Board of Supervisors Chairman Kevin Crye Reveals His Cancer Diagnosis and Shasta County Bracing for More Social Services Cost Increases
- Elisa Ballard
- Dec 18, 2025
- 6 min read
December 16, 2025
Redding, CA – The Shasta County Board of Supervisors held their last meeting of the calendar year with new revelations from Chairman Kevin Crye about his health challenge and more cost-cutting measures ahead for the Social Services Budget under Shasta County’s Health and Human Services Agency.
Crye, age 48, had mentioned he had a tumor at the prior Board meeting of December 9th and that he would need surgery to remove it. At this meeting, after discussing his activities since the last meeting, he stated he has stage 2 colon cancer and is “completely good”, will have it taken care of and encouraged everyone to not put off their health screenings. He went on to say “I serve a huge God.” He was thankful to the County employees for their service and for being able to serve the County as Chair for two years.
CEO Dave Rickert highlighted some good news with his report that in December, Congress passed the Secure Rural Schools (SRS) Reauthorization Act of 2025 (S. 356), a bipartisan bill that restores and extends critical federal funding for rural counties and schools impacted by the presence of un-taxable National Forest System lands. The National Association of Counties (NACo) hailed it as a "major victory for counties," noting that it upholds the federal government's obligation to rural communities affected by declining timber revenues on federal lands. NACo actively advocated for the bill, working with champions like Sens. Mike Crapo (R-ID) and Ron Wyden (D-OR), and Reps. Doug LaMalfa (R-CA) and Joe Neguse (D-CO).
Rickert also pointed out that hopefully soon the Fountain Wind Project application will be officially denied. This is a proposed wind energy facility in unincorporated Shasta County, northeastern California, developed by Fountain Wind LLC (a subsidiary of Repsol Renewables). It would consist of up to 48–71 wind turbines with a total generating capacity of approximately 205–216 MW, located on about 2,855–4,500 acres of private timberland near Moose Camp, west of Burney, and south of State Route 299.
History and Current Status: Shasta County initially denied the project locally due to environmental, cultural, and wildfire concerns (including opposition from the Pit River Tribe and local residents). The developer then pursued state-level approval through the California Energy Commission's (CEC) "Opt-In" certification process which allows large renewable projects to bypass local denials under certain conditions.
In March 2025, CEC staff issued a Staff Assessment (including a Draft Environmental Impact Report) recommending denial, citing significant and unavoidable impacts (e.g., to biological resources, visual aesthetics, cultural sites, and wildfire risk).
The CEC Executive Director has formally recommended against approval.
Rickert will attend a CEC Business Meeting on December 19, 2025, in Sacramento that should result in a final denial of the project.
Social Services Fund Budget Running Large Deficits for the Last Three Years
Financial concerns dominated the next portion of the meeting with a presentation by Erinn Watts, Health and Human Services Agency (HHSA) Branch Director and Christy Coleman, HHSA Director. The Social Services Fund Budget has been in arrears since 2022 and the situation is only getting worse since the passage of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (HR1) by Congress and signed into law by President Trump on July 4, 2025. There have been large increases in expenditures for Social Services administration and welfare cash aid payments but revenues have not kept pace, creating a $19 million cumulative deficit in the last 3 years. The Board of Supervisors has been loaning money out of the General Fund to cover the shortfall. HR1 will cause additional increased expenses for the County next year due to the non-federal share of SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program) administrative costs increasing for the County by approximately 7.5%, effective October 1, 2026. There could be financial penalties to the State if it is found to have high error rates.* The high error rate penalties refer to a new provision in HR1 that, for the first time in SNAP history, requires states to pay a portion of SNAP benefit costs (previously 100% federally funded) if their payment error rate (PER) exceeds 6%.*
There will be an additional expense to the County due to recertification requirements. Expanded work requirements (e.g., for able-bodied adults without dependents up to age 64, stricter waivers), more frequent verifications, and restrictions on non-citizen eligibility will increase the workload for eligibility determinations, compliance checks, and appeals.
With all of this in mind, the HHSA has been looking at ways to cut costs and will be implementing a hiring freeze, evaluating and cutting additional costs in Professional and Special Services, better aligning workloads and funding allocations, and will consider using more remote work by employees so that office leasing costs can be reduced. Coleman stated she is also looking at AI (Artificial Intelligence) use to cut costs.
Board Votes to Approve Use of Some Opioid Settlement Funds for Shasta College
Supervisor Matt Plummer was the lone dissenting vote as the rest of the Board (Corkey Harmon, Kevin Crye, Chris Kelstrom, and Allen Long) voted in approval of a motion to spend $888,683 of Opioid Settlement Funds for Shasta College over a 3-year period, with year two and three being optional upon receipt of program results by the Board. This funding will be in support of two programs at Shasta College:
1) Paid academic internships for those seeking a degree in Alcohol and Drug Studies; and
2) Laptops and Supplies for the Step-Up Re-Entry Program which targets formerly incarcerated individuals, many with histories of substance abuse, by offering education, vocational training, and support for community reintegration.
Six public speakers praised the program and some of them stated that this program completely turned their life around, giving them the skills needed to become productive members of society.
Results of County’s Strategic Planning Priorities Survey
Consultant Hope Seth delivered preliminary findings from a public survey intended to shape Shasta County's five-year strategic plan (2026–2031). 1898 Shasta County residents participated in the survey and approximately 200 people attended the in-person workshops.
Key priorities identified by respondents included:
Mental and behavioral health care access.
Substance use disorder treatment and prevention.
Housing stability and homelessness initiatives.
Government transparency and accountability.
Economic development and job creation.
Public safety enhancements.
Seth noted that the survey reflected diverse community input, with emphasis on collaborative solutions. A full report of the survey will be prepared and available next month. Department Heads will be developing draft plans based on these priorities. These drafts are scheduled for board review and potential approval in January 2026.
Proposal on Supervisor Salaries and Charter Amendment
Supervisor Matt Plummer introduced a motion to place a charter amendment on the June 2026 ballot. The proposal would revoke the board's authority to set its own salaries, mandating voter approval for any future raises, while permitting an automatic 1% annual increase (without voter input) to account for inflation and minor adjustments.
This stemmed from public backlash over a 2024 board decision to raise supervisor salaries by 59%, from $53,508 to $85,024 annually. Of the current board, Crye had voted against the 2024 raise, while Kelstrom supported it.
Plummer argued the change would restore public trust, stating, "Looking forward to have the public trust us as a leadership group and know that we can't arbitrarily choose to enrich ourselves... I think is important." He defended the 1% cap by noting that over 3–5 years, county employees' cumulative raises would likely surpass supervisors' raises.
Crye opposed it, warning that stagnant or low salaries could restrict board service to retirees or the wealthy, excluding working-class residents: "It would limit the board to retirees or those with substantial income." He criticized the 1% increase as inconsistent, applying only to supervisors and not other officials.
Tensions rose when Crye challenged Plummer to donate his "excess" salary (above the pre-2024 level) to the general fund: "If it's principal for you that that money should have never been given in the first place... I'm gonna ask you to give that back every month." Plummer asked for time to consider and countered by questioning why Crye hadn't done the same. Crye deferred a full explanation.
The motion failed due to lack of a second from any other supervisor.
In response, Plummer announced he would donate the difference between his salary and Shasta County's 2023 median household income—about $13,000 per year—back to the county's general fund.
***
*What is the Payment Error Rate (PER)?
The PER is the combined rate of overpayments (benefits issued too high) and underpayments (benefits issued too low) in a state's SNAP program, as measured annually by the USDA through quality control reviews.
Errors often stem from complex rules, household changes, or administrative issues.
The national PER has hovered around 10–11% in recent years (e.g., 10.93% in FY2024), with most states above 6%.
If a state's PER is above 6%, the state must contribute 5–15% of total SNAP benefit.
