Advance Redding faces scrutiny after donation in support of Measure A
Advance Redding, the nonprofit currently operating the Civic Auditorium, gave $49,500 to support a citizen-led sales tax initiative. The donation was made just a few months before Advance Redding successfully requested a $675,000 grant from the city in response to financial shortfalls
Amid a year of financial troubles for the nonprofit Advance Redding, City Council members considered ways at Tuesday’s meeting to “claw back” a $675,000 financial bailout for the organization. The money was granted to Advance Redding just last month.
The nonprofit, which is facing steep financial challenges as it continues to run the Civic Auditorium, has already spent the grant funds, so they can’t be returned. But there are ways the city could turn “the grant into a loan,” as Mayor Jack Munns described it.
Council Member Erin Resner brought the grant topic back to council after learning that Advance Redding donated almost $50,000 to a ballot measure that will benefit city coffers. The donation was made just months before successfully soliciting financial help from the city. Advance Redding donated the bulk of that money in May, three months before the organization’s general manager informed the council that her organization was in serious financial trouble.
The nonprofit is one of about 40 individuals and organizations that financially supported Measure A, a citizen-led sales tax initiative that will appear on voters ballots this fall. If passed, the city would allocate 6% of the projected $30 million in annual additional revenue from the initiative for the Civic Auditorium. That amounts to a total of $1.8 million annually. The funds would go toward construction, improvements, ongoing maintenance and operations at the facility that Advance Redding contracts with the city to operate.
During Tuesday’s council meeting, Travis Menne, the city’s director of Community Services, gave a presentation clarifying several details about the grant’s agreement conditions. As described in the staff report, the majority of the $675,00 in funds was drawn from a pot of $600,000 previously set aside for capital improvements to the Civic Auditorium, meaning the allocation had no impact on the city’s general fund. Menne pointed out that the conditions of the grant also required the money to go specifically toward Advance Redding’s operational costs.
Theoretically, the city is entitled to salvage any unspent money granted to Advance Redding if the council voted to cancel the grant, but such funds could only be salvaged once an additional 30 days from termination have passed, Menne said. Because Advance Redding already spent the full grant amount to reimburse itself for past bills — as confirmed by Advance Redding’s General Manager Julie Dyar during the meeting — Menne said the city has no recourse to recover any of the funds.
He suggested there are other options, if the city is still committed to recovering the grant money. For instance, the council could renegotiate its lease with Advance Redding to increase the rent and thereby effectively reimbursing the city $675,000 over an allotted period of time.
The council, which was divided on whether to be concerned about the donation and subsequent city grant, took no immediate action either on terminating the grant or altering Advance Redding’s ongoing lease agreement with the city during Tuesday’s meeting.
“My issue is that they didn’t disclose [their donations] to staff or to counsel,” Resner said, expressing that Advance Redding’s failure to disclose the donation meant the council was unable to make an informed decision before throwing Advance Redding a financial lifeline as they slipped deeper into debt.
While she took a definitive stance on the issue, other council members either disagreed with her or seemed uncertain. Council Member Paul Dhanuka likened the discussion to “buyer’s remorse,” saying the council should be more cautious about evaluating all available information in the future before making decisions to grant funds. While Council Member Mike Littau questioned Resner’s motivation, asking, “Are we wanting to do this to punish them because of a contribution, or are we doing this because of a regret about a bad decision?”
Ultimately, the council discussed the possibility of future strategies to recover the $675,000 if the sales tax initiative passes, something that would change the nexus on the Civic Auditorium’s ongoing financial costs and risks.
Advance Redding’s General Manager Julie Dyar spoke with Shasta Scout after the meeting. Despite the council’s discussion, she said she stands by her decision not to disclose the donation months ago when she was appealing for assistance, calling such a disclosure a possible quid pro quo.
“If the sales tax passes and the city is going to get a benefit from that,” Dyar said, “of course, the public is going to question [the council’s decision to provide the grant]. … The only way that I cannot be guilty of that and they can defend themselves against the accusation is if the conversation never happened.”
She added that the Advance Redding’s decision to donate to Measure A was made before the decision to ask the city for a grant. And she said she believed the council deserved to make a decision about grant funds without having to consider Advance Redding’s donation to Measure A.
The political contribution, she said, was motivated by the “lane of hope” that Measure A provides for a future in which “the city can actually function as a bona fide owner” of the Civic Auditorium.
Jay Dunlap, a lifelong Redding resident and co-owner of Sof-Tek, is one of the individuals behind opposition to Measure A. Speaking to Shasta Scout by phone today, Dunlap said he’s “personally uncomfortable with the city and Advance Redding exchanging money at the same time that Measure A is happening.” He added that the land on which Redding Rodeo and Civic Auditorium operates is tremendously valuable, saying “I believe the city should require those who are using those facilities to at least break even.”
Advance Redding was set up by Bethel Church leaders in 2011 in order to operate the Civic. The organization has leased the auditorium from the city since 2012 when the city first looked for contractors to privatize operations of the ailing venue. The nonprofit organizes ticketed performances, conferences and cultural events.
For years, Advance Redding also subleased the facility back to Bethel Church’s School of Supernatural Ministry (BSSM), which provided a significant source of income. After enrollment at BSSM declined, Bethel terminated its sublease agreement with the Civic in 2024, costing Advance Redding about $650,000 in annual income – roughly the same amount as the grant recently gifted by the city. The nonprofit’s general manager Dyar has attributed the organization’s losses mostly to the volatility of the live music industry.
Do you have a correction to share? Email us: editor@shastascout.org.
Through December 31, NewsMatch is matching donations dollar-for-dollar up to $18,000, giving us the chance to double that amount for local journalism in Shasta County. Don't wait — the time to give is now!
Support Scout, and multiply your gift
Comments (11)
Comments are closed.
Related Articles
A group of community members are hoping to start a new medical school in Shasta. Here’s what we know
Redding Vice Mayor Dr. Paul Dhanuka and Simpson University President Dr. Norm Hall are some of the leading figures behind the plan.
With more rain ahead, Redding officials explain flooding, urge caution
This weekend, the city’s stormwater infrastructure became clogged with debris due to the speed and volume of rain, officials said, leading to serious flooding in parts of Redding.
The Redding Public Market opened about a month ago. Here’s how it’s going
The CEO of the development company that owns the market said the venue, which is serving around 2,000 people a day, is revitalizing downtown.
We all in our lives have budgets to adhere by. I suggest our leaders do also.
That is sad how lobbyists run even a small city like Redding.
But the underlying reason the city wants a 1% tax increase is:
1) Redding increased city employees salaries by 20% to 60%.
2) Redding hired about 130 new employees without funds to pay them.
3) Redding hired a Director of Community Services at approximately $220,000/year, which is twice the average of any other California Director of Community Services according to Glassdoor.com. How is this justified?
These decisions by the City Manager and the Council will cost over $30,000,000/year. Not surprisingly, this is what the 1% tax increase will collect.
Stupid, socialist and selfish decisions by local government will cost us all more money. Roads will still have potholes unless the Council is going to start pouring asphalt on their days off.
With these debts, Redding will have to use REI money or start printing their on money.
yeah, hate to rain on your parade, but number 1 is both vague and wrong. It wasn’t all of them, and the people that got the highest percentage gain were the ones making all the money in the first place. Good things to get mad about, but most the positions for the city do not pay a livable wage, same with the county
Wow! I’m just shocked. So basically our tax dollars are bailing out Bethel. I hear that church is worth hundreds of millions. Funny how they can manage their own money so well but have done so poorly with the taxpayers money. If they’re incapable of operating our Civic center at a profit then we need someone else to run it.
The city should eliminate “Advance Redding” entirely. From its inception, it has functioned less as a civic initiative and more as a financial conduit for Bethe, essentially a vehicle to cycle public funds through their so-called “Supernatural School.” Now that the steady influx of Bethel’s money has dwindled, it’s clear that the organization is either incapable of, or uninterested in, operating the program in a way that’s financially sustainable. And the fact that Measure A would divert an additional $1.8 million per year to this failing venture should, on its own, be reason enough to reject it.
Steve: A couple things. 1) You say Advance Redding cycles public funds through their school… if you have any evidence of such I’d like to see it. Bethel rented space from the Civic, via Advance Redding, otherwise we are unaware of any financial connection. 2) Measure A would not divert $1.8 million to Advance Redding. It would divert that amount to the publicly-owned Civic Auditorium. Funds could be used to support operations (via Advance Redding one would assume) but they could also be used to fix much needed issues with the facility’s HVAC system, among other things. These infrastructure repairs known to be needed at the facility now total more than $10 million and have long been put off. I’m not advocating for or against Measure A. I just don’t want our reporting to be used for misinformation.
Lol, no misinformation here. It’s actually pretty simple: the city rented the Civic facility to Bethel’s “school” through Advance Redding at a steep discount. That means Bethel has been free to collect tuition from thousands of “students” while paying virtually nothing in rent for years. If the city had charged them a reasonable market rate for use of a public facility, there would’ve been plenty of money available for maintenance and repairs long before things got this bad. This arrangement is exactly the problem, public assets being handed over to a private religious organization under sweetheart terms, leaving taxpayers to cover the shortfall later. And on the $1.8 million, that’s pure semantics. Saying the money “goes to the Civic Auditorium” sounds nice, but in practice it means Advance Redding gets access to that money and can “reimburse” themselves for whatever “expenses” they claim to have incurred running the facility. It’s a shell game, public money going into a city-owned building that’s effectively controlled by a private group, which can then pay itself out of those funds with little real oversight. Calling it “support for the Civic” doesn’t change where the money actually ends up.
Steve: Thanks for this feedback. You’re right I haven’t assessed the fair market value of the Civic space vs Bethel’s costs.
Thank you for presenting this information. It is important to know that the “Citizen Groups” supporting this measure are organizations that directly benefit from city funding. Also, Barry Tippin has been a primary promoter of this tax. Please note. it is a conflict of interest for the administrator to provide assistance and financial support for a citizen led initiative.
Larry: What administrator are you referring to? As city manager, it’s normal and expected that Tippin would have some interactions related to this tax. If you’re saying he donated, please provide your source. I have reviewed filings. He’s not listed.
Honestly, I’m not even surprised anymore. Even more so, when they tried to spin it as Bethel doesn’t have anything to do with the Civic anymore, and pointed out how it’s just the thing, they themselves, made….