Redding special election held hostage in push for land deal to expand Shasta’s alternative custody program 

“Welcome to the land of getting things done,” said Board Chair Kevin Crye, lauding Supervisor Matt Plummer during the August 19 Shasta County board of supervisors meeting. Plummer made a “bold” move, as Crye put it, convincing a majority of supervisors to delay the county’s agreement to run a special election for Redding, until the city agrees to its end of a land deal with the county. 

The lease agreement in question regards land slated to hold the county’s new Alternative Custody facility, a tract of city-owned property along the Sacramento River that straddles the boundary between Redding and Anderson. Once constructed, the proposed center will expand Shasta’s Alternative Custody Program, which mandates people charged with certain crimes to attend a day center where they perform public service work and learn trades. 

Early on in the meeting, supervisors discussed approving a lease agreement for land to house the project. It’s something that’s been in the works for eight months, Plummer said. Both the county and city have so far held discussions about the property negotiation privately, as part of closed session. But this week, the board made details of the lease agreement public.

County Counsel Joseph Larmour told the board in a lead-in to their discussion that as he understands it, Redding’s delay in approving the lease agreement was the result of needing to declare the land surplus, explaining that city officials had requested that the county hold off on signing their end of the lease agreement for now, pending a surplus land designation. 

Supervisors voted unanimously to move forward anyway. But that was not the end of the issue. Later in the meeting, the lease came to the forefront of board discussions again as they addressed a seemingly unrelated item on the board’s consent agenda: an agreement for the county to conduct a special election for Redding voters.

Plummer then made a surprise motion, suggesting the board delay a usually routine approval for the county Election Office to conduct a special election for a citizen-led sales tax initiative. Plummer said he wanted to delay the vote as a way to push the city to take action on the land deal lease. The board agreed with a majority voting to pend approving the running of Redding’s special election.

“You know, sometimes, when there’s another incentive to get something done, it creates a different level of urgency that will get this over the finish line,” Plummer said.

No progress from city so far 

The lease agreement was on the agenda for the closed session portion of the Redding City Council meeting on Tuesday evening, hours after the county board met, but no reportable action was taken. That’s not because there are still terms to be negotiated, Council Member Erin Resner told Shasta Scout, noting those details were finalized earlier this month.

City Manager Barry Tippin confirmed for Shasta Scout that Redding’s attorney Christian Curtis had not yet had the opportunity to review the agreement from the city’s end as of last night, a required step before the City Council can move forward with signing the lease. The lease also requires a surplus land designation, which is still pending. As of Wednesday afternoon, Redding’s legal counsel had performed a cursory review, and the terms will soon return to the county for review.

Regarding the surplus land, Resner explained that once the city chooses to designate land surplus, the designation is permanent, eliminating future opportunities to use is for a different purpose if the agreement with the county doesn’t pan out. That’s why it’s in the city’s best interest, Resner said, to wait until Curtis completes his legal process before the council formally declares the tract surplus. She said the declaration of surplus land also has specific timelines and could take up to 30 days.  

“I’m saddened by the moves made by the county BOS,” Resner wrote by text. “We have been continually working in good faith. It’s extremely important to the City of Redding to follow the requirements of the state of California.” 

Why the hurry?

In a conversation with Shasta Scout, Plummer further explained why he’s taking such extraordinary steps to push forward the land deal. He said the county has been “cultivating relationships with a number of providers” who could potentially contribute to operating the alternative custody facility.  Those partners include the nonprofit Amity Foundation, and for-profit GEO Reentry Services, which currently contracts with both Shasta County’s Day Reporting Center and the California Department of Corrections. 

If the agreement doesn’t move forward soon, Plummer said, it’s possible these potential partners could lose interest. He added that until the land deal is locked in, the county can’t really begin to ideate on specifics of what the future alternative custody center would look like.

So far, supervisors are acting on only Johnson’s vision, as no fleshed out alternative custody project has been approved. Funding sources for facility build-out also still need to be identified, but the county has more than $30 million squirreled away to help pay for such a project.

Plummer elaborated that the new facility could eventually extend far beyond the initial proposal Sheriff Michael Johnson pitched to the board in January. Collaboration with the Amity Foundation, Plummer continued, could allow the county to add a housing facility as part of for men recently released from prison as they reenter society under close monitoring. Years down the line, he continued, the county could also build a new jail at this location and add behavioral health and medical services.  

What exactly is the county withholding from the city? 

The election now hanging in the balance pertains to a proposed 1% increase in sales tax in Redding. The ballot initiative was brought forward by citizens and has already been approved both by the county Election’s Office and the City of Redding. Funds from the proposed sales tax will support police, fire, roads, and parks as well as incarceration needs, including the county’s proposed alternative custody facility.

That connection is something Plummer pointed out when making his motion to delay election approval.

“If we don’t have property, we have no program, right? And so these work hand in hand together,” Plummer concluded as justification for his push to hold the special election hostage in exchange for a land deal. 

The county’s scheduled approval of the election this week was viewed largely as a formality, but Plummer’s motion to delay that approval raises new questions about the county’s legal obligations. Supervisor Allen Long brought this up, calling newly-appointed Registrar of Voters Clint Curtis to the dais to ask him if the county was required to authorize the election. Curtis, a lawyer by education, said the county could refuse to run the election but the city might sue.

County attorney Joseph Larmour said that Long’s question on the legality of refusing to run a city election was “premature,” adding that it would be more appropriate to address legalies if the board moved to deny the election altogether rather than just delay a decision. 

In the end, both Crye and Supervisor Corkey Harmon voted with Plummer to delay approval for the county to run the special election. Supervisor Chris Kelstrom strongly opposed the vote, saying he was hesitant to put this kind of pressure on Redding because he believes the city is acting in good faith.

Long went even further in his opposition to the vote, saying the board’s action amounts to “basically extorting” the land lease from city officials.

---

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