Shasta County Auditor Responds To Rejected CEO Candidate Chriss Street’s County Finance Allegations

During an explosive seventeen-minute taped interview last week, rejected Shasta County CEO candidate Chriss Street said he’s been targeted for asking hard questions about the County’s finances.

His preliminary offer of employment as the County’s new CEO was withdrawn by a unanimous vote of the Board of Supervisors last Thursday, April 6.

The decision, which was made in closed session, came after learning the results of Street’s background check.

No further information about what led to the vote has been released but Street’s well-known background includes a $7 million ruling against him by a federal judge for financially mismanaging trust funds. 

Street spoke to the Board yesterday, April 11, alleging that the County has engaged in at least one large, illegal financial transaction and is operating with an inappropriately low financial reserve.

He welcomed the public to speak with him about his concerns, which he says he discovered during research and interviews with County staff while preparing to take on his potential new role as the County’s CEO.

In response to Street’s allegations, County Auditor-Controller Nolda Short presented a financial overview, reassuring the Board and the public that the County’s reserve levels are not unexpected and that the transaction Street had concerns about was engaged in openly and does not represent illegal activity. 

Sharing the history of the County’s reserve policies and levels, Short said the County’s goal of a 17–25% General Fund reserve balance has never yet been achieved since being voted in as County policy in 2019.

And while meeting that reserve percentage continues to be important, she said, lacking those reserve funds only becomes concerning when cash flow is low, which is not currently a concern.

“If you look at our County administrative policy,” Short told the Board, “It says the County shall maintain a budget unit . . . to be held in reserve for cash flow purposes, revenue shortfalls, or unpredictable one-time expenditures.”

“And so when we’re looking at the cash flow purposes,” she continued, “one of the things that I’m looking at is if the state were to withhold money between July and when we get our property tax revenue, are we going to be solid enough? Are we going to be able to continue to pay our bills and do those things? Right now, our cash flow is healthy. So it’s not an issue right now.”

Short said while she’s not currently concerned about the County’s financial stability, it is important for the Board and the public to note that this is the first time in five years that the County is slated to dip into its reserve funding to pay for ongoing costs.

And, she emphasized, it’s critical to keep in mind that the County is not in a position to continue to spend funds beyond what’s already been budgeted for, without making a plan for how to do so.

“The biggest area of concern for the County,” Short said “ is that we need to remain conservative when approving any additional ongoing operating costs from the General Fund.”

“The County is not at risk of not paying its bills,” Short continued. “We can pay everything that we obligated ourselves through as of last year . . . It’s just looking at what we’re doing going forward.”

While Short did not mention the Supervisors’ recent spending, Supervisor Mary Rickert did, bringing up the elephant in the room: how the County will fund the increased costs arising from the Board’s decision to change electronic voting machine systems and move towards a County-wide hand vote.

Last week, a majority of the Board voted to spend an additional $800,000 from the County’s General Fund. And they’ve been told by Short and others that the true costs of changes to the election process are still unknown.

Asked by Rickert what part of the General Fund that money would be taken from, Short’s response was curt.

“I answered that question last week,” she said, “But this Board has to make that decision. There’s no revenue coming in to cover it . . . and you wouldn’t want to take it from reserves. Those are questions that have to be answered.”

Short also used her presentation to respond to concerns raised by Street about $10 million that was moved from the County’s General Reserves to the County’s Jail Capital Outlay Budget by a 4/1 vote of the Shasta County Board on June 14, 2022. 

Street called the transaction illegal, saying it breaks California law that forbids loans from County reserve funds outside of the budget process.

But Short said the transaction is not illegal because it was not a loan, because it occurred during the County’s regular budget process, and because, in accordance with County policy, the money will be repaid to the General Fund reserve during the same fiscal year. Where the $10 million will be repaid from, Short said, would be up to the Board and CEO’s office.

---

---

During his remarks, Street referred to Supervisor Mary Rickert, the only Board member who voted against the $10 million fund transfer last June, as “defensive.”

But he referred to Short as a “very honest and very transparent person” who had answered his questions over recent weeks, openly.

County Supervisors seemed to share Street’s assessment of Short, thanking her for her work and saying they’re glad she’s in charge.

“Shasta County’s very lucky to have you,” Supervisor Chris Kelstrom told Short, “I’m glad you’re at the helm of the ship.”

Short has served as the County’s Auditor-Controller since being first appointed in 2021, then elected in the June 2022 primary to continue in the role. Before becoming Auditor-Controller, Short served as the County’s Assistant Auditor-Controller for eight years. She’s worked for the County for a total of twenty-two years.

She advised the public to monitor the “fiscal impact” section of the Board’s staff reports to ensure they understand the long-term impact of decisions made by elected officials.

“I’m really looking at that and making sure that the information is in there for the Board and for the public to see,” Short said. “So I would recommend everybody pay attention to that fiscal impact section because it’s the only place for us to list that information.”

 If you have a correction to this story you can submit it here. Have information to share? Email us: editor@shastascout.org