Shasta County Grand Jury
2025-2026
From the annual report
The consolidated year-end volume. The individual investigations it contains are listed separately below.
📑 Year-End Report
The full consolidated volume; individual reports are listed below.
Individual reports (3)
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
2 findings
F1:
The physical facilities at the Shasta County Juvenile Rehabilitation Facility provide a safe, clean, and secure environment for the detained juveniles in compliance with Title 15; however, due to the age of the facility, some infrastructure repairs and upkeep are needed.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The Shasta County Board of Supervisors ensures funding is available to make the necessary infrastructure repairs and direct the Chief of Probation to complete noted repairs.
F2:
The Juvenile Rehabilitation Facility is run by a dedicated and professional team who meets the needs of the juveniles.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
4 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.
Additional Recommendations
6
Not linked to specific findings.
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.
Findings & Recommendations
5 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:
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 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.
Additional Recommendations
2
Not linked to specific findings.
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.