Parcel owner Peter Cottrell won the lottery Monday when the Board of Supervisors reduced his $90,750 nuisance fine to $1,000.
Shasta County District 1 Supervisor Kevin Crye’s vow to be “more collaborative and not so accusational (sic)” at last week’s Board of Supervisors meeting lasted approximately two hours into Monday’s special meeting. That’s when Board Chair Crye once again tried and failed to humiliate District 2 Supervisor Allen Long, costing the county $90,000 in the process.
At issue were a dozen so-called nuisance properties, a backlog of problem parcels whose owners have been fined for failing to bring their properties up to code on time and charged a special assessment for the county’s cleanup and administrative costs.
Peter Cottrell didn’t know what he was getting into when he paid his stepmom $20,000 for a half-acre parcel on Iron Mountain Road in 2022. His former family home had been damaged in the Carr Fire and the property had become a dumping ground for vehicles, old tires and feral animals. Cottrell says his father, brother, sister and four tenants were squatting at the place when he bought it.
Shasta County parcel map featuring Cottrell’s property.
“I didn’t know about the situation at the time when I bought it because it wasn’t through an institution, all the violations,” Cottrell told the Board. A year-and-a-half after buying the property, he had his first abatement hearing with the Shasta County Department of Resource Management. “It was $180,000 worth of violations and approximately $50,000 to clean it.”
Cottrell actually owed the County $19,853 in cleanup and administrative costs and a $90,750 fine, which is determined by multiplying the cost of each code violation by the number of days it goes uncorrected.. As Shasta County Treasurer Lori Scott pointed out at the hearing, Cottrell also owes three years in back taxes on the property.
Cottrell told Resource Management he would clean the property up himself instead of paying the county to do it. Because the Sheriff can’t legally remove squatters, Cottrell says he hired an attorney for $3000 to evict his father, siblings and their acquaintances. But as a father of five with a day job, he had scant spare time for cleanup.
“I don’t have a lot of time and money to do it every day,” Cottrell said. “So I just slowly pecked at it. A lot of the tenants out there decided, or the other people that live out there decided, that’s their new dumping ground. So the more I dumped, the more that got dumped on the property. And it just became dump load after dump load. I just kept dumping stuff.”
Shasta County Director of Resource Management Sean Ewing.
Resource Management Director Sean Ewing said the Iron Mountain Road property has generated a high volume of complaints since 2020. It became the first nuisance case Ewing worked after a shuffle in department leadership.
“It was, in my opinion, pretty bad,” Ewing said. “I believe there was numerous abandoned vehicles that the Sheriff had to take off. I think we had them lined up and having to take quite a few off.”
There was so much refuse, the county had to leave some of it on an adjacent property.
“Unfortunately, we had to leave a pile of junk and refuse right in plain sight on an adjacent property because that wasn’t part of the hearing,” Ewing said. “By us delaying a little bit, trying to work with the owner to get compliance, we left an adjacent property in a nuisance status.”
Nevertheless, in Ewing’s opinion, the $90,750 in fines was excessive for such a small parcel. All of the supervisors appeared to agree. At the beginning of the hearing, County Counsel Larmour had likened the hearing process to the penalty phase of a trial. The supervisors couldn’t rule on the facts determined at the Resource Management hearing, but they could modify the special assessments and fines given.
But how much to charge Cottrell, this rather sympathetic figure forced to evict his dad, brother and sister? That was the problem.
“So I’ll make a motion that we approve the County costs of nearly $20,000 and that we reduce the fines to $20,000 as well,” District 4 Supervisor Matt Plummer offered.
District 2 Supervisor Allen Long.
Supervisor Long, the U.C. Berkeley business major, asked Ewing how the special assessment and fines had been calculated.
“Well, the special assessment is based off of direct code enforcement, mail services, professional services, attorney costs, and contractor costs,” Ewing said. “The penalties and liens are based off of the permissible maximum amount for the number of days in violation per violation.”
“I mean $90,000 seems like a very high number,” Long replied. “So I’m wrestling with that a little bit. But the process, I don’t want the message to be that they don’t have to work with code enforcement. They don’t have to negotiate with you and they don’t have to complete the process, abatement, cleanup of those things in a timely manner. So I think that if we just eliminate the lien part of this in the penalty phase, then we’re cutting you off at the knees a little bit for future negotiations with like situations with other property owners.”
Ewing said that if the stipulated agreement with Cottrell had worked out, the fines would have been reduced.
“I want to speak to that because we normally would have been probably looking at trying to reduce those if it didn’t go the direction that it did,” Ewing said.
Photo of Iron Mountain Road property before cleanup.
Crye sensed an opening.
“So a follow-up question to your statement,” Crye said to Ewing. “Are you in support of the $90,000 or would it be a lesser amount, or do you think the $90,000 is warranted given the facts of this case?”
“When I look at the property, I’m just going to say it’s my personal opinion that I believe the $90,000 is excessive,” Ewing said. “That’s my opinion, my personal feeling.”
“So Supervisor Long, do you have a motion that you’re gonna make?” Cyre sniped. “I mean, because you’ve gone back and forth.”
“Yeah, I will make a motion,” Long said. “And my motion is going to be recover our $19.8 …”
“Supervisor Kelstrom already made that motion,” Crye interrupted.
“Right, and then the other part of my motion will be to recover a portion of the penalty fees, but $90,000 that’s just …” Long said.
“So what’s your motion, what’s the amount?” Crye interrupted again.
“Well, that’s where I’m trying to get to a basis for having an idea because I have no understanding of this,” Long said calmly. “It’s not ‘let’s make a deal’ here, it’s what is actually a justifiable penalty? Mr. Ewing, I know I’m going to put you on the spot, but I know we came in at $90,000. That seems really high to me. What would be something that would be reasonable given the violations and the noncompliance as far as a lien portion to it?”
Iron Mountain Road property after $13,883 county cleanup.
Ewing returned service.
“I would defer that back to the Board of Supervisors,” Ewing said. “I think it’s the Board of Supervisors’ decision to make that determination as to the fines and penalties.”
“Okay, then I will make a motion that we recover the assessed costs to our county of $19,800 and change whatever that number exactly was and that I will make a motion that we also include a lien fine of $15,000,” Long said.
“I’ll second that,” Plummer said.
“Okay, we have a motion by Supervisor Long,” Crye said. “How’d you come up with the $15,000, Supervisor Long?”
“You made me just come up with it on the spot with no expertise, no understanding, none,” Long said.
In Crye’s mind, this was his big gotcha moment.
“But you just said you feel like it’s ‘let’s make a deal,’ but now you’re doing ‘let’s make a deal!’” Crye said.
“No, because I think what we have is from the director himself saying that $90,000 was excessive and that was the feeling I had on this. I want to be fair. I want to support our process,” Long said. “And I think $15,000 still supports our process and it will keep us in compliance with our own procedure. And it’s something that Mr. Cottrell can go forward and work out and possibly a payment plan on part of this.”
“So, but help me out, because you said you want it to be a process,” Crye nagged. “So what’s the formula we just used so we can do that in the subsequent hearings? So like, what’s that process?”
“Yeah, there is no process to that,” Long said.
“Exactly!” Crye said, victorious if only in his own mind.
District 5 Supervisor Kelstrom opined, wrongly, that the previous owner of the property, Cottrell’s stepmother, is liable for the special reassessment, not Cottrell.
Then Crye made his case that fining Cottrell $90,750 when he’s planning to build a second house on the property was tantamount to hindering Shasta County business activity.
“Okay, I’m going to weigh in because I haven’t had a chance to yet,” Crye said. “And I appreciate Mr. Cottrell showing up and then the fact that he’s talking about trying to bring revenue into the county with a potential rental property. I mean, if we’re stopping new business, and again, I think the lesson that I’m going to take from this hearing, not just all of them, but especially this one as well, is I think this is a process that, Mr. Ewing, I hope that your time here as leading this department, we don’t let these things go this long.”
In reality, while a couple of the dozen cases heard Monday dated back to 2019, Cottrell’s case has only been active just over a year.
Plummer supported Long’s motion.
“I was just going to say that in terms of figuring out what the appropriate fine is, I agree that it’s somewhat problematic to not know kind of how to calculate that in the more formulaic approach,” Plummer said. “The reason that I initially proposed the $20,000 and think that some fine is likely still warranted is the principle that in the hearing, Mr. Young (a Resource Management staffer), you had said that if it had been abated, you would have offered to reduce or eliminate the fines, and it wasn’t at that point.”
Supervisors Kevin Crye and Chris Kelstrom.
Crye noted that evicting family members is a horrible thing and asked Long if he’d consider reducing the $15,000 fine to $1000, a number he apparently pulled out of the ether. Getting no answer, Crye bullied his way through and made the fourth substitute motion on Cottrell’s case.
“Yeah, so we’re going too far out,” Crye said. “So I’m just gonna make a motion that we, it’s the $19,750 and then with an additional $1,000 fine and then call it good.”
Kelstrom seconded the motion, which passed unanimously.
Cottrell didn’t show it, but he’d just won the lottery. He walked into the room mistakenly thinking he was more than $200,000 in debt to the county. He walked out owing $20,852 plus three years back taxes.
In addition to Cottrell’s case, the Board voted 4-1, with Long abstaining, to consider Frances Beard’s 2-acre parcel in Shasta, on which she owes a $3,583 special assessment and a $30,000 fine, at a later date. The remaining properties, with special assessments ranging from $997 to $48,808 and fines ranging from $7500 to $149,100, were approved unanimously.
While Crye blamed previous boards for the backlog in cases, Resource Management Director Ewing was more diplomatic.
“There were some change in management over that period of time,” he said, adding that code enforcement has been slightly overhauled. “There’s changes, there’s staff shortages, there’s new attorneys assigned. So we were working on trying to prioritize our items, our items that need immediate attention. And this was one of them that we were working on. I don’t believe there’s any outstanding liens or assessments that are due, aside from the ones that we that we brought today, and that the board directed us to bring back.”
A News Café asked Ewing if the dramatic decrease in Cottrell’s fine bothered him.
“I don’t take it personally,” Ewing said. “What I’d like to see as my priority, like I said earlier, is to gain compliance and recover our cost and fines and penalties. But it’s not my goal to make it difficult for property owners. I want the right thing.”
Supervisor Kelstrom, Shasta County’s top model, or at least its tallest.
Tuesday’s Board of Supervisors Meeting Sets Record for Brevity
At 1 hour and 17 minutes, Tuesday’s Board of Supervisors meeting set a record for brevity, at least since this reporter has been covering meetings.
Shasta County Public Works Director Troy Bartolomei quickly navigated through R3, which confirmed the Annual Parcel Charge Reports for the various Shasta County Permanent Road Division Zones and directs that the parcel charges be placed on the property tax bills for Fiscal Year 2025-26; and R4, a similar measure dealing with County Service Areas. Both measures passed unanimously.
The meeting started with a heartwarming human interest story concerning Cottonwood Militia founder Woody Clendenen, or rather his young grandson Bodie. Both Supervisors Kelstrom and Harmon wore Bodie Tough t-shirts under their jackets. Kelstrom explained:
“I’m wearing a shirt that says, Bodie Tough. So Bodie is the grandson of Woody Clendenen, the barber in Cottonwood. And Bodie was, he’s not even a year old yet, and within like the second week of his life, he was put on the liver transplant team, transplant list, and poor little guy’s been struggling ever since.
“He’s as tough as can be. And there was a tragic accident that happened last week that led to a miracle for Bodie. A young man lost his life in an accident, and his family specifically reached out to Bodie’s family and wanted to offer his liver if it would work. And turns out it was a perfect match.
“Everything went smooth. The liver immediately started working. His bilirubin rate went from 22 down to two immediately after the surgery. So a tragic loss of a life of one young man, but saved the life of another young man.
“And it looks like Bodie’s going to live a normal, long life, and I couldn’t be happier for the whole family.”
District 4 Supervisor Matt Plummer.
Supervisor Plummer has become the master of board reports and he didn’t disappoint here, presenting several major takeaways from his meeting with the Mental Health, Alcohol, and Drug Advisory Board.
“One thing I wanted to highlight is, that I thought was kind of interesting, and something for us to think about and focus on, is that for PTSD, we served about 300 people over the course of the last fiscal year, almost 200 of them were under 18, which I found surprising,” he said. “So a lot of young people are dealing with trauma in our community that we’re serving as the county.”
Plummer said that the number of youth who receive medication for ADHD has jumped from 40 percent in 2023 to 73 percent today. He’s looking into it.
Meanwhile, the opioid epidemic surges on.
“The primary substance use disorder in the community that we’re serving, and technically it’s through Partnership Health, because we essentially contract with them to deliver and oversee those services, is opioid use disorder,” Plummer reported.
Jeff Gorder wants Opioid Settlement spent on helping opioid addicts.
With that in mind, local activist and retired public defender Jeff Gorder asked what happened to the $10.5 million that was in the Opioid Settlement fund as of last November during the public comment session.
“It was about a year ago when Deputy CEO Erin Bertain came before the board to present the work of a countywide staff effort to provide a number of different options for the board to consider in spending the funds, and Chair Crye had a sense of urgency at that point,” Gorder said. “You know, people were dying. People are still dying, and unfortunately, nothing has been done.”
By Gorder’s calculations, $4 million in Opioid Settlement funds have been assigned to a youth prevention program, leaving $6.5 million to distribute to the 20 community groups that work with opioid addicts. But suddenly, Crye’s sense of urgency is missing. Gorder thinks he knows why.
“I think that Chair Crye has decided that this it is his personal fund that he is going to target towards a medical school or a residency program of some kind,” Gorder said. “He doesn’t care about what the other board members voted on. He’s not interested in collaboration unless it’s collaboration on the idea that he presents to the board.”
“Now, let’s get those organizations back,” Gorder concluded. “Let’s bring it up so that everybody can weigh in on how those dollars are going to be spent. People are dying, folks.”
SCOREBOARD
SPECIAL BOARD MEETING JULY 21
Presentations
R1 Receive a presentation regarding operations of the Code Enforcement Program within the Building Division of the Department of Resource Management.
No Additional General Fund Impact
No Vote
SCHEDULED HEARINGS
Resource Management
R2 Conduct a public hearing and either: (1) Adopt resolutions which designate authority to recover special assessments and liens to be levied against properties (Assessor Parcel Numbers: 014-530-008; 207-250-012; 089-240-001; 061-050- 025; 203-280-019; 306-440-007; 011-530-002; 094-620-005; 064-420-040; 205- 230-005; 064-350-024; 065-190-013; 098-420-012; 077-080-011; 207-250-012; 061-050-025; 203-280-019; 306-440-007; 011-530-002; 094-620-005; 064-420- 040; 205-230-005; 065-190-013; and 098420012) in which the Administrative Hearing Officer issued Findings and Orders, finding that nuisance conditions existed on the premises and ordering them to be abated pursuant to Government Code §25845 and Shasta County Codes §8.28.060 and §1.12.050(B)(6); (2) amend the proposed resolutions and adopt the amended resolutions; or (3) provide alternate direction to staff.
General Fund Savings
Simple Majority Vote
Score: The Board voted 4-1 to bring parcel number 011-530-002-000 back at a later date. All other parcels, with some revisions, were passed 5-0.
REGULAR BOARD MEETING JULY 22
Shasta County Probation Division Director Eric Jones.
Board Matters
R1 Adopt a proclamation which designates July 20-26, 2025, as “Probation Services Week” in Shasta County (Sponsored by Supervisor Long).
No Additional General Fund Impact
Simple Majority Vote
Score: 5-0
In recognition of Probation Services Week, Probation Division Director Eric Jones made the following presentation:
“Thank you for giving us a few minutes of your time this morning to celebrate this nationally recognized week to highlight probation services. I have the distinct honor this morning to recognize not just Shasta County’s amazing probation staff, but hundreds of thousands pre-trial probation and parole staff across the nation. Probation Supervision Week originated in 1999 and has been celebrated annually ever since.
“It is dedicated to recognizing and celebrating the public service role that probation uniquely plays in the criminal justice system. As you know, our department is charged with a multitude of roles, ranging from running the juvenile rehabilitation facility, providing sentencing recommendations to the court through thorough investigation, rehabilitation efforts through an array of services and programs, to compliance efforts through active community supervision. As Chief Steve Jackson of San Joaquin County and Chief Probation Officers of California President mentioned in a memorandum this week, probation is not just an arm of the justice system, it’s a bridge to something better.
“It’s the frontline of accountability and the front door to rehabilitation. What many do not see daily is the wide range of other essential measures we take to promote our efforts to assure we provide the community the best services possible. Several of you attended the Addicted Offender Program ceremony last Friday.
“As you saw, events such as that event continue to provide inspiration and hope for our staff to continue believing in change, even when the odds may be stacked against someone. What you may not know is we also have a similar program for youth, our Integrated Family Wellness Program, which shares many of the same features as our adult program.
“Now I’ll just add a few more events that may not be so recognized. We conduct new offender orientations three times a week, providing onsite access to Medi-Cal eligibility, mental health and substance abuse screenings, nutrition assistance and transitional housing supports. We now have a unit of five juvenile prevention officers providing safety and security as well as resources and support to five schools throughout our county.
“We have served as law enforcement mutual aid responders in many of our Northern California wildfire emergencies. We also make every effort possible to divert youth from entering the juvenile justice system, even assisting in finding viable and appropriate foster care placements when necessary. We also provide and facilitate the Parent Project, which is an 11-week evidence-based intervention that assists parents raising difficult children.
“We also conduct monthly STOP events. STOP is Successful Transition of Probation and Parole. At these events, both probationers and parolees are introduced to a plethora of individuals representing their respective services within the community.
“This, by no means, encompasses all the roles and responsibilities probation staff are asked to do, but just a few to highlight today. At this point, I would be remissed if I didn’t mention all of our support staff and fiscal folks who share in our successes and often help make them happen. Needless to say, I am beyond proud and grateful to assist Chief Neal in leading this great department and all the men and women who go above and beyond the call of duty on a daily basis.”
R2 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
SCHEDULED HEARINGS
Shasta County Public Works Director Troy Bartolomei.
Public Works
R3 Conduct a public hearing and adopt a resolution which confirms the Annual Parcel Charge Reports for the various Shasta County Permanent Road Division Zones and directs that the parcel charges be placed on the property tax bills for Fiscal Year 2025-26.
No General Fund Impact
Simple Majority Vote
Score: 5-0
R4 Conduct a public hearing and adopt resolutions which confirm the: (1) Reports of Delinquent Fees and directs that the annual liens be placed on the County Service Area (CSA) tax bills for Fiscal Year 2025-26; (2) Reports of Uncollectible Debts and approves a discharge of accountability for collection of unpaid water and sewer service accounts that have been deemed uncollectible; and (3) Annual Parcel Charge Reports for the various CSAs and directs that the parcel charges be placed on the property tax bills for Fiscal Year 2025-26.
No General Fund Impact
Simple Majority Vote
Score: 5-0
CLOSED SESSION
R5 CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS
(Government Code Section 54957.6):
Agency Negotiators:
County Executive Officer David Rickert
Personnel Director Monica Fugitt
Chief Labor Negotiator Gage Dungy, Liebert Cassidy Whitmore
Employee Organizations:
Unrepresented Employees – Confidential
Unrepresented Employees – Management
United Public Employees of California, Local 792 – Professional Unit
R6 CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS
(Government Code Section 54956.8):
Property Description:
7251 Eastside Road, Redding, CA; APN 050-050-010
County Negotiators:
County Executive Officer David J. Rickert Senior Administrative Analyst Bryce Ritchie Senior Administrative Analyst Jenn Rossi
Negotiating Parties: City of Redding
Under Negotiation: Price and terms of payment for the purchase, sale, exchange, or lease. At the conclusion of the Closed Session, reportable action, if any, will be reported in Open Session.
Score: No reportable action was taken on R5 and R6.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Item C5 was pulled by the Shasta County Sheriff. The remainder of the Consent Calendar was passed unanimously.
County Administrative Office
C1 Approve a retroactive evergreen agreement with the Superior Court of California, County of Shasta for mutual provision of services.
No Additional General Fund Impact
Simple Majority Vote
Clerk of the Board
C2 Ratify the County Executive Officer’s signature to the notice of termination to AV Capture All, Inc.
No Additional General Fund Impact
Simple Majority Vote
C3 Ratify the County Executive Officer’s signature to the agreements with Underwood law Offices, P.C. for legal services to the Assessment Appeals Board, Board of Building Appeals, Board of Employee Appeals, and Revenue and Taxation Code Section 3731 Proceedings.
No Additional General Fund Impact
4/5 Vote
Public Works
C4 Approve a retroactive lease agreement with Pat Nelson for fixed hangar space at the Fall River Mills Airport.
No General Fund Impact
4/5 Vote
C5 Approve an amendment to the agreement with Axon Enterprise, Inc., for body worn cameras which adds report writing capabilities and increases maximum compensation.
General Fund Impact
Simple Majority Vote
C6 Approve an agreement with Redding Advertising, Inc., dba Media Plus Advertising and Marketing, for marketing services to educate the public of the dangers of impaired driving.
No Additional General Fund Impact
Simple Majority Vote
###
