Shasta County Board Considers Tourism Contract, Discusses Elections Concerns, and Debates How to Begin Fixing the County’s Healthcare Crisis

12.10.24 1:55 pm: We have updated the story to provide further information on funding totals for the east-bound flight initiative. 12.10.24 5:45 pm: We have updated our heading and subheading now that live coverage has ended.

Supporting East-Bound Flights Out of Redding Airport

Supervisors discussed whether to provide a promise of an additional $100,000 to support the City of Redding’s attempts to contract with United Airlines for an east-bound flight route to and from Denver. The money would come from the County’s general fund. The County has already promised $100,000 to support this deal in a previous vote several months ago. United Airlines is requiring a $2 million revenue guarantee to bring Denver service to Redding, and the Shasta Economic Development Corporation has returned to supervisors to ask for a commitment of more funds. According to EDC President Rebecca Baer, funding information in the staff report was not correct. She told the Board to date $1.6 million has been committed. That includes $760,000 from a federal Department of Transportation grant, $290,000 from the City of Redding, $100,000 from Shasta County and $450,000 from other local community supporters.

Supervisors had a respectful and rigorous discussion about whether to support this deal any further. Board members Kevin Crye and Chris Kelstrom both suggested that they were more likely to support airport deals further if the City brought the County to the table as decision-makers for the airport, as part of a joint powers agency or some other similar arrangement. Supervisor Mary Rickert expressed concern about spending additional general funds on something not directly related to providing County services.

Jones opined that “once you reach Denver you can reach the entire world”, saying spending the taxpayers money is what supervisors do. Garman agreed that Denver is an important hub saying the flight will support tourism across Shasta County.

The vote failed after Supervisors Crye and Rickert opposed it, because it required a 4/5 majority.

Contracting for Shasta County Tourism Services

Supervisors discussed whether to award a tourism contract to the Redding Chamber of Commerce which received the top score in response to a Request for Proposals (RFP) for tourism marketing, put out by the County months ago. The County was considering contracting up to $1 million dollars annually.

In response to the news about the Redding Chamber rising to the top in the RFP process, Supervisors Crye, Kelstrom and Jones all immediately said they no longer wanted to consider awarding a contract at this time, suggesting the issue could be discussed again next year. Jones shared his thoughts on the issue most openly, saying he was disappointed with the process because the Shasta County Chamber of Commerce didn’t score higher on the RFP because he feels that group should represent the County when it comes to tourism. The Shasta Chamber is a privately-owned for-profit collaboration that began in August 2023.

As the Record Searchlight has reported, Jones has been unhappy with the Redding Chamber because the organization financially supported opposition to the recall of former Supervisor Leonard Moty through its now-disbanded Political Action Committee (PAC) and at least one representative of the Shasta Chamber of Commerce has supported Crye’s political campaigns.

Redding Chamber of Commerce President Todd Jones spoke briefly during public comment, sharing the Chamber’s success at growing Redding’s tourism market, something Crye called into question, saying what Jones had shared was “not quite the full picture”.

Supervisors unanimously voted to voted to reject all bids and bring the tourism RPF process back at a later time. Supervisor Rickert, who has opposed the tourism RFP process from the beginning, emphasized that she feels the entire process was a waste of time and money.

Sending Election-Related Letters to the Department of Justice

Supervisors discussed whether to send two letters to the federal Department of Justice to address concerns related to Shasta County Elections.

The first letter relates to alleged time stamp issues with the March 5, 2024 election audit logs. The letter is written in response to information shared by an amateur election data hobby analyst, Steve Umfleet. A few months ago, when Umfleet’s testimony on these time stamps was presented in Shasta County Superior Court, Judge Stephen Baker said it was clear he was not qualified to present expert testimony on the data, asking the attorney who had brought him as a witness why Umfleet’s opinion on audit logs should carry any more weight than that of “the paper boy down the street.”

Supervisor Crye said he thinks most of the time stamp issues could be resolved by hearing from Hart Intercivic, the organization which provides the County’s voting machine services.

“If people have the answers they should just come up and say them,” Crye emphasized.

Notably, supervisors have not asked their own Registrar of Voters (ROV) Tom Toller or the Assistant ROV Joanna Francescut, who ran the March 5 Election, to present on the matter. Jones made a motion to delay sending the letter until February 1 when President-elect Donald Trump and his cabinet appointments will be more likely to review it. That passed, four to one, with Supervisor Garman opposing it.

The second letter relates to “ink overspray” issues on ballots during the November 5 Election. That printing issue required the Elections Office to deploy a legal duplication process in order to be able machine count about 50% of Shasta County ballots. The same issue also occurred in Nevada County which also uses both Hart machines and Runbeck as a printing vendor.

Before public comment was received, ROV Tom Toller asked if he could speak on the matter. He said the Board’s communication straight to federal officials circumvents the next step in the process which would be to communicate with the California Secretary of State’s Office, which is already investigating the issue. Toller also said he has concerns that the letter could put “a chilling effect” on the County’s negotiations with both Hart and Runbeck about repayment of the costs of the duplication process.

Jones responded by saying Toller should welcome any letter from supervisors on this issue, not fear it.

“Sir it’s not a question of fear,” Toller responded, “its a question of timing. I don’t believe sending a letter at this time is going to be useful.”

There was a significant amount of public comment, primarily from the usual small group of community members who have concerns about the local elections process, many of them supporters of the secessionist movement known as New California State (NCS). The Tehama County Chair of the NCS movement also spoke.

“Hand count” all ballots was the frequent refrain of many public speakers. While some complained that they had not given their consent for their ballots to be duplicated in response to scanning issues, California election law already allows ballot duplication as part of state law.

The vote passed, three to two with Garman and Rickert opposing, the latter noting how perspectives have changed.

“I find it really ironic,” Rickert said, “that you three voted to appoint Tom Toller and now Tim and I are the ones standing behind him.”

Declaring Election Results

ROV Toller told the Board he certified elections moments before the stroke of midnight on December 3.

‘This was an extraordinary election,” Toller said, noting the complex structure of the election based on the number of candidates and measures alone.

“And of course it was my first election,” Toller said “and really the first election I’d participated in as anything other than a voter.”

Then came the ink overspray issue, he continued, which introduced “critical complications to our processes in the Elections department.”

His staff, he explained, with Runbeck’s help, rapidly implemented a solution. But despite “unceasing effort”, Toller continued, counting Shasta’s election took all the way through December 3.

Certifying the election, Toller explained, required his signature under penalty of perjury and is already “a done deal.”

“That ship has sailed,” Toller said before asking the Board to follow the law which requires them only to declare the certified results of those races under their jurisdiction.

“And I hope you will do so . . . This is a time to show leadership.” Toller emphasized.

Prodigious public comment followed, much of it laced with tension. Among other statements, some members of the community suggested the Board used the initials “VC” standing for vi coactus, or under coercion, as a signal that they had declared the results only under duress, although it’s not clear what duress the Board is facing other than verbal intimidation from those same community members themselves.

County Counsel Larmour said there’s no provision in the law for use of such a phrase but perhaps it could be written on the document. The Board eventually voted to declare the certified results, with three members of the Board, Jones, Kelstrom and Crye, saying they were doing so only “under duress”.

Support a Proposal for Proposition 1 Funds for the Bridge Center for Hope

Supervisors voted to support send a letter in support of a proposal by Dr. Mercedes Patee on behalf of her organization, Renewed Life Medical Group, to apply for state Proposition 1 funding. The funding will be used to build a Shasta County facility to help those in crisis due to substance use issues. We have confirmed with County spokesperson David Maung that the Board’s vote included a pledge of $3.75 million in settlement funds to support the project, under the specific terms included in the draft letter.

Consider Hiring a Consultant to Address Shasta County Healthcare Deficits

Supervisor Crye brought forward a motion to have CEO David Rickert look into hiring a consultant to explore the reasons for Shasta County’s healthcare deficits and consider potential solutions. Reporting from Shasta Scout, shows a number of individuals and organizations are already working on this complex problem as Supervisor Mary Rickert also pointed out. The Board eventually voted to have CEO Rickert explore hiring a consultant after he readily that he will also look into existing initiatives, including the Shasta Health Assessment and Redesign Collaborative. He said he will not spend money on a contracted hire until after returning to the Board to provide information on proposed next steps and costs.

Amending Shasta County Policies

Supervisors voted to update Shasta County’s administrative policiy so that nonprofits will be required to disclose their executive compensation amounts before entering into agreements with the County. Rickert opposed the vote, saying she felt this level of oversight was not appropriate for the County and asking Supervisor Crye why he had brought forward the issue.

“I want to bring righteousness to places where there hasn’t been light in years,” Crye said.

All items on the consent calendar were also passed.

---

Do you have a correction to share? Email us: editor@shastascout.org.