Six-Hour Meeting on Opioid Settlement Funds Results in No Definitive Board Action

Shasta County Supervisors heard presentations from 20 different organizations during a November 12 six-hour marathon meeting on opioid settlement fund use. In the end, the Board took no definitive action, deciding instead to continue discussing details of many of the proposals during an upcoming meeting, likely in December or January.

Supervisor Kevin Crye, who’s pushed for quick deployment of at least some of the nearly $39 million in opioid funds the County is scheduled to receive, seemed to soften his stance by the end of the meeting, acknowledging that developing a plan to deploy funds could take eighteen months. Yesterday, November 13, Crye emphasized to Shasta Scout that he feels youth programs require the most urgent action saying he wants to make decisions related to those in December or January.

The timeline matters. At least two seats on the Board will change early next year, with Matt Plummer assuming Supervisor Patrick Jones’ seat, and Allen Long taking Supervisor Tim Garman’s. Who will hold the fifth seat on the Board is still uncertain, as Shasta County awaits the results of the November 5 election. Supervisor Mary Rickert, who currently represents District 3, currently trails Corky Harmon by about 1,000 votes–but less than half of Shasta County’s ballots have been counted so far.

Supervisor Chris Kelstrom told his fellow Board members during the meeting that he felt it was important to wait to make funding decisions until the new Board members are seated in early 2025. He suggested meanwhile, that Shasta County’s Health and Human Services Agency could produce a comprehensive analysis of what the needs are, saying the process so far feels rushed.

Garman agreed, quoting a Bible verse on the importance of seeking wise counsel and emphasizing that the Board has not yet sought the advice of experts in the field of substance use disorders. Garman suggested forming an advisory commission to assess current needs and advise on how the funds should be used, something that Supervisor Rickert has also repeatedly suggested.

“I like the idea of having some sort of a committee or a council oversee this a little bit,” Garman continued,  “because there’s so much (that’s) needed.”

Representatives from the Good News Rescue Mission took a similar stance, stepping to the podium to present during the meeting then instead announcing a decision to withdraw the Mission’s application for funding.

Speaking to Shasta Scout after, Mission Director Jonathan Anderson explained the decision to rescind the funding request, saying he feels strongly that the process being used by the Board so far isn’t the best approach for the community.

“It’s an issue of principle for me,” Anderson said, “I think sometimes money can make people blind. What’s right for the community is having the right people at the table putting together the proper strategic plan.”

Supervisor-elect Plummer also spoke, advocating for strategic planning and cautioning the Board to carefully assess the gaps in current community response in order to deploy the money most successfully. 

During Board discussion, Deputy County CEO Erin Bertain expressed her hesitation about moving too quickly towards funding decisions. She pointed out to supervisors that they need to think about strategic concerns such as whether the budget details of each proposal they’re considering meet the allowed uses.

Cash flow is also an important consideration, Bertain noted. While the County will receive at least $38.9 million in opioid settlement funds to spend over the next fifteen years, only $10.5 million is currently in the bank–making it important for the County to appropriately forecast specific timelines for the projects they decide to support.

CEO David Rickert seemed to summarize many individuals concerns when he told the Board towards the end of the meeting that it’s clear that the opioid fund use decision is “a much bigger project than we realized.”

Jones seemed to agree, noting that the Board had shown interest in the majority of proposals submitted during the meeting.

“There are too many yeses here,” Jones said. “Clearly we’re going to run out of money.”

Organizations whose proposals will return for tentative future funding discussions by the Board include Shasta County Substance Use Coalition, Shasta College, River Recovery Services, Visions Of the Cross, Mayers Memorial Hospital, Renewed Life Medical Group, Results Media, Empire Recovery Center, and Hill Country Community Clinic.

Some organizations interested in providing prevention services for youth were also asked to return as a collaborative group. Those include Youth Options Shasta and Raising Shasta, but could also include other agencies. The Board will also continue to consider four County Departments including the Sheriff and Public Defender as well as Veteran Services and Probation.

Crye told Shasta Scout yesterday that while some organizations are returning for future discussions, whether the Board will fund any of them is still uncertain. He said he believes the majority of opioid funding decisions could wait until next year with the contributions of newly-seated supervisors and a “thoughtful strategic plan”.

In contrast, decisions about funding for youth substance use prevention, Crye said, should be made as soon as possible, either in December or January, to ensure they can be rolled our during the next school year. He emphasized that he “already knows for certain” how he’ll vote when it comes to youth prevention programs.

“If it meets certain metrics in my mind that I’ve set forth on outcomes,” Crye said, “I’ll support it.”

---

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