife Services for the Integrated Wildlife Damage Management Program and designate authority to the County Executive Officer, or their designee, to sign the Annual Work/Financial Plan.
No Additional General Fund Impact
Simple Majority Vote Clerk of the Board
C4 Adopt a policy resolution which amends Administrative Policy 1-101, Operation and Conduct of Business Before the Board of Supervisors.
No Additional General Fund Impact
Simple Majority Vote
C5 Appoint Chere Sullivan to the Shasta Children and Families Commission (a.k.a. First 5 Shasta) to serve the remainder of a three-year term to January 2028.
No Additional General Fund Impact
Simple Majority Vote
County Counsel
C6 Approve an agreement with Sloan Sakai Yeung & Wong, LLP, for legal services.
No Additional General Fund Impact
4/5 Vote
Health and Human Services Agency-Behavioral Health and Social Services
C7 Approve a renewal agreement with Restpadd, Inc., for inpatient psychiatric services in an amount not to exceed $7,000,000.
No Additional General Fund Impact
Simple Majority Vote
C8 Approve an agreement with Sacramento Behavioral Healthcare Hospital for inpatient psychiatric hospitalization services.
No General Fund Impact
Simple Majority Vote
Probation
C9 Approve a renewal agreement with Victor Community Support Services, Inc., in an amount not to exceed $1,086,442, for Aggression Replacement Training (ART), Nurturing Fathers, general counseling services, and Cognitive Behavioral Therapy to offenders and youth.
No Additional General Fund Impact
Simple Majority Vote
C10 Approve a retroactive amendment to the agreement with Visions of the Cross for alcohol and/or substance abuse residential treatment services which increases compensation.
No Additional General Fund Impact
Simple Majority Vote
Public Works
C11 Adopt a resolution which approves a list of road projects to be funded by Senate Bill 1 for Fiscal Year 2025-26.
No General Fund Impact
Simple Majority Vote
C12 Adopt a resolution recognizing that the circumstances and factors that led to the May 27, 2025, proclamation of an emergency in the area of the Breslauer Campus, due to necessity of an emergency sewer line repair, have not been resolved and that there is a need for continuation of the emergency proclamation.
No General Fund Impact
Simple Majority Vote
C13 Approve an agreement with Moore Iacofano Goltsman, Incorporated, for environmental services for the “Old Courthouse Demolition Project,” Contract No. 610005.
No Additional General Fund Impact
Simple Majority Vote
Resource Management
C14 Approve an amendment to the agreement with Land Logistics, Inc., for updates to Shasta County Code Chapter 18.04, Surface Mining and Reclamation which modifies the terms.
No Additional General Fund Impact
Simple Majority Vote
Support Services
C15 Approve an agreement with Redwood Toxicology Laboratory, Inc., for drug testing materials and services.
No Additional General Fund Impact
Simple Majority Vote
###
