Mendocino County responds to grand jury reports (Part 2)

Mendocino Coast Recreation and Parks report: fully disagree

The county did not agree with a single point the jury made about the Mendocino Coast Recreation and Parks District. To most of the points, the county responded that it has no authority over the district. It also explained that it is not concerned with the district’s long-term finances, even though the district has taken loans in past years at about $50,000 a year, which was deemed a small percentage of annual revenue. The county noted that these loans could be seen as an advance on property tax revenue that the district is entitled to.

The recommendation by the jury to complete annual audits of the district on time has consistently been completed, according to the county’s response.

For this report, the grand jury also requested that the Mendocino County District Attorney, Dave Eyster, respond.

Eyster replied there was no legal substance to the jury’s accusal of “misfeasance” from the District’s board and that the jury’s suggestion that the board make all financial transactions public sounded simply like common sense.

“Given the information provided, this recommendation seems to be nothing more than sound business advice,” Eyster wrote.

Eyster also said there was not any grounds for a finding of criminal misconduct by any board member. He concluded by saying that any discontent with the Parks and Rec board could be resolved by more public participation or by taking advantage of local elections.

Code Enforcement report: mostly disagree

The county responded that Code Enforcement is not merely “reactive,” as the grand jury said, and argued against a stated “lack of staff,” saying the department is, in fact, fully staffed. The county agreed, however, that turnover in the department has contributed to inconsistency. The county also spoke against a reported lack of transparency in not publishing Code Enforcement complaints or activity online, saying those can be obtained through a public records request. Regarding the amount of discretion wielded by Code Enforcement officers when asserting fines, the county said it created an ordinance in January setting standards for non-discretionary penalties and a hearing process to address violations.

On the issue of mold in the building, the county replied that any mold that is spotted is immediately referred to the Executive Office, which carries out proper state and federal procedure.

This is Part 2 in an analysis of Mendocino County’s responses to the 2017 grand jury reports. Initially meant for the Tuesday, Oct. 10, edition, this article was delayed due to immediate coverage of the Mendocino Lake Complex Fire. Part 1 was published in the Sunday, Oct. 8 edition.

October 18, 2017

Ukiah Daily Journal

By Ashley Tressel