Shasta Could Begin Distributing Almost $40 Million in Opioid Settlement Funds without Expert Involvement, a Strategic Plan, or Use of Evidence-Based Metrics
County Supervisors will meet in November to hear six-minute presentations from any individual or organization that wants a cut of the nearly $40 million. The Board has not developed a strategic plan or held public conversations with substance use disorder experts and doesn’t plan to consider evidence-based metrics before funding.
Supervisor-elect Matt Plummer was among more than a dozen people who spoke to the Shasta County Board about opioid funds on Tuesday, October 29.
The County has already received $10.5 million in funds and is scheduled to receive a total of at least $38.5 million over the next 15 years. The money is being awarded to jurisdictions across the nation as result of litigation against pharmaceutical companies. It’s intended to address the harms caused by the industry’s push of opioids onto vulnerable populations.
Taking a treatment-as-prevention approach, the settlement rules dictate that at least 50% of the funds must be used on “high impact abatement activities” including developing a substance use disorder facility or other treatment infrastructure, addressing the needs of high risk populations, diverting substance users from the justice system into treatment, and interventions for youth.
Plummer, who recently held a community workshop about the issue, told Board members that the County should begin by developing a comprehensive strategy that includes clear goals and a process to track progress. Working to reduce opioid-related deaths in the County back to 2019 levels would be a start, he said, along with reducing emergency-room visits related to overdoses.
Plummer, a nonprofit consultant, said his research shows the County needs a crisis stabilization unit, a medical detox facility, more inpatient and outpatient medically-assisted treatment, and more sober living facilities for those recovering from addiction. He recommended that the County conduct a “needs assessment” to determine how many beds are needed for each type of facility to help determine fund uses.
The Board came up with a different approach. After nearly two hours of discussion and public comment, the Board voted four to one (with Rickert opposing) to hold another meeting on November 12. That meeting will provide an opportunity for any individual or organization to present a project idea, with budget, in six minutes. Supervisors Kevin Crye and Patrick Jones said they plan to make funding decisions at the meeting.
The Board’s approach contradicts much of what they heard from public speakers, including Plummer, Hill Country CEO Jo Campbell, and Brandon Thornock, CEO of the Shasta Community Health Center, which serves about a third of the County’s population.
Thornock recommended that funding decisions should be made from evidence-based data by an unbiased, neutral, selection committee.
“By choosing based on merit and impact,” Thornock emphasized, “we will be able to allocate resources more effectively, expand the reach of successful programs and ultimately provide a broader safety net for those struggling with impact.”
Supervisor Mary Rickert pushed forward a similar idea, saying a commission of substance use disorder experts with years of experience in the field would be best equipped to recommend funding uses.
That didn’t sit well with Chair Kevin Crye.
“I don’t need a commission to give me an opinion,” Crye responded. “I’m an elected official who represents District 1, and I will make my vote based on the information that I’m working on.”
Crye said he’s spent the last weeks and months speaking to “hundreds” of people who have brought him budgets related to how the opioid funds could be spent and is ready to start “deploying capital” to “move the needle”.
He repeatedly reprimanded other supervisors for not bringing forward “one or two ideas” with specific budget numbers generated by their own behind-the-scenes private conversations.
Supervisors talked largely in generalities, with most agreeing on the need for a new facility, with a licensed medical professional in-house, to serve those with substance use disorders. It wasn’t clear whether they were referring to a crisis facility, such as a sobering center, or in-patient medication assisted treatment, both of which may be needed.
Jones said he estimated that such a facility could cost $10 million, prompting Supervisor Rickert to remind the Board that any project launched by the County with opioid funds must be sustainable.
“It’s imperative that whatever we do, we look at sustainability,” Rickert said. “That’s a really key component to this for it to be effective . . . and that’s where we need to, in my opinion, talk to the experts.”
Other Fund Uses Being Considered Include Law Enforcement, No Boundaries, The Manor
Other uses being considered for the opioid settlement funds include money for law enforcement Crye said he hopes to fund a “domestic highway enforcement (DHE)” unit with a canine, at a cost of about half-a-million dollars annually plus another approximately quarter-million in start-up costs for equipment. But Deputy CEO Erin Bertain, who presented on the opioid funding dollars, pointed out that using the money that way wouldn’t be legal.
“We have information that specifically lists unallowable law enforcement activities,” Bertain responded, “and the first thing on the list is conducting search-and-seizure activities, including the purchase of canines.”
Crye pushed the idea again anyway, suggesting that the County could develop a “creative way to make search and seizure and canines an allowable use of the funds by developing a school-based “drug enforcement initiative”.
“ . . . it’s allocated for the schools,” Crye said, “it’s allocated for the kids. It’s allocated to be K-12 education, but that unit is there, and then they can obviously be dual purpose however they want . . .”
Bertain pushed back, saying whatever percentage of time law enforcement resources were used for search and seizure, could not be funded by opioid settlement dollars. And canines cannot be purchased. In response, Crye reiterated that he wants a domestic highway enforcement team and if the County can even “pass” settlement dollars toward it, he will push for that.
Crye and Jones also both mentioned a local nonprofit called No Boundaries, which operates hotel rooms for those experiencing housing insecurity. Jones said he’d talked to No Boundaries Director Christine Cage more than any other individual about the opioid settlement funds and “she’s had some success.”
“And the more money we spend on the program,” Jones opined, “the higher success they’re going to have.”
It’s unclear what metrics for “success” Jones is referencing.
No Boundaries was investigated by the Department of Health Care Services last year to ensure it wasn’t providing drug rehabilitation services without appropriate licensing after public statements by the director that appeared to indicate that she was operating a sobering facility. The investigation by DHCS found that substance services that require licensure, including detoxification services, were not being provided at the site.
Crye’s also considering funding a program that provides housing for those in recovery. It’s operated by the faith-based Abundant Life Academy at the Market Street Manor, a hotel in Redding. Crye said he already had a preliminary $8 million, three-year budget for the program in-hand.
Crye’s said he supports funding recovery housing because he wants to ensure that opioid money is spent on people “that want the help,” claiming that money spent on people who are still working to end substance use is a “waste.”
Community member Marci Fernandez, whose adult child is chronically homeless as the result of co-occurring mental health and substance use issues, disagreed strongly during her public comment to the Board, saying she’s “disturbed by the notion that the drug addicts who are severely affected by these drugs are the ones that need to be held accountable.”
Opioid settlement funds, Fernandez said, are restitution paid by “pharmaceutical companies whose greed and lies entrapped victims in Shasta County . . . and the money that they pay should be given in order to help people to have succumbed to their lies and their greed and the addictive drugs that have harmed their brains . . .”
While supervisors eventually agreed to hold a special meeting in the County chamber on Tuesday, November 12 at 9 am to hear presentations and make some final decisions, Rickert opposed that idea which she likened to “throwing things up at the dart board.”
“We need to have a long-range strategy,” Rickert said . . . I don’t know how we can make snap decisions.”
Crye disagreed, saying when agencies are “all pining for their piece of the pie” nothing gets done. He said he already knows his priorities for spending but encouraged individuals and agencies to use the time between now and the November 12 special meeting to “lobby” their supervisors anyway.
A formal press release from the County released yesterday, October 29, was more diplomatic, saying the Board “encourages local organizations to “develop comprehensive plans (for opioid settlement fund use) that align with the specific fund priorities.”
Local organizations have about two weeks to lobby, prepare a comprehensive plan, or both.
Do you have a correction to share? Email us: editor@shastascout.org.
Author
Comments (30)
Comments are closed.
Related Articles
Shasta election official Clint Curtis uses board presentation to praise his own leadership, critique predecessors
The county board voted unanimously not to act on requests included in Curtis’ presentation.
Recent flooding closed Cal’s Books. This group of young people is working to bring it back
In December, after Cal’s Books was flooded with two feet of water — and thousands of books were damaged — its owner decided to close the store permanently. Now a team of 20-year-olds has a plan to save the beloved store.
Board majority faces off against Supervisor Plummer on liaison positions, supervisor raises
During the board’s first meeting of 2026, Supervisor Matt Plummer was removed from a number of pivotal liaison positions.
Now, Rolling Hills Casino is spending $60,000 plus to support Bethel Slate of Candidates. Check the flyer sent by them. Where is your reporting on that?
BayWatch: “Bethel slate of candidates”?? Audette is the only one of the four who is a Bethel peep. Let’s stick to facts. And yes we just published a story related to their influence on the Council race.
The Board majority regularly takes actions that are not lawful. Is any regulatory agency out there paying attention? Is the microphone on? Does it matter to anyone?
Crye is publicly stating in no uncertain terms that he intends to direct staff to expend funds fraudulently. Crye is proudly admitting he has been working back door deals. Although he will magnanimously allow people to actually speak and present ideas at the next meeting, he has already indicated he has his mind made up about how he intends to award funding with no actual plan or goal as a guide.
The County has a clear purchasing policy for awarding contracts that requires potential vendors to submit proposals which must be reviewed using an unbiased method. This is a policy, not a suggestion.
Crye stomps his foot that a commission isn’t the boss of him. Hey Kev – with that in mind please justify the elections commission (and it’s cost).
Crye says we don’t need to consider evidence that a program is successful as a factor for handing out money. In this case. However, I recall he made a stink during budget hearings about how HHSA programs that aren’t delivering quantifiable results should be defunded. It appears he is in support of evidence based programs only if he can conveniently apply that label to support how he personally feels like handing out money.
Are these organizations he intends to give money to his friends? Will the public have a chance to find out whether any Supervisor has a conflict of interest before committing funding (potentially illegally)?
I would love to see the organizations that get a vote from Crye to receive money at the next meeting do something radical:
Decline offers to be handed funding without going through the formal bidding process. If you genuinely are in business to make long term change, take charge and collaborate with other community partners.
If our BOS doesn’t have the sense to use this windfall well, stand up and choose to do the right thing anyway. The BOS isn’t the boss.
As the experts, collaborate and come up with a comprehensive plan (sustainable, like Mary says). Resist just taking money for your own project without considering the big picture. Be ethical and wise with this once-in-a-lifetime opportunity. If you truly have the best program and you can administer it effectively then prove it. And then hold your head high knowing you earned the contract and move forward collaborating with other organizations to make a difference.
As professional experts, you can do better than our misguided self-important Board majority.
Have no doubt that Crye is going to try and divert money in such a way that it supports his interests, and not that of Shasta county.
Either he’s going to try and divert it to people that support him and his causes, or in a way where in an indirect manner he will receive the money.
He’s already tried it, and it’s obvious to those who are watching.
Just wait and see.
How are other counties implementing their programs and/or policies?
Cry claiming that money spent on people who are still working to end substance use is a “waste.” Cry has no clue how opioid addiction affects people. It is not a waste it’s part of what is needed to help people get on the road to recovery. Cry and his cronies are the only waste of taxes payer dollars.
How about the corruption and Quid pro quo by Bethel Juggernaut, Few examples:
Tenessa Audette took $2,500 from Rober Cronic and awarded $1.2 Million to his Market Street Manor Motel. There was no competitive bid for that.
Tenessa took money from Joshua Johnson and appointed him for planning commission and tried firing Aaron Hatch. Then, she appointed Josh for city council.
She took $11,000 from Rolling Hills Casino just to oppose Win River project. Josh Johnson also took $5,500 from Rolling Hills Casino for that. This is an out of area special interest trying to interfere in Redding and Shasta County.
When will you report on such things?
You are right. Even Erin Resner took $,5500 this month from Rolling Hills casino to oppose Win River
Hi Annelise,
The board is already in contact with these expert substance abuse organizations for years and the past few months regarding the $39 million prop one.
They will be there November 12 to present their opinions and ideas as well as local citizens to give their six minutes of free speech each.
I will learn a lot along with the local citizens. There is no need for secret commission meetings.
For all we know, there may be another board meeting on this subject.
That’s why we have elections for board of supervisors. It’s their job to make decisions.
There’s simply no room for bad conduct of citizens to verbally attack the supervisors at board meetings.
Happy Citizen: “The Board” can’t be in contact with anyone unless they do it in public meetings. We have yet to see such “contact”. The Elections Commission isn’t “secret”, why would a Substance Use Commission be?
I think it would be a useful idea to hold a meeting of stakeholders well before the 12th and organize a unified approach from community members, that can be presented at the board meeting. Perhaps the Shasta Coalition for Substance Abuse can make this happen. This opportunity to be heard as a unified community with solutions offered in a mere six minutes would be well used if we make the effort.
That is an excellent suggestion, Kathy.
Concerning the $30 million opioid and fentanyl and other drug recovery efforts.
Sounds like we all gonna find out November 12 at the Shasta county board meeting who are the expert presenters and commentators and what they can do to end homeless and drug addiction.
The attacks from this forum of commentators on the board of supervisor is not needed.
Happy Citizen: Wait, so the Board is going to determine who’s an expert by listening to them for six minutes? I’m confused.
Yes it is. Everyone needs to know how these crooked lying supervisors are so we can recall them. 3 good old boys doing it all wrong.
Sad. RECALL!
The reason Crye didn’t want to listen to experts and use his own method of handing out funds is because he is looking for ways to divert some of that money to himself and his cronies.
Just wait and see.
I think you’re on the right track, Jolly.
The Shasta County Board of Education has a Board Initiative regarding substance abuse prevention education. Preventing young people from starting on the path of substance abuse by educating them about the pitfalls of that behavior seems to me a much more wise use of these funds than putting more police and police dogs into schools.
Well, it was four to one
Which would seem to indicate that it was a bipartisan vote
Once again Crye and Jones think they know it all and will push for their agenda. If the money isn’t spent the way it is intended and the law and rules followed the county may have to return it/pay it back. Crye seemed to brush off the Deputy CEO Bertain.
Agencies do not “pine” for funds. Anyone who has ever dealt with grants or funding with specific criteria, knows that there should be a request for proposals from agencies who would like to have a chance to continue or create successful programs, and a committee usually evaluates these submissions to determine how to award funds. Kevin may “represent District 1” but I believe we have a few more districts that have a voice. In addition, this is a county-wide problem with very capable organizations already working on it. I hope folks show up in “2 weeks” (sound like a usual time line set by someone else?) to present concerns. I wonder if Crye will show up with a crown on. Just saying.
Great reporting and writing Annelise. I am so embarrassed for supervisors who think they know everything about something they know nothing about! It reminds me of a principal I had who was continually scheming on how to “co-mingle” grant funding for what he wanted. The expertise for solving coming up with solutions to the horrific problem exists in this county with people with experience, and with other cities that have been successful. I know and have known addicts and ex-addicts. I’ve known people who died of an overdose, and I know what it does to the family. I am not an expert. There are best practices available to help our community. Let’s listen to the real experts.
Was there to see Mary give a long comprehensive list of ideas the fit in the Exhibit E of the funding, many based on evidenced based programs that already exist. Basically, Crye, Jones and Kelstorm quickly realized they were woefully outdone with their little lists, some of them not in the parameters of the settlement.
I was impressed with the medical professionals that presented and Supervisor-Elect Plummer who all understood that it’s going to take people that understand the program and actually know what they’re talking about to develop this plan. Clearly, Jones, Crye and Kelstorm are miles out of their wheelhouse on this issue.
And it was almost embarrassing to see Crye, who has tried desperately to ace Mary out of this solution, or any other governance solution for that matter, get angry at Mary for his woeful ignorance and pitiful display of leadership. But, that’s what we’ve seen for the last few years anyway, regardless of the issue.
This is a ridiculous schedule. Careful strategic planning does not happen in 2 weeks and in 6 minutes. Typical Crye
You’re absolutely correct. Crye has had months to develop his plan he wants to push through. Yet he gives just 2 weeks to anyone else??? Who the heck does this guy think he is pushing his own agenda like this? It’s absolutely ludicrous and highly irresponsible. Perhaps he’s lined his own company or affiliates to prosper financially from some of this money? Why the big rush? Is the county in jeopardy of losing the funds if the funds aren’t spent? None of this is surprising.
I would think Mary would have had a truckload of ideas with all of her expertise on the subject.
Shastaresident: Thanks for checking. Yes you’re right she did have a significant list of ideas. I didn’t list them here because I shared her overarching commentary instead, which is that experts should be involved in decision-making and that decisions should be made based on evidence and impact.
Is fentanyl an opiate?
Yes