A superior court judge ruled a 30-year agreement for Shasta County to provide services to the Redding Rancheria is “illegal” because the Board of Supervisors did not follow proper procedures before approving the contract.
The Rancheria wants to build a gaming facility that would include a casino, a 250-room hotel, an event and convention center and parking areas on about 230 acres on the west side of Interstate 5. The plan is to relocate its Win-River Casino to the freeway frontage property.
Last summer, the tribe got the federal approval needed to move forward with its plan to expand.
The Redding Rancheria’s administration building is located in south Redding next to its Win-River Resort & Casino. The tribe’s health system includes five locations in Shasta County and one in Trinity County.
In his ruling, Shasta County Superior Court Judge Stephen Baker said that supervisors did not consult with the sheriff, district attorney and the fire chief before approving the contract. The board also did not adhere to the county contracts manual that requires contracts be reviewed by the county counsel and risk management department, the judge’s ruling says.
“In doing so, respondent (the county) failed to properly exercise its discretion, and the action of approving the agreement was therefore illegal and not authorized by law,” Baker wrote.
“The county entities most affected by the agreement were not adequately consulted. County staff, the sheriff, the fire chief, the district attorney and the acting county counsel all opposed the agreement and the manner in which it was being presented to the board for approval,” the judge’s ruling says.
Background on Redding Rancheria, Shasta County agreement
Supervisors approved the agreement in July 2023.
In February 2024, a Sacramento-based group called the California Land Stewardship Council sued the Shasta County Board of Supervisors over its approval of the financial agreement with the Redding Rancheria.
The lawsuit alleged that the board “gave away millions of dollars of public funds via an agreement with the developer of a casino” that commits the tribe to recurring and non-recurring payments to Shasta County. The suit also claimed that the agreement was illegal.
In approving the agreement, supervisors waived the policy that says county counsel and the risk manager needs to review it first.
At the time, acting County Counsel Matt McOmber cautioned supervisors. His uneasiness over the agreement now seems prescient.
“In the event of waiver of the county counsel review, and I can’t speak for risk management, that I cannot guarantee that there are not any legal insufficiencies that have not been resolved,” he said. “That is something that I want to make sure that the board’s aware of in making this decision.”
McOmber resigned in February 2024 and is now attorney for the city of Rocklin.
Current Shasta County Counsel Joseph Larmour has held the position since April 2024.
The day the board approved the agreement with the tribe in July 2023, Sheriff Michael Johnson said he only found out about the proposal just six days before it came before the supervisors for a vote
“I have not been part of the process, so it came as a shock for me to see such an agreement,” Johnson told supervisors. District Attorney Stephanie Bridgett also said she was not consulted before the board approved it.
Sherriff’s office spokesman Tim Mapes in an email Wednesday indicated Johnson would not comment further and said the sheriff “refers to the comments he made during” the July 2023 meeting.
A replica Wintu “burden basket” adorns the outside of the Win-River Casino. Burden baskets are traditional work baskets used by members of the tribe to carry such things as firewood and acorns.
What the Rancheria, Shasta agreement outlines
Redding Rancheria attorney Michael Hollowell in an email told the Record Searchlight said that “the tribe is aware of Judge Baker’s July 14 decision and is waiting to see if the County files an appeal with the 3rd appellate district.”
Under the agreement, the Rancheria, among other things:
Would make a one-time payment of $1.6 million to the county, rather than pay annual property taxes, permit fees and other impact fees.
Would make a one-time payment of $1 million to help fund law enforcement, then recurring annual payments of $1,000 per service call.
Would make a one-time payment of $1 million to help with costs associated with fire and emergency services, then recurring annual payments of $10,000 per call for service.
Both Johnson and County Fire Chief Sean O’Hara said at the time that they can’t budget based on money they will get per service call because it’s an unknown from year to year.
At the time of the vote in July 2023, supervisors also cast aside concerns about locking the county into a 30-year financial commitment without the opportunity to revisit the agreement, saying the tribe would act in good faith and come back to the bargaining table should the deal go south financially for the county.
Supervisors were asked by many who spoke at that July 2023 meeting why Johnson and O’Hara were not brought into the conversation.
Formers supervisors react to judge’s ruling
The board approved the contract on a 4-1 vote, with former Supervisor Mary Rickert casting the dissenting vote. Supervisors Kevin Crye, Chris Kelstrom and former Supervisors Patrick Jones and Tim Garman voted for the agreement.
“I am just really pleased that Judge Baker was able to see the facts as presented in the case and do a fair analysis of the case. I am very pleased with outcome. I think it serves the people of Shasta County in the long run,” Rickert said Wednesday.
A view of Strawberry Fields in November 2019 just south of Redding where the Redding Rancheria wants to build a new casino alongside Interstate 5.
Rickert called the agreement a “travesty for the taxpayers of Shasta County,” adding that she will never be in favor of the Rancheria relocating its Win-River Casino to the freeway frontage property because its on farmland near the Sacramento River and there are more favorable sites.
Jones called Baker’s decision a poor one.
“I am hopeful the county will appeal that,” Jones said Wednesday. “I read his decision and it is not based on the law, so I think (the county) will be able to win that on appeal.
“He makes the statement where the sheriff didn’t agree, and the DA didn’t agree. There is no law that they have to agree on anything that we do.”
Jones said what the supervisors approved in July 2023 is a deal for the county. He said previous boards and county staff dragged their feet to get a deal done with the Rancheria for political reasons. What he and the other three supervisors did was correct a wrong, he said.
“We entered into a very good agreement. It was not rushed. We had been working on it for a long time,” Jones said.
County Executive Officer David Rickert, Crye and Larmour did not immediately respond to an email seeking comment.
David Benda covers business, development and anything else that comes up for the USA TODAY Network in Redding. He also writes the weekly “Buzz on the Street” column. He’s part of a team of dedicated reporters that investigate wrongdoing, cover breaking news and tell other stories about your community. Reach him on Twitter @DavidBenda_RS or by phone at 1-530-338-8323. To support and sustain this work, please subscribe today.
This article originally appeared on Redding Record Searchlight: Redding Rancheria-Shasta County agreement is ‘illegal,’ judge rules