Shasta County Registrar of Voters Clint Curtis and Deputy CEO Erin Bertain.
Word to the wise: When Shasta County Deputy CEO Erin “No Money” Bertain says there is no money in the county budget, that means THERE IS NO MONEY.
Recently selected Registrar of Voters Clint Curtis is merely the latest county official to learn this lesson, after his $2.6 million bid to lease the vacant Joann fabric store building to house the Shasta County Clerk and Elections office failed to make it to a vote at Tuesday’s Board of Supervisors Meeting.
It’s the first time in recent memory a resolution on the agenda has failed to be voted upon, raising the question, how did it make it on the agenda in the first place?
Curtis claimed he needed the 28,588 square foot building in order to construct a totally transparent elections system that will satisfy the insatiable demands of our small but vocal contingent of election deniers. What this vanity project would actually look like is unknown, since Curtis didn’t present any detailed plans for his proposed system.
According to the staff report, the $2.6 million lease and conversion of the building would have been financed by funds that have already been set aside for the new jail/alternative custody program. That’s because there’s no money in the unassigned General Fund budget to draw upon, as Bertain recently explained to A News Cafe.
Deputy CEO Erin “No Money” Bertain.
Throughout this year during negotiations with the county, Shasta County In-Home Support Services caregivers, as well as attorneys working for the District Attorney and Public Defenders’ offices, have seen their requests for pay raises reduced to 2 percent, less than the rate of inflation. The public employee union members are both currently working out-of-contract.
After June’s budget hearings, A News Café met with deputy DAs who maintain there is money in the unassigned General Fund budget to fund their request. They arrived at that conclusion by comparing proposed budgets to actual budgets for the past decade, noticing that the unassigned funds in the actual budgets trend much higher than the unassigned funds in the proposed budgets, which tend to be far lower or even negative.
However, there’s a time lag of more than a year between the proposed budget and the actual budget, the latter of which is conducted by an outside auditor after the end of the fiscal year. As Bertain explained, in the proposed budget she has to account for expenses that may occur—for example, salaries for the eight current deputy DA vacancies should they be filled during the fiscal year. If none of those positions are filled by the time the audit comes around, the funds may appear as a surplus in the unassigned budget.
The overworked and underpaid deputy DAs are caught between a rock and a hard place. Without a boost in entry level salary, they can’t attract new attorneys to fill those vacancies and lessen the workload. It might look like there’s current funding in the audited budgets, but there isn’t, according to Bertain, who says she’s had the same conversation with virtually every department head in the county.
With that in mind, perhaps Shasta County District 1 Supervisor and Board Chair Kevin Crye, the leading advocate for election denialism on the board, should have warned newcoming ROV Curtis to be more prepared for Tuesday’s meeting.
Shasta County ROV Clint Curtis.
“Basically, I’m here to beg for a lot of money,” Curtis said as he strode up to the podium.
It was all downhill from there.
The fast-talking Floridian sounded more like a used car salesman than a public official. He kicked the tires on our present elections and clerk offices and found them small and crampy. “The new building has plenty of parking and is ADA compliant,” he said. “The open floor plan allows us to have the tabulators so that every ballot can be counted right after the election.”
Had Curtis actually bothered to include a floor plan of his elections scheme, which includes an unspecified number of cameras to monitor and livestream the ballot-counting process, it might have lent some credence to his claim, “You’ll be able to see every ballot as cast as long as it isn’t a ballot where it can identify the voter.”
Curtis predicted we’ll know the results of future elections within two hours of the polls closing.
“In California, of course, you have 10 more days for things to come in, but you will basically know what you’re doing within less than two hours,” Curtis said. “We can’t do that at the initial building because we simply don’t have room to spread that out, which is a problem as well.”
You can’t do it if the race is close either, as Chair Crye, a veteran of three nail-biting contests, is aware. In California counties have 30 days to count every valid ballot and conduct a required post-election audit.
Perhaps sensing his price tag was too high for the board to stomach, Curtis cut it in half to $1.2 million with an offer that kept the clerk’s office in place at 1450 Court St. As he continued to lop off limbs of his plan to arrive at a palatable price point, Crye cut him off.
District 1 Supervisor and Board Chair Kevin Crye.
At first, Crye, a hand-count supporter who voted to break the county’s contract with Dominion Voting Systems when he first took office in January 2023, feigned interest in the ballot tabulators, which account for $392,000 in Curtis’ plan.
As former Assistant ROV Joanne Francescut recently told A News Café, voters like ballot tabulators because they can physically see their ballots counted. That’s why former ROV Tom Toller had requested 60 ballot tabulators to place in individual precincts in his 2024-2025 proposed budget, which was put on hold after Toller resigned earlier this year for health reasons.
Curtis seeks just 20 ballot tabulators to count all the votes in a central location, preferably the former fabric store at 1175 Dana Dr., which would preclude individual voters seeing their ballots counted. Crye quickly let it be known he wasn’t supporting Curtis’ proposal.
“I’ll just tell you now, I’m super against spending this amount of money in this capacity on this,” Crye said. “But I am about getting the system put in place where it’s just more open.”
How much money is Curtis talking about exactly? After questions from District 4 Supervisor Matt Plummer and District 2 Supervisor Allen Long, Bertain estimated the total cost for Curtis’ proposal over five years could run as high as $8 million, three times the stated sticker price.
For example, Curtis lists “tenant improvements” at $1.2 million, but that’s not a one-time cost.
“When we talk about the tenant improvements, if we’re going to move into this building, it’s not just $1.2 million, that’s $1.2 million for five years and that’s a minimum,” Bertain said. “So we haven’t developed any plans for specifically what would go in there and so that would still be pending.”
That’s because Curtis hasn’t presented a plan, perhaps because he’s only been in public office for several months and is still getting the lay of the land.
“The reason this is before the board is because it wasn’t a project that was approved by the board previously,” said Bertain. “There has not been all those conversations about specifically what we would want and how much it would be and if the landlord would be willing to do the tenant improvements and if they’d be willing to spread it over the course of five years.”
Shasta County Sheriff Michael Johnson.
During public comment on the issue, Shasta County Sheriff Michael Johnson vigorously defended funding for his alternative custody project.
“It’s going to make a huge difference in this community,” Johnson said. “It’s going to change the way corrections work in this state and it is well worth it. I urge you and beg you not to dip into that money to pay for this project.”
Local good-government advocate Dawn Duckett identified the elephant in the room: no significant voting fraud has ever been observed in Shasta County.
“I don’t think trust in elections would make the top five in issues that we’re concerned with,” Duckett said. “We’re concerned with crime, homelessness, addiction, lack of medical care—which is your pet project, Supervisor Crye—wildfire. We just would not agree with you spending any significant amount of money on a problem that isn’t tangible in most of our eyes.”
Crye made a last-ditch effort to keep the proposal alive, suggesting he has contacts who are willing to front the cost of a building and donate it to the county for $1.
“Because if true patriots and true Americans and true people that really care about election integrity, I’m going to give him and other business owners or building owners that shot,” Crye said.
The resolution required four out of five supervisors for approval. Clearly Long wasn’t on board so Crye pushed Plummer. Plummer didn’t budge, saying the maximum amount of funding he’d vote for was $150,000. Shortly after that, Curtis’ proposal died ignominiously, not even rating an actual vote by the board.
As he was leaving, A News Café asked Curtis if he’d consider presenting actual plans for his proposal to the board.
“There’s a lot of them in Dallas, Texas, all over Texas, in fact,” Curtis said. “But I’ll probably throw one together so people can see, you know, how it works and maybe that’ll convince them. But I don’t think so, you know. Well, the thing about a jail is a jail makes no sense when your democracy is at stake. It’s just a waste of time. Cause you’re gonna just have to be putting more and more people in jail because they’re less and less connected to the system. They don’t trust it.”
Welcome to Shasta County, Mr. Curtis.
Chair Crye Defends Vote on Illegal Casino Agreement
Last week, A News Café broke the news that Shasta County Superior Court Judge Stephen Baker ruled last month that the Shasta County Board of Supervisors majority broke the law in July 2023 when it voted 4-1 to approve a 30-year Intergovernmental Agreement to provide emergency services, law enforcement, road maintenance and other county services to the Redding Ranchera’s proposed new casino at Strawberry Fields.
“Having reviewed the admissible evidence and relevant authorities, the Court finds the Respondent’s decision to approve the Agreement in the instant was not authorized by law,” Judge Baker said, adding that the Board majority’s action “was arbitrary, capricious, entirely lacking in evidentiary support.”
At Tuesday’s meeting, an apoplectic Chair Crye raved from prepared remarks that implied anyone who’s opposed to the Redding Rancheria’s proposed casino is a racist.
“It begins to me to feel almost like racism that people are so against this tribe and what they’re doing,” Crye said after shifting blame for his vote for the Intergovernmental Agreement with the Redding Rancheria to Judge Baker who in Crye’s opinion got the case wrong, to all the supervisors who served before him and worked on the casino contract since 2019, to Hillary Rodham Clinton’s law firm, to former Shasta County Sheriff and Assistant CEO Eric Magrini, to former District 2 Supervisor Tim Garman and finally to Bethel Church.
Former District 2 Supervisor Tim Garman.
Under the now invalidated contract, the Tribe would have paid Shasta County a one-time up-front fee of $3.6 million and $50,000 annually for 30 years for public safety, infrastructure and other costs incurred by the county. In a report compiled by Shasta County staff, those amounts paled in comparison to tribal casinos in Sonoma County, Rohnert Park and Yuba County. Local public safety leaders universally opposed the contract, as Judge Baker noted.
Crye argued that something is better than nothing.
“So for me, do I think it was a great, great deal?” he asked rhetorically. “Could a better deal have been made? I think so because what is the Redding Rancheria’s tagline? ‘Proud to do our part.’ Well, guess what? Their part might have been a little bit more if this community, this community, Shasta County, Redding, and the other jurisdictions had treated them like the sovereign nation they are and treated them with more respect.”
“But they continued to spit on them and push them over,” Crye continued. “Keep in mind the Bethel campus off Collier in that area and the Rancheria’s project came about at the same time. So the power brokers and the powers that be, guess what?”
“One building’s putting sidewalks in, the other building’s a dirt lot. And guess what? The one organization is a sovereign nation. So at this point, if they thumb their nose at us and say, forget it, you don’t get another dime for the next 30 years. Federally, we’re stuck with that. So congratulations to all the people that screamed we could have got more because we’ve gotten a fat zero so far.”
No doubt there are a few people in Shasta County who oppose Indian gaming for racist reasons. Many more are opposed to the project for environmental and cultural reasons. Despite the increased social acceptance of gambling (especially on the internet) and the demonstrable benefits gaming as delivered to tribes and adjacent communities across the United States, many people still don’t want a casino in their immediate neighborhood.
Locally, over the past five years, 6,000 of them have organized under the Speak Up Shasta banner; Speak Up spokesperson Robb Korinke provided public comment on the stricken casino deal at Tuesday’s meeting.
“The deal under the best estimates that was cut with the Rancheria might produce in the low six figures over a 30-year time frame,” Korinke said. “That’s shortchanging the taxpayers of Shasta County by tens of millions of dollars, if not hundreds of millions. It is an egregious abdication of fiscal responsibility.”
“And so again, moving forward, we would like to see a full audit of the costs of servicing the Wind River Casino from the standpoint of public safety and other services for what they owe now,” Korinke continued. “Because as was mentioned earlier today, they pay nothing for sheriff services now and have not for decades. So what does that cost us now before we have any conversation about what it would cost to service it going forward?”
No members of the Redding Rancheria attended Tuesday’s meeting but their local largesse is legendary. Now that the 2023 deal has been blown up by Judge Baker, the county actually has leverage to broker a new, better deal for all parties concerned.
Unless Chair Crye and Co. snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. Coming out of closed session, County Counsel announced the county has retained outside counsel for California Land Stewardship Council LLC v Shasta County, indicating they may appeal Judge Baker’s decision to a higher court.
Despite Some Union Opposition, Board Selects Christy Coleman as HHSA Director
Shasta County HHSA Director Christy Coleman
The Board voted 5-0 to appoint Christy Coleman as Director of Shasta County Health and Human Services, the county’s largest agency with more than 1,000 employees. Coleman replaces former Director Laura Burch, who retired this month after spending the past year on medical leave.
Burch was one of several administrators at Tuesday’s meeting who praised Coleman, who oversees an agency still recovering from the COVID-19 pandemic. Several public speakers asked the board to conduct a job search for the position, and Teamsters Local 137 Business Representative Heather McFall posted a poll on social media indicating that 61 of the 82 members surveyed — 74 percent — opposed Coleman’s appointment as HHSA director.
“We strongly urge the Board to reconsider this decision and give Ms. Coleman the opportunity to continue engaging with HHSA employees to address personnel issues and the toxic work environment that some staff members have faced,” McFall stated in a social media post.
Coleman addressed the union’s criticism at Tuesday’s meeting.
“I want to acknowledge the results of the recent Teamsters survey,” Coleman said. “Earlier this year, I was presented with information that warranted my involvement in resolving concerns in one of the HHSA branches. This led to in-depth, productive conversations with all teams and individuals within that branch.”
“In response to this, I received positive feedback from the Teamsters representative on how she hasn’t seen someone in my position make changes like this in five years, and she wanted to thank me for doing what I said I would do,” Coleman said.
“I appreciate the unions providing critical information about the perspective of their members,” Coleman continued. “In an agency as large as HHSA, there will always be challenges to work through. It is time for us to work together in collaboration and towards a unified goal of making HHSA stronger and more impactful, agency focused on service delivery and excellence.”
County Counsel Gets Extension, Corkey Cries Wolf (Again), Kelstrom Stuffs Face
District 5 Supervisor Chris Kelstrom samples the Juvenile Hall culinary offerings.
In other action items, the Board voted 4-0 to extend County Counsel Joe Larmour’s $240,000 annual contract—nearly three times the amount Shasta County offers entry level deputy district attorneys—another four years. District 2 Supervisor Allen Long, who pulled Larmour’s extension from the consent calendar, abstained from voting.
“One of my concerns honestly is I won’t be here forever and a new board at some point may want to work their own will,” Allen explained about Larmour’s four-year extension. “And so if we always have this, it ties up the next board from ever having any flexibility to renew the contract or to seek another. So that is nothing against our county counsel, because I enjoy working with Joe and he has been very helpful to me and very responsive.”
Meanwhile, District 3 Supervisor Corkey Harmon delivered the same board report for perhaps the third or fourth meeting in a row: He had dinner with the Shasta County Cattlemen’s Association, where wolves remain on everyone’s minds.
“I said it once before, I’ll say it again, when the ranchers can’t get up in the hills and graze on their grazing leases, if they can’t go up there and graze that and the grass gets three or four feet tall, if you think you have fire problems now, that’s gonna even get worse,” Harmon predicted in a volatile mix of wolves and wildfire.
“Sorry, I’m gonna keep bringing it up, because it’s gonna keep getting worse, so I’m gonna keep bringing it up, and it needs to be brought up, and I appreciate everybody’s patience listening to it, and I think I’ll quit right there, okay, thank you,” Harmon concluded.
Finally, District 5 Supervisor Chris Kelstrom, according to his board report, continues to eat his way through the 5th district, snarfing down free breakfasts, lunches and dinners wherever he finds them. This summer the Juvenile Hall hired a culinary instructor, so naturally Kelstrom dropped by graduation to sample the desserts. He posted a picture of himself stuffing his face with cake and pie that caused the audience to burst out in laughter.
Kelstrom got so caught up in the humor he forgot the point he was trying to make with picture. He came back later to correct the record.
“Yeah, I just wanna say, I mean, with the funny cake picture and everything, I kind of lost track,” Kelstrom admitted. “I wanted to talk about what a great program that was. So this culinary teacher that came to Juvenile Hall and worked with these kids, I mean, he really gave them a sense of accomplishment and respect.”
SCOREBOARD
Board Matters
Veterans Service Office Administrative Secretary II Amy Hancock — center — is Shasta County Employee of the Month.
R1 Adopt a resolution which recognizes Amy Hancock, Administrative Secretary II, of the Veterans Services Office as Shasta County’s Employee of the Month for August 2025.
No Additional General Fund Impact
Simple Majority Vote
From the Board packet:
Amy Hancock was hired in the Veterans Services Office in April, 2018 and was quickly promoted to her to her current assignment as an Administrative Secretary II. Amy has continually provided a positive impact to the VSO through her communication, dedication, and attention to detail.
She is the heart of the office and the first person everyone sees upon entering. In her tenure with the VSO, Amy has interfaced with many internal and external agencies; providing the highest quality of service.
She started writing the first administrative manual for the VSO in 2022 with many updates along the way. This has helped streamline, not only the departments processes and procedures, but also the VSO’s fiscal and budget goals which in turn has created savings by reducing or eliminating on-going expenses.
Amy is the only non-veteran in the office, but her dedication to serving veterans makes her a role model to the entire office. She has developed a time management and communication style that lends itself to supporting the veterans first with her caring attitude and trustworthiness.
She continues to plan veteran events, displays, and trainings, as well as gathering statistics for veteran related committees while still performing her primary duties. In 2023 Amy was issued a Federal Access badge from the Department of Veterans Affairs.
This permits Amy to answer many general questions allowing the Veterans Services Representatives to focus on other assignments and reduces wait times for veterans waiting to see their caseworker.
For the reasons stated above, the Employee Recognition Committee recommends Amy Hancock, Administrative Secretary II in the Shasta County Veterans Services Office be selected as the Employee of the Month for August 2025.
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
Presentations
R3 Receive a presentation from Doug Bond, Amity Foundation President and Chief Executive Officer regarding Amity’s Male Community Reentry Program (Sponsored by Supervisor Crye).
No Additional General Fund Impact
Postponed. No Vote
R4 Receive a presentation from the Department of Public Works and Whitlock and Weinberger Transportation, Inc., regarding the 2025 Shasta County Safety Action Plan.
No General Fund Impact
No Vote
R5 Approve a request from Mercy Medical Center for use of Opioid Litigation Settlement Funding and a budget amendment which increases appropriations by $25,000 in the Opioid Settlement Budget (BU 430) offset by use of restricted fund balance (Sponsored by Supervisor Crye).
No General Fund Impact
4/5 Vote County Fire
R6 Take the following actions: (1) Receive a presentation on the 2024 Shasta County Fire Department Annual Report; (2) receive a compliance report on fire safety inspections (“Report”); and (3) adopt a resolution which certifies the receipt of the Report.
No Additional General Fund Impact
Simple Majority Vote
Support Services
R7 Adopt a resolution which waives Section 6.12 of the Shasta County Personnel Rules, appoints Christy Coleman as the Health and Human Services Agency Director effective August 13, 2025, and establishes Ms. Coleman’s compensation at the C-step salary range ($95.096 per hour/$16,483 per month).
No Additional General Fund Impact
Simple Majority Vote
County Clerk-Elections
R8 Receive a presentation from the County Clerk/Registrar of Voters, and approve budget amendments which increase appropriations and net county cost by $2,580,283 in the Elections Admin & Registration Budget (BU 140) and transfer funds from the Accumulated Capital Outlay Budget (BU 161) to General Revenue and Transfers (BU 100) offset by use of Committed Funds-General Fund Infrastructure.
General Fund Impact
No vote.
CLOSED SESSION ANNOUNCEMENT
County Counsel Joe Larmour said the county has retained outside counsel for California Land Stewardship Council LLC v. County of Shasta (Case Nos. 24CV- 0204669 & 24CV-0204273).
R9 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.
R10 CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL – EXISTING LITIGATION
(Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(1)):
Names of Cases: Robinson v. County of Shasta, et al. Shasta County Court (Case No. CVC20- 0195757)
California Land Stewardship Council LLC v. County of Shasta (Case Nos. 24CV- 0204669 & 24CV-0204273)
County of Shasta, et al. v. AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et al. In re: Purdue Pharma, L.P., et al.
R11 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:
Professional Peace Officers Association
At the conclusion of the Closed Session, reportable action, if any, will be reported in Open Session.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Items C1-C10 on the Consent Calendar passed unanimously 5-0. Item C11 was pulled by District 2 Supervisor Allen Long. It was passed 4-0, with Long abstaining.
Board of Supervisors
C1 Approve a letter of support for Senate Bill 694: Deceptive Practices: Service Members and Veterans and authorize the County Executive Officer, or their designee, to submit revised letters on the Board’s behalf as the bill is amended, unless changes substantially alter its intent or affect the Board’s position (Sponsored by Supervisors Kelstrom and Long).
No Additional General Fund Impact
Simple Majority Vote
Clerk of the Board
C2 Approve the minutes of the meeting held on July 16, 2025, as submitted.
No Additional General Fund Impact
Simple Majority Vote
Health and Human Services Agency-Behavioral Health and Social Services
C3 Approve an agreement with John Muir Behavioral Health for inpatient psychiatric hospitalization services.
|No General Fund Impact
Simple Majority Vote
C4 Approve a retroactive amendment to the agreement with National Alliance on Mental Illness Shasta County for mental health and recovery programs which increases the maximum compensation.
No General Fund Impact
Simple Majority Vote
C5 Approve an agreement with California Forensic Psychology, PC for psychological evaluations and assessments.
No General Fund Impact
Simple Majority Vote
C6 Approve a retroactive renewal agreement with Syracuse University for program management and consultation services for the Psychiatric Advance Directives Project, Phase 2.
No General Fund Impact
Simple Majority Vote
C7 Approve a retroactive renewal agreement with Binti, Inc., for a Resource Family Approval recruitment webpage and applicant portal, including maintenance and support services.
No General Fund Impact
Simple Majority Vote
C8 Approve a retroactive amendment to the agreement with Open Line Group Homes, Inc., for youth residential specialty mental health services which increases the maximum compensation.
No General Fund Impact
Simple Majority Vote
C9 Designate authority to the Health and Human Services Director to execute a letter of agreement with Partnership HealthPlan of California for retroactive reimbursement of eating disorder treatment services for the period December 22, 2023, through March 1, 2024.
No General Fund Impact
Simple Majority Vote
Public Works
C10 Revise the January 7, 2025, appointments of Community Advisory Board (CAB) members Denise Douglas and Jim Jerge to terminate December 31, 2025, and appoint Carrie Eckles to the CAB for County Service Area No. 13-Alpine Meadows Sewer & Water to serve the remainder of a two-year term to December 31, 2025.
No General Fund Impact
Simple Majority Vote
Support Services
C11 Approve a renewal employment agreement with Joseph Larmour, appointing him as County Counsel of Shasta County for a new four-year term commencing on August 13, 2025, and stating related terms and conditions of employment.
No Additional General Fund Impact
Simple Majority Vote
###
If you appreciate award-winning veteran journalist R.V. Scheide attending the Shasta County Board meetings, and summarizing what happened via in-depth reports, please consider a contribution to A News Cafe of any amount you can spare, so we can continue offering independent journalism to the North State. Thank you!
© Copyright 2025 A News Cafe. All rights reserved.
