Consultant Chriss Street.
For the past several months, Shasta County District 1 Supervisor Kevin Crye has been raising alarms about the shortage of primary care physicians in the county. Armed with figures provided by consultant Chriss Street, a personal friend of Crye’s, awarded a $40,000 contract by the board in February to identify the county’s medical needs and provide funding solutions, Crye has been claiming that Shasta County’s population to medical provider ratio is higher than 3,000 to 1.
That’s a startling figure, one that if correct could qualify the county as a Health Professional Shortage Area by the federal Health Resources and Services Administration, making it eligible for billions in grant money, as Street pointed out in his final presentation at Tuesday’s meeting of the Shasta County Board of Supervisors.
“So when I did the analysis, I came up with a number and then I confirmed that with Dignity that physicians in Shasta County have fallen from 132 primary care physicians to 58,” Street said.
Divide 180,000 Shasta County residents by 58 primary physicians and you get a population-to-provider ratio of 3,103 to 1, placing the county on the fed’s watchlist of medically underserved communities.
Excerpt from 2025 California Health Care Almanac showing Shasta County with 89 primary care physicians.
The problem is, Street’s claim that there are only 58 primary care physicians in Shasta County is contradicted by a more reliable source. The California Health Care Foundation states in its 2025 California Health Care Almanac that there were 89 primary care physicians in Shasta County as of 2023. That yields a population-to-provider ratio of 2,022 to 1 (180,000 divided by 89) for the county overall.
Excerpt from 2025 California Health Care Almanac showing Shasta County with 89 primary care physicians.To be certain, with just one primary care physician for every 2,022 residents, Shasta County is suffering from a shortage of primary docs. It’s just not at the level Street claimed in his presentation. That matters because the only federal funding solutions Street identified in his presentation depend upon Shasta County’s population-to-provider ratio exceeding 3500 to 1, the amount required to qualify for grants according to HRSA guidelines.
As several public speakers pointed out, many healthcare facilities within Shasta County’s more rural areas already qualify and receive HRSA funding. According to the agency’s Health Provider Shortage Area finder, there are nearly 50 local providers receiving HRSA funds, including Hill Country Community Clinic, Shingletown Medical Center, Shasta Community Health Center and the Redding Rancheria Indian Health Clinic.
None of this information was presented in Street’s written report, which cost $40,000 and consisted of nine double-sided pages printed in bold, double-spaced 24-point type. There’s no structure to the document — not even an introduction or a conclusion — just random Shasta County health facts extracted from previous studies by Dignity Health and the Health Alliance of Northern California and vague recommendations to pursue grants.
Street doesn’t even bother to source his money shot, the claim that there are only 58 primary care physicians in Shasta County:
Excerpt from Street’s report, note lack of source.Street cited neither the California Health Care Foundation nor Healthforce Center at UCSF, the state’s two primary sources for medical workforce data, in his presentation.
A 2025 Dignity Health Community Health Needs Assessment for Mercy Medical Center published in June mentions in passing that “according to a community physician needs assessment, the community currently has 58 general primary care physicians,” but no data is presented, no source is cited, the report came out after Street’s findings and doesn’t match up exactly: Street claims there are only 46 “general primary care” physicians, not 58.
Dignity Health did not return A News Café’s requests for comment.
The numbers in Street’s chart above appear to have been cribbed from Mercy Medical Center Redding’s 2023 Common Spirit Redding Recruitment Campaign, which included the following chart:
Subtracting the surplus from the demand in the primary care section of the chart yields the same numbers as Street’s chart above.
After Street’s report received withering criticism from a half-dozen public speakers, Crye rushed to the defense of his friend. He called Deputy County Executive Officer Stewart Buettell to the podium and asked him if he could have done Street’s job among all his other duties. Buettell said no, perhaps not realizing how little work had gone into Street’s presentation.
Dr. Paul Dhanuka
Crye called up Dr. Paul Dhanuka, the Redding City Councilman and leading proponent of establishing a medical school in Shasta County, and Simpson University President Dr. Norman Hall, who’s volunteered to lead a seven-member committee to explore the medical school issue, as if their collective gravitas could somehow wave away the odor of Street’s nothingburger presentation.
None of this would be happening without Street, Crye continuously implied. It’s a strange claim, considering Dr. Dhanuka has been the driving force behind the proposed medical school for nearly two years.
“I believe at the last meeting during your presentation, it sounded like you interpreted your assignment as presenting a shovel ready project,” Plummer said. “I’m curious, I’m not seeing that here. … Could you help us understand the gap between what was discussed in the last board meeting and then what I heard today?”
First Street pointed to the presence of Dr. Dhanuka and Hall as evidence of his shovel-readiness. He claimed he’s been working closely with UC Davis on a potential satellite campus, which isn’t mentioned in his report.
“As far as the shovel ready project, you needed money,” Street said. “And people have said, we did have pockets in Shasta County which were medically underserved. There’s 6,000 pockets around the United States, but we are now a medically underserved county, a health professional shortage area. We are an extreme change in the nation. We’ve been able to quantify that. We’ve gone from 132 to 58. That’s a 56 percent crash in eight years. And if you look at the data, we’re going to be down to 36 if things don’t change.”
The count of 132 primary physicians is from Healthcare Alliance of Northern California’s 2016 Shasta County Physician Workforce Assessment. As mentioned above, the count of 58 primary care physicians appears to have been taken from Mercy Medical Center Redding’s 2023 recruitment campaign.
As also mentioned, according to the California Health Care Foundation, there were 89 primary care physicians in Shasta County in 2023. If the foundation’s numbers are correct, then Shasta County as a whole may not be eligible for HPSA funds.
Street attempted to claim the entire county is now designated as a Health Professional Shortage Area, but then walked it back.
“We now qualify countywide,” he said before modifying his statement. “But we now have access countywide, we believe, to a tremendous amount of grant funding, both for residency programs, potentially for medical schools, for other types of grant issues. I think we’re in a different place than we were, and the money is there.”
Where, exactly, is the money? Street’s presentation doesn’t really tell us.
Plummer reminded Street that they’d discussed a UC Davis Medical School document that listed nine things the county had to demonstrate in order to become a viable candidate for a satellite campus.
“I’m curious if you could update us on the status of putting together some type of document to share with UC Davis that would answer those questions that they presented in that?” Plummer asked.
“Well, I did not attend that meeting because I wanted to be on the technical side, and I’ve been working with their organizations,” Street deflected. “We’ve had many conversations. In fact, I believe that UC Davis sent a letter of support for our designation.”
The alleged letter was not included in Street’s presentation.
At Street’s previous presentation, Plummer had also asked the consultant to collect letters of support for residency programs from local physician groups and from the county’s three major health care systems. He also asked Street to prepare a clinical rotation feasibility model and clinical rotation testing pilot program. Although his motion to include these items was turned down, Plummer asked if Street had made any progress on them.
Once again, Street evaded answering Plummer’s questions, so Crye answered for him.
“I think what he’s asking directly too about just the letters of support,” Crye said, explaining that he’d sent out a bunch of letters to “however many organizations” and only gotten three back. No one wants to go first, Crye complained, adding that he didn’t understand the politics of the medical community. “So, I think in terms of just getting physical letters, they’re not worth the paper they’re written on if we don’t get people to lean in and be bold and move.”
Crye concluded by say he didn’t care where the money for the proposed medical school came from.
District 2 Supervisor Allen Long has questions about county involvement in the medical school proposal.
District 2 Supervisor Allen Long queried Street about federal funding and the county’s role in obtaining it.
“You’ve mentioned the federal funding that we’re talking about,” Long asked. “Do you have specifics on that?”
“No,” Street answered. “First of all, we have to get it designated as medically underserved health professional shortage area. … We need the countywide designation. There are four grants coming in September. You’ve got to apply by September 22nd. So we are now in the ballgame for this $16 billion.”
What grants, exactly? Again, Street failed to inform us. With the grant deadlines just a month away, it’s highly unlikely Shasta County will qualify for them, especially since the county would have to qualify for HPSA funds first, and qualification is by no means certain if the present population-to-provider ratio of 2,022 to 1 as determined by California Health Care Foundation is correct.
“I heard Dr. Danuka say ‘partnering with the county,’” Long continued. “And so what you haven’t addressed so far in this presentation is who is going to apply for these grants and this money and federal funding and all that kind of stuff. Is it going to be the county as a main applicant? Are we partnering in the development of a medical school? Or is it somebody that we’re just going to help facilitate that application on behalf of another group?”
District 1 Supervisor and Board Chair Kevin Crye contemplating board matters.
Street refused to give a straight answer at first. Crye interrupted again and said when Shasta County Public Health Officer Dr. James Mu declared a public health crisis due to a physician shortage in June, he declared a crisis for the entire county. It’s worth noting that Dr. Mu didn’t include Street’s 3500 to 1 population-to-provider ratio in his warning, or any physician figures for that matter.
Long asked Street again about the county’s involvement.
“My question is, are you looking through all of this for the county proper to invest any of our money or to apply for grants under the county authority?” Long asked. “Yes or no?”
“Yes,” Street admitted. “I believe the county should be in charge of applying for grants, which they already do. I think the county should liaison, which they already do, with SHARC and other organizations to try to build funding. I believe that the county should liaison, which they already do, in the residency programs.”
“Well, thank you for that answer, because that’s a consideration, a concern that I have,” Long said.
“The county doesn’t have any money and what little funds we have set aside, they’re dedicated toward our corrections facility and law enforcement and public safety basically. So you lost me when you start to include the county as a partner in the development of all these programs and applying for the grants and some of that, even if we were to get the underserved designations. We’re going to be putting the county on the hook to receive those grant funds, to be responsible for the outcomes of projects and everything. We become partners in this and I’m not in favor of that, just to be honest with you.”
Crye continued to argue that Street had found a physician shortage that organizations like Shasta Health Assessment and Redesign Collaborative and HANC had somehow missed in their far more extensive surveys. He baited Long into giving his solution to the problem, which Long readily did: leave health care to the medical professionals like SHARC, HANC and Dr. Dhanuka.
“But as leaders of this community, if we sit on our hands and say, let somebody else deal with it because we’re not subject matter experts, then basically, what are we all doing here?” said Crye the visionary.
“Meanwhile, a bunch of people sit and say, see out there, 10 miles away, here comes a boulder or a meteor, and it’s five miles away, here comes a boulder or a meteor, and then it lands on us. And then someone next to the meteor says, oh, they saw it, and it crushed the sky.”
Whoa.
The whole resolution appeared to be going down in flames without a vote until Plummer intervened with a more constructive option. He called Shasta County Health and Human Agency Director Christy Coleman to the podium. Plummer and Coleman have been discussing accessing opioid settlement funds to help fill HSSA’s longstanding psychiatrist and psychologist vacancies.
It makes sense, since mental health care is essential to addressing the opioid crisis. A $15,000 to $20,000 signing bonus might do the trick. Plummer made a motion to have staff investigate the issue and bring it back for board approval.
It passed 5-0 and absolutely nothing to do with Street’s presentation.
Can Shasta County ROV Clint Curtis Take a Hint?
Shasta County Clerk & ROV Clint Curtis
As A News Café reported last week, newly selected Shasta County ROV Clint Curtis asked the Board of Supervisors for $2.6 million to implement his fool-proof totally transparent elections system without providing a plan for what the system might actually look like. The board sent him back to the drawing board without a vote.
On Tuesday, Curtis returned to the board with a much smaller ask: $125,000 to test his prototype elections system, hopefully in the former Joanne’s fabric store on Dana Drive after Chair Crye cons the owner into leasing the building for three months for one dollar.
You read that correctly. There are 75 days until the November election, which could include a statewide measure on redistricting, and the ROV, who has never run an election, is testing prototypes and Crye is counting on the patriotic kindness of strangers.
It gets worse. R6 on the agenda appeared simple enough. “Approve a budget amendment which increases appropriations by $125,000 in the Election Admin & Registration Budget offset by use of General Fund.”
But once again Curtis approached the board without a plan.
We know he wants approximately 20 electronic voting tabulators and an unknown number of security cameras so he can livestream almost all of the votes being counted on election night from a central location. But that’s all we know—we don’t even known if his proposed surveillance system is legal under state law, because we’ve never seen it.
“Welcome back, sir,” Crye said as Curtis approached the podium.
“Glad to be here,” Curtis said. “This is a budget amendment to kind of roll out the prototype of what we can get or basically beg, borrow and steal to get enough of the equipment so we can show what can be done.”
He means “beg, borrow and steal” literally. A Texas town has already donated some cameras, he said. Curtis seems not to have registered the fact that there’s no money in the budget to rent, lease or buy a new building to house his scheme.
“The lease on the building, it may not be a Joanne’s Fabrics,” he said. “It may be something somewhere else, but it will at least be so we can set it up and show everything.”
That caught Crye’s attention.
“Correct me if I’m wrong, but just for the sake of time, but the backup quite possibly is Market Street and emptying that bottom section, correct?” Crye asked.
“It is, but if we empty that bottom section, we still have to have some place for people to have an election,” Curtis said. “So we’ll have to rent something. Because you can’t empty that out and do other parts.”
Crye asked if Curtis had gotten a call from the owner of Joanne’s former building.
“From the Joanne Fabrics owner?” Curtis said. “I have not yet. My discussions with him have been a little slower than anticipated.”
District 3 Supervisor Corkey Harmon wears a cowboy hat and sits behind an American flag at a previous Shasta County Board of Supervisor meeting held inside Shasta Lake board chambers.
District 3 Supervisor Corkey “Cowboy Way” Harmon.
Normally taciturn District 3 Supervisor Corkey Harmon rode in to save the day. Harmon had visited the veteran’s hall next to the post office the day before and instantly thought it would be a great place to relocate the ROV’s office.
“The last time we talked about this, I said, ‘well, what about like a gymnasium?’ ” Harmon said. “Well, that’s about as close to a gymnasium as you can get. And we don’t use it except for sporadically. We did talk to the people over there at the vets hall and it didn’t seem to be a problem if we use that hall. It’s plenty big. It has ADA bathrooms on one end. There’s parking around the backside. There’d be some stuff we’d need to do, but I thought it was a great idea. We own it. We already maintain it. “
Curtis was quick to shoot the offer down.
“In order to use that, it has to be a single use site. So basically nobody else can be in there,” Curtis said.
Supervisor Long worried about the proximity of the November election.
“I really question whether the prototype proof of concept has enough time to get implemented,” Long said. “And when we’re talking leases and we’re talking trying to find tabulators and all those kinds of things, I don’t think we can get that done before October 5th (when ballots go out). I might encourage you to bring this concept back to us so we can further discuss this, but after the election.”
If Curtis does choose to come back to the board with another budgetary request, Plummer asked him to bring three things: quotes from vendors for the required cameras and tabulators, a diagram showing the layout and the number of cameras and tabulators required and a letter of intent from any building owner willing to donate the space.
“So basically I want a robust plan that’s documented, that can demonstrate if we give you the money, you can actually do it,” Plummer concluded.
“So I know the public safety is important, but in my opinion, election is the bedrock of everything we do,” a discouraged Curtis said at one point. “And if we don’t pay attention to that, we really have nothing.”
Crye took the opportunity to mention President Donald Trump’s planned executive order to eliminate almost all mail-in voting.
“Election stuff isn’t going away,” Crye said. “We saw that yesterday with our sitting president of where it’s going. I think the more transparency and the more collaboration we bring, the better, and who wouldn’t want that?”
Hang on to your hats.
Supervisor Plummer Rattles Some Cages
District 4 Supervisor Matt Plummer
R5 was supposed to be a celebration for public safety, a lease agreement with the City of Redding for the parcel at 7251 Eastside Road in south Redding, the chosen location for Sheriff Michael Johnson’s proposed alternative custody program. The lease is funded with $500,000 from the county’s Alternative Custody Budget. All the county needs to do is complete the EIR.
Then Redding had to go and ruin it. County Counsel Joe Larmour delivered the bad news.
“Mr. Chairman, I was in contact last night with city staff and it’s their recommendation and request that this item be pulled from the agenda as being premature,” Larmour said. “Their concerns are that they would prefer that they’ve gone through the process to declare this land as exempt surplus land. And with that, I would leave it to the board to make that decision.”
The Chairman wasn’t having it.
“Yeah, so I’m gonna make a motion that respectfully, we’re gonna move forward,” Crye said. “I’m gonna make a motion that we sign this document and get it over to the City of Redding, put the ball in their court and get this alternative custody program rolling and no more stalling.”
The Board voted unanimously to approve R5. The matter seemed forgotten until the Consent Calendar rolled around and Plummer explained why he’d pulled item C2, “Adopt a resolution which approves the City of Redding’s Request that the County Clerk perform services for the County to conduct a special election on November 4, 2025.”
Plummer began by noting that plans to use the property for an alternative custody program had been in the works since January, as city of Redding officials were well aware. Then he leaned in, as the saying goes.
“The city of Redding, as we know, takes up 65 percent of the jail,” Plummer said. “So what we’ve heard from the sheriff on this is that the combination of the alternative custody program, plus the male reentry program, which we are going to hear a presentation on from the Amnity Foundation, could reduce the jail population by as much as half.”
Plummer was clearly not pleased with Redding’s delay—the city was scheduled to discuss the matter in closed session Tuesday night, but apparently no reportable action was taken.
“I’m not here to point fingers or figure out why,” he said. “We just need the city to do whatever they can to expedite this. And so my motion is to defer approval of this election until we hear back from the city on approval of the deal with the land.”
It was perhaps the boldest move Plummer has made since assuming office in January. Mess with our land deal? We’ll cancel your election! The move dramatically split the board.
District 5 Supervisor Chris Kelstrom was not pleased with Plummer’s motion.
District 5 Supervisor Chris Kelstrom attended the Amazon groundbreaking in Stillwater Business Park earlier in the week, where he hobnobbed with Redding City Manager Barry Tippin, as he shared during his board report.
“I thanked Barry and I thanked (Redding City Councilwoman) Tenessa (Audette) at the Amazon groundbreaking,” Kelstrom said. “They’re not dragging their feet. They’re not doing this on purpose. That was literally last week, he told me that’s the only thing holding them up now is they just have to get this deemed that it’s surplus and then everything’s done. I mean, t’s are crossed, i’s are dotted. They just have to get that designation from the state.”
“If they wanted to do this before the agreement, why didn’t they do this months ago?” Plummer asked rhetorically.
Long, the former cop who’s fought for the alternative custody program even harder than Plummer, suddenly found himself on the other side of his ally. He called ROV Curtis back to the podium.
“Aren’t we required statutorily to run an election if a city wants something brought forward? Is that a violation of the law for us not to agree to run an election?” Long asked.
“We can agree not to, but they can sue us because technically, this isn’t from the city,” Curtis said. “This is an initiative from voters who went out, signed the thing and gave it to the city. And then the city had to go to the council, have it approved, and then it comes to us.”
Plummer pointed out that his motion didn’t cancel the election and would be brought back at next week’s meeting, but that didn’t satisfy Long.
“I understand the motion,” Long said. “But the fact we’re connecting the two together, I don’t see the nexus. And like Supervisor Kelstrom just stated, I think the city is negotiating. It’s taken a long time. This parcel is very important to us. And I really am not in favor of connecting those two and basically extorting their acceptance of this or we won’t run an election.”
“I would argue that they are actually intricately connected in part because in the sales tax, it’s a 12 percent grant to this program, which, if we don’t have the property, we have no program, right?” Plummer responded.
Chair Crye was thrilled with Plummer’s move.
“This is really simple,” Crye said. “When you talk about negotiations, this is running out the clock. You made a motion. I think it’s bold. And I mean, I love it. Welcome to the realm of getting things done.”
Plummer’s measure passed 3-2, with both Kelstrom and Long emphatically voting no.
And that, ladies and gentlemen, was how the sausage was made at the Shasta County Board of Supervisors on Tuesday, Aug. 19, 2025.
SCOREBOARD
County Counsel Joe Larmour and CEO David Rickert.
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 Take the following actions: (1) Receive a presentation from healthcare consultant, Chriss Street; (2) consider findings regarding establishing a medical school and residency program; and (3) consider providing direction to staff (Sponsored by Supervisors Crye and Plummer).
Future General Fund Impact
Simple Majority Vote
Score: The Board voted 5-0 to have HHSA Director Christy Coleman bring recommendations for salary bonuses to attract interest in long vacant head psychiatrist and psychologist positions, to be funded by opioid settlement dollars.
Board of Supervisors
R3 Receive a presentation from the County Administrative Office and approve a community survey to gather feedback regarding possible additions to the Shasta County Charter (Sponsored by Supervisor Crye).
No Additional General Fund Impact
Simple Majority Vote
Score: R3 was pulled by Chair Crye.
Public Works
R4 Take the following actions regarding the Old Shasta County Courthouse Demolition Project: (1) Receive an update from the Department of Public Works; (2) provide direction on a proposal to construct parking lot on the demolition site; and (3) authorize Public Works Director to solicit third party proposals for turnkey solar array options.
General Fund Impact
Simple Majority Vote
Score: The Board voted 5-0 to build a parking lot on the demolished Old Courthouse site and directed Public Works to bring back solar proposals at a future meeting.
R5 Take the following actions: (1) Approve a lease agreement with the City of Redding for 7251 Eastside Road, Redding, and 7051 Eastside Road, Anderson, for land to develop custody operations in Shasta County (“Project”); (2) approve an agreement with SHN Consulting Engineers & Geologists, Inc., for preparation of an Environmental Impact Report for the Project; and (3) approve budget amendments which increase: (a) revenue and appropriations by $500,000 in the Alternative Custody Budget (BU 246); and (b) appropriations by $500,000 in the Accumulated Capital Outlay Budget (BU 161) offset by use of General Fund Infrastructure Detention Center committed funds.
General Fund Impact
4/5 Vote
Score: The Board voted 5-0 to approve leasing the site for the proposed Alternative Custody Program.
County Clerk-Elections
R6 Approve a budget amendment which increases appropriations by $125,000 in the Election Admin & Registration Budget (BU 140) offset by use of General Fund.
General Fund Impact
4/5 Vote
Score: No vote taken, ROV Curtis instructed to bring more detailed plans to future board meeting.
Presentations
Jenna Coulter, Clay Ross and Jenna Berry are CORE.
R7 Receive a presentation from Community Opioid Response and Education (C.O.R.E.) regarding the substance use prevention and education in youth program funded by Opioid Settlement dollars.
No General Fund Impact
No Vote
Score: Youth Options Shasta Executive Director Jenna Coulter, Raising Shasta Executive Director Jenna Berry and Columbia Elementary Principal Clay Ross made their first presentation since being awarded a total of $4 million in opioid settlement funding for youth drug prevention services. Under the umbrella of CORE, they plan to present updated statistics on local drug use among youth at their next presentation.
CLOSED SESSION ANNOUNCEMENT
On R9, item number one, Jellison v. Shasta County, the Board voted 4-0 to retain outside counsel and defend the claim. Crye was absent for the vote. On R9, Smith v. Department of Transportation, the Board voted to retain outside Council and defend the claim.
R8 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:
Deputy Sheriffs Association – Deputy Sheriff, Sergeant and District Attorney Investigator Unit
R9 CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL – EXISTING LITIGATION
(Government Code Section 54956.9): Names of Cases:
Talea Jellison v. Shasta County; Shasta County Superior Court
County of Shasta v. Lincoln General Insurance (Shasta County Superior Court, Case #183767)
Smith v. Department of Transportation, et al. (Shasta County Superior Court, Case #207800)
CONSENT CALENDAR
Item C2 was pulled by Supervisor Plummer; the Board voted 3-2 to delay approving the city of Redding’s request for a special election in November. The rest of the Consent Calendar passed unanimously.
Agricultural Commissioner/Sealer of Weights and Measures
C1 Approve budget amendments which adjust appropriations by $75,000 in the Agricultural Commissioner & Sealer of Weights and Measures Budget (BU 280) from Account 095166 to Account 065407 and Account 034890 and decrease appropriations and revenue by $75,000 in the Land Buildings and Improvements Budget (BU 166).
No Additional General Fund Impact
4/5 Vote
County Clerk-Elections
C2 Adopt a resolution which approves the City of Redding’s Request that the County Clerk perform services for the County to conduct a special election on November 4, 2025.
General Fund Impact
Simple Majority Vote County Counsel
C3 Approve an agreement with Oppenheimer Investigations, LLP, for investigative services.
No Additional General Fund Impact
4/5 Vote
Health and Human Services Economic Mobility
C4 Approve an evergreen Memorandum of Understanding with the California Department of Social Services for the exchange of confidential information contained in datasets to conduct program evaluations.
No Additional General Fund Impact
Simple Majority Vote
C5 Approve a retroactive agreement with For The Future for youth residential specialty
mental health services.
No Additional General Fund Impact
Simple Majority Vote
C6 Approve a retroactive agreement with Guiding Our Youth for youth residential
specialty mental health services.
No Additional General Fund Impact
Simple Majority Vote
C7 Approve a retroactive renewal agreement with Youth for Change for youth
wraparound services.
No Additional General Fund Impact
Simple Majority Vote
Health and Human Services Agency-Public Health
C8 Ratify the Health and Human Services Agency Branch Director’s signature to the amendment of the revenue agreement with the California Department of Public Health’s California Injury and Violence Prevention Branch for comprehensive suicide prevention which extends the term and designate authority to the County Executive Officer, or their designee, to sign future amendments.
No Additional General Fund Impact
Simple Majority Vote
Public Works
C9 Find the “West Central Landfill Shop Facility Improvement Project,” Contract No. 207603, categorically exempt in conformance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines 14 CCR Section 15301, Class 1 – Existing Facilities, approve plans and specifications and direct the Public Works Director to advertise for bids, and authorize the opening of bids on or after September 18, 2025, at 11:00 a.m.
No General Fund Impact
Simple Majority Vote
Shasta County Sheriff
C10 Approve budget amendments which increase appropriations by $20,000 in the Sheriff Civil Budget (BU 237) and decrease appropriations in the Sheriff OES Budget (BU 235) for technology upgrades.
No Additional General Fund Impact
4/5 Vote
C11 In accordance with Ordinance 764, “An Ordinance of the Board of Supervisors of the County of Shasta Approving A Military Equipment Use Policy for the Shasta County Sheriff’s Office,” determine that each type of military equipment identified in the annual military equipment report has complied with the standards as set forth in Assembly Bill 481.
No Additional General Fund Impact
Simple Majority Vote
###
If you appreciate award-winning journalist R.V. Scheide’s epic coverage of Shasta County Board of Supervisors governance, please join A News Cafe’s dedicated paid subscribers who help support this site. Thank you!
© Copyright A News Cafe 2025. All rights reserved.
