These are the Summaries, Findings, Commendations, Recommendations, and Requests for Responses only. All of the full Reports including this one can be found on the Shasta County Grand Jury's website here.
2025 - 2026
Shasta County Grand Jury
Final Reports
If You Don't Ask, You Will Never Know
Redding City Council grant of Civic Auditorium capital improvement funds to Advance Redding: was the public interest protected?
SUMMARY
On September 2, 2025, the Redding City Council approved a grant of more than $675,000 to Advance Redding, the operator of the Civic Auditorium. It also reduced Advance Redding’s lease obligation from $23,000 per month to zero. There was almost no documentation supporting either request.
Many citizens in the City of Redding were surprised and concerned about how these decisions were made and whether they were justified. What had caused the emergent need to transform a significant fund for the preservation and improvement of the Auditorium to a gift to the operator of it?
Shortly thereafter, it became public that Advance Redding had, earlier in the year, donated $49,500 in support of the City of Redding’s ballot Measure A, to increase the city’s sales tax by 1%. Citizen and city council comments raised the concern that Advance Redding may have used grant money to donate to a political campaign.
The 2025-26 Shasta County Grand Jury determined that an investigation and explanation of these matters were warranted. This report examines how the grant, rent reduction, and the donation to Measure A came about.
FINDINGS
F1. The Redding City Council did not receive documentation that would have allowed council members and the public to have a clear understanding of Advance Redding's financial position to justify the request for the grant and the reduction in rent.
F2. Some Redding City Council members failed in their duty to exercise due diligence by not requesting background information from Advance Redding or other sources when it was not provided to the council when considering and approving the grant request and reduction in rent.
F3. Documents and interviews produced during this investigation support the grant request and the reduction in rent. Detailed supporting documents would not have influenced the approval of the grant request and reduction in rent by the city council.
F4. Although Prop 36 (2024) requires mandated drug and alcohol treatment for certain felonies, it does not provide resources to meet this requirement.
F5. Documents and interviews substantiate that the donation by Advance Redding in support of Measure A was proper and its disclosure to the City Council would not have influenced the approval of the grant request and reduction in rent.
RECOMMENDATIONS
R1. On or before December 31, 2026, the Redding City Council direct the Redding City Manager to adopt procedures which educate and emphasize the duty of its support staff to provide all relevant information to the council and the public prior to any action taken.
R2. Effective immediately, each member of the Redding City Council must exercise due diligence in considering any requests for city funds.
REQUEST FOR RESPONSES
Redding City Council:
F2
R1, R2
A Canal Runs Through It
Sustainability of the Anderson-Cottonwood Irrigation District
SUMMARY
The Anderson-Cottonwood Irrigation District (ACID) canal is familiar to many Shasta County residents. Along with the Sacramento River, an interstate highway and a railroad, the canal can only be crossed and viewed at limited locations. But where does it start? Where does it end? What is its purpose? What is its value and cost? How is ACID managed?
The Shasta County Grand Jury has previously investigated ACID, with reports issued in 2004/2005 and 2023/2024. This grand jury elected to once again investigate the district after a cursory review of ACID’s annual financial report showed expenditures outpacing revenue in nine of the previous 10 years. Will the canal prove to be viable and sustainable in the foreseeable future?
FINDINGS
F1. ACID has operated at a deficit for nine out of the previous ten years.
F2. ACID is in the process of addressing approximately four years of deferred maintenance.
F3. ACID inaccurately categorizes a 100% agricultural customer base.
F4. ACID lacks any formal flood management and preparedness plan for the canal.
RECOMMENDATIONS
R1. Implement a written plan to decrease expenditures and increase revenue by April 2027.
R2. Implement a written schedule for ongoing inspection and canal maintenance by April 2027.
R3. Develop a written schedule for capital improvements and modernization of infrastructure by April 2027.
R4. Recategorize customers into agricultural, wildlife habitat, industrial, and municipal by April 2027.
R5. Target new categories and market service to prospective customers by October 2027.
R6. Implement a written district flood management and preparedness plan and provide training for staff, customer base, and any other impacted parties by April 2028.
REQUEST FOR RESPONSES
ACID Board of Directors:
F1 through F4
R1 through R6