Shasta County District 5 Supervisor Candidates Differ Sharply on Priorities, Infrastructure, and Local Values at League of Women Voters Forum
- Elisa Ballard
- Apr 17
- 7 min read
ANDERSON — The three candidates vying for Shasta County’s District 5 Board of Supervisors seat offered sharply contrasting visions Thursday evening, April 16, 2026, during a candidate forum hosted by the League of Women Voters at the Frontier Senior Center. Incumbent Supervisor Chris Kelstrom, Anderson City Councilmember Michael Gallagher, and retired nurse and business owner Gary Oxley each highlighted their backgrounds as they sparred over public safety, infrastructure funding, family values, jail capacity, water rights, and controversial local measures.
The well-attended event followed a structured format: three-minute opening statements followed by two-minute responses to moderator-read audience questions. Attendees adhered to rules against applause or outbursts, allowing clear contrasts to emerge on issues ranging from Christian heritage in governance to fiscal management and responses to state mandates.
Candidate Backgrounds and Motivations
Michael Gallagher, a husband, father, grandfather, and avid outdoorsman, was born in Corning and raised in Los Olivos. He worked for 18 years as an HVAC repairman across the North State before becoming a business owner and serving on the Anderson City Council (now in his second term, with prior service on the Planning Commission). He cited 11 years of city service, plus 4 on the planning commission, as giving him deep knowledge of land use, master plans, and practical governance. Gallagher entered the race because he believes the current board majority “has lost the ability to be taken seriously,” and that negative coverage has reached the East Coast.
Chris Kelstrom, a lifelong Shasta County resident raised in the area, managed a grocery store at 19, spent time in Sacramento, and returned to Cottonwood in 2001. Elected four years ago on a term-limits platform, he successfully helped pass Measure C (Term Limits) with 77% voter support. During his term, he highlighted hiring a new Public Health Officer (Dr. Mu), who he said would not impose COVID-style lockdowns, a new CEO and County Counsel, and internal promotions in Public Works and Health & Human Services. Kelstrom emphasized he declined his county retirement to avoid adding to the CalPERS pension burden. He described himself as actively engaged in community events and focused on public works, resource management, and fiscal discipline.
Gary Oxley moved to Redding in 1995 after time in Sacramento and the Bay Area. A registered nurse with experience at Redding Medical Center (now called Shasta Regional Medical Center), Mercy and St. Elizabeth Hospital ERs, and the VA, he also served as a regional director for 13 West Coast hospitals, ran a pool and spa renovation business (closed in 2025 due to economic pressures), and is now developing a 67-acre ranch with his wife Wendy for meat production and related services. An Army Reserve medic for eight years and former Chairman of the California Rifle and Pistol Association (where he helped pass a 2023 resolution), Oxley stressed his problem-solving, planning, and evaluation skills in management. He said he is running in part to restore “God” and family strength in public life, criticizing Kelstrom on parental rights, Measure B, and other issues.
Key Differences on Priorities and District 5 Concerns
Priorities diverged sharply. Gallagher listed public safety first (improving response times in outlying areas like Shingletown, ensuring the DA prosecutes cases, and equipping Probation), followed by fixing roads and infrastructure (noting poor Cottonwood roads and wastewater plants), and addressing domestic violence through targeted resources. He repeatedly criticized the board for eliminating impact fees, arguing this leaves the county unable to cover growth-related costs for roads, schools, and services.
Oxley placed “putting God first” and honoring America’s Christian heritage at the top, citing the Van Orden v. Perry Supreme Court case (2005) on history, and proposing to install the national motto and a Ten Commandments monument in the Board Chambers, plus a resolution affirming the founding fathers’ Christian values. He also called for reducing business personal property taxes, strengthening parental rights, reforming what he sees as ineffective Child Protective Services (CPS), and conducting a forensic audit of Health & Human Services and CPS. He opposes the alternative custody program and highlighted a Grand Jury finding of illicit drugs in the jail.
Kelstrom focused on practical governance and his record, including staffing improvements and fiscal responsibility. He noted unique District 5 concerns, such as the alternative custody program and a solar farm in Manton, while emphasizing attendance at community events over newsletters.
On the communication front, Gallagher and Oxley supported closer engagement (Gallagher praised Supervisor Matt Plummer’s email newsletters and proposed town halls); Kelstrom preferred in-person community events and said he does not want a newsletter.
Infrastructure, Water, and Development
The Anderson-Cottonwood Irrigation District (ACID) diversion dam on the Sacramento River drew strong unified opposition to its potential removal by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife to aid salmon. Kelstrom blamed the introduced striped bass (“stripers”) for eating salmon fry, saying dam removal would not help. Oxley vowed, “They will have to get past me,” criticizing past failures to protect farms when water was taken. Gallagher called the removal “ridiculous” and “inhumane,” noting ACID’s role in the valley's ecosystem for trees, grasses, and pasture, and its impact on property rights; he added that the ACID board (not supervisors) controls it and that it is a federal facility. (Contextual note: The ACID diversion dam is not a federal facility, but federal agencies are often involved in decision-making. ACID is one of the Sacramento River Settlement Contractors that has valuable senior pre-1914 water rights.)
Infrastructure funding and growth sparked debate. Gallagher warned that removing impact fees endangers the county’s ability to pay for new demands. Kelstrom highlighted his budget scrutiny, noting Shasta County runs “in the black,” unlike Anderson, Redding, or Tehama County. Although he voted against tearing down the old courthouse, he acknowledged the $20,000-per-month cost of upkeep and that the parking lot solution was the lowest-cost alternative.
On solar and energy savings (mirroring Anderson’s approach), Kelstrom noted Anderson’s sewer rate hikes of 288% over recent years and was open to cost savings but stressed fiscal realism. Gallagher acknowledged Anderson’s necessary ~280% sewer rate increase over five years (after flat revenues and needed upgrades) versus passing a bond or facing PG&E’s 35% rate jumps. Oxley said he would examine all energy-reduction options despite limited familiarity with Anderson’s specifics.
Jail Capacity, Re-Entry, Homelessness, and Housing
Jail issues revealed philosophical
differences. Oxley tied crime to household and family breakdown, advocating moral and values education in homes and schools, restoring merit programs, clearing drugs from the jail (per a Grand Jury report), and having Sheriff Johnson prioritize that before alternatives. Gallagher avoided a direct answer but blamed state prison closures (14 of 15, with a 15th threatened), returning ~60 violent offenders locally; he called a proposed 1,200-bed jail unaffordable for a small county and suggested fire camps for low-level offenders. Kelstrom detailed his work to fully staff the jail after a floor closure four years ago due to staffing shortages; one floor is currently being remodeled, with prisoners housed in Calaveras County. He would consider contracting with other counties if needed and supported a larger jail or inter-county arrangements.
On the state’s re-entry program, Gallagher supported it only if limited to Shasta County locals and praised a prior Shasta Lake facility design. Kelstrom noted Amity’s Southern California operations, ankle monitors during the day, locked housing at night, and return-to-origin for rule-breakers (though outsiders might still arrive). Oxley wanted locals-only and questioned program effectiveness given unchanged crime, mental health, and suicide rates despite spending.
Homelessness responses varied. Kelstrom noted 95% of camps fall under Redding City jurisdiction; the county handles the remaining 5% (squatters in areas like Shingletown and Happy Valley) via weekly abatement hearings, billing owners, and potential property seizure/sale if unpaid, backed by a cleanup fund. Oxley called for Sheriff enforcement, arresting narcotics mules, and bus tickets out of the county for non-locals; he questioned billing homeowners for abatement. Gallagher categorized the homeless into thirds (service-accepting, unwilling, and criminal) and noted that it is not illegal to be homeless, calling it a difficult problem overall.
Affordable housing paths also differed. Gallagher criticized high per-unit costs (e.g., $736K in a Shasta Lake project, with ongoing taxpayer subsidies and future rehab grants) and noted an upcoming Section 8 elderly project in Anderson. Kelstrom blamed state mandates (solar, EV chargers, all-electric appliances, sprinklers) for adding ~$100K per unit; he is working with a developer on 95 starter homes in Cottonwood and eyeing a $1.5M workforce housing grant. Oxley opposed subsidized housing, favoring a civilian conservation corps that required work from those seeking help, along with job creation.
Measure B, Leadership Projects, and Closing Contrasts
Debate over Measure B (the June 2026 initiative for voter ID, hand-counted ballots at precincts, limited absentee voting, and other election changes) showed willingness to defend local will against state pushback, though with caveats. Gallagher said the county must defend it if sued. Kelstrom supported its contents but warned that it cannot override state or federal law, citing the Huntington Beach case’s limited scope and the high costs ($2–3M) of separating county ballots. Oxley pledged to fight the state and to file injunctions if needed, and criticized Kelstrom and County Counsel for initially hindering it.
On the Pathways to Leadership Project, Gallagher called it “wrong on every level,” referencing public opposition (180-signature petition) and lamenting the board’s killing of the True North project. (Contextual note: The Board of Supervisors ultimately sent a letter of support for the True North project after more information was given, and the Director of HHSA, who had originally opposed the project, changed her position in favor of it. The state's Behavioral Health Continuum Infrastructure Program (BHCIP) awards went to smaller projects. The True North Campus was requesting a $150 million grant for the facility, and ultimately it was the decision of the grantors, not the Board of Supervisors, who "killed" the project.) Kelstrom clarified misinformation regarding the Pathways project, noting the rushed timing, contingent on required letters of support from the police department or sheriff, the probation department, and the City Council (which the Anderson City Council ultimately did not provide), and that no county funds were provided. Oxley lacked sufficient information to comment.
In closing, Kelstrom pointed to his accomplishments and ongoing big projects in public works and resource management, saying term limits keep him motivated. Gallagher emphasized his greater experience in local government. Oxley highlighted his management background and accused Kelstrom of failing on parental rights, Measure B, supporting the alternative custody program against public wishes, and denying a 40-cent hourly raise for in-home workers while accepting his own raise—showing, in Oxley’s view, a lack of moral values.
The forum illuminated deep divides: Gallagher’s focus on practical infrastructure, public safety, and experienced local governance; Kelstrom’s emphasis on his staffing and fiscal record plus pragmatic engagement; and Oxley’s priority on faith, family, moral renewal, audits, and strong pushback against perceived overreach or ineffectiveness.
A forum for Registrar of Voters candidates is scheduled for April 22 at the Redding Library; State Assembly District 1 candidates will appear May 1 at the Riverfront Theater.
Voters can register at vote.ca.gov. The primary election is June 2, 2026.
If you would like to watch the candidate forum in its entirety, click here:
