HomeMy WebLinkAbout_ 4.1(a)--Response to 2025-26 Shasta Co. Grand Jury Report GI �" Y C� F
� � �- ' � ° � � i � CITY OF REDDING
��
REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
MEETING DATE: July 21, 2026 FROM: Travis Menne, Director of
ITEM NO. 4.1(a) Community Services/Airports
***APPROVED BY***
e ��� ��
��H� s
��� �� � � �� ,�.�
� � �
�� � �� y �� �� ��,
C'ai�iv,r�[���ne,l�irtcir�r�,if�C'�-i�:ntnt�t} ��i�ice;s;•'+lirpt�s�ts '7..,'I+�:?.()2�G �,?���j���'�r�30X�(�".�:"�..��.�.13�.�CI µ,.: .,, �.��.`a,���1�{7
:�
tmenne@cityofredding.org wtarbox@cityofredding.gov
SUBJECT: 4.1(a)--Consider City of Redding's response to the Shasta County Grand Jury
Report re arding the Civic Auditorium Grant to Advance Reddin
Recommendation
Authorize the Mayor to sign and send a response letter to the 2025-26 Shasta County Grand Jury
concerning its report titled "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
protected?"regarding the grant awarded to Advance Redding in the amount of$675,000 and the
rent decrease from $23,000 per month to zero.
Fiscal Impact
There is no direct�iscal impact in sending the response to the Shasta County Grand Jury.
Alternative Action
The City Council (Council) could modify the attached response and authorize the Mayor to
transmit the revised response to the Shasta County Grand Jury. The Council may also provide
additional direction, as necessary. It should be noted, however, that the City of Redding is
required to respond to the �ndings and recommendations contained within the report no later
than 90 days (or September 7, 2026) after the Grand Jury submits the report.
Background/Analysis
On June 8, 2026, the Shasta County Grand Jury issued a report titled if You Don't Ask You Will
Never Know regarding the $6'75,000 grant awarded to Civic Auditorium Lessee Advance
Redding and the reduction in rent from $23,000 per month to zero. The report eontains five
findings, and two recommendations. The Council is required to respond to the findings and
recommendations as required in Penal Code 933.05. Staff has developed the attaehed response to
the Shasta County Grand J�ury for the Council's review and consideration.
Report to Redding City Council July 15, 2026
Re: 4.1(a)--Response to 2025-26 Shasta Co. Grand Jury Report Page 2
Environmental Review
This action is not a project as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act, and no
further action is required.
Council PNio�^ity/City Manager Goals
� Communication and Transparency — "Improve the quality of communication with the
public and City employees to enhance knowledge and increase transparency to improve
public trust."
Attachments
2025-2-26 Grand Jury Report- Civic Auditorium Grant
072126 Response to 2025-26 Grand Jury Report - Civic Auditorium
.
�
s�,
�, �� �; .�
f"t { (�.4
� `. f � . �r' ! � � .
��
a36 P.V.U�X 9920U6
REDDING.CA 96099-2086
VOICE MAIL:(530)225-5098
�" �, u =,,�r s�a
��¢-����� ,���, ``� r=i r,�m June 8, 2026
Redding City Council �,';� � � �.
cio Mike Littau, Mayor
777 Cypress Avenue ��°�------ �""����M
Redding, CA 96001
Dear City Council,
Qn behalf of the 2025-2026 Shasta County Grand Jury, I am providing to you the following report:
IF YOU DQN'T ASK,YQU WILL NEVER KNOW,Redding City Council grant of Civic
Auditorium capital improvement funds to Advance Redding: was the public interest
protected?
The report will be released to the general public, including the media, and will be
published on the Grand Jury website in two working days. The report is being provided
ta you in advance of its general release pursuant to Penal Code §933.05, subdivision(�,
which provides:
A grand jury sha11 provide to the affected agency a copy of the portion
of the grand jury report relating to that person or entity two working
days prior to its public release and after the approval of the presiding
judge. No offcet; agency, department, or governing body of a public
agency shall disclose any contents of the report p�ioN to the public
release of the,f'inal report.
Please be sure to comply with this confidentiality requirement.
The Penal Code also prescribes the obligations of a governing board or elected county
official with regard to responding to the grand jury's findings and recommendations.
If the report contains one or more recommendations directed to you as an elected county
official or to the governing board of which you are a member, you or the board must
respond to those recommendations and to the supporting findings, as
directed in the report. The time within which to respond is prescribed by subdivision(c) of
Pena1 Code §933, which states in relevant part:
No Iater than 90 days after the grand jury submits a final report on the
operations of any public agency subject to its reviewing authority, the
governing body of the public agency shall comment to the presiding
judge of the superior court on the findings and recommendations
pertaining to matters under the control of the governing body, and
every elected county officer or agency head for which the grand jury
has responsibility pursuant to Section 914.1 shall comment within 60
days to the presiding judge of the superior court, with an information
copy sent to the board of supervisors, on the findings and
recommendations pertaining to matters under the cantrol of that
county officer or agency head and any agency or agencies which that
officer or agency head supervises or controls. In any city and county,
the mayor sha11 also comment on the findings and recommendations.
All such comments and reports shall forthwith be submitted to the
presiding judge of the superior court who impaneled the grand jury.
The Penal Code also prescribes the content of your responses. Subdivisions (a) through (c)
of Penal Code §933.05 state:
For purposes of subdivision(b) of Section 933, as to each grand jury finding, the
responding person or entity shall indicate one of the following:
(1) The respondent agrees with the finding.
(2) The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which
case the response shall specify the portion af the finding that is disputed
and shall include an explanation of the reasons therefore.
For purposes of subdivision(b} of Section 933, as to each grand jury recommendation, the
responding person ar entity shall report one of the following:
(1) The recommendation has been implemented,with a summary regarding
the implemented action.
(2) The recommendation has not yet been im�lemented,but will be
implemented in the future, with a time frame for implementation.
(3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the
scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a time frame for the
matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the agency or
department being investigated or reviewed, including the gaverning body
of the public agency when applicable. This time frame shall not exceed six
months from the date of publication of the grand jury report.
(4) The recammendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is
not reasonable, with an explanation therefore.
However, if a finding ar recommendation of the grand jury addresses budgetary or
personnel matters of a county agency or department headed by an elected officer,both the
department head and the board af supervisors shall respond if requested by the grand jury,
but the response to the board of supervisors shall address only those budgetary or
personnel matters over which it has some decision-making authority. The response of the
elected agency or department head shall address all aspects of the findmgs or
recommendations affecting their agency or department.
The grand jury's reports, and the responses to them, wi11 be posted on the grand jury's
website (www.shastacountygrandjury.org). We would appreciate receiving a signed hard
copy of your response (please send to Shasta County Grand Jury, P.O. Box 992086,
Redding, CA 96099-2086), as well as an electronic copy(to
grand jury@ shastacounty.gov).
Sincerely,
r ' .�
P. Bolton,Foreperson
2025-2026 Shasta County Grand Jury
IF YOU ON'T ASK, YOU ILY� I�1EVE I�Nt.��W
Redding City Cou�cil grant of Civic Auditarium capitai improvement funds to
Advance Redclinge �as the public interest protected?
May 12, 2026
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 $49,500
in support of the City of Redding's ballot Measure A, to increase the city's sales tax by 1%. Citizen
and city council comments raised the concern that Advance Redding may have used grant money to
donate to a political campaign.
The 2025-26 Shasta County Grand Jury determined that an investigation and explanation of these
matters were warranted. This report examines how the grant, rent reduction, and the donation to
Measure A came about.
� � ��..
k �
, � �F 3 ,�?� `� � "ar f
� � ' ?, �:'�
{
4�
��,�� r c^�^ti� g '�w '�:a`*n'C m��^�ww e`-�`t ' ���e,� � ��.
Wa ,., �tt`^\''�ml�i: ;'nt R\ � h L�. «i:+,. �. tv's' lkY``
� �!.y�.k: Y<r.:a?�:�, . NPu ki �"k". � �3
!,„�c� 2...: 3i3 �, .: Y 3�%�i� .
� S.,�sk
: .., ... . a� ,�,. .� �-,at1�t\E;�?"�4�.,���"����"�$�W���ly�9+i;y
� ��
� y �����
�����x��� �� ��� �¢ �,
�,., ���, � t
;����������` S. �� �
, , �
� „�� � ' 1�r� �}4
�t � �` ;�"�E{ .q.3„�<,.��'
s ,y,
� :`.'.
�
, '� .
1
l A • ,
1970 Civic Auditorium opens its doors
1970-2010 City of Redding operates the Auditorium
2011 Oct: Bethel Church forn�s non-profit Advance Redding to operate the Auditorium
City leases Auditorium to Advance Redding which is responsible for
operations and promotions;the city is responsible for capital improvements
and maintenance.
Advance Redding subleases to Bethel Church to operate School of
Supernatural Ministries
2014 City sells real properiy to allow construction of Sheraton Hotel and designates the money
for capitai improvements and deferred maintenance at the Auditorium
2020-2023 Covid shutdown
2023 Bethel Church terminates its lease with Advance Redding and moves out of the
Auditorium
2025 Spring: Advance Redding donates funds to support Measure A
Aug 4: Advance Redding presents financial dilemma to City Council
Aug 19: Advance Redding asks for$675K grant for current expenses, and to re duce
rent
Sept 2: City Council approves grant for$675K to Advance Redding& rent reduced
to $0 until 1/26
Oct: City Council iearns of Advance Redding donation to Measure A
Oct 9: Advance Redding confirms the city was made aware of the Measure A
donation
Nov: Measure A fails
2026 Jan 21: City Director of Community Services tells City Council that closing the
Auditorium would cost�$12M annually
Feb 3: City Council approves $116K per month funding through 6/26
and requires quarterly financial statements from Advance Redding
2
BACKGROUND
The Redding Civic Auditorium - "The Soul of the City"
The Redding Civic Auditarium is one of Northern California's most significant cultural landmarks,
serving as a center for entertainment, civic life, and community gatherings for more than five
decades. The idea for a major cultural and convention center in Redding originated in the
mid-194Qs. After nearly 25 years of effort, the Redding Civic Auditorium officially opened its
doors in 1970.
From the outset, the building was designed as a multipurpose civic facility, capable of hosting
concerts, conventions, trade shows, graduations,banquets, public assemblies and various other
community events. This flexibility allawed it to become a central gathering place for the North
State. The City of Redding operated the Auditorium from its opening unti12010. Over time,the
Auditorium assumed such a significant importance to the city and, indeed, the whole North Valley,
that it has been called "the Soul of the City."
Unfortunately, despite its immense presence and impact an the community,the Auditorium has
always operated at a 1oss. As of 2010,the Auditorium was costing the City of Redding a net of$1.9
million per year. In addition, substantial refurbishing of the building became necessary. The venue
faced considerable financial challenges and potential closure. Something had to change for it to
remain open.
However, the basic operational model for the Auditorium was problematic. Surveys of similar
facilities throughout California and elsewhere revealed that they almost universally xequire
investment from the governmental entities in communities they serve. This problem is particularly
acute in a location the size and population of Redding and the surrounding areas. There simply is
not a sufficient base to support a facility like the Civic Auditorium without financial assistance.
Enter Advance Redding.
Advance Redding
Understanding this problem, and with no options available other than closing the Auditorium, in
2Q11 the Bethei Church formed a group to create Advance Redding. It was established as a local
SQl(c)(3) nonprofit organization, and its designated function was to lease and operate the
Auditorium. The city remained responsible for capital improvements and deferred maintenance of
the building.
At the time of the initial lease to Avance Redding, the premises were subleased to Bethel Church
for the operation of its Bethel School of Supernatural Ministries. Advance Redding, as obligated by
the lease, continued to operate and promote concerts and other events. Bethel Church paid Advance
Redding $750,000 a year for the sublease of the Auditorium. Advance Redding was paying the city
$23,000 a month ($276,OOQ per year) in rent.
It was anticipated that, at some point in the future, Bethel Church would no longer need the
Auditorium space for its programs. In 2021,the city and Advance Redding renegotiated the lease
agreement and extended it for a period of 10 years unti12031.
3
Financial Issues I�evelop
From 2012 unti12023, the lease and operation agreement with Advance Redding worked to
everyone's satisfaction. The city was relieved of the burden of operating and funding the
Auditorium and was also receiving substantial rental income. Advance Redding was able to provide
the community with the events and functions to which the city had become accustomed.
But it did not last. In 2023, largely due to the COVID crisis and the resulting increased participation
of its students online rather than physically at the Auditorium, Bethel Church terniinated its lease
with Advance Redding and moved its School of Supernatural Ministries out of the building.
Advance Redding lost the significant financial support Bethel Church had been providing.
The promotion of events such as those staged at the Auditorium requires significant advance
planning with adequate funding ensured. Advance Redding's calendar of events from March
through December 2026 lists 40 planned events, including Kool Apri1 Nites, the Redding Rodeo,
Freedam Festival, the Foothill High School Prom and other events. Twenty additional events are
currently being planned,with as many as 60 more being projected for the future. Some of these
events are profitable, some are not.
Overall, the Auditorium continued to lose money. Advance Redding felt its ability to cantinue
operating as it had was substantially impaired. It determined to seek city financing to enable it to
continue.
The Fund
In 2014, the City of Redding sold a parcel of city-owned property for the purpose of constructing
the Sheraton Hotel. The city received net proceeds of approximately$600,000 from the land sale.
By City Council direction, the proceeds from the sale were placed into an account with a specific
purpose: capital investment and deferred maintenance at the Auditorium.
The Grant Proposal
In early August 2025, Advance Redding presented its dilemma to the City Council. It was requested
to come back with proposals to remedy the situation. Because of the long standing and satisfactory
relationship between the City and Advance Redding,the Department of Community Services,
which oversees the operation of the Auditorium,worked with Advance Redding to come up with a
grant proposal to address these issues. The fund established by the sale of the property to the
Sheraton was identified to assist with this financing. As of that time,the fund totaled $6'75,445.57.
On September 2, 2025, Advance Redding presented to the City Council a grant proposal wherein
the city would grant to Advance Redding the total amount of the funds in the account. The City
Council debated the merits of the proposal. Some registered concerns about providing the entire
amount of the funds at the same time. However, when it came time to vote to award the grant,the
motion passed.
By resolution, the City Council changed the purpose of the fund from capital improvement and
deferred maintenance to providing a grant to assist with operational expenses at the Civic
Auditorium. In addition, Advance Redding's rent was reduced to $5,000 per month,with that
4
amount waived until the end of the year. Advance Redding was required to report back by
September 2, 2026, with a final accounting as to the distribution of the funds, with the return of any
unused funds. In fact, the entire amount of the funds was almost immediately distributed by
Advance Redding.
Donation to Measure A
The Citizens for a Better Redding were successful in placing Measure A on the November 2025
ballot. If successful, the initiative would have imposed an increase of the city sales tax by 1%. A
portion of these funds could have been used to support the Civic Auditorium, thereby alleviating the
financial pressure on Advance Redding. The ultimate success of Measure A would not be known
until November 2025.
In early October 2025, it came to light that Advanced Redding made a$49,500 donation in support
of Measure A in the Spring of 2425. Some council members expressed surprise and dismay upon
learning this after the grant had been approved and intimated that their vote to approve the grant
might have been different had they known about it beforehand.
METHODOI.OGY
The grand jury initiated its investigation using the following methods:
l. Review of printed and broadcast media items related to the topic
2. Study of the webpages of the City of Redding and Advanced Redding
3. Examination of the City Council's agendas, agenda packets, and minutes
4. Attendance at City Council meetings
5. Review of video recordings of relevant City Council meetings
6. Attendance at Redding Community Services Advisory Commission meetings
7. Review of financial and contractual documents from Advance Redding and the City of
Redding
8. Evaluation of Advance Redding's 2018-2024 Non-Profit Tax Filing Forms 990
9. Interviews with knowledgeable authorities
DISCUSSION
Duty of the City Council
Elected officials owe a fiduciary duty to their citizens requiring them to act with loyalty, care, and
in the public's best interest. Public service is a trust. This fiduciary duty demands the exercise of
due diligence. This means taking reasonable steps to thoroughly investigate and understand an issue
before making a commitment. It is about being careful, checking details,verifying facts, and
5
ensuring that an informed decision is made. Due diligence requires that decision makers have
complete and accurate information on the topic to be considered.
It is the responsibility of the city manager and city staff to provide the council with relevant
information regarding upcoming matters. Council members review the agendas and packets and
confer with those involved with any questions ar concerns. There is limited time for council
members to digest the information contained in the packet befare the next meeting.
Whi1e the City Council makes the ultimate decisions and bears the final responsibility for them, the
city manager and city staff play an integral role:
• Coordinate with entities wanting council action
• Assemble agenda packets
✓ Construct meeting agenda
✓ Add relevant background documents
✓ Make recommendations
✓ Identify courses of action
• Publish for public access
• Deliver packets to each council member late Thursday afternoon for Tuesday meeting
The agendas and packets also serve the important purpose of inforniing the public of the matters
that the council wi11 consider. They provide the documentary basis for the council's consideratian
and assure that interested citizens can access the same information.
� � ,r� �,
� z����;��„
��:�_
,�,�,�� �..
�s ..i 4a�:°, .M.�
� ar< .r•. �'�
Reddzng City Council Chatnbers
City Council members bring differing skills, abilities, expertise, and levels of inquiry and effort to
the job. They bring differing views as to the concepts and demands of due diligence. Some had off-
the-record conversations with Advance Redding about the nature, severity and immediacy of its
financial situation. Others wanted more financial information and a business plan. Some accessed
public information that was available about the Measure A donation made by Advance Redding
months before the vote on the grant.
6
It is commendable that some council members took it upon themselves to obtain information they
needed to be more fully informed about the grant. However, the City Council and the public were
not provided relevant available information prior to the council meeting where the matter was to be
voted on.
Basis for Approval czf the Graa►t
The grand jury identified all financial documents and other records presented to and relied upon by
the City Council which purported to support this grant proposal. Upon review, there was only one
document.
'The Quote
At page 323 of the agenda packet for the September 2, 2025 City Council meeting at which the
grant was proposed, the grand jury found a single financial document supporting the request. This
was attached as Exhibit A to the grant request and was termed a"Quote." The document is a single
page and lists 4 categories of expenses that Advance Redding was seeking to be paid by the city.
It is important to note that all of the expenses listed were for matters that were the responsibility of
Advance Redding under the lease. Further, no receipts ar invoices were included in the agenda
packet. The additional fact that the Quote totaled the exact amount of the funds in the account also
raised questions.
The grand jury was able to determine that the
grant proposal requested,to the penny,the
,���,>��='��at �.�,._�
����'��� total amount in the Auditorium fund was not,
in the words of one council member, an
p.?
"amazing" coincidence. Advance Redding
and city staff worked together(without the
exchange of any invoices or receipts) and
� � �x� ��� created the Quote so as to arrive at the
�"��°„�°�".�t:"�°�5 �'���' number that would clear out the account and
�ay:�_av.,s.ws:�m��sy�siR,�,��emas�as,��vzazn.�a�avsozs us3,ssa.ai
�.��,�„,��:��,„,s���,,,�.��,�,,�2,_,4,,,;��ks �,&,�,�$, be spent on specific categories that had been
=���P�s�.;,1:������,��; s�.�� agreed upon. How this was done should have
been communicated to the public so that it
wouid better understand what happened. It's
not that the invoices didn't exist,because the
grand jury obtained them in its investigation.
- =- At the time of Advance Redding's request for
these funds, Measure A was sti11 in the hands
of the voters. If approved, significant funds
would potentialiy be available to alleviate the financial stresses that concerned the city and Advance
Redding. While Measure A ultimately failed at the polls, the City Council seems to have
disregarded its potential passage in determining to award the entire amount requested.
The grand jury confirmed that no other financial documents supporting such a request were either
supplied to, or requested by,the City Council prior to approving the grant. However,the grand jury
sought and received the supporting documents. Invoices were obtained confirming all of the
7
expenses listed in the Quote and, in fact, those invoices substantiate obligations and payments in
excess of the amounts requested.
Advance Redding's Financial Status
Without the benefit of satisfactory documentary support for the grant request, the grand jury then
turned to investigate the fmancial status of Advance Redding. This inquiry was necessary to
detern�ine if the City Council would likely have approved the grant anyway.
Available to the City Council at the time of the grant request would have been Advance Redding's
2023-24 public tax filing 990. This filing reveals that, although Advance Redding had a net worth
of$1.65 million as of July 31, 2024, it also reveals sustained operational losses in the amount af
$425,000 for that fiscal year. Also available would have been Advance Redding's balance sheet as
of Ju1y 31, 2025, and its revenues and expenditures for fiscal year 2024-25. These documents reveal
that Advance Redding's net worth as of that time was approximately$300,000 and that its net
operational losses for the year were approximately $1.3 million. Advance Redding has confirmed
a11 of these documents were not only available but would have been provided to the City Council
had it been requested to do so.
�c3�^°�r��� ��,����3i����
�,��,.:
=�
.; :�.
5��
5"`v
��.�
�U
�_,35i,;v . .
'S�.'.v_ 7e�1_r7 ^ .+..i i.v E�v='LY ��uh' �'�f
�C�t.•�;���t� ��> !r�������
With the above-described need for Advance Redding to have a reliable source of funding to plan
and execute all of the functions already scheduled and others in the future, the options became
clear: either provide Advance Redding the necessary short-term funding or begin the closure of the
Auditorium.
Effect of the Donatiom to Measure A
When Advanced Redding's donatian of$49,500 in support of Measure A became public shortly
after the approval of the grant request,the facts surrounding the donation and its potential effect on
the decision of the city council with respect to the grant request were unclear. There were questions
about the overall financial status of Advance Redding and the timing and source of the donation.
8
There was discussion among the council members of the possibility of"clawing back"the grant
funds in some manner, but this was dismissed as the grant funds had already been spent by that
time.
However, it was confitmed that the Advance Redding donation actually came from a separate fund
provided by the Bethel Church for community improvement and was made in the spring of 2025.
There was no co-ming�ing of funds between the grant money and the donation. Advance Redding
made a legitimate donation to Measure A. Accordingly, the grand jury finds it unlikely that
knowledge of this donation would have substantially affected the city's decision to fund the grant.
Going Forward
This grand jury did not undertake an evaluation of the long-term funding for the Auditorium. This
is a matter for the City Council to resolve. For the short term,the city has agreed to advance the
sum of$116,000 per month ta Advance Redding to continue operation of the Auditorium;the
present period of this commitment is for four months ending June 2026. Funds provided by the sale
of Stillwater property and the Redding Rancheria Health Center have been identified as potential
sources to assist in the ongoing operation of the Auditorium.
The City Council now requires that Advance Redding provide quarterly financial statements and a
business plan as a condition of continued assistance. In addition, the lease agreement may now be
canceled by either party.
Conclusion
The manner in which the grant proposal was addressed by the Redding City Council causes concern
as to whether the interests of the public were adequately represented with the due diligence
required. The decision to approve this grant appears to have been largely based upon faith,
predicated on the long relationship the city had with Advance Redding. While this may be
understandable, it is not due diligence. The public interests require receipts, invoices, financial
documents and business plans; it requires facts.
Based upon our investigation into the grant for Advance Redding, the grand jury concludes that not
a11 Redding City Council members met their obligation to represent the interests of the public with
due diligence. The City Council was not provided available relevant information.Nevertheless, our
investigation also reveals that the outcome of this matter would not likely have been different had
due diligence been exercised. The grand jury hopes that,with this report, the public has a better
understanding of what occurred and why.
FINDII�GS
FL 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 saurces when it was not
provided to the council when considering and approving the grant request and reduction in rent.
9
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. The Redding City Council did not receive notification of Advance Redding's donation in
support of Measure A before considering the grant request, resulting in citizen and council
concerns that Advance Redding may have used grant money to donate to a political campaign.
F5. Documents and interviews substantiate that the danation 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 ta
adopt procedures which educate and emphasize the duty of its support staff to provide all
relevant inforrnation to the council and the pub�ic prior to any action taken.
R2. Effective imrnediately, each member of the Redding City Council must exercise due diligence
in considering any requests for city funds.
REQUIRED RESPONSES
The following responses are required,pursuant to Penal Code §�933 and 933.Q5:
From the following elected county officials within 60 days:
• Redding City Council: F2
• Redding City Council: R1, R2
SOURCES AND REFERENCES
City of Reddfng
• Videos of city council meetings of August 4, 2025,August 19, 2025, September 2, 2025,
October 7, 2025
• Minutes, agendas and agenda packets for council meetings of August 4, 2025, August 19,
2025, September 2, 2025, October 7, 2025, December 2, 2025,February 3, 2026
• Meetings of Community Services Advisory Cammission
• Financial, contractual and other documents provided in response to requests for documents
• Interviews of city council members and eity staff
Advance Redding
• Financial, contractual and other documents provided in response to requests for documents
• Correspondence from Advance Redding management to the city council
• Interviews of knowledgeable employees
• Facebook post of Kris Vallotin of October 25, 2025
10
IndependentSourees
• ProPublica records of nonprofit 990 tax filings
Local Media Repmrting
• KRCR reports of October 9, 2026, October 16, 2025
• Record Searchlight,Redding Civic stuck in middle after major campaign donation irks sorr�e
on council. October 16, 2025
• Record Searchlight,Redding Civic could close permanently, council votes on,f'unding.
February 3. 2026
• Shasta Scout,Advance Redding r�eceives grant fi�orn city, long-term fate of Civic AuditoYium
still unknown. August 27, 2025
• Shasta Scout, The Fate of the Civic Audito�ium inay be decided this week. Here's what you
should know. February 2, 2026.
Reports issued by the Grand 1ury do not identify individuals interviewed. Penal Code �929 requires that
reports of the Grand Jury not contain the name of any person or facts leading to the identity of any
person who provides information to the Grand Jury.
11
� � T Y F �ITY C3F � I C�
�..
�g
:� �:� 777 Cy�r�s� ,�v�nue, R�dding, CA 96OC�1
� �"` PU BC:�X ��6C}71, Redding, CA '�6C}��-�it�71
� �, �. I F � E� � } ; �;�r'"' �ityof���ddirac�.ar�
..
, =�r _
Mike Littau,Mayor
m I itta u@ c ityof re d d i ng.gov
530.225.4447
July 21, 2026
Honorable Tamara Wood, Presiding Judge
Shasta County Superior Court
1515 Court Street, Room 610
Redding, CA 96001
Re: Response of the City of Redding City Council to Fiscal Year 2025-2026 G�and Jury Report:
If You Don't Ask,You Will Never Know—Redding�ity CounGil grant of Civic Auditorium capital
improvement funds to Advance Redding: was the public interest protected?
Dear Judge Wood,
The City Council of the City of Redding (Cit�) appreciates the time and dedication the members of the
2025-2026 Grand Jury contributed to their charge.,
As background, the Redding Civic Auditorium (Ci�iic) opened in 1970, championed by former City of
Redding Mayor Carl A. Williams. The �ivic, at that time, was considered to be a versatile and unique
building. The City operated the� Civic��� until ,October 201 l, at which time a local nonprofit, Advance
Redding, sign�d a lease to;operate the aging facility. After nearly 14 years of hosting a wide range of
performances and�events, Ad�ance l�ed�ing announced it would end its management of the Civic, ceasing
operations �nd���canceling shows following the July 4,��2026, Freedom Festival. The City is searching for a
new operator and will soon advertrse a Request for Proposals.
The responses below'simply reflect these differences and are not meant to diminish the soundness of the
Grand Jury's recommendations.
Findin�s
FL 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�equest for the gNant and the Neduction in rent.
Response: The City partially disagrees with this finding. In September 2025, following the August 19,
2025, Council meeting, Council directed staff to develop a grant agreement for Advance
Redding to help support operations of the Civic. In September 2025, the Community
Services Advisory Commission (CSAC) considered the appointment of two CSAC
Commissioners to participate in the ad hoc committee to develop a plan to negotiate
amendments to the Advance Redding Civic Auditorium lease. CSAC Commissioners are
members of the public and serve to advise the City Council on various topics involving the
Redding community.
Response of the City of Redding City Council to Fiscal Year 2025-2026 Grand Jury Report: July 21,2026
If You Don't Ask,You Will Never Know—Redding City Council grant of Civic Auditorium, Page 2 of 3
CapiYal improvcmcnt funds to Advance Rcdding: was the public intcrest protected?
Additionally, at its Deeember 16, 2025, City Couneil meeting, the Couneil approved the
appointment of Council Members Audette and Resner to serve on an ad hoc committee to
engage with community members and stakeholders who may benefit from and provide
financial support to the Civic Auditorium while evaluating its ability to offer additional
funding.
These Council ad-hoc committee members received information from staff and Advance
Redding and provided updates to the Council during Council meetings open to the public.
Should any Council Member and also the members of the public desire additional
information to be provided on any public matter, staff will seek to obtain and provide the
requested material.
F2. Some Redding City Council members failed in their duty to exercise due diligence by not
Nequesting backgNound information from Advance Redding or othe�sou�ces when it was
not provided to the Council, when considering and approving the grant request and
Neduction in rent.
Response: The City partially disagrees with this finding. It is diffieult to be certain if Council members
performed due diligence and requested information outside the public's view ahead of the
aetion taken by the CouneiL It is possible Couneil members sought and requested
information and simply did not announce during the Council meeting that they had obtained
additional information.
F3. Documents and interviews pNoduced during this investigation suppoNt the gNant request
and the reduction in rent. Detailed suppoNting documents would not have influenced the
appNoval of the grant request and reduction in rent by the City Council. �
Response: The City agrees with this finding. �
F4. The Redding City Council did not receive notification of Advance Redding's donation in
support of Measure A before considering the grant request, resulting in citizen and�
council concerns that Advance Redding may have used grant money to donate to a
political campaign. � �� � ��
Response: The City agrees with this finding. City staff was unaware of the donation by Ad�ance
Redding to Measure A, a citizen-led tax initiative, ahead of making the presentation�to the � �
CounciL Upon the Couneil becoming aware of the donation, a publie diseussion ensued�to
address the matter.
F5. Documents and interviews substantiate that the donation by Advance Redding in support
of Measure A was pNoper and its disclosure to the City Council would not have
influenced the approval of the gNant Nequest and reduction in �en� �� � �
Response: The City agrees with this finding.
Response of the City of Redding City Council to Fiscal Year 2025-2026 Grand Jury Report: July 21,2026
If You Don't Ask,You Will Never Know—Redding City Council grant of Civic Auditorium, Page 3 of 3
CapiYal improvcmcnt funds to Advance Rcdding: was the public intcrest protected?
Recommendations:
Rl. On or before December 31, 2026, the Redding City Council direct the Redding City
M�anager to adopt procedures which educate and emphasize the duty of its staff to
provide all relevant information to the council and the public prior to any action
taken.
Response: This recommendation will not be implemented as it is currently in practice with the City
staff required to provide all relevant information to Couneil in all staff reports. Additionally,
each staff report presented to the Council is reviewed by a myriad of staff ahead of being
presented to the City Council. Further opportunities for review and questions from Council
members are provided with a one-on-one meeting with the City Manager ahead of the
Council meeting in whieh an item may be presented for aetion. Staff reports ean be fluid
and updated frequently, up to and including at the Council meeting. The City 1Vlanager's
offiee reviews eaeh staff report ahead of being placed on the agenda.
R2. Effective immediately, each member of the Redding City Council must exercise due
diligence in considering any requests for city funds.
Response: This reeommendation will be implemented.
This eoneludes the response from the City of Redding City Couneil to the 2025-2026 Grand Jury Report
entitled 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?
Sineerely, � �
Mike Littau
Mayor
City of Redding
cc: P. Bolton,Foreperson(electronic copy) � � ` � �
Redding City Council � �� �� �� �
Redding City Manager
Redding City Attorney