Big Valley Rancheria is proposing to take 21 parcels – totaling about 51 acres – into trust.
Seven parcels totaling two acres are along Mission Way, and the remaining 14 parcels totaling a little more than 49 acres are on Mission Rancheria Road, Soda Bay Road and Meadow Drive behind the tribe’s RV Park, as Lake County News has reported.
The BIA invited the county to submit input on the trust applications for the parcels, all of which were part of the original rancheria before it was terminated in the 1950s, according to tribal officials. The deadline for input was April 16.
However, the county’s original draft letters raised issue with cannabis, a new commercial center and casino. Tribal Administrator Ben Ray III told the board at its April 9 meeting that a commercial center was slated for other parts of tribal lands already in trust that aren’t connected to those specific 21 parcels.
County Administrative Officer Carol Huchingson, whose staff had drawn up the original letters, maintained that she had not received hundreds of pages of information as part of the application, which Ray said was supposed to have been delivered to the county by the BIA.
At the board’s discussion on April 16 about the updated letters, Supervisor Moke Simon once again recused himself from the discussion, as he had done on April 9.
During last week’s meeting, both Board Chair Tina Scott and Huchingson maintained that the county hadn’t received the documents and that there were questions about the tribe’s plans.
Huchingson said that she had met with Ray on two occasions in 2017, had a conceptual discussion and reviewed a one-page summary of the tribe’s plans.
She said she had gotten no further word about the plan until the county received the letters from the BIA in February and March.
However, Sarah Ryan, Big Valley’s deputy tribal administrator and environmental director, presented proof that a detailed packet of information had been delivered on a flash drive to Huchingson’s office on June 14, 2017. As evidence, Ryan offered the FedEx receipt signed by Marcy Harrison, one of Huchingson’s staffers.
At last week’s meeting, Ryan said the tribe was concerned that the slightly updated letters the county had offered didn’t include Ray’s comments from the previous week. The inaccurate information they were most concerned about – such as the county raising issues with potential commercial development on the parcels – hadn’t been removed, she added.
“Because the letters are not accurately portraying the facts, we’d like to reiterate the facts regarding our fee to trust packages,” Ryan said.
She emphasized what Ray already had reported, that the tribe had no planned changes for the use or zoning of the 21 parcels, and no plans for development on them at all. The parcels either are open space or have small residences located on them.
Ryan reiterated that the land the tribe is requesting to move into trust originally as part of the rancheria.
She said the property tax loss will be minimal – county documents show the annual loss would be about $11,000.
Explaining that the documents had been delivered nearly two years ago, Ryan said the tribe didn’t have to provide the information to the county but it went above and beyond to be transparent.
“To claim that there’s not been enough time to review and communicate with the tribe is not accurate,” said Ryan. “Tribal administration and legal counsel have met with county administration two years ago on these applications and no further info was requested from the tribe.”
She said she hoped the information the tribe had provided would put the county’s concerns at ease, “and that you handle these next steps in a fair and measured way.”
Scott said the county wasn’t trying to hinder the tribe and she agreed that the land needs to go back into trust. The county had concerns and this was their only chance to make comment, and Scott added that she hadn’t received the flash drive.
Ryan said the county had no questions for the tribe regarding the project and yet crafted a letter that, had it been submitted to the BIA, could have had negative impacts.
Scott brought up the tribe’s plans for a new casino. Ryan reiterated that there is no plan for a new casino. They have plans for economic development on a 43-acre parcel the tribe bought in the 1990s and placed into trust soon after, which also includes tribal housing.
County Administrative Office staffer Patrick Sullivan, the tax administrator, told the board that when staff reviewed the parcels in trust, they didn’t find the commercial center. The original request to put the 43-acre parcel into trust in 2001 spoke to affordable housing and open space.
Ryan said that parcel always was to be split, with a mix of economic development and housing.
Huchingson said the county’s proposed letters on the tribe’s fee to trust applications were not intended to create an adversarial position, but were intended only to raise the issues that came up, get together the departments that had concerns with it, “and to promote further partnership with the tribe.”
She said that was the intent in 2017 “and it stands now.”
Supervisor Bruno Sabatier said the information he saw in the packet showed the tribe’s intent to leave the parcels as they are currently. He said there was nothing to suggest the county had been deceived about the tribe’s plans.
“The tone is a little against the potential growth of a partner in our community,” he said of the county’s letters. He wanted it changed and not put in the “what if” scenarios.
He said the tribe is not intending to make changes to the property’s use, “But our response is that, almost, that they’re deceiving us in their intent, and I don’t think that’s a very appropriate stance.”
Ryan agreed, saying that there is no intent to change the land use and that the tone of the letters makes is sound like the tribe is misleading the county and BIA. “That’s really unfortunate that the county’s letter states that, and we’d like to see that completely changed.”
Supervisor Rob Brown asked what that change looked like. Ryan suggested removing all the paragraphs about economic development on those parcels or don’t send the letters at all. Brown said he thought they could resolve the matter.
Supervisor EJ Crandell, who is tribal chair for Robinson Rancheria, agreed with Sabatier and Ryan. He said Big Valley has more than 1,000 members, so they also have a need for housing.
Brown said he doesn’t see a big issue for the neighboring properties, as there had been plenty of time for the neighbors to weigh in and he’s only heard from one. Scott said they hadn’t been notified as they normally would with a county project.
During the discussion, Sabatier asked why the county’s letter referred to October 2018 raids on 14 locations involving large-scale marijuana grows that didn’t involve residents of Big Valley Rancheria.
Scott said it may not have been their people but she believed the parcels in the applications were involved. For the most part, they were not involved, Ryan said.
Ryan said those parcels were tribal member-owned, not tribal owned, and the cartels may have been growing on one portion of a property in trust.
Crandell explained that tribal members in some instances may own land from the allotment times, before rancheria termination; in those instances, individuals may hold trust land that isn’t owned by the tribe at large. The same is true at Robinson, he added.
Ryan said in those cases they’re within the boundaries of the rancheria and they do have to comply with tribal law.
The board ultimately offered to have Sullivan sit down with Ryan and work on updating the letters, which are shown below.
The letters respond to questions about property tax, government services and intended use, reflecting the tribe’s updated input.
“The way I’m reading it is exactly the way that I was hoping that it would come back,” Sabatier said upon reviewing the updated letters.
Crandell thanked Ryan for being available to help with the letter to ensure that they had a document that could be submitted, that shows that the county and tribe are working together.
Scott said she wished they could I have sat down earlier. She said hopefully the county and tribe will continue to work together. “I think that’s what we all really want, ultimately.”
“Yes, that’s definitely our intent,” said Ryan.
“Ours, too,” said Scott.
Crandell moved to approve the response and the revised copy of letters, which the board approved 4-0. That allowed the county to submit the letters by the deadline later that day.
Ryan told Lake County News later that the tribe was satisfied with the updated letters.
Correction: Paragraphs in the above article has been corrected to show that a 43-acre parcel the tribe purchased in the 1990s is to house economic development, with no new casino planned.
Email Elizabeth Larson at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.. Follow her on Twitter, @ERLarson, or Lake County News, @LakeCoNews.
041619 County of Lake Lette... by on Scribd
041619 County of Lake Lette... by on Scribd