Humboldt County Grand Jury

2000-2001

18 reports

Findings & Recommendations 17 findings
F1: The board and the fire department have had a poor working relationship for several months.
F2: The poor relationship between the board and the fire department escalated when construction began on the new fire hall.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1: The board budget more funds for the district to operate effectively.
F3: It was reported that fifteen firemen resigned en masse this year as a result of this poor working relationship between the board and the fire department.
F4: The board originally budgeted $15,000 for the construction of a new fire hall.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1: The board budget more funds for the district to operate effectively.
F5: The board and fire department assumed that donations of money, materials, and labor would defray the majority of the costs of building the fire hall.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1: The board budget more funds for the district to operate effectively.
F6: The fire department actively solicited donations of money and materials for the new fire hall; as a result, most of the donations were made specifically to the fire department.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1: The board budget more funds for the district to operate effectively.
F7: Neither the board nor the fire department has tax-exempt status, precluding either from receiving tax deductible donations.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1: The board budget more funds for the district to operate effectively.
F8: The board has spent at least $33,000 on the new fire hall which is not yet completed.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1: The board budget more funds for the district to operate effectively.
F9: For thirty-five years, the board has not purchased any fire prevention vehicles.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1: The board budget more funds for the district to operate effectively.
F10: The board owns the following: A. 1964 GMC fire truck B. 1964 Diamond T fire truck C. 1971 International-water tender (capacity: 3500 gallons)
F11: The water tender tank leaks half of its capacity each day.
F12: The fire department reported it does not have sufficient respirators for the fire trucks; four are required for each truck.
F13: The board pays the secretary/treasurer $100 a month and does not withhold taxes.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3: Payroll taxes be withheld from the salary of the secretary/treasurer. RESPONSE THE FOLLOWING RESPONSE TO REPORT 01-09 ARE REQUIRED PURSUANT TO P.C. AND THE STANDARD FORMAT FOR RESPONSES. The Carlotta Community Service District respond to all findings and recommendations.
F14: The board has not hired/appointed a district general manager, as required by law.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2: A district general manager be hired/appointed.
F15: In 1999, the board reduced the property tax assessment by 40 percent.
F16: The board reported reserves of approximately $100,000 as of June 1999.
F17: As of June 2000, the board budget summary shows a reserve balance of approximately $66,000. CONCLUSIONS C-1 Neither the board nor the fire department effectively managed solicitations for the new fire hall, resulting in a serious shortfall of support for fire hall construction. C-2 The board has not effectively budgeted funds for maintenance and upgrading of equipment and construction of the new fire hall. C-3 The water tender tank leak substantially increases response time to a fire. C-4 The absence of a district general manager appears to invite continuing management problems. RECOMMENDATIONS THE HUMBOLDT COUNTY GRAND JURY RECOMMENDS THE FOLLOWING:
Findings & Recommendations 16 findings
F1: The grand jury received written permission from relatives of the murdered boy to investigate CWS and MH records.
F2: The grand jury’s access to those records has been denied by CWS and MH.
F3: The Director of Social Services, following the advice of Humboldt County Counsel, did not respond to the 2000-2001 Grand Jury questions regarding the handling of this case by CWS.
F4: County Counsel is advisory to all county agencies and the grand jury.
F5: According to County Counsel, the California State Attorney General, and the Humboldt County District Attorney’s office, the grand jury must use Form 827 (Petition for Disclosure of Juvenile Court Records) of the Welfare and Institution Code to investigate juvenile files and court records. This form is mandated by the California State Legislature.
F6: Using Form 827 created many problems and delays.
F7: The Department of Mental Health would not accept a relative’s report concerning the boy’s safety while the boy was living with his mentally ill mother.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1: Departments of Social Services and Mental Health staff, in responding to citizens’ needs, inform citizens of other resources and procedures available to them for accessing these resources, as well as these departments’ resources.
F8: The mentally ill mother had been a client of MH for approximately five years.
F9: According to mental health staff, any client of MH has the right to deny communications between MH and other relatives.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1: Departments of Social Services and Mental Health staff, in responding to citizens’ needs, inform citizens of other resources and procedures available to them for accessing these resources, as well as these departments’ resources.
F10: Mandated reporters are categorized as: health practitioners, child care custodians (includes school personnel), employees of child protective agencies (includes employees of a sheriff’s or police department, or a county welfare or probation department), commercial film and photographic film processors, clergy, firefighters, animal control officers, humane society officers, and child visitation monitors; relatives are not included in the categories of mandated reporters.
F11: Only mandated reporters have a legal duty to report suspicion or knowledge of abuse or endangerment.
F12: In this case, Suspected Child Abuse Reports were filled out and sent to CWS by mandated reporters.
F13: According to two mandated reporters, the boy told them that he feared for his life.
F14: The boy was not removed by CWS or MH from his mentally ill mother’s home.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2: The Department of Social Services conduct more thorough investigations of all CWS cases and Suspected Child Abuse Reports as a means to prevent neglect, abuse, and possible death. RESPONSES THE FOLLOWING RESPONSES TO REPORT 01-04 ARE REQUIRED PURSUANT TO P. C. AND THE STANDARD FORMAT FOR RESPONSES. 1. The Department of Mental Health respond to F-1, F-2, F-7, F-8, F-9, F-13, F-14, R-1. 2. The Department of Social Services respond to F-1, F-2, F-3, F-11, F-13, F-14, R-1, R-2.
F15: According to relatives and friends, the mother had threatened suicide on numerous occasions.
F16: The boy was murdered by his mentally ill mother on March 18, 2000; she then immediately committed suicide. CONCLUSIONS C-1 Even though the grand jury is responsible, by statute, for investigating citizens’ complaints, it can be denied access to pertinent files, records, and other relevant documents on the advice of County Counsel and/or the courts. C-2 County Counsel may have a conflict of interest when advising both a county agency and the grand jury about the same case. C-3 The requirements of the Welfare and Institutions Code section 827 appear contrary to the powers and duties of the grand jury. C-4 The Department of Mental Health does not appear to respond to calls by a relative to express concerns for the welfare of a child of a MH client. C-5 Because the grand jury is required to be confidential, to investigate citizens’ complaints, and to make recommendations, the grand jury needs to be included by the legislature in the Welfare and Institutions Code section 827 as those who may inspect case files. C-6 The grand jury should request the advice of a superior court judge and the District Attorney when there appears to be a conflict of interest with County Counsel. RECOMMENDATIONS THE HUMBOLDT COUNTY GRAND JURY RECOMMENDS THE FOLLOWING:
Findings & Recommendations 16 findings
F1: Relatives of the children gave the grand jury permission to investigate the social service files of the children removed from their relative's foster care.
F2: The grand jury's access to those files has been denied by the Department of Social Services.
F3: The Director of Social Services, following the advice of Humboldt County Counsel, did not respond to the 2000- 2001 Grand Jury's inquiries into the handling of this case by CWS.
F4: All court records were furnished to the grand jury by relatives.
F5: According to Humboldt County Counsel, the California State Attorney General, and the Humboldt County District Attorney's office, the grand jury must use Form 827 (Petition for the Disclosure of Juvenile Court Records) of the Welfare and Institution Code to investigate juvenile files and court records. This requirement is mandated by the legislature.
F6: Using Form 827 created many problems and delays because of the requirements of the legal system.
F7: The two children removed from their foster care relative were placed with non-relatives in a distant location.
F8: At that time, no other family member was contacted by CWS to serve as a foster parent.
F9: Court records reveal that CWS went to the Yurok reservation without following appropriate sections of ICWA and removed the children.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1: The Department of Social Services conduct more thorough investigations of all CWS cases and Suspected Child Abuse Reports as a means to monitor quality and appropriateness of services.
F10: The Director of Social Services has not returned calls from Yuroks at the Hoopa Valley Tribal Council Division of Human Services (HVTCDHS) to express their concerns.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2: The Department of Social Services develop a climate of trust and cooperation between CWS and the people they serve in the Hoopa area. RESPONSES THE FOLLOWING RESPONSES TO REPORT 01-05 ARE REQUIRED PURSUANT TO P.C. AND THE STANDARD FORMAT FOR RESPONSES. 1. The Department of Social Services and Child Welfare Services respond to F-2, F-3, F-7, F-8, F-9, F-10, F-11, F-12,
F11: HVTCDHS staff believe that assigned CWS workers do not have adequate knowledge of ICWA and tribal laws and customs.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2: The Department of Social Services develop a climate of trust and cooperation between CWS and the people they serve in the Hoopa area. RESPONSES THE FOLLOWING RESPONSES TO REPORT 01-05 ARE REQUIRED PURSUANT TO P.C. AND THE STANDARD FORMAT FOR RESPONSES. 1. The Department of Social Services and Child Welfare Services respond to F-2, F-3, F-7, F-8, F-9, F-10, F-11, F-12,
F12: The Director of Social Services, County Counsel, and the Juvenile Court conclude that these children are not covered by ICWA.
F13: HVTCDHS has been trying for three years to encourage CWS to hire a Native American, who has full knowledge of tribal laws and customs, as a caseworker. CWS has not done so.
F14: According to HVTCDHS staff, the turnover of CWS emergency staff contributes to the lack of continuity in CWS services to the tribe's abused and neglected children.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2: The Department of Social Services develop a climate of trust and cooperation between CWS and the people they serve in the Hoopa area. RESPONSES THE FOLLOWING RESPONSES TO REPORT 01-05 ARE REQUIRED PURSUANT TO P.C. AND THE STANDARD FORMAT FOR RESPONSES. 1. The Department of Social Services and Child Welfare Services respond to F-2, F-3, F-7, F-8, F-9, F-10, F-11, F-12,
F15: According to professionals serving clients in the outlying areas, the frequent change in CWS staff and the closing of services too quickly contribute to distrust and lack of continuity.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2: The Department of Social Services develop a climate of trust and cooperation between CWS and the people they serve in the Hoopa area. RESPONSES THE FOLLOWING RESPONSES TO REPORT 01-05 ARE REQUIRED PURSUANT TO P.C. AND THE STANDARD FORMAT FOR RESPONSES. 1. The Department of Social Services and Child Welfare Services respond to F-2, F-3, F-7, F-8, F-9, F-10, F-11, F-12,
F16: According to professionals serving clients in the outlying areas, in-home support and parenting skills training are needed. CONCLUSIONS C-1 Even though the grand jury is responsible by statute for investigating citizens' complaints, it can be denied access to pertinent files, records, etc. on the advice of County Counsel and/or the courts. C-2 County Counsel may have a conflict of interest when advising both a county agency and the grand jury about the same case. C-3 The requirements of the Welfare and Institution Code section 827 appear contrary to the powers and duties of the grand jury. C-4 The lack of cooperation by the Department of Social Services, the courts and the Department of Mental Health with the grand jury has contributed to an adversarial situation. C-5 Because the grand jury is required to be confidential, to investigate citizens' complaints and make recommendations, the grand jury needs to be included by the legislature with those named in the Welfare and Institution Code section 827 as those that may inspect case files. C-6 The grand jury should request the advice of a superior court judge and the district attorney when there seems to be a conflict of interest with County Counsel. C-7 The frequent turnover of CWS staff contributes to a lack of trust and continuity of CWS services within the Native American community. RECOMMENDATIONS THE HUMBOLDT COUNTY GRAND JURY RECOMMENDS THE FOLLOWING:
Findings & Recommendations 8 findings
F1: County employees at the Clark Complex told the grand jury the main building of the complex does not comply with Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
Related Recommendations (1)
R1: The County meet ADA access standards at the main building of the Clark Complex.
F2: The hallway near the elections office, serving the ground floor of the Clarke Complex, is used for storage of furniture, desks, obsolete equipment, and other materials; this practice could cause a hazard in case of an emergency.
Related Recommendations (3)
R2: The County comply with all fire and safety regulations at the Clark Complex.
R3: The County remove all obsolete materials, equipment, debris, and other materials from the Clark Complex.
R4: The County bring the Clark Complex up to building , fire and safety codes or consider other options for these county offices.
F3: Containers of flammable materials were observed on the ground floor.
Related Recommendations (3)
R2: The County comply with all fire and safety regulations at the Clark Complex.
R3: The County remove all obsolete materials, equipment, debris, and other materials from the Clark Complex.
R4: The County bring the Clark Complex up to building , fire and safety codes or consider other options for these county offices.
F4: A significant amount of debris has also accumulated on the ground floor.
Related Recommendations (3)
R2: The County comply with all fire and safety regulations at the Clark Complex.
R3: The County remove all obsolete materials, equipment, debris, and other materials from the Clark Complex.
R4: The County bring the Clark Complex up to building , fire and safety codes or consider other options for these county offices.
F5: It is difficult to see because of insufficient lighting on the ground floor hallway.
Related Recommendations (2)
R2: The County comply with all fire and safety regulations at the Clark Complex.
R4: The County bring the Clark Complex up to building , fire and safety codes or consider other options for these county offices.
F6: Some windows in the main building leak water.
Related Recommendations (2)
R2: The County comply with all fire and safety regulations at the Clark Complex.
R4: The County bring the Clark Complex up to building , fire and safety codes or consider other options for these county offices.
F7: It was reported that some areas of the main building on the ground floor lack proper security. .
Related Recommendations (2)
R2: The County comply with all fire and safety regulations at the Clark Complex.
R4: The County bring the Clark Complex up to building , fire and safety codes or consider other options for these county offices.
F8: The Eureka Fire Department has not reported fire code violations on their inspections of the Clark Complex. CONCLUSIONS C-1 The county has not adequately provided for handicap accessibility in the main building. C-2 The county has not effectively managed the fire and safety hazards of this building; this is causing a hazard to county employees, confined in-patients, and other users of this building. C-3 The county has not effectively disposed of obsolete and unusable material and equipment. C-4 The county is not effectively maintaining the Clark Complex. C-5 The Eureka Fire Department is not effectively inspecting the Clark Complex. RECOMMENDATIONS THE HUMBOLDT COUNTY GRAND JURY RECOMMENDS THE FOLLOWING:
Related Recommendations (1)
R5: The Eureka Fire Department review its fire inspection procedures regarding the Clark Complex. RESPONSES THE FOLLOWING RESPONSES TO REPORT 01-13 ARE REQUIRED PURSUANT TO P.C. AND THE STANDARD FORMAT FOR RESPONSES. 1. The Board of Supervisors respond to all findings and recommendations. 2. The Department Head of Administrative Services Division respond to all recommendations and findings. 3. The City of Eureka respond to findings F-2, F-3, F-4, and F-8 and to recommendations R-3, R-4, and R-5.
Findings & Recommendations 7 findings
F1: No building checklists of custodial services were provided the grand jury by the Building and Maintenance Division as request.
F2: Some county departments/agencies did not know what was to be cleaned or who was to perform the work.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1: The County establish a more effective program for custodial and maintenance services of county facilities, including supervisorial responsibilities.
F3: The survey indicated that custodial and maintenance supervision of some county facilities is inadequate.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1: The County establish a more effective program for custodial and maintenance services of county facilities, including supervisorial responsibilities.
F4: The county courthouse/jail has been expanded; however, no additional custodial and maintenance personnel have been hired.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2: Board of Supervisors hire more custodial and maintenance services personnel for the expanded courthouse/jail, including a paid job position for a painter and a grounds keeper. RESPONSES THE FOLLOWING RESPONSES TO REPORT 01-14 ARE REQUIRED PURSUANT TO P.C. AND THE STANDARD FORMAT FOR RESPONSES. 1.. The Board of Supervisors respond to all findings and recommendations. 2. The department head of the Administrative Services Division respond to all findings and recommendations. file:///C|/Users/skossow/Desktop/GJ/01-14%20Custodial.htm[3/29/2016 2:02:07 PM]
F5: The county courthouse has no paid job position for grounds keeper or painter.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2: Board of Supervisors hire more custodial and maintenance services personnel for the expanded courthouse/jail, including a paid job position for a painter and a grounds keeper. RESPONSES THE FOLLOWING RESPONSES TO REPORT 01-14 ARE REQUIRED PURSUANT TO P.C. AND THE STANDARD FORMAT FOR RESPONSES. 1.. The Board of Supervisors respond to all findings and recommendations. 2. The department head of the Administrative Services Division respond to all findings and recommendations. file:///C|/Users/skossow/Desktop/GJ/01-14%20Custodial.htm[3/29/2016 2:02:07 PM]
F6: There are no coverings on most of the windows of the large room near the Fifth Street entrance of the county courthouse.
F7: Some courthouse restrooms have long-standing graffiti on the walls. CONCLUSIONS C-1 A priority needs to be placed on custodial and maintenance services of county facilities. C-2 The County does not appear to have sufficient personnel to perform custodial and maintenance services. RECOMMENDATIONS THE HUMBOLDT COUNTY GRAND JURY RECOMMENDS THE FOLLOWING:
Findings & Recommendations 2 findings
F1: The flags are to be put up each morning and taken down each evening by the custodial staff of the courthouse.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1: The County Board of Supervisors consider illuminating the flags at night, in accordance with existing regulations, and fly the flags twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week. RESPONSES THE FOLLOWING RESPONSES TO REPORT 01-01 ARE REQUIRED PURSUANT TO P.C. AND THE STANDARD FORMAT FOR RESPONSES. 1. The Board of Supervisors respond to all findings and recommendations. NOTE: During the past several months the flags have been flying on a more consistent basis. file:///C|/Users/skossow/Desktop/GJ/01-01Flag.htm[3/29/2016 2:00:39 PM]
F2: There are days when the flags are not flown in front of the courthouse at all. RECOMMENDATIONS THE HUMBOLDT COUNTY GRAND JURY RECOMMENDS THE FOLLOWING:
Findings & Recommendations 8 findings
F1: According to witnesses interviewed, Humboldt County has a gang problem.
F2: The gang problem is centered in the Eureka area due to the population.
F3: A county gang task force has been established by law enforcement agencies, along with GRIP; they meet once a month.
F4: According to the Humboldt County Gang Task Force and GRIP, five gangs have been identified.
F5: GRIP is working with approximately 500 students in county schools.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5: The Humboldt County Office of Education respond to finding F-5 and to recommendations R-1, and R-2.
F6: Many drugs, firearms, and other illegal activities have been shown to be gang related.
F7: Persons interviewed stated that no law enforcement agency in Humboldt County has a person assigned full time to gang problems because of a lack of sufficient funding.
F8: Persons interviewed said a need exists for more sophisticated information exchange capabilities and for more gang crime-prevention programs within law enforcement, schools, neighborhoods, and local government. CONCLUSION C-1 A need exists for more sophisticated information exchange capabilities and for more gang- crime prevention programs within law enforcement, schools, neighborhoods, and local government. C-2 Working with youth at an early age is a primary key to reducing the impact of gangs on society. C-3 More personnel and funds are needed to fight the gang problems. RECOMMENDATIONS THE HUMBOLDT COUNTY GRAND JURY RECOMMENDS THE FOLLOWING:
Additional Recommendations 4

Not linked to specific findings.

R1: All law enforcement agencies and GRIP continue working together.
R2: All municipalities and the County of Humboldt seek additional funding from the California Department of Justice and other sources to help law enforcement agencies and the Humboldt County Office of Education GRIP deal with gang related problems. RESPONSES THE FOLLOWING RESPONSES TO REPORT 01-16 ARE REQUIRED PURSUANT TO P.C. AND THE STANDARD FORMAT FOR RESPONSES. 1. The Board of Supervisors respond to all findings and recommendations. 2. The Humboldt County Sheriff respond to all findings and recommendations. 3. The City Councils of Eureka, Fortuna, and Arcata respond to all findings and recommendations. 4. The Chiefs of Police of Eureka, Fortuna, and Arcata respond to all findings and recommendations. 5. The Humboldt County Office of Education respond to finding F-5 and to recommendations R-1, and R-2.
R3: The City Councils of Eureka, Fortuna, and Arcata respond to all findings and recommendations.
R4: The Chiefs of Police of Eureka, Fortuna, and Arcata respond to all findings and recommendations.
Findings & Recommendations 2 findings
F1: There is a holdover clause in the 1985 lease which allows tenancy on a month-to-month basis until a new lease is signed.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1: The parties involved continue to negotiate as often as is necessary until differences are resolved and a lease signed. RESPONSES THE FOLLOWING RESPONSES TO REPORT 01-11 ARE REQUIRED PURSUANT TO P.C. AND THE STANDARD FORMAT FOR RESPONSES. 1. The Board of Supervisors respond to all findings and the recommendation. 2. The Garberville Veterans may respond to all findings and the recommendation. file:///C|/Users/skossow/Desktop/GJ/01-11GarbVets.htm[3/29/2016 2:02:02 PM]
F2: There has not been a signed lease for the Garberville Veterans building since 1987.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2: The Garberville Veterans may respond to all findings and the recommendation. file:///C|/Users/skossow/Desktop/GJ/01-11GarbVets.htm[3/29/2016 2:02:02 PM]
Findings & Recommendations 20 findings
F1: No security equipment is in place at any of the publicly used entrances to the courthouse.
F2: No security personnel are routinely assigned to the areas of the courthouse where the grand jury conducts its business.
F3: There is no "panic button" type alarm system provided for any meeting rooms or office space used by the grand jury.
F4: There are no fire-resistant, locking file cabinets provided for storage of confidential grand jury records. Facilities and Equipment: Facilities and equipment provided for the grand jury are very modest. The furniture and equipment is mainly of an older vintage which was surplus from other county departments. The grand jury needs one large meeting room which will accommodate at least twenty people and at least two committee meeting rooms that will accommodate up to ten people each, with the grand jury designated as the first priority user.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1: Provide two fire-resistant, five-drawer, legal-size, locking file cabinets for exclusive use by the grand jury. Facilities and Equipment
F5: The grand jury office on the third floor of the courthouse provides a meeting area approximately 7 feet by 16 feet; it currently houses the grand jury library.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2: Identify sufficient space in the courthouse to provide the grand jury with one large meeting room (600 sq. ft.) and two conference rooms (200 sq. ft., each) for which the grand jury would be given first priority assignment.
F6: The grand jury office on the first floor of the courthouse is presently used as the foreman's office and as a meeting storage room. The office space is 7 feet by 9 feet, with an ante-room measuring 4 feet by 9 feet.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2: Identify sufficient space in the courthouse to provide the grand jury with one large meeting room (600 sq. ft.) and two conference rooms (200 sq. ft., each) for which the grand jury would be given first priority assignment.
F7: Conference Room B, used by the grand jury, is only available when the Board of Supervisors is not using it.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2: Identify sufficient space in the courthouse to provide the grand jury with one large meeting room (600 sq. ft.) and two conference rooms (200 sq. ft., each) for which the grand jury would be given first priority assignment.
F8: Conference Room A, used as a full grand jury meeting room, provides 464 sq. ft. of space for nineteen or more people; handicap access and movement of people within the room is quite cumbersome when the full jury meets.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2: Identify sufficient space in the courthouse to provide the grand jury with one large meeting room (600 sq. ft.) and two conference rooms (200 sq. ft., each) for which the grand jury would be given first priority assignment.
F9: No coat racks are available for use in inclement weather.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3: Provide coat racks for the grand jury.
F10: The message recording equipment used for incoming calls to the grand jury is not accessible from a remote location.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4: Provide the grand jury message recording equipment that can be accessed from remote locations.
F11: Neither grand jury office has a room number on the door and the offices are not listed on the building directories in the courthouse, making it difficult for witnesses or member of the public to locate the grand jury offices.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5: Approve a maintenance order to place a room number on each grand jury office door and list the grand jury on building directories.
F12: The computer supplied to the grand jury has a 13-inch monitor screen which is difficult to use with any of the newer graphics-based programs.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6: Provide the grand jury computer with a monitor screen which meets prevailing business standards.
F13: Grand jury members are not provided with designated parking or permits for county parking lots; however, they are provided with extended-time parking permits but must compete with the general public for available parking spaces. Clerical Support The operation of the grand jury requires a considerable amount of clerical work which is assumed each year by incoming jurors. Maintaining the continuity of its reports, records, manuals, and protocols from year to year is an ongoing challenge for the grand jury with ever-changing grand jury personnel. For similar reasons, it is difficult for the grand jury to maintain continuous and stable working relationships with the county departments upon which it relies for support.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7: Provide grand jury members with access to permitted county parking lots. Clerical Support
F14: In addition to time spent for meetings, interviews, and inspections, grand jury members collectively average over five hours of time each week devoted strictly to clerical and support duties. These figures do not include time spent by jurors reviewing documents and reports after hours.
F15: It is not possible to provide the public with a telephone number answered by a live person, or a public contact point for walk-in visitors without a staff support employee assigned to the grand jury.
Related Recommendations (1)
R8: Explore funding and staffing resources to identify and provide a staff support person to be assigned to the grand jury on a part-time basis. Compensation
F16: The grand juries of all California counties with more than one million population are supported with 1-2 full- time clerical employees.
F17: The grand juries of all but one California county with a population of 200,000 to 1,000,000 are supported with a paid employee, averaging sixteen hours per week for this group of counties.
F18: The grand juries of most smaller California counties are without clerical support. However, El Dorado, Mendocino, and Lake counties are provided with part-time paid clerical staff. Compensation
F19: Compensation provided to Humboldt County grand jurors for general meetings and for mileage appears to be at parity with other counties.
F20: Compensation provided for scheduled committee meetings and related committee work outside of scheduled meetings is one-third below the average rate reported for other California counties. CONCLUSIONS Security and Safety C-1 Although grand jury proceedings and records are defined by law as highly confidential, only minimal provisions have been made by the county to protect this confidentiality. Facilities and Equipment C-2 The meeting area provided on the third floor (7 feet by 16 feet) is not adequate to accommodate a typical grand jury committee meeting. C-3 The grand jury office on the first floor is not adequate for the multiple purposes for which is now being used. C-4 Conference Room B (first floor) is not always available for the grand jury because it is often needed by the Board of Supervisors during scheduled grand jury meetings. C-5 Conference Room A (first floor) is not adequate to accommodate a full grand jury meeting. C-6 Grand jury offices should be provided with message recording equipment that can be accessed from remote locations. C-7 Grand jury offices should be provided with identifying room numbers to accommodate the public and witnesses and facilitate grand jury operations. C-8 Grand jury office locations should be displayed on the building directories to accommodate witnesses and the public. C-9 The grand jury computer should be provided with a monitor screen commensurate with prevailing business office standards. C-10 The lack of designated parking for grand jurors creates a hardship. Clerical Support C-11 Grand jury operations require several hours per week of clerical and related support activities, which detract from the jury members' primary purpose of interviews, inspections, and investigations. C-12 The continuity and uniformity of grand jury procedures, records, working relationships, protocols, and general service to the public would be greatly improved with the addition of a permanently appointed clerical support staff. Compensation C-13 Humboldt County grand jurors are not adequately compensated for committee meetings and committee work outside of scheduled meetings. RECOMMENDATIONS THE HUMBOLDT COUNTY GRAND JURY RECOMMENDS THE FOLLOWING: The Board of Supervisors provide sufficient funds and authorization in FY 2001-2002 to accomplish the following: Security and Safety
Related Recommendations (1)
R9: Explore funding options to bring juror compensation for committee meetings and related work to parity with other California counties. RESPONSES THE FOLLOWING RESPONSES TO REPORT 01-10 ARE REQUIRED PURSUANT TO P.C. AND THE STANDARD FORMAT FOR RESPONSES. 1. The Board of Supervisors respond to all findings and recommendations. COMMENDATION: The Grand Jury would like to commend and thank the Board of Supervisors and the County Administrative Office for promptly providing improved message answering equipment, office room numbers, and the listing of the grand jury on the courthouse directories.
Findings & Recommendations 21 findings
F1: There appears to be a lack of overall security procedures in place; there have been reports of missing or stolen computer equipment.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1: ISD establish procedures for overall security of computers and their systems.
R7: ISD establish procedures for security of information. RESPONSES THE FOLLOWING RESPONSES TO REPORT 01-02 ARE REQUIRED PURSUANT TO P.C. AND THE STANDARD FORMAT FOR RESPONSES. 1. The Board of Supervisors respond to all findings and recommendations. 2. The department head of Information Services Division respond to all findings and recommendations.
F2: There are no personal background checks on ISD staff.
Related Recommendations (2)
R3: Personnel require extensive background checks on all new ISD staff.
R4: The County bond the current ISD staff.
F3: ISD personnel have access to county personnel records, court records, social services files, county financial accounts, mental health records, and other confidential files.
F4: Witnesses reported that ISD lacks complete security procedures for security of information.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1: ISD establish procedures for overall security of computers and their systems.
R7: ISD establish procedures for security of information. RESPONSES THE FOLLOWING RESPONSES TO REPORT 01-02 ARE REQUIRED PURSUANT TO P.C. AND THE STANDARD FORMAT FOR RESPONSES. 1. The Board of Supervisors respond to all findings and recommendations. 2. The department head of Information Services Division respond to all findings and recommendations.
F5: At times, newly ordered computer equipment sits up to two months unopened; sometimes, the warranty has expired before computers were unpacked.
F6: Some computer components were found to be missing and/or switched to other departments.
F7: Because of programming oversights during upgrading and conversions, there have been delays that have caused problems.
F8: On more than one occasion, a programmer said, the specific job was completed and errors were still found, delaying work.
F9: It was reported that there is a lack of communication existing between programmers and users.
F10: ISD has performed data base management and maintenance without communicating with user departments.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2: ISD be restructured or decentralized to better serve the county.
F11: Witnesses testified that after going down, there are times it takes several days before servers are back on line or running properly.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2: ISD be restructured or decentralized to better serve the county.
F12: It was reported that there are delays in rewriting programs and installing them in a timely fashion.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2: ISD be restructured or decentralized to better serve the county.
F13: It was reported that county departments are not getting timely technical services.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2: ISD be restructured or decentralized to better serve the county.
F14: The county lost data due to conversions of some systems; the criminal justice system suffered loss of data during Y2K conversions.
F15: Between printed pages, blank pages are produced in some office systems. This is caused because ISD sets up for matrix printers when users have laser printers.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2: ISD be restructured or decentralized to better serve the county.
F16: Because of an inefficient financial program, ISD is billing county offices different dollar amounts for the same period of time and services.
Related Recommendations (2)
R2: ISD be restructured or decentralized to better serve the county.
R5: The County acquire new accounting system so that county departments can accurately budget for computers and their systems.
F17: When the ISD "motherboard" goes down, most county office computers go down.
Related Recommendations (2)
R2: ISD be restructured or decentralized to better serve the county.
R6: County departments have stand-alone system servers with mirrored hard drives.
F18: Computer users are not being advised when ISD is running program backups and/or program upgrades.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2: ISD be restructured or decentralized to better serve the county.
F19: Several county departments are using other technical services rather than services provided by ISD.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2: ISD be restructured or decentralized to better serve the county.
F20: There are conflicts between vendors and ISD when ISD alters or customizes licensed vendor software.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2: ISD be restructured or decentralized to better serve the county.
F21: To avoid having user systems down during normal working hours, ISD procedure allows only off-hour access to vendors who wish to upgrade their systems and perform maintenance. CONCLUSIONS C-1 ISD has not effectively established procedures for overall security of computers and systems. C-2 ISD is not effectively organized to provide all the services needed by the county. C-3 ISD is not communicating effectively with user departments. C-4 ISD technical services is not set up to support user departments adequately. C-5 ISD does not have the equipment and/or procedures for back-up when systems go down. C-6 Some county offices may not be able to accurately budget for their ISD charges. RECOMMENDATIONS THE HUMBOLDT COUNTY GRAND JURY RECOMMENDS THE FOLLOWING:
Related Recommendations (1)
R2: ISD be restructured or decentralized to better serve the county.
Findings & Recommendations 33 findings
F1: Staffing for this facility is chronically below mandated levels causing excessive use of overtime.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1: The Board of Supervisors provide funding to hire and retain sufficient personnel for the Humboldt County Correctional Facility. HUMBOLDT COUNTY JUVENILE HALL AND NORTHERN CALIFORNIA REGIONAL FACILITY Northern California Regional Facility This is a relatively new facility with state-of-the-art security and program capabilities. The facility is operated by Humboldt County but also serves Lake, Del Norte, and Mendocino Counties. Counties other than Humboldt are charged $200 for each person per day for housing hard-to-place minors. The rated capacity is eighteen. Juvenile Hall This is an aging facility which has a capacity of twenty-six minors, both male and female. Discussions and plans for remodeling this facility have been under consideration for several years. The kitchen facility services both Juvenile Hall and the Regional Facility. JUVENILE HALL
F2: Correctional officers are continually hired but leave because of low pay.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1: The Board of Supervisors provide funding to hire and retain sufficient personnel for the Humboldt County Correctional Facility. HUMBOLDT COUNTY JUVENILE HALL AND NORTHERN CALIFORNIA REGIONAL FACILITY Northern California Regional Facility This is a relatively new facility with state-of-the-art security and program capabilities. The facility is operated by Humboldt County but also serves Lake, Del Norte, and Mendocino Counties. Counties other than Humboldt are charged $200 for each person per day for housing hard-to-place minors. The rated capacity is eighteen. Juvenile Hall This is an aging facility which has a capacity of twenty-six minors, both male and female. Discussions and plans for remodeling this facility have been under consideration for several years. The kitchen facility services both Juvenile Hall and the Regional Facility. JUVENILE HALL
F3: The present commander of the facility has adopted a management philosophy which has raised the general morale of the staff.
F4: The food facilities received the highest rating given by the County Health Department. CONCLUSIONS C-1 Understaffing creates security problems and excessive use of overtime. C-2 Despite understaffing, the facility appears to be clean and well-managed. RECOMMENDATIONS THE HUMBOLDT COUNTY GRAND JURY RECOMMENDS THE FOLLOWING:
F5: Day rooms are frequently used to house minors when the capacity is exceeded.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2: The Board of Supervisors provide sufficient funding and authorization to accomplish major remodeling of this facility, addressing in particular, the bed capacity, kitchen facility, and the intake area. JAIL FACILITIES IN HUMBOLDT COUNTY CITY AND COUNTY JAIL FACILITIES: FINDINGS Arcata
F6: The kitchen was observed to be cramped, making food operations difficult.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2: The Board of Supervisors provide sufficient funding and authorization to accomplish major remodeling of this facility, addressing in particular, the bed capacity, kitchen facility, and the intake area. JAIL FACILITIES IN HUMBOLDT COUNTY CITY AND COUNTY JAIL FACILITIES: FINDINGS Arcata
F7: Staff members report the kitchen is too small to service the Juvenile Hall and Regional Facility.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2: The Board of Supervisors provide sufficient funding and authorization to accomplish major remodeling of this facility, addressing in particular, the bed capacity, kitchen facility, and the intake area. JAIL FACILITIES IN HUMBOLDT COUNTY CITY AND COUNTY JAIL FACILITIES: FINDINGS Arcata
F8: The building has no secured facility to provide security for intake operations.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2: The Board of Supervisors provide sufficient funding and authorization to accomplish major remodeling of this facility, addressing in particular, the bed capacity, kitchen facility, and the intake area. JAIL FACILITIES IN HUMBOLDT COUNTY CITY AND COUNTY JAIL FACILITIES: FINDINGS Arcata
F9: The medical examination room must be used as an intake booking area.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2: The Board of Supervisors provide sufficient funding and authorization to accomplish major remodeling of this facility, addressing in particular, the bed capacity, kitchen facility, and the intake area. JAIL FACILITIES IN HUMBOLDT COUNTY CITY AND COUNTY JAIL FACILITIES: FINDINGS Arcata
F10: Plans and agreements were made to begin major remodeling in November 2000, but work has not yet occurred. CONCLUSIONS C-3 Capacity of this facility is often exceeded, causing some minors to be housed in substandard conditions. C-4 The kitchen facilities need to be adequately expanded to meet the present and possible future demands for food service. C-5 Intake and booking areas need to be expanded and improved to provide better security and adequate working areas. C-6 Major remodeling of the facility needs to be accomplished as soon as possible. RECOMMENDATIONS THE HUMBOLDT COUNTY GRAND JURY RECOMMENDS THE FOLLOWING:
F11: The Arcata jail has one cell.
F12: The cell is clean and in very good condition. Fortuna
F13: The Fortuna jail has two cells.
F14: The cells are clean and in very good condition.
F15: Video cameras are used to monitor the prisoners.
F16: The maximum holding time is four hours. Eureka
F17: The Eureka jail has three cells.
F18: The cells are clean and in very good condition.
F19: Video cameras are used to monitor the prisoners. Garberville Substation
F20: The Garberville Sheriff's Substation has two cells.
F21: Mattresses and pillows are provided.
F22: The cells are clean.
F23: The toilets are very old, unsightly, unsanitary, and need to be replaced. Hoopa Substation
Related Recommendations (1)
R3: Replace toilets in Garberville jail.
F24: The substation has two jail cells that hold four people per cell.
F25: One cell is for female prisoners and the other cell is for male prisoners.
F26: There is one mattress in each jail cell.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4: Provide sufficient mattresses in Hoopa jail.
F27: A correctional officer is assigned to the Hoopa Substation.
F28: The Hoopa Substation does not have any custodial service; this work is done by office personnel.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5: Continue to recruit a person for custodial service for the Hoopa Substation.
F29: The cell toilets are forty-five years old and made of concrete; they are unsightly and unsanitary.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6: Replace toilets at the Hoopa jail.
F30: The interior of the office has been repaired but has not been repainted.
F31: The rear door to the building has a hole in it where a lock was removed, creating a major security problem.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7: Replace the rear door at Hoopa Substation.
F32: The fire door does not meet state building code requirements.
Related Recommendations (1)
R8: Replace the fire door at the Hoopa Substation with one that meets state standards.
F33: The Hoopa Substation is not wheelchair accessible. CONCLUSIONS C-7 Arcata, Eureka, and Fortuna jails appear to meet state standards. C-8 Toilets in Garberville Substation may be hazardous to health. C-9 Hoopa Substation does not have a sufficient number of mattresses. C-10 The job description for the sheriff's clerk at Hoopa does not include custodial duties. C-11 Hoopa cell toilets may be hazardous to health. C-12 Unauthorized persons could enter the Hoopa Substation because the building is not secure. C-13 The fire door will not contain a fire at Hoopa Substation. C-14 A wheelchair cannot enter any of the rooms inside the Hoopa Substation. RECOMMENDATIONS THE HUMBOLDT COUNTY GRAND JURY RECOMMENDS THE FOLLOWING:
Related Recommendations (1)
R9: Modify the Hoopa Substation to comply with American Disability Act (ADA) standards. RESPONSES THE FOLLOWING RESPONSES TO REPORT 01-12 ARE REQUIRED PURSUANT TO P.C. AND THE STANDARD FORMAT FOR RESPONSES. 1. The Board of Supervisors respond to all findings and recommendations concerning all county-owned facilities. 2. The Sheriff respond to all findings and recommendations concerning all county-owned facilities.
Findings & Recommendations 5 findings
F1: There are serious delays in receiving information from CLEWS and CLETS.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1: Law enforcement agencies disassociate themselves from the Humboldt County Information Services Department and work directly with the State of California Department of Justice which uses the proper software: CLEWS and CLETS. RESPONSES THE FOLLOWING RESPONSES TO REPORT 01-07 ARE REQUIRED PURSUANT TO P.C. AND THE STANDARD FORMAT FOR RESPONSES. 1. The Humboldt County Board of Supervisors respond to all findings and recommendations. 2. The Humboldt County Sheriff respond to all findings and recommendations. 3. The Eureka Police Chief respond to all findings and recommendations. 4. The Arcata Police Chief respond to all findings and recommendations. 5. The Fortuna Police Chief respond to all findings and recommendations. 6. The Ferndale Police Chief respond to all findings and recommendations. 7. The Rio Dell Police Chief respond to all findings and recommendations. 8. The Blue Lake Police Chief respond to all findings and recommendations 9. The Trinidad Police Chief respond to all findings and recommendations.
F2: Inaccurate and unreliable information is received from CLEWS and CLETS
Related Recommendations (1)
R2: The Humboldt County Sheriff respond to all findings and recommendations.
F3: Officer safety is a serious issue.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3: The Eureka Police Chief respond to all findings and recommendations.
F4: Law enforcement agencies seldom know if the system is slow or is down for maintenance.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4: The Arcata Police Chief respond to all findings and recommendations.
F5: There are times when computer-transmitted warrants to be sent to the jail are never received. CONCLUSIONS C-1 The delays in receiving information from CLEWS and CLETS through Information Services may affect officer safety. C-2 The inaccurate and unreliable information from CLEWS and CLETS through Information Services may result in false arrests or incorrect bookings of a subject. RECOMMENDATIONS THE HUMBOLDT COUNTY GRAND JURY RECOMMENDS THE FOLLOWING:
Related Recommendations (1)
R5: The Fortuna Police Chief respond to all findings and recommendations.
Additional Recommendations 4

Not linked to specific findings.

R6: The Ferndale Police Chief respond to all findings and recommendations.
R7: The Rio Dell Police Chief respond to all findings and recommendations.
R8: The Blue Lake Police Chief respond to all findings and recommendations
R9: The Trinidad Police Chief respond to all findings and recommendations.
Findings & Recommendations 11 findings
F1: SWAP personnel at the farm are unsupervised most of the time; there is only one officer on duty two days a week at the farm.
F2: All produce grown at the farm goes to the jail for inmate consumption.
F3: The farm provides USDA-inspected swine meat for sale to the public and for consumption in the jail.
F4: The swine house is cleaned and disinfected each day; each day swine are given clean straw for bedding.
F5: The swine house was free of odors, clean, and without flies on the day of inspection.
F6: The swine house has a metal roof and a cement floor; wire mesh screen has been placed on the swine house to keep the birds out.
F7: The farm receives free donations of uncooked food for the swine; the swine are fed fresh vegetables, cheese, and grains.
F8: The swine population varies up to eighty.
F9: Once a month the swine are inspected by a state veterinarian.
F10: The farm does not have a tractor; because of this, much of the labor must be done manually.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1: A tractor located at the Sheriff's boat yard be transferred to the farm. RESPONSES THE FOLLOWING RESPONSES TO REPORT 01-03 ARE REQUIRED PURSUANT TO P.C. AND THE STANDARD FORMAT FOR RESPONSES. 1. The Board of Supervisors respond to all findings and recommendations. 2. The Humboldt County Sheriff respond to all findings and recommendations.
F12: The farm has a large greenhouse for vegetable seed starters and has been developing an orchard. CONCLUSIONS C-1 This is a good program that provides food for the jail and saves the county money. C-2 The use of a tractor would increase productivity. RECOMMENDATIONS THE HUMBOLDT COUNTY GRAND JURY RECOMMENDS THE FOLLOWING:
Additional Recommendations 1

Not linked to specific findings.

R2: The Humboldt County Sheriff respond to all findings and recommendations.
Findings & Recommendations 9 findings
F1: The county has failed to provide sufficient funds for all maintenance and upkeep of veterans buildings, pursuant to current law.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1: The Board of Supervisors budget sufficient funds for veterans buildings.
F2: The County of Humboldt has failed to provide sufficient funds for utilities pursuant to the agreements between the veterans associations and the county.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1: The Board of Supervisors budget sufficient funds for veterans buildings.
F3: Some veterans associations have failed to provide budget reports to the county as required in the agreements.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3: Veterans' associations submit required budget reports to the Board of Supervisors. RESPONSES THE FOLLOWING RESPONSES TO REPORT 01-15 ARE REQUIRED PURSUANT TO P.C. AND THE STANDARD FORMAT FOR RESPONSES. The Board of Supervisors respond to all findings and recommendations. The Veterans associations may respond to all findings and recommendations.
F4: The Eureka Veterans Memorial Building has been used as a courthouse for approximately three years with no written agreement.
F5: The Board of Supervisors had not declared a state of emergency pertaining to the Eureka Veterans Memorial Building.
F6: The Family Law Court's operations are interfering with the veterans' use of the Eureka Veterans Memorial Building; the court uses almost all the space, and the veterans have been moved out of their office.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2: The Board of Supervisors ensure the veterans associations have sufficient space until the Family Law Court moves out of the Eureka Veterans Memorial Building.
F7: The veterans associations continue to expend more money from their limited budgets to pay for the upkeep of veterans buildings; this action takes away funds from their worthwhile projects.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1: The Board of Supervisors budget sufficient funds for veterans buildings.
F8: Whenever a county has provided and maintained any building, memorial hall, meeting place, memorial park, or recreation center for the use or benefit of one or more veterans' associations, pursuant to 1262 of the Military and Veterans Code, the provision of that facility and its acceptance by the veterans' associations constitutes a dedication of that property to a public purpose.
F9: Some veterans associations have performed their own maintenance projects on their buildings without fiscal support from the county. CONCLUSIONS C-1 The county has not met its maintenance and upkeep obligations, pursuant to current law. C-2 The county has not met it contractual obligations of paying utilities or providing sufficient funds to pay utilities. C-3 Some veterans associations are not meeting their contractual obligations. RECOMMENDATIONS THE HUMBOLDT COUNTY GRAND JURY RECOMMENDS THE FOLLOWING:
Findings & Recommendations 11 findings
F1: Some of the material and equipment acquired since Humboldt County began to operate the airport still remain and have become obsolete and unusable.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3: All obsolete and unusable materials, equipment, and debris be disposed of.
F2: At the present, materials, equipment, and improvement made by lessees may remain on the premises after the lease expires.
F3: The Humboldt Trap and Skeet Club license expires June 30, 2003.
F4: The Humboldt Trap and Skeet Club license does not contain a paragraph which would provide for the ownership or removal of any improvements, above or below ground, made on the property by licensee, at the expiration of the license agreement.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1: If it is decided to extend the trap and skeet club license agreement, any extension include a provision for ownership and/or removal of all above and below ground improvements.
F5: Under the lease agreement with Louisiana Pacific Corporation and its subsequent assignment to Security Servicing Corporation, the county has the right to examine the assignee's financial records; this has not been done.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2: The county provide for regular examination of Security Servicing Corporation financial records.
F6: Several underground fuel storage tanks installed by the federal government, during World War II, remain in place.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4: The remaining underground fuel storage tanks, installed by the federal government be removed.
F7: A significant amount of debris has accumulated at the airport on either side of the main runway.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3: All obsolete and unusable materials, equipment, and debris be disposed of.
F8: Some of the obsolete material and equipment left by the federal government (Air Corps) is still there.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3: All obsolete and unusable materials, equipment, and debris be disposed of.
F9: Some of the material and equipment acquired since Humboldt County began to operate the airport still remains and has become obsolete and unusable.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3: All obsolete and unusable materials, equipment, and debris be disposed of.
F10: The Automated Surface Observation System (ASOS) is not operational at this time. Human weather observers will continue to perform this duty until additional safety equipment is installed.
F11: Some officials still have safety concerns about the ASOS. RECOMMENDATIONS THE HUMBOLDT COUNTY GRAND JURY RECOMMENDS THE FOLLOWING:
Additional Recommendations 1

Not linked to specific findings.

R5: Upgrade the airport to include an air traffic control tower. RESPONSES THE FOLLOWING RESPONSES TO REPORT 01-06 ARE REQUIRED PURSUANT TO P.C. AND THE STANDARD FORMAT FOR RESPONSES. The Board of Supervisors respond to all findings and recommendations.
Findings & Recommendations 26 findings
F1: No quarterly update reports have been received by the Board of Supervisors from the Auditor-Controller's office concerning the status of implementing the accounts receivable portion of the electronic accounting system.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1: - The 1998-1999 Grand Jury recommended that the County Board of Supervisors (BOS) review the adequacy, currency, and convenience of information provided to it regarding all the major operations of county government. Response - The Board of Supervisors responded that the recommendation has been implemented. However, the Board has recognized one major deficiency in the current accounting system, namely, the need to implement the accounts receivable tracking component of the electronic accounting system. On January 5, 1999, the Board of Supervisors directed the Auditor-Controller to provide quarterly updates to the Board on the status of implementing the accounts receivable portion of the electronic accounting system. Background Information - The accounts receivable component of the electronic accounting system consists of two principal parts, the "recognized receivables" and the "later receivables". The "recognized receivables" are those received within 60 days of the beginning of the fiscal year. They are entered into the electronic accounting system by the Auditor-Controller's staff and are available to all county departments who use the electronic system. The "later receivables" are all other receivables that are anticipated for the remainder of the fiscal year.
F2: The Auditor-Controller's office made a study of the procedures being used by some departments which were manually tracking accounts receivables and concluded that, for the present time, the manual method of tracking was the most efficient way of dealing with these accounts.
F3: The Auditor-Controller's office expressed interest in incorporating all receivables into the electronic tracking system. However, work on this project has been delayed in deference to other data processing projects underway in FY 1999-2000.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1: - The 1998-1999 Grand Jury recommended that the County Board of Supervisors (BOS) review the adequacy, currency, and convenience of information provided to it regarding all the major operations of county government. Response - The Board of Supervisors responded that the recommendation has been implemented. However, the Board has recognized one major deficiency in the current accounting system, namely, the need to implement the accounts receivable tracking component of the electronic accounting system. On January 5, 1999, the Board of Supervisors directed the Auditor-Controller to provide quarterly updates to the Board on the status of implementing the accounts receivable portion of the electronic accounting system. Background Information - The accounts receivable component of the electronic accounting system consists of two principal parts, the "recognized receivables" and the "later receivables". The "recognized receivables" are those received within 60 days of the beginning of the fiscal year. They are entered into the electronic accounting system by the Auditor-Controller's staff and are available to all county departments who use the electronic system. The "later receivables" are all other receivables that are anticipated for the remainder of the fiscal year.
F4: The "later receivables" have not been incorporated into the electronic tracking system currently used and must be tracked manually by the County Administrator's Office and any affected department.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1: - The 1998-1999 Grand Jury recommended that the County Board of Supervisors (BOS) review the adequacy, currency, and convenience of information provided to it regarding all the major operations of county government. Response - The Board of Supervisors responded that the recommendation has been implemented. However, the Board has recognized one major deficiency in the current accounting system, namely, the need to implement the accounts receivable tracking component of the electronic accounting system. On January 5, 1999, the Board of Supervisors directed the Auditor-Controller to provide quarterly updates to the Board on the status of implementing the accounts receivable portion of the electronic accounting system. Background Information - The accounts receivable component of the electronic accounting system consists of two principal parts, the "recognized receivables" and the "later receivables". The "recognized receivables" are those received within 60 days of the beginning of the fiscal year. They are entered into the electronic accounting system by the Auditor-Controller's staff and are available to all county departments who use the electronic system. The "later receivables" are all other receivables that are anticipated for the remainder of the fiscal year.
F5: The "later receivables" may comprise up to 50% of the total accounts receivables and portions of these funds may be received at any time from September through June of the fiscal year, after the close of the fiscal year, or not at all. Conclusions C-1 In the absence of a competent electronic tracking system, it is difficult to know the whereabouts of the "later receivables" during the course of the fiscal year and to effectively use the information for budgetary purposes. COUNTY VEHICLE USE Report 99-00B This report contains extensive findings which indicate that some policies adopted by County's Vehicle Use Committee were not being followed by all county departments. Particular attention was given to policies concerning which employees may be permitted to take county vehicles home at night. Recommendation 3 - The 1998-1999 Grand Jury recommended that the County Vehicle Use Committee's draft policy become formalized by action of the Board of Supervisors. Response - The County Equipment Supervisor responded a recommendation will be submitted to the Board of Supervisors (BOS) for implementation on or before August 31, 1999. Findings - The 2000-2001 Grand Jury makes the following finding:
Related Recommendations (1)
R1: - The 1998-1999 Grand Jury recommended that the County Board of Supervisors (BOS) review the adequacy, currency, and convenience of information provided to it regarding all the major operations of county government. Response - The Board of Supervisors responded that the recommendation has been implemented. However, the Board has recognized one major deficiency in the current accounting system, namely, the need to implement the accounts receivable tracking component of the electronic accounting system. On January 5, 1999, the Board of Supervisors directed the Auditor-Controller to provide quarterly updates to the Board on the status of implementing the accounts receivable portion of the electronic accounting system. Background Information - The accounts receivable component of the electronic accounting system consists of two principal parts, the "recognized receivables" and the "later receivables". The "recognized receivables" are those received within 60 days of the beginning of the fiscal year. They are entered into the electronic accounting system by the Auditor-Controller's staff and are available to all county departments who use the electronic system. The "later receivables" are all other receivables that are anticipated for the remainder of the fiscal year.
F6: A formal policy was submitted to the Board of Supervisors for approval on June 24, 1999. The policy was adopted on July 13, 1999. Recommendation 4 - The 1998-1999 Grand Jury recommended that the County Administrative Officer (CAO) and the Sheriff meet to resolve the problem of a Sheriff's Department employee driving a county vehicle home without the approval of the Vehicle Use Committee. Response - The Sheriff and the CAO both stated that the recommendation is being implemented. Further, on July 21, 1999, the BOS requested the Sheriff to justify his travel budget request for FY 1999-2000. On July 21, 1999, The CAO wrote to the Sheriff explaining the Board action and asking him to participate in the Vehicle Use Committee process. Findings - The 2000-2001 Grand Jury makes the following findings:
Related Recommendations (3)
R3: - The 1998-1999 Grand Jury recommended that the County Vehicle Use Committee's draft policy become formalized by action of the Board of Supervisors. Response - The County Equipment Supervisor responded a recommendation will be submitted to the Board of Supervisors (BOS) for implementation on or before August 31, 1999.
R4: - The 1998-1999 Grand Jury recommended that the County Administrative Officer (CAO) and the Sheriff meet to resolve the problem of a Sheriff's Department employee driving a county vehicle home without the approval of the Vehicle Use Committee. Response - The Sheriff and the CAO both stated that the recommendation is being implemented. Further, on July 21, 1999, the BOS requested the Sheriff to justify his travel budget request for FY 1999-2000. On July 21, 1999, The CAO wrote to the Sheriff explaining the Board action and asking him to participate in the Vehicle Use Committee process.
R5: - The 1998-1999 Grand Jury recommended the BOS oversee the progress of the resolution of the problem of vehicle use and take fiscal measures to enforce the recommendations of the Vehicle Use Committee. Response - The County Equipment Supervisor responded that further analysis was needed by other county departments. No response was provided by the Board of Supervisors, as required by Penal Code Section 933.
F7: The Sheriff's office is participating in the Vehicle Use Committee.
F8: The Vehicle Use Committee has reconsidered and approved the Sheriff's request for the employee referenced in Recommendation 4, above, to drive a county vehicle home.
F9: Both the Sheriff and the CAO state the Vehicle Use Committee process seems to be working satisfactorily at the present time. Recommendation 5 - The 1998-1999 Grand Jury recommended the BOS oversee the progress of the resolution of the problem of vehicle use and take fiscal measures to enforce the recommendations of the Vehicle Use Committee. Response - The County Equipment Supervisor responded that further analysis was needed by other county departments. No response was provided by the Board of Supervisors, as required by Penal Code Section 933. Findings - The 2000-2001 Grand Jury makes the following finding:
F10: The BOS made adjustments to the Sheriff's travel budget and required specific justification for travel budget requests before final approval of the Sheriff's budget. (See also Findings F-7, F-8, & F-9.) HUMBOLDT COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT Report 99-01 Recommendation 7 is the only recommendation in this report for which future action was expected. Recommendation 7 - The 1998-1999 Grand Jury recommended that the Sheriff prepare a five-year plan to guide policies and procedures in the future. Response - The Sheriff agrees with the concept of a five-year plan and serves on the California State Sheriff's Association committee which addresses the recruitment and retention of law enforcement employees. Findings - The 2000-2001 Grand Jury makes the following finding:
Related Recommendations (1)
R7: is the only recommendation in this report for which future action was expected.
F11: The Sheriff stated he is working on the development of a long-range plan. One element of his plan is a proposal to upgrade his computer system. A computer system upgrade proposal was presented to the Board of Supervisors by the Sheriff's Office in August 2000. No other details of his plans were available at the time of this investigation. SPECIAL DISTRICTS Report 99-02 This report provides an overview of special district operations at the county government level. The report focuses particularly on the following county entities: Auditor-Controller, Planning and Building Department, Treasurer, and, the Local Agency Formation Commission. Particular concern was expressed regarding delinquent audits from several special districts and the lack of a summary of special district operations in the County's data bank. Recommendation 1 - The 1998-1999 Grand Jury recommended that recording and communication between the three affected county departments be improved and regularly updated. Response -The offices of the Auditor-Controller, Treasurer, and Department of Planning and Building all indicate a willingness to maintain and improve communications. Finding - The 2000-2001 Grand Jury makes the following finding:
F12: Affected agency officials have been in frequent contact with each other and the Planning and Building Department is currently working on a Project Report for special district support and plan update. Recommendation 2 - The 1998-1999 Grand Jury recommended consideration be given to creating a Management Information System type summary of district operations in the County's data bank. Response - No response was submitted for this recommendation, as required in Penal Code Section 933. Findings - The 2000-2001 Grand Jury makes the following finding:
Related Recommendations (1)
R2: - The 1998-1999 Grand Jury recommended consideration be given to creating a Management Information System type summary of district operations in the County's data bank. Response - No response was submitted for this recommendation, as required in Penal Code Section 933.
F13: The office of the Board of Supervisors reported, upon inquiry, that this recommendation will not be implemented at this time. Recommendation 3 - The 1998-1999 Grand Jury recommended that the affected offices examine the current number and status of special districts and encourage changes in operations and district consolidation proposals, if and as appropriate. Response - The Department of Planning and Building stated that this recommendation will be implemented in concert with the required update of the Sphere of Influence Reports. Findings - The 2000-2001 Grand Jury makes the following findings:
F14: A revised list of special districts has been made and is routinely updated by the Department of Planning and Building.
F15: A Master Service Element is being developed to be used in conjunction with the Sphere of Influence Reports used in land use management. Recommendation 4 - The 1998-1999 Grand Jury recommended that Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) establish: (1) estimated completion dates for the NOT ADOPTED Sphere of Influence Reports, and (2) a review schedule for those reports already adopted. Response - The Department of Planning and Building responded that LAFCO staff will prepare the recommended schedule for review and approval by LAFCO in fiscal year 1999- 2000. The office of the Treasurer-Tax Collector did not respond , as required by Penal Code 933. Findings - The 2000-2001 Grand Jury makes the following finding:
F16: Work on the recommended review schedule was still in progress at the time of this investigation. Recommendation 5 -The 1998-1999 Grand Jury recommended that the Auditor-Controller be granted sufficient resources, for a fixed period, to assist or compel compliance, which ever is appropriate, to resolve the delinquent special district audit situation. Response - No response was provided for this recommendation, as required by Penal Code section 933. Findings - The 2000-2001 Grand Jury makes the following finding:
F17: The office of the Board of Supervisors stated, upon inquiry, that this recommendation requires further study. Note: It should be noted, however, that during fiscal year 1999-2000, the Board of Supervisors did approve the addition of one half-time position for the Auditor-Controller's office for the expressed purpose of addressing delinquent special district audits. Recommendation 6 - The 1998-1999 Grand Jury recommended that the Auditor-Controller revise, as appropriate, the Special Districts-Local Board portion of the General Ledger Fund to reflect current status. Response - The Auditor-Controller disagreed with this recommendation. However, the Auditor-Controller's response did state that the Special Districts-Local Board section of the General Ledger will be reviewed to determine if any inactive fund should be closed. Findings - The 2000-2001 Grand Jury makes the following finding:
Related Recommendations (1)
R6: - The 1998-1999 Grand Jury recommended that the Auditor-Controller revise, as appropriate, the Special Districts-Local Board portion of the General Ledger Fund to reflect current status. Response - The Auditor-Controller disagreed with this recommendation. However, the Auditor-Controller's response did state that the Special Districts-Local Board section of the General Ledger will be reviewed to determine if any inactive fund should be closed.
F18: The General Ledger was reviewed by the Auditor-Controller and no fund was found which needed to be closed. HUMBOLDT COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY Report 99-03 This report concerns the Humboldt County Correctional Facility (HCCF) with particular emphasis on procedures and staffing. Of the five recommendations made by the Grand Jury, future action was anticipated only for Recommendation 1. Recommendation 1 - The 1998-1999 Grand Jury recommended that the Sheriff and Chief Deputy become more accessible to the staff. Response - Both the Sheriff and the Chief Deputy have an "open door" policy and will arrange to meet with staff when requested. Additionally, the Chief Deputy moves through the facility daily and is usually available to the staff during the lunch period in the staff break room. Findings - The 2000-2001 Grand Jury makes the following finding:
F19: A new Chief Deputy was appointed to the HCCF in August, 2000, and staff reaction to the new leadership, concerning accessability, was not conclusive at the time of this investigation. PUBLIC WORKS INTERIM REPORT Report 99-04 This report concerns the breaching of county policies contained in Ordinance No. 681, in the disposition of salvageable bridge materials which were given away to private individuals. Additional information on this matter can be found in the 1999-2000 Grand Jury Report, item 00-08. Recommendation 1 - The 1998-1999 Grand Jury recommended that the Director of Public works send a letter to each Public Works employee reaffirming that the Humboldt County Public Works Department will obey each law, ordinance, and public works policy applicable to the department. Response - Notices were sent out to each employee with the June 3/4 (1999) paychecks. Findings - The 2000-2001 Grand Jury makes the following finding:
F20: Each new employee is given a copy of Ordinance No. 681 and all supervisors are reminded of the ordinance during the year. Recommendation 2 -The 1998-1999 Grand Jury recommended that the Director of Public Works provide a new or updated set of policies and procedures to provide the necessary controls to assure legal compliance with Ordinance No. 681. Response - Updated policies and procedures have been completed to assure compliance with Ordinance No. 681. Findings - the 2000-2001 Grand Jury makes the following finding:
F21: Updated policies are in place and appear to be working well. HUMBOLDT COUNTY JUVENILE DETENTION HALL AND NORTHERN CALIFORNIA REGIONAL JUVENILE DETENTION FACILITY Report 99-05 This report was the result of a routine annual inspection by the Grand Jury of the juvenile facilities in Humboldt County, as mandated by state statutes. Recommendation 3 - The 1998-1999 Grand Jury recommended that the Board of Supervisors make funding to upgrade the Humboldt County Juvenile Detention Facility a high priority. Response - This recommendation will be implemented with construction anticipated to take place in fiscal year 2000-2001. Findings - The 2000-2001 Grand Jury makes the following finding:
F22: The firm of LRS Architects, Inc., hired by Humboldt County, estimated construction on the remodel of the juvenile detention facility will begin in November, 2000. CHILD WELFARE SERVICES EMERGENCY RESPONSE AND ACCOUNTABILITY Report 99-06 This report provides several findings concerning the policies, procedures, and effectiveness of the Child Welfare Services Emergency Response unit. Of the six recommendations made by the Grand Jury, all were responded to with favorable explanations or had been implemented. No further improvements were anticipated on the basis of responses provided. Note: This subject was again reviewed by the 1999-2000 Grand Jury and further information may be found in the 1999-2000 Grand Jury Report (Item 00-12) at the Humboldt County Library. PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT Report 99-07 This report concerns upgrading policies and procedures in the Humboldt County Planning and Building Department, with particular emphasis on the permit and fee process. Recommendations - The 1998-1999 Grand Jury made the following three recommendations: a. The department periodically publicize changes in department operations. b. Advise each customer of a target date for the completion of the permit process. c. Staff explain the "revenue neutral" concept to permit applicants, using a handout. Response - All three recommendations have been implemented. Findings - The 2000-2001 Grand Jury makes the following finding:
F23: The above recommendations have been implemented and are generally working well. However, occasional exceptions occur when: (1) a permit processing date cannot be met, and (2) an individual cannot seem to understand the "revenue neutral" concept. DISPOSAL OF REAL PROPERTY IN THE CITY OF EUREKA Report 99-08 This report contains findings concerning the transfer of real property owned by the City of Eureka to non-profit organizations in which the City has waved the procedures provided for in the Policy and Procedures Memorandum governing real property transfers. Recommendation 1 - The 1998-1999 Grand Jury recommended that the Eureka City Council pass an ordinance that will have the force of law for the disposal of public property. Response - The Eureka City Council is reviewing the City's process for the disposal of public property. An updated process is expected by December 31, 1999. Findings - The 2000-2001 Grand Jury makes the following findings:
F24: The City of Eureka enacted City Ordinance No. 632 - C.S., effective November 2, 1999, to provide procedures regulating transfers of city owned real property.
F25: Ordinance No. 632 - C.S. does permit "expedited" transfers of City-owned real property to a non-profit organization without consultation with or advice from the Planning Commission and without complying with the provisions set forth in the Policy and Procedure Memorandum governing real property transfers, if the City Council makes a finding that all of six (6) conditions exist concerning a proposed transfer. (See section 40.02, Ordinance No. C.S.) Recommendation 2 - The 1998-1999 Grand Jury recommended that the Eureka City Council hold public hearings to discuss the disposal of public property. Response - The City Council will include the need for improved public participation as part of the Council's review of the process of disposal of public property. Findings - The 2000-2001 Grand Jury makes the following finding:
F26: Two public hearings are required before disposal of city property to a non-profit organization. (See Section 40.02 (a)(6) of Ordinance No. 632-C.S.
Findings & Recommendations 5 findings
F1: The City of Eureka has thirty-seven parking lots. (The location of the lots, the number of regular parking spaces, the number of van-accessible parking spaces, and the regular handicap parking spaces are shown in Exhibit B.)
F2: The City of Eureka provides parking for the public in thirty-six of the parking lots. ( The lot at the Municipal Auditorium, lot Number 31, is not available to the public for parking.)
F3: The City of Eureka does not meet the minimum ADA standards for van-accessible parking spaces in thirty-two of their public parking lots. They are lots numbered 1 through 24, 26, 29, and 32 through 37.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1: The City of Eureka comply with the federal ADA law on all city parking lots with public access. RESPONSES THE FOLLOWING RESPONSES TO REPORT 01-08 ARE REQUIRED PURSUANT TO P.C. AND THE STANDARD FORMAT FOR RESPONSES. The City of Eureka respond to all findings and the recommendation. EXHIBIT A MINIMUM NUMBER OF ACCESSIBLE PARKING SPACES ADA Standards for Accessible Design 4.1.2 (5) Total Number of Parking Total Minimum number of Van Accessible Parking Accessible Parking Spaces Spaces Provided (per lot) Accessible Parking Spaces Spaces with min. 96"wide with min. 60" wide (60" & 96" aisles) access aisle access aisle Column A 1 to 25 1 1 0 26 to 50 2 1 1 51 to 75 3 1 2 76 to 100 4 1 3 101 to 150 5 1 4 151 to 200 6 1 5 201 to 300 7 1 6 301 to 400 8 1 7 401 to 500 9 2 7 501 to 1000 2% of total parking provided in each lot 1/8 of column A* 7/8 of column A** 1001 and over 20 plus 1 for each 100 1/8 of Column A* 7/8 of Column A** over 1000 * One out of ever 8 accessible parking spaces ** Seven out of every 8 accessible parking spaces EXHIBIT B CITY OF EUREKA PUBLIC PARKING LOTS JANUARY 2001 # LOCATION REGULAR SPACES REGULAR HANDICAP VAN ACCESSIBLE TOTAL SPACES 1 F St. north of Wood St. 17 1 0 18 2 Washington St. north of Koster St. 40 0 0 40 3 Waterfront Dr. east of Commercial 49 2 0 51 4 First and C St. 66 1 0 67 5 First between C and D Sts. 24 0 0 24 6 First and D St. 35 0 0 35 7 First and E St. 24 2 0 26 8 Second and H St. 34 0 0 34 9 Third and D St. 40 0 0 40 10 Third and E St. 31 2 0 33 11 Third between E and F Sts. 20 0 0 20 12 Third and G St. 40 0 0 40 13 Third and H St. 80 0 0 80 14 Third and I St. 31 0 0 31 15 Third and L St. 31 0 0 31 16 Waterfront at Samoa Bridge 38 1 0 39 17 Second and L St. (west side) 82 0 0 82 18 Second and L St. (east side) 30 0 0 30 19 Fourth and G St. 56 0 0 56 20 Fifth and D St. 36 0 0 36 21 Fifth and H St. 35 0 0 35 22 Sixth and M St. 34 0 0 34 23 Eight and G St. 41 0 0 41 24 Myrtle and Sunny Ave. 24 0 0 24 EXHIBIT B (Continued) CITY OF EUREKA PUBLIC PARKING LOTS JANUARY 2001 CITY OWNED PARKING LOTS THAT SUPPORT SPECIFIC FACILITIES # LOCATION REGULAR SPACES REGULAR HANDICAP VAN ACCESSIBLE TOTAL SPACES 25 Waterfront Dr. at New Marina 122 2 3 127 26 Fifth and K St. City Hall 25 0 0 25 27 Sixth and L St. City Hall 27 1 1 29 28 Waterfront Dr. at Adorni 170 4 1 175 29 Russell St. at Zoo (1 handicap zone on st.) 44 0 0 44 30 Fairway Dr. at Golf Course 62 1 2 65 31 Twelfth and F St. at Municipal Auditorium 0 0 0 0 32 Hilfiker Dr. at Wastewater Treatment Plant 9 1 0 10 33 Madrone St. at Sequoia Park 20 2 0 22 34 Marina Way at New Marina 88 2 0 90 35 Waterfront Dr. at Boat Basin 22 1 0 23 36 Tenth St. at Cooper Gulch Ball Fields 48 0 0 48 37 Tenth St. at Cooper Gulch Building 9 0 0 9
F4: The City of Eureka does not meet the minimum ADA standards for regular handicap- accessible parking in twenty-two of their public parking lots. They are lots numbered 2, 4, 6, 8, 9, 12 through 15, 17 through 23, 25, 28, 29, 30, 34, and 36.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1: The City of Eureka comply with the federal ADA law on all city parking lots with public access. RESPONSES THE FOLLOWING RESPONSES TO REPORT 01-08 ARE REQUIRED PURSUANT TO P.C. AND THE STANDARD FORMAT FOR RESPONSES. The City of Eureka respond to all findings and the recommendation. EXHIBIT A MINIMUM NUMBER OF ACCESSIBLE PARKING SPACES ADA Standards for Accessible Design 4.1.2 (5) Total Number of Parking Total Minimum number of Van Accessible Parking Accessible Parking Spaces Spaces Provided (per lot) Accessible Parking Spaces Spaces with min. 96"wide with min. 60" wide (60" & 96" aisles) access aisle access aisle Column A 1 to 25 1 1 0 26 to 50 2 1 1 51 to 75 3 1 2 76 to 100 4 1 3 101 to 150 5 1 4 151 to 200 6 1 5 201 to 300 7 1 6 301 to 400 8 1 7 401 to 500 9 2 7 501 to 1000 2% of total parking provided in each lot 1/8 of column A* 7/8 of column A** 1001 and over 20 plus 1 for each 100 1/8 of Column A* 7/8 of Column A** over 1000 * One out of ever 8 accessible parking spaces ** Seven out of every 8 accessible parking spaces EXHIBIT B CITY OF EUREKA PUBLIC PARKING LOTS JANUARY 2001 # LOCATION REGULAR SPACES REGULAR HANDICAP VAN ACCESSIBLE TOTAL SPACES 1 F St. north of Wood St. 17 1 0 18 2 Washington St. north of Koster St. 40 0 0 40 3 Waterfront Dr. east of Commercial 49 2 0 51 4 First and C St. 66 1 0 67 5 First between C and D Sts. 24 0 0 24 6 First and D St. 35 0 0 35 7 First and E St. 24 2 0 26 8 Second and H St. 34 0 0 34 9 Third and D St. 40 0 0 40 10 Third and E St. 31 2 0 33 11 Third between E and F Sts. 20 0 0 20 12 Third and G St. 40 0 0 40 13 Third and H St. 80 0 0 80 14 Third and I St. 31 0 0 31 15 Third and L St. 31 0 0 31 16 Waterfront at Samoa Bridge 38 1 0 39 17 Second and L St. (west side) 82 0 0 82 18 Second and L St. (east side) 30 0 0 30 19 Fourth and G St. 56 0 0 56 20 Fifth and D St. 36 0 0 36 21 Fifth and H St. 35 0 0 35 22 Sixth and M St. 34 0 0 34 23 Eight and G St. 41 0 0 41 24 Myrtle and Sunny Ave. 24 0 0 24 EXHIBIT B (Continued) CITY OF EUREKA PUBLIC PARKING LOTS JANUARY 2001 CITY OWNED PARKING LOTS THAT SUPPORT SPECIFIC FACILITIES # LOCATION REGULAR SPACES REGULAR HANDICAP VAN ACCESSIBLE TOTAL SPACES 25 Waterfront Dr. at New Marina 122 2 3 127 26 Fifth and K St. City Hall 25 0 0 25 27 Sixth and L St. City Hall 27 1 1 29 28 Waterfront Dr. at Adorni 170 4 1 175 29 Russell St. at Zoo (1 handicap zone on st.) 44 0 0 44 30 Fairway Dr. at Golf Course 62 1 2 65 31 Twelfth and F St. at Municipal Auditorium 0 0 0 0 32 Hilfiker Dr. at Wastewater Treatment Plant 9 1 0 10 33 Madrone St. at Sequoia Park 20 2 0 22 34 Marina Way at New Marina 88 2 0 90 35 Waterfront Dr. at Boat Basin 22 1 0 23 36 Tenth St. at Cooper Gulch Ball Fields 48 0 0 48 37 Tenth St. at Cooper Gulch Building 9 0 0 9
F5: The City of Eureka has planned, in the summer of 2001, to resurface and restripe parking lots numbered 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 12, 13, 14, 20, 22 and 23 as shown in Exhibit B. These lots will then meet the minimum ADA standards for accessible- handicap parking when completed. CONCLUSION C-1 The Humboldt County Grand Jury concludes the City of Eureka does not comply with the federal ADA law on all city parking lots with public access. RECOMMENDATION THE HUMBOLDT COUNTY GRAND JURY RECOMMENDS THE FOLLOWING:
Findings & Recommendations 23 findings
F1: The transition plan was completed on October 28, 1992.
F2: The transition plan would be implemented over five years beginning in fiscal year 1993-1994.
F3: The cost of removing the barriers was estimated to be $298,300.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1: The City of Arcata budget sufficient funds to complete their transition plan. EUREKA:
F4: The transition plan showed how the barrier would be removed and the projected date that the barriers would be removed.
F5: The transition plan lists sixty-five barriers.
F6: Thirty-three of the barriers have been removed to date.
F7: The grand jury did not receive any information regarding the date that the barriers were removed. EUREKA :
F8: The transition plan was completed in March of 1994.
F9: The transition plan lists fifty barriers.
F10: Ten of the barriers have been removed to date.
F11: The transition plan did not show how the barriers would be removed.
F12: The projected cost of removing the barriers was $776,500.
Related Recommendations (2)
R2: The City of Eureka budget sufficient funds to complete their transition plan. FORTUNA:
R3: The City of Fortuna budget sufficient funds to complete their transition plan. RESPONSES THE FOLLOWING RESPONSES TO REPORT 01-17 ARE REQUIRED PURSUANT TO P.C. AND THE STANDARD FORMAT FOR RESPONSES. 1. The City of Arcata respond to findings F-1 through F-7 and recommendation R-1. 2. The City of Eureka respond to findings F-8 through F-15 and recommendation R-2. 3. The City of Fortuna respond to findings F-16 through F-23 and recommendation R-3.
F13: The transition plan projected that the cost of removing the barriers would increase five percent per year.
F14: The transition plan showed that all barriers would be removed by 1998.
F15: The City of Eureka plans to remove the remaining barriers during the year 2001. FORTUNA:
F16: The transition plan is dated June 21, 1993.
F17: The transition plan does not show how the barriers will be removed.
F18: The transition plan does not show the date the barriers would be removed.
F19: The transition plan identified forty-eight barriers that needed to be removed.
F20: Thirty of the barriers have been removed to date.
F21: Twenty-three of the barriers were removed in 1994.
F22: The date that seven barriers were removed is not known.
F23: Eighteen of the barriers in the transition plan have not been removed. CONCLUSIONS ARCATA: C-1 The City of Arcata did not effectively comply with Section 35.150 of Title II of the ADA. EUREKA: C-2 The City of Eureka did not effectively manage, budget, or comply with Section 35.150 of Title II of the ADA. FORTUNA: C-3 The City of Fortuna did not effectively comply with Section 35.150 of Title II of the ADA. RECOMMENDATIONS THE HUMBOLDT COUNTY GRAND JURY RECOMMENDS THE FOLLOWING: ARCATA: