Board of Supervisors appeals court decision over 2023 county contract with Redding Rancheria
In August, the Shasta County Superior Court ruled the agreement violated the law. Now the county is asking an appellate court to overturn the local ruling.
“Although a Board of Supervisors can make bad decisions or unpopular decisions, it cannot make illegal decisions.”
That’s what the Honorable Judge Stephen H. Baker wrote in a ruling this summer, when he came to the conclusion that the Shasta County Board of Supervisors had violated the law in the process of making an intergovernmental agreement with the Redding Rancheria, a federally recognized sovereign nation that’s building a new casino.
Now the board of supervisors is appealing to the Third District Court of Appeal in Sacramento, to overrule Baker’s judgement. The county filed its notice of appeal on Dec. 5. The notice does not include information on what grounds the board intends to challenge Baker’s ruling.
The contract in question allocates county law enforcement and fire resources toward maintenance and safety on the roads leading up to the Rancheria’s new casino, all at a fixed price over the next 30 years. Both Sheriff Michael Johnson and District Attorney Stephanie Bridgett opposed the contract just before it was ratified, speaking at a 2023 board meeting to indicate that the contract as written would likely not cover the costs of the services they’d be required to provide.
After the contract was initially passed, petitioner California Land Stewardship LLC, filed a lawsuit against the county. 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 used, saying supervisors did so without the agreement of either county counsel or the county’s risk management department, thereby violating local law.
At the time, the Rancheria criticized the legal challenge as “dishonest” and “politically motivated.” A spokesperson for the Rancheria told Shasta Scout today that the Tribe strongly supports the board in its appeal and that the agreement “was developed in good faith, is fair and reasonable, and supports public safety, infrastructure, and mutually beneficial cooperation between the Tribe and the county.”
Three of the four of the supervisors who voted to approve the contract received campaign support from the Redding Rancheria including Supervisors Chris Kelstrom and Kevin Crye who are both running for reelection in 2026.
Whether or not the deal was a financially prudent decision for the county to make was not the matter at hand for Judge Baker as he made his ruling. Instead, what made the agreement illegal, he wrote was that neither the sheriff, DA, nor fire chief were adequately consulted in the contract’s negotiation process, and that it was voted into action without a review by county counsel or risk management.
As of January of 2025, the county had spent more than $230,000 of taxpayer money defending the contract. That spending continues with the new appeal.
Do you have information or a correction to share? Email us: editor@shastascout.org.
Comments (8)
Leave a comment
Related Articles
Shasta election official Clint Curtis uses board presentation to praise his own leadership, critique predecessors
The county board voted unanimously not to act on requests included in Curtis’ presentation.
Recent flooding closed Cal’s Books. This group of young people is working to bring it back
In December, after Cal’s Books was flooded with two feet of water — and thousands of books were damaged — its owner decided to close the store permanently. Now a team of 20-year-olds has a plan to save the beloved store.
Board majority faces off against Supervisor Plummer on liaison positions, supervisor raises
During the board’s first meeting of 2026, Supervisor Matt Plummer was removed from a number of pivotal liaison positions.
Probably does not sit well with Scout reporters that the Indian Casino be built?
Jon: Why would you say that?
Redding Rancheria, like other tribes in the state, need to create their own tribal police and fire department
Throughout this whole affair one thing is perfectly obvious–the people of “The Tribe” have treated the people of Shasta County far better than we ever treated them.
What’s also not made clear is what happens if the parties not consulted (County Counsel and Risk Management) make negative recommendations, once consulted. Can the compromised BoS (having taken campaign contributions from Redding Rancheria) move ahead, anyway. Let’s hypothesize a five-way negative recommendation, i.e., Sheriff, DA, Fire, County Counsel, and Risk. Is the BoS going to argue to the appellate court that permitting any or all of them to overrule the Board’s will represents a usurpation of the BoS’s executive function as the supreme deliberative body in County government? It’s unclear from the reporting whether the previous negative recommendations from Sheriff/DA/Fire are, on their own, or, say, a thumbs down from just one of these agencies is sufficient to force the County to back away from this obviously sweetheart agreement. I’m all for the Tribe and its efforts based in law to do better by its members; I don’t, however, believe that I as a County taxpayer should be required to subsidize its commercial operations by contributing taxes to the subsidy based on a polluted business decision that doesn’t cover the cost of providing services to another sovereign entity. Without more adequate reporting, though, it’s difficult to tell whether the local court’s decision merely relied on the County’s failure to cross some T’s and dot some I’s.
Also, who is appellate counsel for the BoS? Normally, that would be County Counsel or a contractor law firm vetted by same. In this case, did County Counsel give a nod to the BoS’s hiring outside appellate counsel to challenge a court decision that relied on County Counsel’s having been kept out of the loop in the first place? Or did the BoS go around County Counsel here, too, and hire its own appellate counsel?
There is a ton of reporting required here to fill out the picture for your readers.
Tom: Thanks for your questions. I am aware that the board voted in closed session to hire appellate counsel.
I said this after it was posted on the internet news that it was wrong.The supervisors in infinite wisdom has made a deal with the DEVIL, and if the powers to be do their do diligence and follow the MONEY ,they will find some very CORRUPT going’s on.There was a alleged rumor floating around about a certain supervisor running for office that stated at the time his assets were O then down the road he purchased a home for six Hundred and seventy five thousand dollars cash ,wonder ware that money came from
The supervisor in question made his money with his business. You shouldn’t throw around accusation without proof. As for the contract I suppose you all are good returning to what we received before for these services which is ZERO !