Humboldt County Grand Jury
• 2013-2014
Humboldt County Grand Jury 2013-14 Full Report
⚠️ Aviso de traducción: Este contenido ha sido traducido automáticamente. El texto original en inglés es la versión oficial. La traducción puede contener errores.
⚠️ Este contenido ha sido traducido automáticamente. El texto original en inglés es la versión oficial. La traducción puede contener errores.
Findings and Recommendations 11 findings
F1
Page 10
There are missed opportunities for roadway maintenance if an area supervisor runs out of materials to do the necessary work.
No recommendations for this finding
F2
Page 10
There is no easy cost effective means to manage roadway maintenance with insufficient materials to do the necessary work.
No recommendations for this finding
F3
Page 10
In order to do the needed road work, it is necessary to retain skilled full time staff.
No recommendations for this finding
F4
Page 10
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.
No recommendations for this finding
F5
Page 10
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.
No recommendations for this finding
F6
Page 10
Complaints are handled appropriately, given the Public Works Department’s limited funding.
No recommendations for this finding
F7
Page 19
The new City Manager elected to use city vehicles rather than the monthly transportation stipend, thus saving the City of Fortuna a few thousand dollars in the first year of his tenure in that position.
No recommendations for this finding
F8
Page 75
A difference exists between how City Staff and the Historic Landmark Committee interpret Arcata’s Land Use Code with respect to the designation of the Lord House as a significant historic resource.
No recommendations for this finding
F9
Page 75
The Lord House is listed in Susie Van Kirk’s book, a compilation of notable historic resources compiled by the city in 1979. Furthermore, the Lord House was found eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places, the highest designation for a historic structure.
No recommendations for this finding
F10
Page 75
The Zoning Administrator’s interpretation of the City of Arcata’s Land Use Code is posted on the City of Arcata’s website without approval of the Arcata City Council.
No recommendations for this finding
F11
Page 75
The appeals process cost of approximately $2,000 may be prohibitive to many landowners.
No recommendations for this finding
Conclusions 3
-
CL1 Page 64The late night/early morning release of inmates from the Humboldt County Correctional Facility,
-
CL2 Page 64The problem of inmates who have been arrested in distant areas of the county, and who are released in downtown Eureka,
-
CL3 Page 64The return of cash to released inmates rather than the issuance of a check in lieu of the money surrendered at the time of arrest. The primary focus of our investigation was on the policies and procedures utilized by correctional facility staff when dealing with people arrested for inebriation and held in the correctional facility for only a short time. However, our investigation also looked at the releases of all inmates, and we conclude that the same policies and procedures should be in effect for any inmate.
No Responses Found 2
Government entities assigned to respond to this report. No response documents have been linked in our database.
County of Humboldt
Agency
Humboldt County Board of Supervisors
Elected County Office