Censure of the Auditor Controller, Abatement & Cannabis Legacy Buildings, and a Lot More From This Week’s Board Of Supervisors Meeting
The Board of Supervisor concluded another marathon meeting. The packed agenda extending it beyond 11 hours, but the newly adapted hybrid system of digital voting, Zoom option, and in-person attendance all contributed to a more accessible meeting for the public. Public comment time was again three minutes in length per speaker, and the board covered their lengthy agenda without hesitation between topics. The consent calendar included many items, most of them highlighted here. Public hearings were noticed for several items, and were held on a number of issues – the most pressing ones included in this review of the meeting, as well.
Closed Session Censure Of Humboldt County Auditor-Controller
Following a contentious two weeks between the BOS and the AC, including her announcement to run for a second term as the county’s publicly elected auditor, a letter addressed to county Administrative Officer Hayes, penned by anonymous authors threatening legal recourse was discussed again by the Supes. 
Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(2) & (e)(3), the Supes met in a closed session, which are not discussed before a public audience, are decided on in private by the Supes, and frequently involve consultation with County Counsel as to sensitive issues not fit for public consumption – until out of closed session – at which time the results of a closed session hearing are disclosed briefly for the public benefit of knowledge. At this particular meeting of the Supes, a discussion was held in closed session “to discuss written communication of potential litigation regarding actions of the Humboldt County Auditor-Controller and Board of Supervisors.”
Upon return to open session, Chair Bass asked Humboldt County Counsel Jefferson Billingsley to announce the results of the closed session meeting. As directed by Chair Bass, County Counsel attorney Bilingsley stated, “The board voted unanimously to schedule a meeting Monday, April 4 to discuss potential censure of the Auditor-Controller, and to make available the closed session update, as discussed.” With that first order of business handled, the Supes moved forward to the consent calendar and further public hearing topics.
Policy on Abatement of Unpermitted Cannabis Operations & “Blog” Drama
The staff report for this agenda item asked the Supes for clarity regarding the abatement of cannabis structures and infrastructure in tandem with the ongoing debate regarding branding cannabis and the taxation and distribution of the product. The funding for Code Enforcement is supplied from the county’s general fund.
This agenda item was apparently prompted in part by Redheaded Blackbelt’s article posted March 21st, referred to by the Planning Department as a “blog” which raised the issue in detail, and in part spurred the planning Department to request direction from the Supervisors going forward, according to Director Ford. While this news piece was cited and referenced by the planning department in their detailed powerpoint presentation to the Board, this was not provided as an attachment for public review with the agenda materials.
Image of a structure previously used for cannabis that the County requested be demolished.
Three cases featured in RHBB’s article were reviewed by the Planning Department complete with a detailed powerpoint report on each case. This included the discovery of a tunnel at one location in the Lower Thomas Road area, which was deemed unsafe. The current status of the various buildings presented in the RHBB article were discussed, and discrepancies between the portrayal of the properties in the article, and that of the Planning and Building Department were presented by Department staff. Chair VIrginia Bass also noted that she had not read the “blog” as described by Director Ford.
Ford told the Supervisors that “the thing the blog tended to do was elicit sympathy about the property owner, that they didn’t know that they were violations. There’s all kinds of other things that come into play. Not wanting to be coldhearted but the reality is the property owner is responsible for their property, and subsequent property owners just inherit that responsibility. And then number two is that sometimes in the context of these discussions, these blogs tend to evoke a sentimental kind of response, and so we want to be proactive and say that yes, we are aware that that’s out there.”
Following some discussion of the powerpoint presentation and the state of each of the specific properties highlighted, Supervisor Wilson inquired as to the focus of the Board, and stated that since the presentation was not included in the agenda, he had no benefit of reviewing the particular information now being presented, and also had not seen or heard about the “blog” as it was described. Supervisor Bohn also said he had “no idea” where the information had been posted.
As articulated by the written staff report, “The Planning and Building Department seeks direction from the Board regarding removal of unpermitted structures associated with abatement of unpermitted cannabis cultivation. It has been the practice of Code Enforcement to require a site to be returned to pre-cannabis conditions. This requires removal of all cannabis and cannabis infrastructure including demolition of any unpermitted buildings used as part of indoor cultivation to resolve violations.” Public feedback as to this issue has been loud and clear, and was reflected by the recommendations of planning and Building Dept staff in writing the report, which further stated for the Supervisors, “This practice has received increased opposition because property owners often wish to retain the unpermitted buildings. Some of the buildings constructed for illegal cannabis activities are well-built and could be used for other purposes. In several instances properties have been placed on the market without resolution of the violations and the new buyers would also like to keep the buildings.”
In regard to buildings that were erected without permits and specifically designed for Cannabis cultivation are recommended to be removed, regardless. According to the staff report prepared by the Planning and Building Department, “Many of the buildings are specifically constructed and designed to support indoor cultivation. The height shape, electrical and mechanical components of the building are designed solely for this purpose. And often these buildings are not located in the curtilage of an existing residence, but are stand-alone buildings and constitute the only use of the parcel other than as timberland. These buildings would constitute a use of the property that is probably not a permitted use of the property. In these situations, the buildings should be removed.”
Seeing a need for more insight and ultimately for direction from the Supes, the staff report suggested two options for consideration by the Board.
“1. Continue with the current practice of requiring all unpermitted structures associated with an unpermitted cannabis operation to be removed.
- Allow property owners and/or operators to prepare a plan and description of the non-cannabis continued use of the unpermitted structures they want to retain if zoning and land use allow for a legitimate legal use, the building is within the curtilage of an existing residence, that the building can be permitted, and there is not environmental harm in the structure remaining with the understanding that if subsequent unpermitted cannabis cultivation is identified the site will be subject to Day 1 penalties as described in HCC section 352-3(m)(2) of the Humboldt County Code.”
Further, the planning and Building Dept suggested unpermitted cannabis grows be charged “Day 1 penalties” as follows:
“For repeat, subsequent or ongoing cannabis Violations or Violations that exist as a result of or to facilitate illegal cultivation of cannabis, the imposition of administrative civil penalties will start to accrue after service of a Notice of Violation and Proposed Administrative Civil Penalty.
If all the following are found to be true by the Code Enforcement Unit or the court, then the date on which administrative civil penalties start to accrue shall not be more than ten (10) calendar days after service of a Notice of Violation and Proposed Administrative Civil Penalty:
(A) A tenant is in possession of the Property.
(B) Owner or its agent can provide evidence that the rental or lease agreement prohibits the cultivation of cannabis.
(C) Owner or its agent did not know the tenant was illegally cultivating cannabis and no complaint, property inspection, or other information caused the Owner or its agent to have actual notice of the illegal cannabis cultivation.”
The financial impact, as predicted by the staff report, could actually bring a reduction of value for property taxes assessed, which would impact the General Fund. “Since it is unknown how many unpermitted structures are being used for unpermitted cannabis operations and how many of those are currently on the assessed tax rolls, it is not possible to predict the amount of the reduction.” Public Comment was extensive, and largely in support of the alternatives for unpermitted structures. Salmon Creek Volunteer Fire Department members showed up to speak on behalf of their Community, which includes the Lower Thomas Road area.
Agenda Item at BOS meeting.
A motion was made by Supervisor Bushnell, and seconded by Supervisor Bohn, to allow property owners and or operators to prepare a plan and description of the non-cannabis continued use of unpermitted structures they want to retain with certain conditions.
The Supervisors debated this issue at length, before voting to pass the motion unanimously.
Open Door Clinic Recognized as Best Private Employer in 2021
The Supervisors were happy to acknowledge the county’s most appreciated employer.
The Supervisors recognized Humboldt Open Door Clinic with a certificate March 22, being named the 2021 “Best Business” to work for in Humboldt County. The county’s Economic Development Department (EDD) and The North Coast Journal (NCJ) collaborated to conduct outreach and going through “a process” according to Scott Adaire from EDD, who presented the subject for the Board. The staff report explained that the project surveyed the County to find the 2021 “Best Humboldt County Company to Work For” based on employee feedback and voting from community members via the NCJ. Reads, “Congratulations to Humboldt Open Door Clinic for being this year’s winner.”
As the Supes got the meeting underway, the “Best Company to Work For” award was discussed with enthusiasm, and included commentary from each supervisor regarding the valuable and hard work that Open Door Staff members provide to the community. The North Coast Journal will be featuring a story on this soon, keep an eye out!
This agenda item sponsored by Supervisor Wilson was approved unanimously with the consent calendar.
Continuation of the Local Emergency Due to Drought
Keeping with the unfortunate trend of lacking rain when it should be abundant in many areas of Humboldt County, the Supes again renewed the Drought Emergency proclamation. The staff report indicates that local emergency remains in effect, per Resolution 21-77, until April 19, 2022, “enabling the County of Humboldt and other local government entities to adequately plan, prepare and implement policy to be able to effectively respond to the threat posed by the drought.”
This agenda item was passed with the full consent calendar.
Proclaim March 2022 as Social Worker Appreciation Month
Making an effort to recognize the hard work of local public servants and social services staff, a certificate was issued and signed by the Chair of Board of Supervisors on March 22, 2022. The staff report reads briefly, “The Board of Supervisors would like to recognize and honor the Humboldt County Social Workers and all that they do to enhance the well-being of individuals and families in our community.”
In part, the proclamation signed by Cahir Bass March 22, 2022 reads, “WHEREAS, social workers in Humboldt County are a major force for positive community change, recognizing the strengths of individuals, families and communities and that empowering people requires acknowledgment of their capabilities.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Humboldt County Board of
Supervisors hereby proclaims March 2022 as “Social Worker Appreciation Month” to honor social workers and all they do to enhance the well-being of individuals, families and the communities within Humboldt County and encourages support of programs which benefit the health and welfare of all our citizens.”
This matter was passed unanimously with the consent calendar.
Public Notice of At-Large Vacancies on the Project Trellis Committee
There are two at large alternate vacancies on the Project Trellis committee, which can be filled by Board Members, or by someone appointed by the board. According to the Project Trellis Roster which was provided with the agenda item as an attachment, the purpose of the Humboldt County Cannabis Mico-Grant & Loan Advisory Committee is “to announce, review, rank, and select applications for micro-grant & loan monies, which shall be subject to Humboldt County Board of Supervisors approval, and as defined under Project Trellis. In making recommendations regarding funding, the committee shall take into consideration all applicable county and state cannabis funding sources and programs.” 
The position of “alternate at-large member” is essentially a back-up to the two at-large members already appointed, who are voting members of the committee. The alternates are non-voting positions unless filling in for a member as an acting alternate.
Qualifications to be an alternate simply states that an appointee must live within the District represented. The position is for a term of four years, or whatever is remaining at the time of appointment, “except for the first meeting of the committee where three members shall be randomly selected to serve for only two years so that appointments will thereafter be staggered.” An appointee can expect three meetings per year and special meetings scheduled “as needed”.
Seeing no offer of representation yet, the staff report advised the Supes to kick the can down the road, and revisit the issue as a “departmental discussion agenda item” slated for a meeting of April 26, 2022.
This item was passed along with the consent calendar.
Notice of Vacancy on the Humboldt County Audit Committee
The above public notice is posted at the law library, located at the county courthouse.
According to the staff report for this item, there is now a vacant seat on the Humboldt County Audit Committee due to the resignation of Cheryl Dillingham, who is running for the publicly elected potion of Auditor-Controller, challenging incumbent AC Karen Paz-Dominguez, who is running to keep the position come the June 7 state primary election.
According to the board’s agenda, “The Clerk of the Board’s Office will bring an appointment agenda item four weeks from today’s meeting to fill the vacancy.” The Supes plan to have a departmental discussion for this agenda item on April 26, 2022. Interested individuals may apply at the county courthouse, with the Board of Supervisors Office on the main floor of the building.
This matter was passed unanimously with the consent calendar.
Changed Order & Acceptance for Construction of the Garberville Complex
Accordingly, the recommendation by staff is to change the work order to include the costs associated. “$369,203.25 is the result of these required changes to the original contract scope,” reads the staff report.
Flashback to March 17, 2020, when the Board awarded the Garberville Mini-Complex project to Adams Commercial General Contracting, Inc. (ACGC) for the base bid amount of $2,059,100. At that time, the scope of the construction project as described by the staff report from this week, “included the demolition of two existing buildings and construction of a new modular complex located at 715 Cedar Street, Garberville.” Additionally, it included the demolition of two structures located there – the Garberville Library, and “a stick framed structure housing the Second District Supervisor’s Office.” Now, as construction has gotten underway, the Supervisors had a few issues to address before the project could proceed.
Unforeseen challenges to construction have prompted necessary changes to the slated development of the Garberville Complex as it was approved previously. According to the staff report, these new factors are not insignificant. As explained within the staff report, “During the course of construction, the contractor uncovered several site conditions that were previously unforeseen and needed correction in order for the project to proceed.”
Some of the problematic site conditions noted in the detailed staff report were “the discovery of a previously unknown four-inch water main serving residential customers that passed directly through the parcel,” as well as the similarly surprising discovery of an abandoned septic tank “which required additional permitting and remediation efforts and an unsuitable asphalt foundation which required redesign and replacement with concrete” that significantly complicated the construction project in town.
As if that weren’t enough of a headache, the report further explained that PG&E engineers “required the contractor to relocate the electrical main service board from the proposed location at the rear of the parcel to the front of the complex.” Not only that, but “PG&E engineers required the contractor to provide a trench, conduit, backfill and asphalt patching from the complex to a newly placed power pole located nearly a city block away from the complex site.” Apparently all of this additional work fell outside of the original scope of the contract, and therefore was not accounted for but had to be accommodated in order to fulfill the project requirements.
According to the staff report, the financial impact of this project has now grown, but “does not exceed 2020 Finance Plan funds previously authorized for the Garberville Complex Project.” The total cost of the development now stands at $2,428,303.25, with the addition of the Change Order 1 as suggested.
This agenda item was included with the consent calendar, and passed unanimously.
Set Public Hearing for Adoption of Fee Updates
The Board was advised, and did “schedule a public hearing on Tuesday, April 12, 2022, at 9 AM” to discuss potentially adopting an ordinance to update the Humboldt County Schedule of Fees and Charges. The Supervisors must provide opportunity for public feedback as to these rate changes and provide notice of a public hearing, and then “hold a public hearing at which time oral or written presentations can be made.”
This matter was passed unanimously with the consent calendar.
Purchase of Two Medically Equipped Sprinter Vans for Mobile COVID-19 Testing and Vaccination in Rural Humboldt
Humboldt County Public Health Director Sofia Pereira addresses the Board in favor of keeping the testing efforts and vaccine distribution rolling into rural parts of the county. Screenshot from the March 22, 2022 marathon meeting.
According to the staff report on this agenda item, “DHHS Public Health received Epidemiology and Laboratory Capacity – Enhancing Detection Expansion grant funding allocated by the California Department of Public Health which supports the purchase of two vehicles to conduct testing and vaccination clinics throughout Humboldt County.”
The services agreement with Boondock, Inc., (doing business as Texino) allows the county to buy the two modified Mercedes Sprinter Vans, which are more specialized than what a retail car sales would offer, including built-in refrigeration components for vaccine storage. These vans would be “road ready” and are requested “for the purpose of providing COVID-19 testing and vaccination services and outreach materials to underserved and outlying communities within Humboldt County who may not otherwise have access to adequate health services.”
These vans, according to Periera, would be immediately put to use, and are going to be delivered ready to go upon delivery, which could happen as soon as a month from the time of confirming the order with. Clinics are planned already through the next month, and Public Health was excited to expand their outreach with the new option for mobility across the county, and would be used for other vaccinations and medical testing and other public health services beyond COVID-19.
The staff report further states that after having acquired the two Benz vans, DHHS suggests “donating” the vehicles to the county’s Public Works motor pool. “For capitalization, maintenance and insurance purposes, DHHS – Public Health would like to donate the vehicles purchased pursuant to the terms and conditions of the attached professional services agreement with Boondock, Inc. to the Motor Pool Division of the Humboldt County Department of Public Works.”
Following a slate of feedback from a skeptical public during the comment period regarding the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the healthcare landscape in general, and regarding the local response specifically, Supervisor Bushnell made it clear that she was interested in making sure that the purchase of these mobile public health access points – the med-modified sprinter vans – would be able to be used in the far reaches of the So HUm region, the expansive Second District, which elected her.
The financial impact to the general fund is zero. The services agreement with Boondock, Inc. has a maximum amount payable of $204,108.11 plus taxes. Funding for this is made available to the county through “Epidemiology and Laboratory Capacity – Enhancing Detection Expansion revenues received by DHHS – Public Health.”
A brief point was considered from public comment as to the perception of driving a fancy Mercedes-Benz into an area of the county less privileged would not be a welcoming effort, but rather a put-off to those community members struck by the contrast in resources. But, it was decided that more resources, no matter what vehicle brand delivers them – were much needed in the rural corners of the county, in spite of the disdain for expensive machinery. Bohn suggested moving to accept the motion, while Supervisor Wilson asked for clarification as to the selection of the vans, if there were electric vehicles considered or not. Director Periiera indicated that only gas-fueled vans were considered. Wilson accepted this answer, and indicated that he was supportive of the motion regardless, due to the undeniable need for rural access to medical testing services in the county.
A quick cost-benefit analysis brought the Supes to a vote, and they weighed in deciding to accept staff’s recommendation to approve the motion. This matter was passed unanimously by the Supes, after being pulled from the consent calendar for discussion.
Temporary Employment of Retired Bookmobile Library Assistant
The Supes were urged this week to approve a temporary Librarian position in order to “provide continuity of services while the Library fills this critically needed permanent position.” With the help of Humboldt’s own, soon-to-be-retired Bookmobile Adventurer, Adrianne Quiros.
The staff report on this item explains that on April 1, 2022, “Adrianne Quiros will retire from her position as Bookmobile Library Assistant with the Humboldt County Library, after more than 11 years of service. With the volume of responsibilities and specialized technical skills for which the Bookmobile Library Assistant is responsible, the Humboldt County Library knows that there will be a significant need for Ms. Quiros to provide training to the newly recruited employee in this position.”
In order to fill the void left by Quiros in the county’s vast bookscape, “the Library hopes to recruit and hire a new Bookmobile Driver by September 2022. This proposal will allow the outgoing Bookmobile Driver to work concurrently with the new Bookmobile Driver to provide training and support in scheduling, outreach, book/audio-visual selection, and telecommunications.”
Thankfully for the children and schools spread across the county’s various school districts where the bookmobile can frequently be found, the staff report happily notes that she will be available to “work for the library in an extra-help capacity to assist the Humboldt County Library during the transitional period to ensure continuity of service to communities and schools served by the Bookmobile.”
The financial impact to the county’s general fund for this request is zero. The staff report does also state that “Bookmobile services are on a cyclical schedule providing services eight days a month. Salary costs for Ms. Quiros between April 2022 and September 2022 are approximately $6,002. Due to salary savings, the Library’s adopted fiscal year 2021-22 budget has the capacity to accommodate this proposal. There will be no impact to the county General Fund. There will be adequate funding in the Library’s Extra help budget for FY 2022-23.”
This matter was passed unanimously with the consent calendar.
Central Avenue Shoulder Widening Project
The attached Project Plans detail the limits and area of the proposed project in McKinleyville, at the southern end of town.
According to the brief staff report on this project, it will provide bicycle and pedestrian safety improvements on the main corridor through McKinleyville, between Bella Vista and Mill Creek at the southerly end of town. Staff advised the Supes that “the current shoulder widths on this portion of Central Avenue are narrow and dangerous for all users.” Bids on this project are going to be accepted by the Public Works Department as of Tuesday April 26 at 2 PM.
Previously, the County Department of Public Works “received funding allocation approval from the California Department of Transportation to proceed with the Central Avenue (4L800) Post Mile 0.00-0.30 Shoulder Widening Project.” Public Works then went ahead to prepare the attached plans and specifications for the proposed project. The work will consist of “clearing and grubbing, excavating for the shoulder widening, installation of a storm drain system, construction of a gabion wall, hot mix asphalt paving, and thermoplastic striping.”
This matter was passed unanimously with the consent calendar.
Approval of Town of Scotia Subdivision, Phase 3
The staff report for this agenda item was extensive, and offered many attachments for review, including maps, subdivision plans, certificates and notes of various legal importance pertaining to “phase 3” of the project.
As laid out in the attached staff report, the subdivision is slated for Scotia, at Highway 101 and Main Street, two miles south of Rio Dell, according to the report to the Supes. “This map represents Phase 3, which comprises 68 lots. Previously completed phases of the Town of Scotia Subdivision include: Phase 1 (50 lots) filed Nov. 15, 2016, in Book 25 of Maps, pages 54 through 65. Phase 2 (96 lots) filed July 26, 2018, in Book 25 of Maps, pages 79 through 87.”
“The Planning & Building Department requires that a Notice of Development Plan & Notice of Geologic Report be recorded concurrently with the filing of the subdivision map (Attachment 3).” Also notable, is that the report to the Board of Supervisors states that the “Land Use Division of the Department of Public Works has inspected and approved all subdivision improvements.” and further clarifies that the improvements have been “constructed to the satisfaction of the department.” Accordingly, it was determined that the “subdivider” had met the necessary conditions of approval “within the required time limits.”
In regard to impacting county finances, the staff report assures the Board that the funds are available, stating, “The applicant has placed a deposit in the amount of Nine Thousand Seven Hundred Sixty dollars ($9,760) for the subdivision with the Land Use Division which was deposited into the Subdivision Inspection Deposit trust fund (3709). Staff time is tracked and charged against this deposit and the revenue is moved out of trust via journal transfer. As a result, there is no impact to the General Fund.”
This item was passed along with the rest of the consent calendar unanimously.
Humboldt’s BOS Supports Cannabis Commerce Legislation SB1326
Sponsored by California Senator Anna Caballero of the 12 District – mostly in San Francisco – has proposed legislation that “allow the transportation and delivery of cannabis across state lines by cannabis producers and wholesalers.” So far, official supporters of the proposed Senate Bill 1326 are noted in the legislation from Caballero as the Rural County Representatives Of California (RCRC) as well as the Cannabis Distribution Association (CDA). Caballero’s Cannabis Commerce SB1326 states in part, “SB 1326 is an essential step to ensure that California can fully capitalize on, and remain a leader in, the forthcoming national cannabis market. California should lay the groundwork for a multi-state legal cannabis market. Not only can this strategy be replicated on a national scale, it can give California a competitive advantage.”
According to the staff report on this topic, “SB1326 would allow the Cannabis community of Humboldt to distribute their product on a larger, legal scale and potentially allow for financial liberation from the current market and federal restriction. This legislation is supported by Rural County Representatives of California and therefore, the Board of Supervisors is being asked to extend their support as well.”
The Supervisors also support SB1326, memorialized with correspondence to Senator Caballero directly. Chair Bass signed a letter of emphatic support for the game-changing cannabiz bill, on March 22 writing, “SB 1326 would allow the Cannabis community of Humboldt County to distribute their product on a larger scale allowing for financial liberation from the current market and federal restrictions. Therefore, we support SB 1326 and encourage your “aye” vote when it is heard in your committee.”
A supporting letter from Sarah Dukett, Policy Advocate at Rural County Representatives of California voiced enthusiasm for the CA state bill, and highlighted concerns from the rural-economic point of view shared by many in the Emerald Counties. The two-page letter makes a compelling argument for better interstate exchange of cannabis products, with oversight. She wrote to Senator Richard Roth, saying in part, “Federal law currently prohibits all cannabis activities – personal or commercial – and does not distinguish between interstate activities and those occurring entirely within one state’s borders. However, this does not prevent a state from choosing to legalize some or all cannabis activities under its own state laws, regardless of where those activities occur.”
Dukett ends her letter by reiterating the reasoning for strong support of the proposed bill, writing, “SB 1326 provides a relief valve for the oversupply of cannabis, an opportunity to grow California’s brand and market share, supports rural economies in producing regions, provides for job creation, and gives the state a competitive advantage as federal policy develops. For these reasons, RCRC is pleased to support SB 1326.”
Upon discussion of the item, Supervisor Bohn indicated that there was additional work being done to tailor the language of the bill, potentially to address areas of northern Cali, in contrast to larger or urban area counties, in order to more specifically address the needs and concerns of specialty farmers of cannabis.
A motion was made to revisit the matter and vote on motion to support the legislation after it is amended following additional work with the RCRC, with input from local Humboldt Cannabis community members. The motion passed unanimously, and will reappear on a later agenda, when SB1326 is amended to the satisfaction of Senator Caballero and involved stakeholders.
Code Enforcement Unit Annual Report
The code enforcement report for the year 2021 highlighted for specific county lead abatement as described below, each of them are coming at a cost. The Garberville abatement position including demolition of a fire damaged church and removal of solid waste totaled $78,252. A eureka abatement including boarding up of a residence solid waste and junk vehicle removals came to a total of $84,000. The fields landing demolition of substandard housing and removal of solid waste and junk vehicles tallied over $49,000, while abatement of a Hotel in Orick included removal of solid waste junk vehicles, tenant relocation benefits, fumigation and asbestos testing to the tune of more than $114,000. In total the costs to evade these four properties racked up to $325,955.64 according to the detailed annual report provided by the code enforcement unit.
Garberville’s Elm Street Church
Garberville’s Elm Street Church: “In 2021 there were four cases that resulted in county abatement. The first was the demolition of a fire-damaged church on Elm Street in Garberville that had become an attractive nuisance for the community. In addition to the dangerous condition of the building, there was a vast amount of solid waste accumulating in the property and the community was demanding enforcement. The violations on the property were abated in February.”
Cutten’s Squatters Lot
Cutten’s Squatters Lot: “The second county-led abatement involved a long-standing case on Walnut Drive in Eureka. This residence had numerous substandard housing violations and the property was littered with solid waste and junk vehicles. In April, the solid waste and vehicles were removed from the property and the residence was boarded-up to prevent entry. The county recorded a lien on this property for the cost of the abatement. The property is expected to be auctioned in 2022 and the county will be in a position to recover the costs associated with the county abatement.”
Lot in Fields Landing
Lots in Fields Landing: “The third abatement took place on Third Street in Fields Landing. The property owner was making extensive renovations to the residence that rendered the structure dangerous. The property around the residence was full of solid waste and was spilling out to the street. The abatement was completed in July.”
Abated property in Orick.
Up in Orick: “The last abatement for 2021 was a motel in Orick that had flagrant substandard conditions. The process for this abatement required the county to progress in phases. First, the county issued relocation benefits to the registered tenants. Then the structures making up the motel were boarded-up to prevent entry and the solid waste littering the exterior was removed. In preparation for demolition there was asbestos and lead-paint testing performed and the buildings were fumigated to prevent the cockroaches, bedbugs and rats from entering the community when the buildings were demolished. These phases of the abatement occurred in October through early January 2022. The last phase will be the demolition.”
Notably, the breakdown per county district showed Southern Humboldt having 138 cases of cannabis abatement by code enforcement, exponentially more than the other four districts of the county. Southern Humboldt also had the more closed abatement cases than the other districts.
The data reflecting total monies assessed by code enforcement tallied up to $4,249,155.67 for the year 2021 – and are awaiting recording as liens against those properties. Of that total, a portion of 3,605,995.47 was assessed from four cannabis properties alone, according to the powerpoint presentation to the Supes. The staff report characterizes the financial impact of code enforcement stating, “The CEU collected $187,500 in compliance agreement penalties. There were assessments in the amount of $4.2 million.”
Extensive Public Hearing On North McKay Ranch Subdivision Project General Plan & Housing Unit Development
Staff Report provided with the agenda described the project as “amending Section 311-7 of the Humboldt County Code by Rezoning Property in the Cutten Area (Fairhaven Cottages, LLC)” reclassifying about 21 acres of R-1 Residential One Family single family homes to Neighborhood Commercial (C-1)
When Developer Kurt Kramer stated that he was uninterested in a development project that continued to change and add elements complicating the construction plans, from his perspective. He flatly stated that he would rather go back to golfing in the desert, to which Supervisor Bohn immediately quipped, “I [sic] seen you golf… you better build a few houses.” as he played off the developer’s frustrations. Kramer later clarified that Supervisor Wood’s ideas about adding to the project were not necessarily bad, but that he preferred to have more flexibility, adding that the state was providing enough oversight on development, in his view.
The board discussed the need for additional housing, and Bohn lamented at the length of time the particular project had been “hanging out there,” saying 17 years had passed, with a handful of related traffic studies having been completed previously.
In addition to considering the state’s changing energy landscape and potential regulations coming down from the state in coming years, Supervisor Wilson offered a list of adjustments to the development project. Wilson insisted on building into the project a minimum electric vehicle conduit, for the time to come when surely, as Wilson repeatedly called for as a requirement for the project.
Supervisor Bushnell asked to view a map of the area of interest, saying, “I’m not familiar with Eureka, I’m sorry.” She assessed the area, inquired about the use of the baseball fields championed by Supervisor Bohn. Asking who would be liable for ‘car crashes’ in the area, as she examined the map. Director John Ford replied by explaining alternative forms of transportation as suggested by the completed CEQA report. Bohn chimed in, testifying to the neighborhodd’s safety, saying “I’m out there every night,” but did note that the corner of Chester and W Street was not far from the Sequoia Park Zoo.
Director Ford recommended a resided motion, in order to return to the vote at a later time.
Indemnification was discussed, with Wilson proposing that the county’s taxpayers should be protected from bearing the burden of any potential lawsuit. “This is a project has been in long enough that there wasn’t a requirement to come in with an indemnification agreement upfront, and it was something that was laid on the application fairly late in the process and he felt like it was laid on at the last minute,” said Billingsley, in response to the debate as to including the revised indemnification clause to the existing project agreement. WIth some concern among the Board that the developer would pull out of the project if faced with additional hurdles, the Board discussed the implications.
Indeed when asked, Kramer stated that an indemnification would place a larger burden on him. Director Ford disagreed, stating that it is the county which would be sued, and noted that he expected to converse with the developer further. Chair Bass suggested ending the public conversation, and continuing the matter at a later date to discuss allowing alternative improvements regarding bicycle and pedestrian connectivity, subject to agreement of county staff and the developer. Director Ford added that the trade off of a stoplight in favor of increased connectivity would not increase the cost of the project, but would increase the value to the community.
Reflecting on the motion to emphasize pedestrian and non-vehicle traffic safety in the Cutten area, Supervisor Bohn stated that having lived in that area of Eureka for over 60 years, he didn’t see the need for additional connectivity for bike-ped travel given that Walnut already has bike lanes. saying to Supervisor Wilson, “I don’t know how much more you want to do, just to say you, we did…”
Supervisor Wilson responded, “I don’t do this to say we did, I do it because…” Before completing the statement, Supervisor Bass jumped in supporting Wilson’s feedback adding, “it makes a difference,” and Wilson readily agreed.
The motion to do so was passed with all five Supervisors in agreement, and the meeting was finally adjourned, a mere 11 plus hours after the 9 o’clock AM starting time.
Email Public Comment: To submit public comment to the Board please email [email protected], provide your name and the agenda item number(s) on which you wish to comment. All public comment submitted after the agenda has been published will be included with the administrative record after the fact.
Zoom Public Comment: When the Board of Supervisors announce the agenda item that you wish to comment on, call the conference line 720 707 2699, enter Meeting ID 867 9922 7461 and press star (*) 9 on your phone, this will raise your hand. You’ll continue to hear the Board meeting on the call.
When it is time for public comment on the item you wish to speak on, you’ll hear a prompt that will indicate your phone is unmuted. Please state your name and the agenda item number you will be commenting on. You will have 3 minutes to comment.
You may access the live stream of the meeting by using the following link: https://humboldt.legistar.com
Join the discussion! For rules visit: https://kymkemp.com/commenting-rules
Comments system how-to: https://wpdiscuz.com/community/postid/10599/
Closed session equals slimy,untransperant, scheming against constituents.closed session is NOT we the people,by the people.
Don’t think a lot of people realize just how far they’ve run umuck/turned on the people there payed to represent.
There should be know scheming behind extortionist closed doors
First of all:
Electing criminals, indicted or not, is always a bad idea.
Secondly:
Elected officials declaring war on each other, is a pretty good sign that something is basically wrong with your county government.
That said:
To whoever wrote this letter, it is about freaking time someone made the County Supervisor’s of Humboldt County accountable!
The best way to provide accountability, is to examine, closely, actions by the Board…
For instance:
Humboldt County is replacing the “Garberville Complex” at great expense, in a location of inadequate size, with inadequate parking, and, with poor egress.
Finding an “unknown septic tank” is probably the least of obvious problems with this location…
As for “blighted properties”, many of these photos have been seen on this site previously.
I’m pretty sure that holding “closed meetings” is a poor concept, and, the meetings may run more smoothly and efficiently without pesky members of the public present, but, the Board of Supervisors are advised, at this time, to operate transparently and with specific concern for the welfare of the constituency of their districts, and, the Board is advised to follow all laws in County and their personal businesses…
To everyone else in Humboldt County:
The only way to “clean up” the environmental disaster that Cannabis growers created in your county, by operating illegally and without regard for pollution, legal construction, State and Federal and Local Laws, is, to remediate unpermitted structures, and use your property in a manner compliant with statutes relating to property use and construction.
Permits are required, and property owners are responsible for use…
The people with the highest number of conflicts of interest, like Bushnell and Bohn, should never be elected to public office, but, in this country and many others, positions of power tend to attract narcissistic and corrupt persons.
Tying up actions, decisions and edicts in court, might be a way to go, but I recommend the recall of almost all of your Supervisors, because they are not acting in the interests of the constituents, as a group, and because four of the five supervisors appear to be incompetent, corrupt, negligent and, unfit to serve.
AND:
It’s about time the Board Members have to work for their $100,000 salaries…
Blighted properties are a characteristic of Humboldt County that everyone dislikes, but that nobody is doing anything about.
Substandard housing, in a county with 10,000+ non-permitted structures, is a clear sign that your government is pretty ineffective, and that common laws are not being responsibly enforced.
Mercedes Vans? Uh, they’re Diesel…
Those plutocrat Supervisor/Pot Farmers have some great taste in vehicles, but they are probably over $200,000 each…
If you would have read the report in its entirety, $204,000 and change were spent for the two. I challenge anyone to do better.
$100,000 is chump change in this over-priced shithole
Where did you find the information about 10,000+ nonpermitted structures? I would like to know more about that.
I read about this subject on RHBB! Years ago.
Research, research research… Contact the Planning Department…
This is a comment in a blog. I am not required by law to post references, but you are required by law to get a building permit in every county in this country…
Did you think that all those PVC/Plastic sheeting “greenhouses” had building permits?
And remember:
Any clown with a pot farm can (and frequently does) run for county Supervisor…
And now, your little stoner friends can slap edicts on you, build temporary buildings that cost $3 million, buy Mercedes COVID test vans, and generally, accept graft and payoffs and sit on their ever-growing asses and go crazy, like Virginia Bass did, and make your life miserable…
// “you are required by law to get a building permit in every county in this country…”//
There is no such law.
//”This is a comment in a blog. I am not required by law to post references, “//
Such a great way to pretend you’re correct when your not. ‘Alternate facts’ are merely noise.
//”Research, research research”//
If you had done yours, you would know that there are quite a number of areas in this country that don’t have building codes nor require building permits or inspections.
As I actually do research, here’s but one: Montezuma County Colorado.
// “ Montezuma County does not issue Certificates of Occupancy nor do we have a building department. While we do not enforce building codes for residential construction, you may hire a qualified inspector for your construction project.”//
https://montezumacounty.org/planning-zoning/building-in-montezuma-county/
Take a look at the Brown Act and its revisions in California. It gives the rules and regulations for all meetings by public officials in California. It defines what meetings can be private and which ones must be public.
a lot more gets accomplish in closed meetings
Closed session is required when dealing with Personnel issues such as the AC!!!
As the Auditor-Controller is an elected position, the personnel rules do not apply. There are state codes that regulate that position and the few means of removing a person from office.
not when it involves legal matters and confidentiality dealing with harassment
Other employees are involved than the elected official.
Or simply the law requires meetings involving personnel matters to be more privately held.
For Chrissakes, use your spellchecker.
“The height shape, electrical and mechanical components of the building are designed solely for this purpose. ”
As a local building contractor I can say with confidence that that is absolutely ridiculous. Even The most purpose-built of buildings are obviously easily used for many of their purposes.
The point is not so much that they couldn’t be refitted for other uses but that they could easily be put back to their original and illegal use or used in ways that would not have been permitted had the original builder acted legally. A place with limited water or drainage for sewer or zoning that does not allow more than one residence, etc.
That might be A point vut is is not THE point being made by the supervisors.
““Many of the buildings are specifically constructed and designed to support indoor cultivation. The height shape, electrical and mechanical components of the building are designed solely for this purpose. . . These buildings would constitute a use of the property that is probably not a permitted use of the property. In these situations, the buildings should be removed.” “
The solution would be that the buildings need to be modified so that they would be permitted in order not being required to be torn down. Somehow that is unlikely to either be done because it negates the savings of already having a building- one that is not permitted or there is no modification that would be acceptable- like not having more than one residence on timber land or on an insufficient sewer or not mechanically adapted. Face it- this is a matter of money- the property owners looking for cheap adaption and the county not allowing it because it would not have been allowed if no building existed. The existence of non permitted structures is not a “gotcha” for those looking to evade requirements. Seems to be exactly the point.
So interesting that the County’s answer to a problem(s) brought to their attention is to censure the messenger.
How I wish for some competent and transparent leaders for the County of Humboldt.
All this is nothing new. I’m old enough to remember the ousting of Jeff Arnold from Public Health when the DHHS system was restructured from separate departments to branches under one umbrella. It was ugly and unpleasant and Mr. Arnold was eventually re-instated to his position.
Unfortunate that as much as things change, they remain the same.
stay tuned for part eight, she will drag this out til her hair turns grey
I would argue that everything this people talk about is fit for the public.. oh wait, we don’t live in any kind of democracy, all a front… Have fun fplks
//Ford told the Supervisors that “the thing the blog tended to do was elicit sympathy about the property owner, that they didn’t know that they were violations.//
Kinda like the presentation Ford is giving the board to elicit sympathy for being a overbearing government employee.
//This practice has received increased opposition because property owners often wish to retain the unpermitted buildings. Some of the buildings constructed for illegal cannabis activities are well-built and could be used for other purposes. In several instances properties have been placed on the market without resolution of the violations and the new buyers would also like to keep the buildings.//
He means voters who purchase property in most cases prefer to keep the building provided the BOS allowed. Again, these property owners are voters! BOS is a voted position and as far as I know people are voters and government is supposed to work for the people!
Total & Complete BULLSHIT, from Mr. ‘Frod’!!!
Just seeing John Ford’s quotes make me angry. He’s a manipulative liar- as much as some of the liar/growers I’ve known… It’s true that there have been growers who shade the truth and deceive for their own profit. But not ALL of them! Yet here John Ford used the liars to represent ALL growers and their structures. Even non- growers who bought land w these structures! And especially he maligned the author of the article as misleading and ” stirring sentimentality”. Facts are facts. John Ford is a manipulative asshole who has incorrectly collected massive cash fines w/o legal documentation. In his abatement campaign he destroyed the lives of many mom n pop growers while accomodating the biggest. And in a sick insult he shrugs off our complaints and concerns as ” sentimentality”. In any case what should matter most is that we do not allow already-existing well-built structures to be torn down to simply satisfy his arrogance. Very few will be used as grows since the market has crashed and that time is over. Or maybe he is actually clueless about the industry?
Of course the authors of the previous article stirred sentimrntality. As if the fact that have a grandchild with autism or non working family member is material to home property tax bill. Unlike the implications that exemption from regulation should be based on emotions that would make the writer feel better about it, that would result total arbitrary decision. People deserve equal treatment under the law. Special treatment is an offense to the idea of law and a great part of the struggle to make laws fair.
Great point:
“People deserve equal treatment under the law”.
People have a constitutional right to equal treatment under the law.
Why is it, then, that the Board of Supervisors were so quick to actually initiate, conduct, and complete, an investigation into the allegations against the Auditor/Controller that came from the County Department Heads, but the Board of Supervisors still hasn’t initiated, conducted, or completed an investigation into the allegations against the County Department Heads, that came from the Auditor/Controller.
There is clearly a bias against the Auditor/Controller, by the Board of Supervisors.
Why would the Board of Supervisors be giving the County Department special treatment that they aren’t providing to the Auditor/Controller, namely, a prompt and thorough investigation into the allegations she has made?
Do the County Department Heads really deserve special treatment, just because it fits the Board of Supervisor’s “agenda”?
I think that, Bohn, especially, has a problem answering to Karen Paz-Dominguez.
It’s disrespectful, plain and simple.
And I know that the slipshod way that the Planning Department has been handling people’s cash is not on the “up and up”.
When it came time to return what was determined by law to be returned to the people that they were overcharged, that had been paid in cash, the Planning Department could not perform it’s obligation to do so, because it hadn’t kept proper records and receipts, of where the cash money they collected had even come from.
Where did it all go?
Investigate them, Board of Supervisors, to begin with, with a fine tooth comb.
No?
That’s shady as shit.
People paid the Building Department with paper bags full of cash. They were brought into a back room where there was a money counter. They were then handed a paper hand-written receipt. LOTS of cash went into the office in this way. Then some of it (perhaps all? perhaps not all? We will never know) made it to the county’s general fund. But somehow this process is never spoken of, never investigated, never double-checked…THAT is shady as shit. But yeah- people’s feelings got hurt by the county auditor so it’s more important to focus on that?! Sounds like obfuscation…and that makes me even more suspicious
” In total the costs to evade these four properties racked up to $325,955.64 according to the detailed annual report provided by the code enforcement unit. ”
Should be “abate” not “invade”.
Our local greenies refuse to address the issue of population, claiming that those concerned with the effects of population on the environment were “anti-immigrant” and should keep in mind that voting against women’s reporductive rights also increase population (recent econews report).
In that case they must accept that we will continue to develop land for the ever expanding population to live on. We will not all relegate ourselves to living in doghouses to spare the environment.
This is the point at which I derailed from the mainstream environmentalist about 3 decades ago!. They dropped any discussion about over-population (the single most destructive and key factor in wiping out our planet) because it was being used by other political groups as an argument against immigration. Well…You can actually discuss overpopulation and also be sympathetic to refugees! It was an cowardly and ill-advised retreat from one of the healthy debates we need desperately in this country. Haven’t much trusted the mainstream environmentalist agenda since then…but I’ll keep planting trees
An auditor will not sign financial documents because the financial corruption should not be swept under the rug. She should be re-elected just based on standing up to the counties long history of stealing funds.
We support the auditor doing her Job! Local employer and my CPA agrees 100%
If only she did do her job. No matter if her allegations have some merit or not, she is not even doing her own job.
I would love to see her uncover the massive fraud of the Building Department in the cannabis permit/ abatement program. Hopefully with resulting criminal charges on John Ford for mishandling the piles of cash. That’s why she has my support.
a lot of accusations, let’s see some proof. She has had 3+ years and all she could do was slander departments which pissed her off. She has issues, one of which not a good fit for the position.
That’s what I’m saying- ‘where’s the beef’?
If you do all this rabble rousing and get everyone worked up, and then you don’t have anything to back it up; it kind of kills your movement. I’m all in for investigating the evil doing of the terrible county officials, but I’m not sure it’s the job of the auditor. Let Kym do the investigative journalism and let’s have our auditor just do her work and keep her head down.
I hear you. It’s discouraging. But Kym does not have time or resources for this kind of investigative journalism. I’m not blaming her! I just wish somebody did and that somebody dug into these issues. There was A LOT of cash flying around for a couple decades yet Humboldt County government is always broke?! It does not make logical sense since property values and resultant property taxes also blew up in the greenrush. Extremely corrupt or extremely incompetent or both? It would be great if somebody w/ forensic accounting skills dug in and let us know where it all went….I believe there are villains and they are still with us
investigating supposed criminal activities at this level is the state attorney general office job
Yep that’s her problem. Folks for behind her because everyone in the county knows there is something not quite right about the way the county does it’s business. So now she’s had a couple years to ferret it out and she’s come up with… the same kind of chatter she used in get first election and zero substance.
Sure, it’s not like the County Department Heads are just going to cooperatively submit the records that they know will show their corruption. They will just stall and fling mud, as long as possible, knowing full well that the Auditor/Controller can’t do her job without those reports submitted, and then they will keep accusing the A/C of not performing her duties, hoping that they can do so long enough to get a different Auditor/Controller elected that’s more conducive to total grifters.
Are the County Department Heads fully cooperating with the State Auditors?
I highly doubt it.
proof ?
So cute how the Sups act like they didn’t see the article here or the comments. So cute how Ford calls any negative press a “blog post”.
Come on people, do your research and don’t be coy. If the item is appearing before you, it behooves you to read the article in question, as well as the Staff Report and supporting documents. That’s what we pay you to do. Feigned ignorance or lack of preparedness is not a good look, whether from policy makers or dept heads.
How do we serve CENSURE documents on the BOS, which is full of BS as a whole, and several are just POS on an individual basis. I’m certain that anything the Auditor Controller may or may not have done is miniscule compared to the BOS. I wouldn’t vote for any current member, period. Time to start over completely, and that certainly doesn’t include any current ECC member or the mayor. On top of that, we must vote in term limits. The longer these POS members service, the more boldly corrupt they become.
Term limits, yes! All about that!
or, if you think you can do a better job, then run for office.
what the a c has done is nothing. Her department has been falling apart, retention is a problem, due to hostile work environment. Paz Dominquez is all about smoke and mirror tactics. Ran on the it’s broken I can fix it platform. Three plus years later ? it still broken and there’s no parts available to fix it, thanks to her shenanigans. Contractors have gone unpaid for over eight months. Purveyors cancel supplying various departments due to lack of payment. The list goes on. Accusations, no proof. I see no proof. You know your department is in a bad way when the state come lookin’ for ya.
I don’t personally know the A C. I do, however, know firsthand the corruption of the BOS. While a County employee, I made an appointment to report corruption of a BOS promotion in process. I knew about the corruption of tne individual being put up for promotion firsthand. I was given an appointment with Bohn. When I arrived, I was met by Bohn and the current HR director as an intimidation tactic. Bohn then took me to his office, reprimanded me for showing up, dismissed me, and then turned right around and voted for the promotion of the most corrupt individual I know.
I certainly don’t believe anything from him. I have no reason to believe any of the rest of them either.
why would you meet with a county supervisor to discuss a promotion of an individual, perhaps your department supervisor. I find that odd.
Good job to BOS for passing the McKay Ranch subdivision plans. The County needs more housing to fulfill the State requirements imposed. I know some will say this is not the type of housing we need, the problem is we need all kinds of housing. If this housing is for those with medium income it will draw them out of rentals in town and then free-up those rentals to others.
Bottom line we need to start doing something about the local housing market, right now there is not nearly enough on the market to satisfy demand.
With Aqua Farm, Off Shore Wind Project, and the high speed fiber optic coming to Humboldt Bay we had better get prepared for the influx of more housing demand!
I’d be suing for back property taxes if I had to remove a building that was unpermitted. Half the damn counties structures aren’t permitted and I’m positive they had no problem chalking it up on people’s tax bills!
Exactly. If property owners are taking down structures that are being taxed and the abatements are funded by property taxes are we not headed for a financial collapse? Why didn’t Ford of the Bos talk about how many legal farms are going out of business?? Over the next few years we will see most legal farms in humboldt collapse and most illegal go out of business along the same time table. There is no money in growing “bush weed” in the hills of humboldt anymore and prices will only get worse.
If someone has a nice building in their property then they should be allowed to keep it. Plain and simple. I don’t care if they are growing cannabis or it’s just sitting there empty. The board of supervisors need to represent us the people and need to put Mr. Ford and his pack goons in check. They are supposed to working FOR us, not against us! Doing what is best for the county, the general fund, and all the voters. This place will be a shell of its former self in 5 years and Ford and the bos will be 100% to blame
There are procedures to remove useless property from tax rolls. The trouble with doing it is that it creates a whole new evaluation. For most people that means the other parts of their property has increased so much in value that getting rid of old structure would result in a property tax increase. So they don’t do it.
That’s not true.
I’ve owned multiple lots, houses and pieces of property here in humboldt. If you take down structures on property is extremely rare that the property value would increase after removal.
All of our property taxes are raised regularly by the county to adjust for the increase in value that you speak of. Every time you build a new building or make improvements of any kind they are increasing your property taxes just by looking at satellite images along with any building permits.
If I was to take down all the structures on say a rural 40 acre parcel in the hills then my property value would plummet. It is just raw land now and nobody wants that now except for loggers.
However the shady part on the counties behalf is that they will increase all of our property taxes on ALL structures permitted or not! So the county is profiting off of all these illegal buildings that they speak of and taxing the owners on what we all can agree on as IMPROVEMENTS. But now they want you to take the improvements down?
great in depth reporting , thank you Ryan.
Getting a building permit in Humboldt county is one of the most frustrating and slow moving processes I have ever dealt with in my history of property management and development. The whole planning department needs an overhaul. The reason there is a lack of housing in Humboldt is directly related to the planning department and their poor attitude and lack of work ethic and understanding of modern day builds.
I’ve had a building project of the same size and value be completed 100% in another municipality while the one sitting in Humboldt could barely get started. Your talking about years of delays and 100s of 1000s in added costs due to the planning department. If someone of my size has noticed this and had to deal with it then who knows how much other money and development this county has lost out on due to Mr. Ford and planning departments lack of customer service and professionalism.
The BOS needs to ask Mr. Ford what the average wait time is to build a house or do a remodel/add-on?? No wonder people do all these illegal buildings all over the county. To do it by the book and deal with them is literally torture.
Excellent reporting. I almost felt as if I attended. Thank you for this.
Yes! This is a huge deal. This needs to be escalated to the highest level, out of our county I literally feel so sick reading this. Unbelievable! This person is corrupt and being given the green light to do it! This is destroying our county. I’ll do anything to help with this. It needs to end!