Contract with Redding Rancheria, approved by Shasta County board majority in 2023, found unlawful by superior court

Just over two years ago, a majority of the Shasta County board voted in favor of a controversial intergovernmental agreement with the Redding Rancheria. As the Rancheria made plans to relocate their casino, supervisors signed a contract committing county resources toward maintenance and safety on the roads leading up to the new complex. 

That agreement, which set a fixed price for services over the next 30 years, has just been ruled illegal. In a four-page ruling issued on July 14, Honorable Judge Stephen H. Baker said the deal will likely cost the county money, but that’s not the issue at hand. The deal is illegal, he wrote, because it was brokered in a way that did not support the public’s interests, without the involvement of county departments most affected by the agreement and without following the county’s own policies. 

Judge Baker’s ruling comes in response to a lawsuit which was filed in February 2024 by the California Land Stewardship Council, LLC. The complaint alleged the county “gave away millions of dollars of public funds” through an agreement that would not adequately cover the cost of the resources allocated to the Tribe noting that they did so without the agreement of either County Counsel or the county’s Risk Management department, thereby violating local law. 

He wrote that it is not the court’s job to decide whether decisions by the county are economically advantageous or objectively “good or bad” saying the people should be able to rely on the judgment of their elected officials and the county has the right to be wrong in the decisions it makes. 

Instead, he wrote, the contract is illegal based on objective standards. The law was broken, he says, when officials most impacted by the contract — including the fire chief, district attorney and sheriff — were not adequately consulted or notified of the negotiation process. And when the contract was entered into without a review by the county’s attorney or risk management department, both of which are required by county policy.

“Although a board of supervisors can make bad decisions or unpopular decisions” Judge Baker wrote, “it cannot make illegal decisions.” 

The Redding Rancheria is a federally recognized sovereign nation whose plan to build a new casino has been controversial for years. Their contract with Shasta County did not dictate whether or not the Redding Rancheria could build the new casino.  Instead, it determined how much the Rancheria would pay for the county resources needed to provide services at the new location. The Rancheria’s tract of land where the new casino will be built is directly adjacent to I-5 and in an unincorporated part of Shasta, which is why the county would provide law enforcement, fire, and emergency services for calls made on the property. 

At the 2023 meeting when supervisors voted to enter the agreement, Sheriff Michael Johnson and District Attorney Stephanie Bridgett publicly expressed their opposition, indicating that the contract as written would likely not cover the costs of the services they’d be required to provide. The Redding Rancheria’s statements on the contract in the past have been clear indicating their belief that it would “benefit the entire community.”

In response to the ruling, Michael Hollowell, the Tribe’s attorney, shared a public statement with Shasta Scout saying the Tribe is aware of the ruling and waiting to see if the county will file an appeal with the Third Appellate District. Shasta County officials declined to comment or confirm whether they plan to appeal.

The Shasta County Board voted to enter into the contract 4-1, with former Supervisor Mary Rickert being the only dissenting vote. Three of the four of the supervisors who voted to approve the contract had received campaign support from the Redding Rancheria: former Supervisor Patrick Jones’ for his election in 2023, and both Kevin Crye and Tim Garman for their runs for supervisor in 2021. The Tribe also donated to Crye’s efforts to avoid being recalled, something he survived by a mere 50 votes.

The lawsuit against the county over the contract was filed just weeks ahead of the March 2024 midterm elections and became highly politicized. At the time, the Rancheria issued a press release calling it “dishonest” and a “political stunt,” and discounting the merits of the lawsuit by claiming the Rancheria had met with several county officials to present them with cost analysis data. 

A status conference was held today, August 8. Attorneys representing both the county and the California Land Stewardship, LLC phoned into the courtroom to discuss next steps. Judge Baker indicated that his ruling will not change but the final decision about what action must be taken to correct the illegality of the contract with the Rancheria has not yet been determined. 

Once court decisions are finalized, supervisors could vote to appeal the ruling, moving the matter to an appellate court. The board will discuss the lawsuit again in closed session this coming week. As of January 2025, the board had already spent more than $230,000 of taxpayers funds defending against the lawsuit.

---

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