Humboldt County Grand Jury
2012-2013
From the annual report
The consolidated year-end volume. The individual investigations it contains are listed separately below.
📑 Year-End Report
The full consolidated volume; individual reports are listed below.
Individual reports (3)
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
6 findings
F1:
There are missed opportunities for roadway maintenance if an area supervisor runs out of materials to do the necessary work.
Related Recommendations (4)
R1:
Increase the dollar amount allocated to material purchases. (F1, F2)
R2:
Encourage and develop partnerships with cities, special districts, and other outside agencies. (F1, F3)
R4:
The County is encouraged to establish the Debt Capacity Ad Hoc Committee, mentioned in the Mid Year Budget report, for the possibility of a future bond issue to improve County facilities and infrastructure. (F1, F2)
R5:
The County is encouraged to research and acquire funding for economic development in non-urban areas. (F1, F5).
F2:
There is no easy cost effective means to manage roadway maintenance with insufficient materials to do the necessary work.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1:
Increase the dollar amount allocated to material purchases. (F1, F2)
R4:
The County is encouraged to establish the Debt Capacity Ad Hoc Committee, mentioned in the Mid Year Budget report, for the possibility of a future bond issue to improve County facilities and infrastructure. (F1, F2)
F3:
In order to do the needed road work, it is necessary to retain skilled full time staff.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
Encourage and develop partnerships with cities, special districts, and other outside agencies. (F1, F3)
F4:
Roadway area supervisors have discretion to perform necessary roadway work. However, a logical plan of road maintenance and servicing is impossible without the necessary supplies to maintain the County’s roadways. The result can only be a gradual deterioration of the road infrastructure over time.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
Continue to support the best possible use of limited maintenance funds while ensuring the latitude for decision-making authority for each area supervisor. (F4)
F5:
Humboldt County rural road expenditures for maintenance appear to be distributed equally in all areas of the County. We were unable to determine specifically if any areas of the county received preferential or substandard roadway maintenance given the limited study size, the variable nature of Humboldt County Roads, and constrained roadway maintenance funding.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
The County is encouraged to research and acquire funding for economic development in non-urban areas. (F1, F5).
F6:
Complaints are handled appropriately, given the Public Works Department’s limited funding.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
2 findings
F1:
There is no unequivocal evidence that the Humboldt Lodging Alliance has been submitting the information required by its contract with the County and the applicable state laws referenced therein to the County on a regular and timely basis.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The County should provide training in the Brown Act and the Public Records Act to appointed officials of the Humboldt Lodging Alliance.
F2:
The County Administrative Office does not have a systematic method for logging or documenting the submissions of the reports and other documents required in its contract with the Humboldt Lodging Alliance. Indeed, it does not have a method for logging the required information from any of the organizations or associations that have contractual relationships with the County.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The County should monitor the operations, minutes, and financial records of the Humboldt Lodging Alliance to ensure that the Brown Act is being followed.
Additional Recommendations
2
Not linked to specific findings.
R3:
The Humboldt Lodging Alliance expenditures should conform to the requirements of the District Management Plan.
R4:
The County should ensure that there is no commingling of funds between the Humboldt Lodging Alliance and the Humboldt County Convention and Visitors Bureau. Responses were requested from the following: The County Administrative Office, the Humboldt County Board of Supervisors, and the Humboldt Lodging Alliance. RESPONSES TO THE 2012-2013 GRAND JURY RECOMMENDATIONS All three parties agreed with Recommendation 1 (R1) concerning Brown Act and Public Records Act training. The Board of Supervisors and the County Administrative Office both stated that the Administrative Office with the assistance of County Counsel would provide training and educational materials concerning these laws. This training has not yet been provided but is tentatively scheduled for the end of May 2014. The Humboldt Lodging Alliance agreed with Recommendations 2 through 4 (R2-R4) concerning monitoring of its activities and records, and stated, “The above documents,” namely operations, minutes and financial records, “are available for inspection and may be requested through our administrator, the Humboldt County Convention & Visitors Bureau.” The 2013-2014 Grand Jury finds this response troubling. It is not at all clear what form such a request would have to take. The website of the Humboldt Lodging Alliance is inadequate for this purpose. As of the date this is written, there are no meeting agendas posted. There is one set of minutes posted, from May 2013. There are no reports of activities, though the organization has existed for almost two years. On February 25, 2014, the executive director of both the Humboldt County Convention and Visitors Bureau and the Humboldt Lodging Alliance presented an annual report to the Board of Supervisors. This presentation was referred to in both the agenda and the minutes for that meeting as a report from the Humboldt County Convention and Visitors Bureau. Witnesses to that presentation testified that it was unclear as to whether or not, and to what degree activities of the Humboldt Lodging Alliance were included in that report. There was neither a copy of the report attached to the meeting minutes nor a copy of this report posted to either the Humboldt Lodging Alliance or the Humboldt County Convention and Visitors Bureau websites. We note that the Agreement for Services between the County of Humboldt and the Humboldt Lodging Alliance, dated June 12, 2012, Section 7.1 states “Notwithstanding any other provision of the Agreement, should Contractor fail to perform any of its obligations hereunder, within the time and in the manner provided, ….County may terminate this Agreement by giving Contractor written notice of such termination, stating the reason for termination, if Contractor does not cure the reason given within 10 days of receiving written notice.” The Humboldt Lodging Alliance is explicitly obliged to prepare and submit an annual report on its activities under the Agreement for Service with the County. With respect to Recommendations 2 through 4 (R2-R4) of the 2012-13 report, the Board of Supervisors and the County Administrative Office both noted that the County does not have the resources necessary to offer the oversight proposed. The Grand Jury has learned that the county has a variety of agreements with numerous nonprofit organizations as well as other governmental or quasi-governmental entities. Each of these organizations has requirements to provide information to the County on a regular basis. However, there is currently no systematic method for tracking whether the required information is at least being submitted in a timely fashion. The 2013-14 Grand Jury acknowledges that the County may not have sufficient resources to engage in the intensity of monitoring recommended by the 2012-13 Grand Jury. However, the County could lessen its long term administrative burden by creating a systematic monitoring system, such as an Excel spreadsheet, that would list what reports, information, and documents are required from each of these agencies. It would then be a simple matter to determine when and if the agencies are in compliance with these requirements. If, after systematically monitoring these submissions, the County staff find evidence that information is not being submitted in a timely fashion, the County should consider reassessing the contract with the entity that is failing to respond. When the County develops new contracts or modifies existing contracts are modified with such agencies, the contract should contain clauses about the need for the agency to submit required information in a timely manner, and the consequences that that will result if the agency fails to submit such information.
Quick View
Full Details →
Additional Recommendations
8
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
Finding: The members of the Planning Commission are not offered the opportunity for formal training for their responsibilities. On-the-job training by interaction with the Community Development Services Department4 or by learning from the recommendations of the Community Development Services Department is limited. Humboldt County Planning Commission: This is a committee of seven citizens who have been appointed by the County Board of Supervisors to serve as the County’s planning agency with a mandate to render decisions on most matters related to planning and development. Humboldt County Community Development Services Department: When the 2011/2012 Grand Jury originally wrote this report, a large department called the Humboldt County Community Development Services Department contained the County Planning Department and several other county departments. Since that time, the Board of Supervisors dismantled the Community Services Department, separating its various functions. At the time that this update was written (March 2013), the County Planning & Building Department bears primary responsibility for the application of law and policy relevant to land use and development. It serves as technical advisor to both the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors. The County Planning & Building Department, which is staff, should not be confused with the County Planning Commission, which is appointed directly by the Board of Supervisors, and has the power to make decisions.
R2:
Finding: The Planning Commission has no independent staff to support them. The Planning Commission relies on the Community Development Service Department for support, knowledge, evaluations and background services to be able to come to their decisions. Recommendation: Provide support staffing to the Planning Commission for validating
R3:
Finding: Thorough review of the materials provided to the Planning Commission by the Community Development Services Department can be compromised by the limited time available for the evaluation of that material. Recommendation: Provide sufficient time to the Planning Commission for evaluating materials provided by the Community Development Services Department. Involving Planning Commissioners with expertise in a particular topic addressed within a given Community Development Services Department staff report during the development of that report could facilitate analysis and shorten evaluation time. The Humboldt County Board of Supervisors responded as follows: This recommendation will be implemented where warranted.
R4:
Finding: The presentations to the Board of Supervisors of the Planning Commission decisions are not made by members of the Planning Commission but by members of the Community Development Services Department. Thus, questions from the Board of Supervisors are answered by Community Development Services Department, not the Planning Commission which performed the analysis of the materials presented. Some recommendations in the presentations by members of the Community Development Services Department have differed from those of the Planning Commission. Without direct input from the Planning Commission to the Board of Supervisors, the Planning Commission can be overruled or sidelined by the Community Development Services Department. Recommendation: The Planning Commission should present their decisions upon appeal, or factual findings upon request directly to the Board of Supervisors, and to be available to support their reasoning. Recommendations which differ from those of the Planning Commission should be independently presented to the Board of Supervisors. The Humboldt County Board of Supervisors responded as follows: This recommendation will be implemented where warranted.
R5:
Finding: Up until recently, the infrequency of the meetings of the Planning Commission appears to have resulted in lengthy delays of the update, review and publication of the General Plan. Recommendation: Increase the frequency of the Planning Commission’s meetings. The Humboldt County Board of Supervisors responded as follows: This recommendation will be implemented as warranted.
R6:
Finding: Public input to the Planning Commission by citizens wishing to present material pertaining to their requests, appeals, or complaints is limited to 3 minutes and restricted as to the location as to where they may address the Planning Commission. Recommendation: The Board of Supervisors should instruct the Planning Commission to request estimates of required time from citizens appearing before the Planning Commission before their appearance and schedule those citizens accordingly. The Humboldt County Board of Supervisors responded as follows: This recommendation will not be implemented, because it is not warranted.
R7:
Finding: There are no term limits in place for Planning Commission members thus restricting the influx of fresh thinking and new ideas. Recommendation: Establish a limit of two consecutive 4-year terms to assure a periodic turn over in the Planning Commission’s make-up. The Humboldt County Board of Supervisors responded as follows: This recommendation will not be implemented, because it is not warranted.
R8:
Finding: The Planning Division never constructively informed the applicant in the case examined of the length of time required to complete the transaction, neither at the time of initial consultation nor subsequently. Recommendation: Applicants should be afforded an estimate of the time required to process their applications concurrent with the cost estimates already provided at the time of initial consultation. The Planning Division should then either complete the transaction within the estimated time period or, if unable to do so, transmit in writing an explanation for the delay to the applicant and enter a copy into the case file. The written notification would identify the reason for delay whether attributable to the applicant, County offices, or other parties. The notification would supplant the original completion time estimate with another date. If that ensuing date is not met, then the process would repeat. The use of this suggested system might allay future allegations of purposeful delay by establishing a clear and coherent record.